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.”