Information about http://www.flsenate.gov/data/Publications/2008/Senate/reports/interim_reports/pdf/2008-130go.pdf
The Florida Senate Interim…
Tags: access technology, aeit, architecture standards, archival requirements, department of state, e government, electronic records standards, electronic transaction, florida senate, government services, governmental operations, hundreds of miles, interim project report, migration, open government, public meetings, public records, records retention, state technology office, transaction act,Pages: 8
Language: english
Created: Wed Nov 14 08:35:31 2007
Display cached document
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
The Florida Senate
Interim Project Report 2008-130 November 2007
Committee on Governmental Operations
IMPROVING ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS
statewide migration to those standards. The statute
SUMMARY assigning these duties, however, does not expressly
require the AEIT to consider or apply the access
Technology has changed how agencies can perform standards currently established in law in the
their duties in many ways. It is now possible for development of enterprise IT architecture standards.
individuals to observe public meetings occurring Further, no statutory link exists between the AEIT and
hundreds of miles away, to access public records the Department of State, which is responsible for
24 hours a day, and to receive government services, all records retention, to ensure consideration of records
on-line. The availability of on-line records and service retention and archival requirements prior to the
delivery is not uniform across state or local creation of IT architecture standards. Further, while the
governments but as technology improves, as Internet Uniform Electronic Transaction Act provides for the
use grows, and as the public becomes more accustomed creation of electronic records standards, including
to the convenience of e-government, it is likely that interoperability, those duties are still assigned to the
more on-line access and services will become available. former State Technology Office and have not been
reassigned. Additionally, no link exists between the
The same technologies that permit additional methods AEIT and the Office of Open Government, an entity
of records access and service provision also may cause that was created by executive order to assure
new challenges. Access may be inadvertently limited if compliance with open government requirements.
operational systems or document standards are
incompatible or outdated and records cannot be read. Coordination of the various entities assigned
Further, as technology results in new types of records, responsibility for information technology, open
such as e-mail or instant messages, and as the numbers government, electronic record standards, and records
of records increase, more data storage capacity is retention, as well as consideration of the actual
necessary, which increases costs. requirements of open government, is vital for the
development of enterprise IT architecture standards
Historically, the Legislature has not attempted to that preserve or enhance access to records and
minimize potential negative technological impacts on meetings. Further, in order to be effective and efficient,
records access by requiring agencies to use specific such coordination and consideration should occur at the
types of technology or by permitting agencies only to beginning of the development of enterprise-wide IT
use non-proprietary systems. Instead, it has emphasized architecture standards, not as an afterthought. As such,
that whatever technology is used, it may not limit or it is recommended that coordination of these entities
erode access to public records. Nevertheless, ensuring and consideration of open government requirements be
access at the state level has been complicated by an provided in law.
information technology (IT) governance structure that
was constantly in flux. More than 10 different
IT-governance and organizational structures were
established in law during the past 40 years. BACKGROUND
In an attempt to create a sustainable IT structure, the Access Requirements - Florida has some of the
Legislature created the Agency for Enterprise broadest requirements for access to records and
Information Technology (AEIT) in 2007. Among other meetings in the nation. Under the State Constitution1 as
duties, the AEIT must define architecture standards for
enterprise IT and develop approaches to implement the 1
See, s. 24, Art. I of the State Constitution.
Page 2 Improving Access to Public Records
well as statutes that preceded it,2 meetings of a collegial confidential records are not disclosed except as
body of an agency3 must be reasonably noticed and otherwise permitted by law.7
open to the public and a person who has custody of a · To consider whether an electronic
public record must permit it to be inspected and copied. recordkeeping system they are designing or
A "public record" is defined to include traditional acquiring is capable of providing data in a
paper documents as well as "tapes, photographs, films, common format, such as the American
sound recordings, data processing software, or other Standard Code for Information Interchange
material, regardless of the physical form, (ASCII).8
characteristics, or means of transmission . . . ."4 Given · Not to contract for the creation or maintenance
the breadth of this definition, information stored on a of a public records database that impairs the
computer is considered as much a public record as the ability of the public to inspect or copy the
written page in a book or a tabulation stored in a filing public records of the agency, including public
cabinet.5 records that are on-line or stored in an
electronic recordkeeping system.9
Public Records Act Electronic Requirements - · To ensure that their use of proprietary software
Historically, the Legislature has been aware that does not diminish the right of the public to
technology may have both positive and negative inspect and copy a public record.10
impacts on public records access. Legislative concerns · To provide a requestor with a copy of an
about preserving access were expressed in statutory electronic record upon request, redacting any
standards encouraging agencies to adopt new exempt portions, and to provide that copy in
technologies while requiring them to consider negative the medium requested if the record is
impacts on access and to limit those impacts. For maintained in that medium.11
example, the Public Records Law requires agencies:
Rule 1B-26.003(6)(g)3., F.A.C., requires agencies to
· To ensure that automation of public records ensure that current and proposed electronic
does not erode access to those records.6 recordkeeping systems adequately allow the public to
· To provide reasonable public access to access public records. While access to electronic
electronic records and to ensure that exempt or records is required, proprietary rights of software
developers are still protected. Section 119.071(f), F.S.,
provides that data processing software obtained by an
2 7
Sections 119.07(1)(a) and 286.011, F.S. Ibid.
3 8
"Agency" is defined by s. 119.011(2), F.S., to mean any Section 119.01(2)(b), F.S.
9
state, county, district, authority, or municipal officer, Section 119.01(2)(c), F.S. Additionally,
department, division, board, bureau, commission, or other s. 287.058(1)(c), F.S., requires that every procurement for
separate unit of government created or established by contracted services by a state agency in excess of the
law . . . and any other public or private agency, person, Category Two threshold be evidenced by a written
partnership, corporation, or business entity acting on agreement containing a provision allowing unilateral
behalf of any public agency." Article I, s. 24 of the State cancellation by the agency for the contractor's refusal to
Constitution expressly applies open records requirements allow public access to public records, unless those records
to the Legislature and the judicial branch though the are exempt. The exceptions that are authorized relate to
requirements of ch. 119, F.S., do not apply. the health and mental health services.
4
Section 119.011(11), F.S., further provides that these are Section 287.017, F.S., provides that Category Two
records that are ". . . made or received pursuant to law or purchases are $25,000 to $49,999.99.
10
ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official Section 119.01(2)(d), F.S. Also, it should be noted that
business. . . ." s. 119.084, F.S., expressly authorizes agencies to
5
Siegle v. Barry, 422 So.2d 63 (4th DCA), petition for copyright and sell data processing software they develop.
review denied, 431 So.2d 988. See, however, Op. Atty. If that software is necessary solely for application to
Gen. 85-87 which finds that machine-readable information maintained or generated by the agency that
intermediate files which are mere precursors of created the information, then the standard public record
governmental records are not in themselves intended as fee applies, not the sale price for the copyrighted software.
11
final evidence of knowledge to be recorded but rather are Section 119.01(2)(f), F.S. Thus, if asked for a copy of a
utilized by data processing computer equipment to prepare software disk used by the agency, a copy of the disk must
further records which are intended to perpetuate, be provided; a typed copy would not suffice. However, an
communicate, or formalize knowledge of some type. agency is not generally required to reformat its records to
6
Section 119.01(2)(a), F.S. meet a requestor's needs. See, AGO 91-61.
Improving Access to Public Records Page 3
agency under a licensing agreement which prohibits its established for those purposes; (b) control processes
disclosure and which is a trade secret, and agency- and procedures as appropriate to ensure adequate
produced data processing software which is sensitive, preservation, disposition, integrity, security,
are exempt. The term "sensitive" is defined to mean confidentiality, and auditability of electronic records;
only those portions of data processing software, any other required attributes for electronic records
including the specifications and documentation, used which are specified for corresponding nonelectronic
to: records or reasonably necessary under the
circumstances.19
· collect, process, store, and retrieve information
which is exempt; Under s. 668.50(19), F.S., the STO may encourage and
· collect, process, store, and retrieve financial promote consistency and interoperability with similar
management information of the agency, such requirements adopted by other government agencies in
as payroll and accounting records; or Florida, other states, the Federal Government, and
· control and direct access authorizations and nongovernmental persons. Those standards may specify
security measures for automated systems.12 differing levels of standards from which governmental
agencies may choose in implementing the most
Uniform Electronic Transaction Act - Additionally, appropriate standards for a particular application.
under the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act
(UETA),13 each governmental agency14 must determine Internet Access - The Legislature has encouraged
whether, and the extent to which, it will create and Internet access to public records by establishing the
retain electronic records15 and convert written records following policy:
to electronic records.16 Each governmental agency also
is required to determine whether, and the extent to Providing access to public records by remote
which, it will send and accept electronic records and electronic means is an additional method of access
signatures to and from other persons and otherwise that agencies should strive to provide to the extent
create, generate, communicate, store, process, use, and feasible. If an agency provides access to public
rely upon electronic records and electronic signatures.17 records by remote electronic means, such access
To the extent that the agency uses electronic records should be provided in the most cost-effective and
and signatures, the State Technology Office (STO),18 in efficient manner available to the agency providing
consultation with the governmental agency, may the information [emphasis added].20
specify: (a) the manner and format in which the
electronic records must be created, generated, sent, This additional means is authorized so long as the
communicated, received, and stored and the systems custodian provides safeguards to protect the records
from unauthorized electronic access or alteration and to
prevent the disclosure or modification of those portions
12
13
Section 119.011(13), F.S. of the records that are exempt from disclosure.21
Section 668.50, F.S., was enacted by Further, a custodian is authorized to charge a fee for
ch. 2000-164, L.O.F. While the CS for CS for SB 1334 remote electronic access granted under a contractual
was the bill that passed both houses, that part of the bill
arrangement with a user which includes the direct and
creating the UETA was added on the Senate floor to
reflect the contents of the House bill. The House bill indirect costs of providing remote access. Fees for
analysis for HB 1891 contains an analysis of the UETA. remote electronic access provided to the general public,
14
Section 668.50(2)(i), F.S., defines "governmental however, must meet the standard fees authorized in
agency" to include an executive, legislative, or judicial s. 119.07(4), F.S.
agency, department, board, commission, authority,
institution, or instrumentality of the state, including a Access and Costs - While computer technology has the
county, municipality, or other political subdivision of this ability to transform the way government business is
state and any other public or private agency, person, conducted and government services are provided, the
partnership, corporation, or business entity acting on transition from labor-intensive, paper-driven systems to
behalf of any public agency.
15 electronic systems has not been uniform within state or
Section 668.50(g), F.S., defines "electronic record" to
local governments. Some entities are more highly
mean a record created, generated, sent, communicated,
received, or stored by electronic means.
16 19
Section 668.50(17), F.S. Ibid.
17 20
Section 668.50(18), F.S. Section 119.01(2)(d), F.S.
18 21
The STO was eliminated by ch. 2007-105, L.O.F. Section 119.07(2), F.S.
Page 4 Improving Access to Public Records
mechanized than others and, within those entities that to having access to the records provided in this manner
are more computerized, some systems are better than and the Attorney General noted that the method
others. Further, some older systems have limited complied with the spirit and intent of the law on
capabilities and not all newer systems have been access.25
designed with a level of public access that is most
effective or efficient. As a result, the means of Open Source - One technological development that
providing access to public records may differ has received a great deal of attention recently is "open
depending on the type and format of the record held, as source" software. There does not appear to be a single
well as by the particular agency holding the record. authoritative definition of the term but most definitions
share the idea that the "source code"26 is open and
There are times when these contingencies might have comprehensible by a programmer and governed by a
an impact on authorized costs under a special service license under which it can be freely modified,
charge provision where extensive technology resources permitting users to create software content
or clerical or supervisory assistance are required to incrementally or through collaboration. Open source
fulfill a request.22 Whether the nature or volume of the software typically has relaxed or non-existent
records requested is such as to require extensive intellectual property restrictions. Open source software
clerical or supervisory assistance or extensive use of is contrasted with "proprietary software" where the
the information technology resources is a determination source code is not available for study, modification,
that must be made on a case-by-case basis.23 and redistribution. Proprietary software is licensed for
use under the conditions set by the owner.
Some agencies are better than others at attempting to
help limit costs and preserve access. For example, one The open source model is becoming increasingly
state agency attempted to require a records requestor to important. One study of open source notes:
pay for a systems programmer to retrieve and review
older agency e-mail messages under the extensive use The Internet itself runs on open-source software,
provision. 24 In that case, the circuit court determined and a growing number of large commercial firms
that the decision to archive older e-mail messages on are supporting open-source software as part of their
tapes so that they could not be retrieved or printed commercial strategies. Just as the Internet has
without a systems programmer was an internal policy facilitated the development of global open
decision made with full knowledge that the agency standards, it has also made global collaboration on
might have to retrieve the records pursuant to a records open software development possible.27
request. Further, this policy decision was determined to
be analogous to a decision to store records off-premises As will be discussed infra, a substantial percentage of
and, as such, the agency, not the requestor, was held state agencies and local governments in Florida report
responsible for bearing the costs. In another case, the that they currently use some open source software.
agency found a creative way to respond to a request for
a substantial number of records about its mayor by Proponents of open source software emphasize that it
setting up a static web page so the requestor could view can be freely modified for the particular user's needs
the documents. The cost of collecting and posting the and argue that it would save government funds and
documents was $360, which was substantially less than reduce reliance on software firms. Opponents of open
the cost of producing and copying the requested source software typically raise concerns about the lack
documents on paper. The requesting party was of support for such software and some question its
provided an access code to the static web page after security.28
paying the $360. The requesting party had no objection
25
AGO 2006-30.
22 26
Section 119.07(4)(d), F.S., permits a special service Source code is any sequence of statements and/or
charge where the nature or volume of the public records declarations written in some human-readable computer
requested requires an extensive use of information programming language.
27
technology resources or extensive clerical or supervisory Open Standards, Open Source, and Open Innovation:
assistance, or both. This charge is in addition to the actual Harnessing the Benefits of Openness, A Report by the
cost of duplication. This charge may not be routinely Digital Connections Council of the Committee for
imposed. See, AGO 92-38. Economic Development, p. 3, April 2006. Report on file
23
AGO 90-7. or available at www.ced.org.
24 28
Cone & Graham, Inc. v. State, No. 97-4047 (Fla. 2d Ibid at 38. It has been noted that the very openness of
Cir. Ct. October 7, 1997). the Internet, which has created a worldwide means of
Improving Access to Public Records Page 5
the State Archives of Florida is the central repository
While the various benefits and deficiencies of open for the archives of Florida's state government. It is
source versus proprietary software can be debated, it mandated to collect, preserve, and make available for
appears that for public records access purposes, research the historically significant records of the state,
interoperability of software and hardware is the most as well as private manuscripts, local government
important issue when choosing technology, not whether records, photographs, and other materials that
a system is proprietary or open source.29 complement the official state records.
"Interoperability" is
Also, the STO,36 which was housed in the Department
. . . the capability of different programs to of Management Services (DMS), was assigned certain
exchange data via a common set of business responsibilities for electronic records under the
procedures, and to read and write the same file Uniform Electronic Transaction Act.37 The scope of the
formats and use the same protocols.30 UETA covers "transactions," which is defined as ". . .
an action or set of actions occurring between two or
Essentially, interoperability is the ability of software more persons relating to the conduct of business,
and hardware on different machines from different commercial, insurance, or governmental affairs."38 It
vendors to share data.31 does not appear that the STO developed the standards
authorized by the act and, as the STO was eliminated in
Without interoperability, technology can, at best, make 2007,39 it cannot do so in the future. Further, the UETA
it more difficult for individuals to access records or was not amended to reflect the repeal of the STO, and
services and, at worst, limit or deny access to records or it is unclear who is responsible for implementation.
services. As was noted supra, s. 668.50(19), F.S.,
currently encourages and promotes interoperability. On January 2, 2007, a non-statutory entity was created
to assist agencies and individuals with open
Coordination of Agencies with Public Records and government questions and issues. The Governor
Retention Responsibilities - There is no single entity established the Office of Open Government within the
created in law to assist agencies in applying open Executive Office of the Governor40 by Executive
government requirements, but responsibilities related to Order.41 The purpose of the office is to: (a) assure full
public records have been assigned to a number of and expeditious compliance with the open government
entities. A public records mediation program is created and public records laws; and (b) to provide training on
in the Office of the Attorney General to help resolve transparency and accountability.42 The order states in
disputes.32 The office also produces the "Government- part:
in-the-Sunshine Manual" which provides guidance on
open government requirements. Additionally, given the
36
large number of records that are generated by agencies, The STO was housed in the Department of Management
the Department of State, Division of Library and Services but it was eliminated by CS/CS/SB 1974 during
Information Services,33 is responsible for records the 2007 session and replaced by a "Technology
information and management,34 including the Program." Other responsibilities of the former STO were
transferred to the new Agency for Enterprise Information
development of rules for records retention.35 Further,
Technology. It is not clear whether the program at DMS
or the new agency is responsible for s. 668.50, F.S.
37
communication, also has facilitated the creation of spam, Section 668.50, F.S.
38
phishing, and malware. Section 668.50(2)(p), F.S.
29 39
The State of Massachusetts, which originally decided to Ch. 2007-105, L.O.F.
40
use only nonproprietary document formats in state- The Executive Office of the Governor (EOG) is created
affiliated offices beginning January 1, 2007, has since by s. 14.201, F.S., which designates the Governor as the
determined to move toward open, XML-based document agency head. The EOG houses statutorily-created entities
formats without reflecting a vendor or commercial bias. and statutorily-delegated functions assigned by the
See, Statement on ETRM v4.0 Public Review Comments - Legislature and should not be confused with the Office of
August 1, 2007. the Governor which is created in s. 1, Art. IV of the State
30
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interoperability. Constitution and is the office in which the constitutional
31
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/i/interoperability. powers of the Governor reside.
32 41
Section 16.60, F.S. See, Executive Order 07-01.
33 42
Section 20.10(2), F.S. Additionally, the Governor has created a "Commission
34
Section 257.36, F.S. on Open Government" to review a number of issues
35
See, Rules 1B-24 and 1B-26.003, F.A.C. impacting access to public records and meetings.
Page 6 Improving Access to Public Records
Each agency secretary is further directed to by the Governor and Cabinet and is directed by an
designate a person at his or her agency who will executive director who is appointed by the agency head
act as the agency's public records/open and confirmed by the Senate. The executive director
government contact person. That individual will be also is designated as the chief information officer of the
responsible for complying with public state. 50
records/open government requests and compliance
at their respective agency and will also be the Section 14.204(2), F.S., requires the AEIT to:
primary liaison between that agency and the Office
of Open Government for purposes of training and · Develop and implement strategies for the
compliance. design, delivery, and management of the
enterprise information technology services
Just as there is no single entity responsible for all established in law.
aspects of public records, historically, there has not · Monitor the delivery and management of the
been a single entity responsible for information enterprise information technology services as
technology (IT) for the state. It has been estimated that established in law.
the cumulative annual investment of state funds in · Make recommendations concerning other
technology infrastructure for state agencies is in excess information technology services that should be
of $2.14 billion.43 During the past 40 years at the state designed, delivered, and managed at the
level, more than 10 different IT-governance and enterprise level.51
organizational structures were established in law, but · Plan and establish policies for managing
none proved to be particularly effective or ultimately proposed statutorily authorized enterprise
sustainable.44 One of the reasons cited for the historic information technology services; establish and
ineffectiveness of IT in state government was that ". . . coordinate project-management teams;
governance structures lack clear authority and establish formal risk-assessment and
unambiguous policy necessary for successful mitigation processes; and provide for
implementation and operation of the enterprise systems independent monitoring of projects for
under their jurisdiction."45 The Office of Program, recommended corrective actions.
Policy Analysis and Government Accountability · Define the architecture standards for enterprise
(OPPAGA) has documented a number of problems information technology and develop
related to IT at the state level.46 implementation approaches for statewide
migration to those standards.
In an attempt to resolve state level IT deficiencies in · Develop and publish a strategic enterprise
the executive branch, legislation was enacted47 and information technology plan that identifies and
signed into law48 that created a new entity with clear recommends strategies for how enterprise
authority for enterprise IT issues.49 The Agency for information technology will deliver effective
Enterprise Information Technology (AEIT) is headed and efficient government services to state
residents and improve the operations of state
43
Enterprise Information Technology, Senate Review and agencies.
Study, Report No. 2007-140, by the Senate Committee on · Assess and recommend minimum operating
Governmental Operations, p. 4 (January 2007). procedures for ensuring an adequate level of
44
Ibid, p. 6. security for all data and information
45
Ibid, p. 7. technology resources for executive branch
46
For examples of some of the problems that have arisen agencies.52
in this transition, see OPPAGA Report No. 05-60, DBPR
Re-Engineering Has Achieved Cost-Savings But More
Section 282.3055(2)(e), F.S., requires each agency
Can Be Done to Centralize Functions and Improve
Services; OPPAGA Report No. 06-39, While Improving,
chief information officer to assist the AEIT in the
People First Still Lacks Intended Functionality, development of strategies for implementing enterprise
Limitations Increase State Agency Workload and Costs; information technology services and for developing
OPPAGA Report No. 07-06, State Agency Electronic
50
Records Management Could Be Improved. Section 14.204(1), F.S.
47 51
The CS for CS for SB 1974 by the Senate Section 282.0041, F.S., defines "enterprise level" to
Governmental Operations Committee. mean all executive branch agencies created or authorized
48
June 12, 2007. in statute to perform legislatively delegated functions.
49 52
Ch. 2007-105, L.O.F. Section 282.318(2)(a), F.S.
Improving Access to Public Records Page 7
recommendations for enterprise information technology their architecture. While there are ways to work around
policy. The Agency Chief Information Officers Council such limitations to provide access in these situations,
also is required to assist the AEIT in its endeavors.53 working around these systems can result in slower
response rates, may affect the format of the record
METHODOLOGY provided, or possibly result in the assessment of higher
charges depending upon the circumstances. Any of
A survey of agencies, at the state and local level, was these could effectively result in an erosion of access to
conducted. Thirty-one state entities were surveyed and public records over time. These issues could be
29 responded to the survey. Fifteen cities were alleviated by encouraging the interoperability of
surveyed and six responded. Fifteen counties were technological systems, as provided in
surveyed and ten responded. The state and local s. 668.50(19), F.S. Further, coordination of the entities
agencies were surveyed about a wide variety of issues responsible for implementing public records standards,
related to public records, particularly electronic electronic records standards, and retention standards
records. Additionally, they were questioned regarding also could help to mitigate these problems.
their use of open source software. Public and private
computer and IT consultants also were interviewed. Current law does not require or prohibit the use of open
source software. Based upon the results of a survey of
agencies conducted during the interim, 69% of state
FINDINGS agency respondents currently use some open source
software. Of the counties responding, 60% indicated
Historically, the Legislature has not attempted to they currently use some open source software. Only
minimize potential negative technological impacts on 16% of city respondents indicated they used open
records access by requiring agencies to use specific source software. Agencies who responded that they do
types of technology or by permitting agencies only to not use open source software typically raised concerns
use non-proprietary systems. Instead, the Legislature regarding the availability of support for the software
has emphasized that the use of any technology may not and questioned the security of such software.
limit or erode access to public records.
When asked whether agencies should be required to
Further, the Florida Statutes contain a number of use a common format, 52% of state agencies surveyed
standards that guarantee access to public records answered "no," 31% of state agencies were unsure and
regardless of the format of those records. Among the only 17% answered "yes." County respondents were
methods of ensuring access to records stored in or equally divided between those who think use of a
manipulated by proprietary software reported by common format should be required and those that do
agencies are built-in functionalities to convert to a not (40% each), while 20% of county respondents were
common format, or routines that permit conversion to a unsure. Thirty-three percent of city respondents
common format; making translators or conversion tools responded positively toward required use of a common
available on the agency website to ensure access to a format, but 50% were unsure and 17% were opposed.
record; providing records in multiple forms;54 and
purchase of licenses that permit public access. Further, While the various benefits and deficiencies of open
a number of agencies reported that proprietary source versus proprietary software can be debated, it
software, such as a database management system, appears that the most important issue for agencies
might be used to process and store data but such choosing technology is not whether that system is
proprietary software would not prevent access to the proprietary or open source but whether that system is
data required to be available to the public. interoperable, that is, whether the software and
hardware on different machines from different vendors
While statutory standards, built-in functionalities, and share data with other systems.
translators or converters, allow for public access to Section 668.50(19), F.S., currently promotes
electronic records, inadvertent limitations on access interoperability.
may occur by the use of aging legacy systems, non-
standard or outdated formats, and new systems that are Florida law already provides for records retention and
not designed with public access requirements built in archiving. Responsibility for these functions is housed
in the Department of State. Further, authority to
53
Section 282.315(1), F.S. develop certain standards for electronic records,
54
Such as Microsoft Office or Adobe PDF. including interoperability, is provided in the Uniform
Page 8 Improving Access to Public Records
Electronic Transaction Act. That authority, however, is
assigned to the State Technology Office, which no
longer exists, and responsibilities under the act have
not been transferred.
While not created in law, the Office of Open
Government, in the Executive Office of the Governor,
helps to ensure compliance with open government
requirements by agencies headed by gubernatorial
appointees. Additionally, a mediation process for
access disputes is created in law in the Office of the
Attorney General.
Further, the State of Florida now has an enterprise level
IT agency, the Agency for Enterprise Information
Technology, which has been assigned the responsibility
to define the architecture standards for enterprise
information technology and develop implementation
approaches for statewide migration to those standards,
among other duties. As currently provided in law,
however, there is no express requirement that the AEIT
consider or apply the requirements of open government
in the development of those standards. Further, there is
no requirement that the AEIT coordinate and consult
with agencies with specific expertise and statutory
responsibility for public records access in the
development of IT architecture standards.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to ensure adequate consideration of public
records access and retention standards prior to the
creation of enterprise IT standards, staff recommends:
1. Creating links in law between the Agency for
Enterprise Information Technology, the Office of Open
Government, and the Division of Library and
Information Services.
2. Establishing in law the Office of Open Government
and defining its duties.
3. Determining whether the AEIT or the DMS is
responsible for implementing the electronic records
standards provided in s. 668.50, F.S., as well as any
other duties formerly assigned to the former STO, and
making any necessary statutory reference changes.