News
	Opinion
	Project '99
	Charts / Data
	Links

Send us your comments

Johnathon Williams, FOIArkansas Project

CONWAY — Hendrix College student and Conway resident Randy Hughes wanted to know who his local legislators were. So, one day between classes, he stopped by the campus computer lab and typed “Arkansas” into an Internet search engine.

Seconds later, he was staring at the Arkansas state home page.

A link there brought up the General Assembly’s Web site, which allowed him to search for legislators by district. Two clicks later, he was staring at a picture and short biography of Sen. Stanley Russ, D-Conway, complete with the senator’s phone number and a list of the committees he serves on.

All of this is basic public information, and his right to it as a citizen of the state of Arkansas is guaranteed under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act.

Or is it?

Certainly his right to see which committees his local representative serves on is protected, but the ability to access that information with a computer is not. The 32-year-old Freedom of Information Act was written at a time when photocopiers were new and computers were virtually nonexistent. Today’s personal computers — which can store, retrieve, analyze and organize a veritable world of data in seconds — were merely the dreams of science fiction enthusiasts and optimistic engineers.

“The Arkansas FOI Act has been called one of the most progressive in terms of what it allows citizens to see ... but it makes no mention of technology,” said Elana Wills, senior assistant to the state attorney general.

Indeed, the act’s mention of technology is so absent, even a citizen’s right to access electronically stored government records by asking for a copy of those records on a disc or other such medium exists only within a gray area of the act, Wills said.

The act guarantees a citizen’s right to access “data compilations in any form,” and a 1987 court decision — Blaylock vs. Staley — states that information stored on computer tapes is a public record and the public is entitled to have it in the form in which it is kept.

Nevertheless, Wills said, problems arise with computer records because information to which the public is entitled often is stored with restricted information. Some software lacks the ability to separate the two, Wills said, and doing so manually can mean many hours of labor.

Other problems surface when agencies try to assess a charge for providing electronic access to documents, she said. Unlike photocopy charges, which various court rulings have deemed acceptable as long as the charge is to recover costs and not turn a profit, there are no legal precedents for how much an agency should charge for providing a copy of records on computer disc or for posting them on the Internet.

“Things come up every day that no one thought of in 1967 (when the FOIA was passed),” she said.

Despite the lack of guidelines, a large amount of public information is available online at the state level, although not all of it is free.

“I’d say Arkansas ranks about 15 out of every state in the country. We’re doing things here that no other state has started yet,” said Robert Chandler, general manager of the Arkansas Information Network, which is responsible for posting Web sites for various state agencies.

“Over 180 agencies have information out there,” he said.

At the state’s home page, links allow users to search through a database of every state department, division, board and commission for specific personnel or services; call up legislative bills and acts by number; read attorney general opinions made over the past eight years; and see a complete list of state parks. Users also can call up a list of all legislative committees and see which bills have been referred to committee.

Other links transport users to various county, city and community sites.

Users must pay to use several other “premium services,” however, such as searching the state Board of Nursing Registration or for a claim in the Worker’s Compensation Commission.

Another pay service, called “lobbyist in a box,” will notify users whenever legislation is filed containing mention of a specific issue or area of interest.

Chandler said people who buy online services would have to pay for the information if they gathered it in person.

“If it’s free to the public in person, then it’s still free online,” he said.

The state adds online services and information to its Web sites as agencies report a demand for them, Chandler said.

“The information that’s put out here and its maintenance doesn’t cost anything. The beauty of this is that it’s available ... not just during office hours,” he said.

At the county level, however, electronic access to public information is much more limited. Out of the state’s 75 counties, at least three — Washington, White and Benton — have Web sites that offer more than brief listings of elected officials and county employees, and on one of those, extra services come with an extra cost.

Washington County offers land information online for a monthly or yearly subscription fee. Subscribers can view land descriptions and deeds and read ownership histories of property within the county. A month’s subscription to the service costs $35 and six months of access costs $180, according to system administrator Steven Kizzar. The county requires the fee to recover the costs of posting and maintaining the records, Kizzar said.

Benton County offers land data through its Internet site and posts its court indexes as well. White County posts the minutes from quorum court meetings dating back to late 1995.

Benton County Circuit Clerk Sue Hodges said Internet access to some of the county’s records has decreased the congestion in county offices. Her office gets routine requests for copies of land deeds and related information to be placed on computer disks, and, as long as the person requesting the information provides the disk, there isn’t a problem, she said.

She said, however, “We need to know what we can charge because a lot of counties have financial troubles with giving out computer copies or putting records online.”

Without legal guidance, posting records on the Internet has been difficult, especially in the first stages of the Washington County site, said Kizzar. Even though the records being considered for posting were public information, some officials felt posting them on the World Wide Web was inappropriate, and others worried about making it too easy for someone to invade another person’s privacy, he said.

“We just kind of want to know who’s looking at it. There’s nothing online that a person can’t come to the courthouse and get, but if someone is doing research on you, it’s not as easy if they have to go to five different offices.”

Kizzar said when the county first considered posting records online they turned to the FOIA but didn’t find much help.

“We’ve basically been going on common sense, but guidance would be a good thing. It’s something we need,” he said.

Fortunately, for Kizzar and others in his position, guidance may soon arrive. The Electronic Records Study Commission was created by the Legislature in its last session to make recommendations to the 83rd General Assembly regarding access to electronic or computerized records.

The 13-member commission is composed of journalists, lawyers and other professionals appointed by various state offices and professional associations.

Commission member Julie Cullen said the group has an important task: To prevent future technology-induced confusion by suggesting changes in the FOI Act.

“Without more guidance you’re basically leaving FOI decisions in the hands of computer agencies,” she said.

“It’s a big can of worms right now,” said Kizzar. “But in five years it could be absolutely wonderful.”