Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance

committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports

if they are used for other purposes.

Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).

Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and

attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR Rodriguez

DATE TYPED 02/10/05 HB

SHORT TITLE Local Government Databases as Public Records

SB 403

ANALYST Ford

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained Estimated Additional Impact Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY05

FY06

FY05

FY06

Minimal – See

Narrative

Various

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

Conflicts with

HB 449, SB 319

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Attorney General (AGO)

Corrections Department

State Commission on Public Records

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

Senate Bill 403 adds counties and municipalities to existing law that designates information con-

tained in information systems databases as public records and provides for the disclosure and

permitted use of those records. The bill also provides that a state agency, county, or municipality

that charges royalties for an electronic copy of a public record may base the royalty on the cost to

the public of developing the database.

Significant Issues

Section 14-3-15.1 NMSA 1978 uses archaic terms (such as “computer tape”) that do not specifi-

cally address the electronic transmission of information in databases or reflect current technolo-

gies such as USB flash drive devices and CD burners. The AGO notes that state agencies have

had difficulty construing current law because of the archaic language.

Senate Bill 403 -- Page 2

The AGO also notes that the law treats information differently depending on its format. If in-

formation in a database is printed or typed, it is subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Re-

cords Act. However, if the information is provided using a “computer tape or other medium con-

taining a computerized database,” then different use restrictions apply. For example, in those

cases, the database may not be used for solicitation or advertisement and the information may not

be accessed by any other person unless approved beforehand. The AGO writes, “If the intent of

this bill is to restrict the use of those public records after disclosure, it should impose those re-

strictions regardless of the media used to produce that information.”

In addition, the law’s creation of a disparity between paper and electronic formats does not rec-

ognize that many agencies may actually prefer to provide information in a digital format as it

may be easier and less expensive than providing paper records.

The State Commission on Public Records notes that the existing provisions relating to royalties

for the use of the computer database have been the subject of litigation. Most recently, the State

Court of Appeals upheld the right of the Taxation and Revenue Department to deny a request for

electronic records based on the refusal of a firm to pay royalties.

The State Commission on Public Records raises a question regarding the prohibition on state

employment for any individual convicted of violating the usage restrictions of a database. The

Commission asks whether this prohibition should extend to county and municipal employment as

well as state employment.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

The bill may result in minor costs to the State Commission on Public Records to provide assis-

tance to local governments regarding the proper handling of computer database records.

CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP

This bill conflicts with Senate Bill 319 and House Bill 449, both of which create new provisions

regarding county and municipal databases that are based on the provisions of current law a-

mended by Senate Bill 403.

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

Current law uses out-dated terminologies which have caused difficulties to state agencies in im-

plementation. Would this bill compound those difficulties by extending the provisions to coun-

ties and municipalities. Would it be appropriate to update the language of existing law to reflect

current technologies and practices.

Is it appropriate for use restrictions to vary depending on the format of the information provided.

Should an individual who violates the permitted usage provisions of the law be barred from

county and municipal employment as well as state employment.

EF/lg