There are two really bad bills being heard at the State House this week, both of which ask to exempt Maine's registries of deeds from the state's Freedom of Access Act.
These registries contain records from hundreds of years of commercial, public and private property transactions. And, since property taxes are the foundation on which Maine's public revenue rests, the public has a very keen right to know who buys which property from whom, for what consideration and, perhaps, what purpose.
Will Rogers had it right. No one is making more land, so our need to know who owns existing land is intense and absolute.
The bills — LD 1554, An Act Regarding Document Fees at County Registries of Deeds, sponsored by Rep. Patsy Crockett of Augusta, and LD 1714, An Act to Protect Information Maintained by Registers of Deeds, sponsored by Rep. Sharon Treat of Hallowell — do not protect the public.
Both bills were filed in direct response to the counties' collective irritation with an FOAA request from Cumberland-based MacImage of Maine for digital copies of thousands of deeds on file. In Hancock County, a superior court ordered the registry to produce these copies for a reasonable fee, ruling the deeds are public records under FOAA.
And, now, the response by the counties is to exempt themselves from the law?
Because they've been ordered to follow the law? We, as individuals, don't have that luxury.
In addition to exempting the registries from FOAA, Crockett's bill suggests increasing per-page copies from $2 per page to $4 per page. This, in the face of the court ruling that a $2-per-page fee was excessive. The Legislature cannot possibly respond by permitting the fees to double.
We get that MacImage of Maine's request is broad, and we get that there is resistance to seeing a private individual create a database of public records for profit. But John Simpson, who owns MacImage, didn't create entrepreneurship. He's just practicing it. The public must not be punished for Simpson's creativity.
Crockett's bill also recommends that copies of any records sold by any registry to anyone, and then sold to a third person, are stamped "not an official copy." This makes sense, but registries now make copies available in two ways, certified and not certified, so this designation is already being made at the registry level. If registries prefer that the language "not an official copy" be stamped on everything other than certified copies, that's a change that can be made administratively without tinkering with statute.
Attorney Frank Underkuffler, who represents Sagadahoc and Franklin counties in their fight to deny the MacImage request, said he and his clients don't recognize that FOAA applies to registries, even though they've always maintained that their records are public. With all due respect to Underkuffler, never mind that the court has already ruled FOAA applies to registries, FOAA is pretty clear that public records are defined as any records, electronic or otherwise, in the possession or custody of a public agency or public official.
Registries are public agencies operated by public officials who draw public salaries, so the records they possess and maintain are public records. By definition.
What makes the Crockett and Treat bills so bad is that they are written for registries to subvert a court ruling they don't like.
What's next?
School committees exempting themselves from public scrutiny? Or how about boards of selectmen? Why not the governor's office?
Both bills must be rejected with vigorous ought-not-to-pass votes. Anything less would be a conscious denial of the public's right to know.
Report a correction
This entire issue boils down
This entire issue boils down to one thing, and it's the same thing every issue always boils down to. MONEY! The registrars have had a monopoly on photocopying since the copier was invented. Prior to that for hundreds of years, if you wanted a "copy" of a deed, you transcribed it, or abstracted it. In other words, you sat and copied it long-hand, or summarized it, onto a pad of paper. For some of us who are old enough, even back in the 70s and 80s we were still abstracting deeds to save our bosses money on the copy bill. Many registries did the "right" thing in that they offered a copier for a NOMINAL fee so researchers could make their own copies (for $0.25 to $0.50) of documents to take home. Other registries, in particular Cumberland, have always had copy assistants making your copies for way too much money ($1.00-$2.00). You can still look at them for free, as IT IS A PUBLIC REPOSITORY, but if you want to save time, and keep a copy to review or submit as part of a report or court case, you will pay. The online access for most registries includes a MEMBERSHIP FEE if you want to make a lot of copies. These fees have typically been $300 annually, and some registries require you pay for the whole year if you want to be a member and get member pricing on copies. If you are not a member, you can be looking at a copy cost of up to $3 per page for deeds and $15(!) for a survey plan (which prints off my printer directly from their server). That's HIGHWAY ROBBERY when no employees at the registry are required for me to get what I need. In fact, that transaction is completely automated. The registry gets a deposit notification from the credit card company.
In a time when we are all trying to be more efficient and save resources like our time, and the gasoline we all burn to get to the registry, not too mention parking spaces, especially in Portland, these bills stand out for what they really are - completely self-serving and protectionist of a small group of AFSCME employees who will be looking for jobs. Funny thing here - the Democrats are the party that wants us to be greener and more efficient. It isn't a question of IF these records will all be in one spot online for us to review for free or for a nominal cost. It's a question of WHEN.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond."We get that MacImage of
"We get that MacImage of Maine's request is broad, and we get that there is resistance to seeing a private individual create a database of public records for profit" I think the problem exists that there should be a public database for profit, although it probably would require fewer paid officials to man the registry bureau. The state and various offices must get with the newer technology before the private sector does. The saving in salaries is great, and while I understand the inertia of wanting the have the personel, the elected officials will remain and should be required to actually work.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Jmeyer: The registries of
Jmeyer: The registries of deeds are required to remain open and to allow inspection of records by the public under Title 33 Ch. 11, a different law from the FOAA and one which would NOT be affected by the proposed amendment. The FOA law which you've mentioned, and which would be affected, is an entirely different statute (Title 1 Ch. 13). Title searches, tax bills, etc. would not be directly affected.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.First off, the proposed law
First off, the proposed law simply affects the cost and availability of copies -- the information itself would remain available to the public at the registries, as it has always been and must be by law. And all or nearly all of the registries currently have it up online as well.
Secondly: the simple definition of "public record" employed in this editorial is superseded by the law in question, the FOAA, which clearly defines a "public record" as one which "...has been received or prepared for use in connection with the transaction of public or governmental business or contains information relating to the transaction of public or governmental business." It is hard to see how a private real estate transaction is such a record, and the court ruling mentioned did not address that issue. The FOAA is intended to let us see what our government is doing and not what our neighbors are doing. The proposed law would simply clarify this interpretation, which seems correct to me in any case.
The registries use the fees from copies to keep operating costs down and the alternative revenue source will be property taxes.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Both bills very specifically
Both bills very specifically ask for public access to be exempted, so the proposed change would affect much more than the cost or availability of copies.
Here's the proposed language: Public access to records maintained by a register is governed by this chapter. Title 1, Chapter 13 does not apply to public access to records maintained by a register.
So, if passed, any and all access could be curtailed under Title 33. If that happens, how might someone then do a title search? Or how would municipalities be able to determine titles of ownership for purposes to sending tax bills? How could the IRS or Maine Revenue Service attach liens to properties for unpaid taxes? How could contractors do the same for owners who refuse to pay their bills? There are many functions served by public access to property records, many of which are governmental functions, and some of which are not.
In the case of the Hancock lawsuit, MacImage proved that the fees gathered from copies were not used to keep operating costs down at the registry. The registry was self-sustaining through filing and other fees and the money collected for copies went to pay for other county functions, so it's not right to assume the copy fees collected pay for upkeep of the records and there's no reason to increase the fees based on that argument.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Another way to look at this
Another way to look at this is as a hunter and trapper the state recommends I get land owners permission before hunting or trapping (trapping is required) on someones land. If this law passes I can no longer simply find out who owns the land. I know there are bigger issues here but this could effect lots of sportsman in Maine.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.