|
The national project to create a model guideline for access to
electronic records released its final report Oct. 18, 2002. The
policy is online at http://www.courtaccess.org/modelpolicy.
The project, spearheaded by the National Center for State
Courts' Arlington office and the Justice Management
Institute, was officially presented on behalf of the Conference of
Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court
Administrators.
The group's first draft was posted in February 2002 and
was open for public comment for four months. VCOG filed comments
that were complimentary of the project's general goal, but
which criticize certain provisions and presumptions that weighed
too heavily in favor of ill-defined privacy concerns over access
favorable to the public good. VCOG also opposed certain provisions
that granted access to certain records to some groups but not to
citizens.
A 16-member committee of judges, court administrators and
representatives from the media, law enforcement, privacy groups and
commercial data users, sifted through more than 130 comments to
come up with a second draft.
The guidelines have six major sections: (1) who has access; (2)
what records the guidelines cover; (3) when records will be
accessible; (4) how much access will cost; (5) what obligations
vendors have; and (6) what obligations the courts have to inform
and educate.
Committee member Lucy Dal-glish, who is a member of the VCOG
board of directors and the executive director of the Reporters
Committee for Freedom of the Press, issued a statement on behalf of
the RCFP, urging the press to reject the guidelines as issued.
"The . . . main objection to the guidelines is their
encouragement of categorical exemptions from disclosure based on
the type of case or information, rather than case-by-case
determinations of the need for sealing orders," the statement
said. "Categorical exemptions will always be overbroad, and
will cut off access to information that can serve the public
interest, hold the courts accountable to the public, and allow the
public to see how important social issues are handled by
courts." |
