From: James Love <love@essential.org>
Subject: City of Bellevue Draft Electronic Information Access Policy

TAP-INFO

TAXPAYER ASSETS PROJECT
INFORMATION POLICY NOTE
November 17, 1993

       City of Bellevue Draft Electronic Information Access Policy

The following are comments from the Taxpayer Assets Project to the City 
of Bellevue, regarding its Draft Electronic Information Access Policy.  
Bellevue is one of several cities in Washington State attempting to 
charge data users for the costs of developing city information systems.  
The Washington State ACLU, EFF, and local activists such as Peter 
Marshall have also provided Bellevue with comments on this issue.
                  ----------------------

November 17, 1993

Karen A. Olsen
Assistant Director of Financial
Management and Personnel Services
City of Bellevue
Bellevue, Washington  98009-9012

voice: 206/ 455-6846; fax:  206/637-6163

RE:  Draft Electronic Information Access Policy

Dear Karen:

Thank you for providing me with a copy of your Draft Electronic
Information Access Policy, dated September 7, 1993.  I have
reviewed the document, and offer the following comments.

1.   The policy is broad, covering information systems other than
     those used for GIS purposes.

The Draft Policy says in the Purpose section (.010) that the City
has long recognized the value of maintaining current information
and has invested in a geographic information system (GIS) and
other sophisticated computer technology.  We understand that the
particular problems of developing city GIS services have
motivated many local government efforts to increase prices on
government information.  However, the policy document appears to
cover all city information systems.  If indeed the City is
principally concerned with financing its GIS system, then it
would be much better to focus the elements of the Policy which
allow full cost recovery to only the GIS project, rather than to
the much broader class of City information systems, the
implications of which are less understood and more troublesome.

2.   The distinction between data and "custom electronic
     products" is too broad.

The City's policy makes a distinction between access to the data
itself, and so called "custom electronic products."  Custom
Electronic Products are defined as products which must be
created, using City resources to acquire data, design, program,
test, reformat, and assure quality control to respond to specific
requests.  In modern online information systems, most data
retrieved would fit this definition, so it seems to allow the
City to require citizens to pay the City's costs of development
for any items which is obtained through an online query system,
and perhaps any dataset which consists of a subset of a larger
database.

Custom Electronic Products should at a minimum be defined as
those products that could not be provided to the public without
special investments in information technology, which the City
would not have made in order to carry out its missions as a
government body.  Custom Electronic Products should not include
any information services or products that are developed for the
use of City employees in carrying out their duties.

The federal government attempts to address this issue in its OMB
Circular A-130, which allows agencies to recover data collection
and dissemination costs in limited cases where the information
product or service is for the benefit of a specific identifiable
group, beyond the benefit to the general public.  This clause in
OMB Circular A-130 was designed to allow the Bureau of the Census
to enter into cost sharing with industry groups that pay for
special industry surveys, which are conducted by Census rather
than by trade groups (largely because some respondents are more
comfortable sharing data with the Bureau of the Census than with
private groups).  The key phrase in this exception is the term,
"beyond the benefit to the general public."  OMB itself rarely
calls attention to this exception, which it intended to be
limited and rare.


3.   Citizens should pay no more than the City's "incremental
     cost" of providing public access.

The policy should make it clear that if the City develops an
information service for its own internal purposes, citizens
should be able to obtain access to the data generated by the
system at no more than the "incremental cost" of dissemination. 
Incremental cost should be defined as the additional cost that is
required to extend public access to the data, and should not
include the development costs of systems that the City would have
incurred if public access was not allowed.

We do not support any exceptions to this policy.  But if the City
persists in its efforts to recover development costs for its GIS
systems, it should make it clear that GIS systems and only GIS
systems are priced above incremental costs of dissemination.

4.   Distinctions between commerical and noncommercial uses are
     often appropriate.

The Draft Policy provides for distinctions between commerical and
noncommerical users, in determining pricing of information
products and services.  Such distinctions are often appropriate,
particularly if the costs of the products and services create
barriers to access.  This does not mean that commerical users
should pay excessive fees for access to public records, but
rather that in setting fees, the City may allow price
differentials.

The Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides for fee
waivers for news organizations and noncommercial uses.  The
federal Depository Library program provides 1,400 libraries with
free copies of federal publications, in order to promote
universal access to government information.  Many commercial data
vendors, such as Dialog or LEXIS, also provide special rates for
educational institutions.

There are also other steps that the City can take to help users
with limited ability to pay.  Some federal agencies provide peak
and off peak rates for online systems, in order to allow price
sensitive users to obtain lower cost access to online systems
after business hours.  For example, the federal Economic Bulletin
Board (EBB) charges $12 per hour for morning usage, and only $3
per hour after 6 pm and on weekends.

5.   The City should not copyright its data or place restrictions
     on the redissemination of public records.

The Draft Policy makes reference to the "licensing" of "Custom
Electronic Products."  Any plan to use copyright or contract
provisions to limit the redissemination of government information
should be rejected, as contrary to the public's right to know. 
Government agencies should not restrict the reuse or
redissemination of public information, except where it may be
necessary to protect personal privacy.


I am forwarding you under separate cover a copy of "User Needs:
Pricing of Federal Electronic Information Products and Services,"
included in Government's Role in the Electronic Era: User Needs
and Government's Response, Proceedings of the Annual FLICC Forum
on Federal Information Policies, (Washington, DC:   Library of
Congress, March 25, 1993).  This article, which you may freely
disseminate, addresses this issues in the context of federal
policies.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these brief comments on
the Bellevue Draft Electronic Information Access Policy, and
please keep me informed of future developments.


Sincerely,



James Love
Director, Taxpayer Assets Project
---------------------------------------------------------------------
TAP-INFO is an Internet Distribution List provided by the Taxpayer
Assets Project (TAP).  TAP was founded by Ralph Nader to monitor the
management of government property, including information systems and
data, government funded R&D, spectrum allocation and other government
assets.  TAP-INFO reports on TAP activities relating to federal
information policy.  tap-info is archived at ftp.cpsr.org;
gopher.cpsr.org and wais.cpsr.org

Subscription requests to tap-info to listserver@essential.org with
the message:  subscribe tap-info your name
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Taxpayer Assets Project; P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC  20036
v. 202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176; internet:  tap@essential.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------



