House Joint Resolution 89 reached the end of its extended three-year life, without much to show for itself. Created to study the protection of information contained in electronic court records in 2000, the committee was unable to produce a comprehensive plan, or even a comprehensive drafting workgroup. Committee members informally agreed to meet on an ad hoc basis to discuss further developments.

The committee was early on dominated by activists intent on eradicating Social Security numbers from all public records and court clerks who did not have the manpower to do it. Much of the early talk centered on the shortfalls and limitations of the Technology Trust Fund, which was supposed to incentivize clerks to upgrade their technological capabilities.

The committee, chaired by Sen. Jeannemarie Devolites Davis, R-Vienna, eventually endorsed a 2003 proposal by Del. Sam Nixon, R-Chesterfield, a member of the committee, that documents containing sensitive personal identifiers filed with a court clerk would be available online on a subscription-only basis. Nixon’s original bill, which was filed individually, and not in behalf of the committee, would have blocked all online access to personal identifiers. A Senate amendment added subscription service.

The committee heard testimony on existing cyber crimes from the Virginia Crime Commission, but no proposal was made as to which crimes might be applied or used as a template for crimes related to the misuse of electronic court data.

Chip Dicks, chief lobbyist for the clerks of court, informed the committee that very few clerks have actually put their records online for fear of being hauled into court for the inadvertent disclosure of personal information.

The committee, therefore, agreed to back proposed legislation that would limit the liability of clerks for all disclosures except those made through gross negligence.

On tap for 2005 is a proposal to extend Nixon’s previous bill, which is set to expire in July 2005. Also, the committee will ask to amend Nixon’s bill by adding two exceptions to the subscription-only requirement (currently, there is an exception for educational and historical records and genealogical research). One exception would allow the Supreme Court of Virginia to continue its practice of posting case abstracts and summaries online. Another exception would allow the Supreme Court to divulge records with personal information on them to the parties and attorneys in a particular case.

The committee could not agree whether to support a bill requiring some sort of cover sheet for divorce records. Stumbling blocks were reconciling current code requirements for the divorce order and the divorce decree, and the overarching policy question of whether the electronic version of divorce records should be treated differently from the paper one.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court will continue cataloguing various records held by any given court, noting what information is required by federal or state law, and what information is asked for as an administrative convenience.

Davis proposed meeting on an ad hoc basis to discuss the Supreme Court ’s final research results.