Much of this nation appears to be moving in the direction of making bulk data more easily available to the public, while Maine seems to be moving toward hindering access.

Maine is moving in the wrong direction.

Requests for access to bulk data, such as accident reports, hunting licenses and property deeds, is not new. These requests have just become more frequent because the digital age has made it easier to request and sort the data. That doesn’t make the requests improper, just more numerous.

In the past, if someone wanted to view a year’s worth of accident reports, they would have to sift through stacks of paper records. Now, it’s a simple matter of ordering that material online.

The simplicity of access must not doom requests for bulk data. The volume of records requested doesn’t change the fundamental status of any public record. If a record is public as a single document, it remains public in the thousands of documents.

A suggestion has been made to create a bulk data request exception to Maine’s Freedom of Access Act, banning such requests. Why? The information is public, only the means of storing and distributing it has changed, keeping pace with technology. Creating an exception would curb access, which is definitely not in the public’s interest.

Another suggestion has been made to create a distinction between commercial and noncommercial requests for bulk data, giving preference to noncommercial entities. Why?

Commercial enterprises pay taxes, perhaps even more than noncommercial entities, in the form of property, payroll, income and other taxes. Commercial enterprises financially contribute to create and store public records in paper and electronic form already, so shouldn’t they have the same access as anyone else?

And, one more suggestion might create special access to bulk data for media or nonprofit groups. Doing so would tread on dangerous territory.

Maine’s FOAA was crafted specifically without the distinction between press and public so that no one group or individual is given preference to public records and meetings. Changing the current equality would create inappropriate tiers of access.

There is consternation about the fees that should be charged for bulk data. Again, why? FOAA already addresses cost, setting the “reasonable fee” standard for copies of public records. What is reasonable depends entirely on the time and effort it takes to produce the copy.

And quite possibly the worst suggestion mentioned: adding language to FOAA to permit a public agency to make its own determination whether to sell public records in bulk form.

Maine’s public access law was drafted, much like those in other states, to guarantee and protect public access to information. Allowing public agencies to decide what they will make available and to whom runs contrary to public protections, and raises the whole fox guarding the henhouse problem.

In the coming months, as the Legislature tackles this subject, it might refer to Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution that established the Census – arguably the mother of all bulk databases.

Our founders believed it vital to collect and maintain this data, and to make it available to the public in bulk. Over time, the Census Bureau has constantly evaluated the data it collects, reports its massive research and makes all information publicly available.

That’s the model Maine must mimic.

[email protected]