[GSDI Legal Socioecon] Fwd: SC v OC PRA lawsuit update 12-10-11
Roger Longhorn
ral at alum.mit.edu
Wed Dec 14 12:19:32 EST 2011
Thanks for this, Francis. It will be interesting to see which side of
the fence the California State Supreme Court comes down on.
A few years ago, while examining the myth that 'all government data is
free in America' (which should have been 'all federal data is free in
America'), I contacted the County Assessor Office at the Iowa county
where I grew up (all those many years ago!) - Chickasaw County - to find
that the land registration data I wanted was indeed free - if I wished
to come to the County Courthouse in New Hampton, Iowa, and copy it -
maps and text - on a photocopier (at 10 cents per page, 'cost of
distribution'), but that if I wanted to access exactly the same data,
now digitised, on a state-wide web service, I could do that as well -
for something like 47 USD per month for access to the service or 250+
USD for an annual license. When I queried this with the County Assessor,
I was told that they 'were not charging for the data, but for access to
the information service' - a service that was in fact provided by a
commercial company located in the state of Wisconsin!
Revisiting the Assessor's office web site today - I note that all the
real estate data (and much more!) is now searchable (in several ways)
from a single (private company) web site that seems to cover all US
states and counties (although the functions and data available varies
from county to county - probably in response to differing data
access/charging policies across the 3000 US counties) - and then (for
Iowa) one can access the land registry data, map of the property, tax
base, taxes paid, photos, etc. - all for free. So 'open data' seems to
have arrived in Iowa! (Although I would probably have to check out the
other 98 Iowa counties to be able to say that with any confidence).
Sadly, the data about the property (the farm I grew up on and last
visited only a few years ago), seems hopelessly out of data and
incorrect, from description of the general property, the buildings and
structures on it and the official sketch of the layout of the main
house. I guess you get what you pay for?
I'm still waiting for one of the US academics on our list to initiate a
US-wide survey of the data policies for all US counties, perhaps an
excellent 'SDI policy' study for a graduate student or team? ;>)
Kind regards
Roger Longhorn
ral at alum.mit.edu
On 14/12/2011 03:21, Francis Harvey wrote:
> This may be of interest to people interested in SDI developments in
> the USA.
>
> Best,
> Francis Harvey
>
> Francis Harvey
> Department of Geography
> University of Minnesota
> fharvey at umn.edu <mailto:fharvey at umn.edu>
>
> http://uspatial.umn.edu
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> *From: *Bruce Joffe <GIS.Consultants at joffes.com
>> <mailto:GIS.Consultants at joffes.com>>
>> *Subject: **SC v OC PRA lawsuit update 12-10-11*
>> *Date: *13 December 2011 18:15:55 CST
>> *To: *bruce_joffe at HotMail.com <mailto:bruce_joffe at HotMail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Sierra Club vs Orange County PRA Lawsuit update - December 10, 2011
>>
>> *After the California First Amendment Coalition won its public
>> records act (PRA) lawsuit against Santa Clara County, in April, 2009,
>> the Sierra Club filed a similar suit against Orange County. The
>> Sierra Club needed Orange County's parcel basemap in the
>> GIS-compatible database format in order to discover and analyze
>> strategic land purchase opportunities for its wildlands conservation
>> campaign. Sierra Club couldn't afford to pay Orange County the price
>> it was charging, $475,000, nor did they think that the County had the
>> right to charge more than the cost of duplication as prescribed under
>> the California Public Records Act.
>>
>> Orange County defended its data sales policy with the so-called
>> "software exemption" of the PRA, which says government agencies do
>> not have to provide software for the cost of duplication as they do
>> for the data that they use to make public decisions. In section
>> 6254.9 of the PRA, software was stated to "include computer mapping
>> systems, computer programs and computer graphics systems." None of
>> these terms were defined.
>>
>> The software exemption was attempted by Santa Clara County, but the
>> Superior Court ruled against it; Orange County's lawyers were more
>> successful in their Superior Court trial. Sierra Club appealed the
>> case, but the 4^th District Court of Appeal affirmed the decision in
>> support of Orange County. The County's logic was that GIS includes
>> software and data (citing ESRI's definition that says "GIS is a
>> collection of software and data"); that the County's Landbase is a
>> GIS; that GIS is a type of Computer Mapping System; that CMS is
>> excluded by §6254.9; therefore, the County's GIS Landbase data is
>> excluded. The Sierra Club's rebuttals -- that "Computer Mapping
>> System" means a system of software modules, which does not include
>> data; that GIS-formatted data is necessary for the public to analyze
>> the government's decisions using its GIS database; that "includes"
>> means an illustrative example, not an expansion of the definition of
>> software; and that the California Legislature did not intend to
>> exclude data when it passed the software exemption -- were unsuccessful.
>>
>> Sierra Club's final appeal has been made to the California Supreme
>> Court. First, Sierra Club had to request that the Supreme Court hear
>> the case. The fact that two County's public records lawsuits for the
>> same kind of data resulted in opposite opinions was among the reasons
>> sited for hearing the case. The GIS community added their technical
>> opinion in an /amicus curiae/ (friend of the court) brief that was
>> signed by 11 GIS organizations and 72 individuals. On September 14,
>> the Court agreed to hear the case, and on November 14, 2011, the
>> Sierra Club filed its brief. Orange County's rebuttal brief is
>> scheduled for the middle of December. It is likely that the GIS
>> Community will be asked to file another /amicus curiae/ brief to help
>> the Court understand that GIS-formatted data are not software, and
>> that Computer Mapping System software does not include GIS data.
>>
>> The GIS Community's /amicus /brief is scheduled for submittal in
>> early February. GIS professionals who may be willing to co-sign a
>> GIS /amicus /brief can contact Bruce Joffe (founder of the Open Data
>> Consortium project) at 510-508-0213, email Bruce at
>> GIS.Consultants at joffes.com <mailto:GIS.Consultants at joffes.com>.
>>
>> In related news, the National States Geographic Information Council
>> (NSGIC) recently issued a 4-page recommendation of best practices for
>> data distribution policy of government agencies. This guideline
>> document articulates NSGIC's core principle that "Access to public
>> records is an essential component of our democracy that keeps
>> citizens in-formed and our government accountable. These records
>> include geospatial data produced or maintained using taxpayer
>> resources." It concludes with the recommendation that, " calls on
>> government administrators, geospatial professionals and concerned
>> citizens to further advance the use of important geospatial data
>> assets and to ensure that they remain freely accessible. You can
>> download NSGIC's recommendations from
>> http://www.nsgic.org/committees1/documents/NSGIC_Data_Sharing_Guidelines_103111_Final.pdf
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your attention,
>> Bruce
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Bruce Joffe, GISP
>> Principal, GIS Consultants
>> 902 Rose Ave.
>> Piedmont, CA 94611
>> 510-508-0213
>> GIS.Consultants at joffes.com <mailto:GIS.Consultants at joffes.com>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Legal-Socioecon mailing list
> Legal-Socioecon at lists.gsdi.org
> http://lists.gsdi.org/mailman/listinfo/legal-socioecon
More information about the Legal-Socioecon
mailing list