HomeMy WebLinkAbout071422 Implementation of new software for DCD permit records________________________________
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
________________________________
Mark,
In response to my public comments on July 11 regarding the conversion from Tidemark to the new permit system at DCD, you responded:
“…did say in the presentation that all the time market [sic] is gonna be archived and preserved what wasn't converted will continue to reside in time mark and will be available.”
“But you know the county has massive numbers of records, not all of which are available online. Um we don't have the resources to do that.”
First, unless the county maintains an active Tidemark license, that archive may well be useless. You might want to check into that before deciding that you have an adequate backup, one
that you can access, of the decades of records held there which may not have been fully converted to the new system.
My second point about making all non-exempt information available online had nothing to do with the “massive numbers of records” in other unrelated databases and covering other topics.
I did not suggest that the county make data from other systems more available online (that’s a subject for the future). My comment and recommendation was only about the conversion to
the new system.
When implementing a new system, you can choose which fields are to appear online; making a field available now, at design time, is done at essentially zero extra cost. But your DCD staff
stated that they believe they should conceal some information, even thought that information would be disclosable under a Public Records Request; e.g., “the fees that they paid [for
permits]”.
In the new system, if a data field is enabled for on-line display, there will be zero cost to the county because the data will be displayed for all converted records as well as for all
newly-entered records. If the county chooses to conceal public information, as seems to be the current plan, doing so will add costs to the county because people who need that information
will submit public records requests to obtain it.
So, zero cost now or PRR costs forever? Please consider your choice carefully.
Thank you,
Tom Thiersch
Member, Washington Coalition for Open Government <https://washingtoncog.org/>
==== [RCW 42.30.010 Open Public Meetings Act <https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.30&full=true> ] ==== ==== [RCW 42.56.030 Public Records Act <https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?ci
te=42.56&full=true> ] ====
"The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what
is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed and informing the people's public servants of their views so that they
may maintain control over the instruments that they have created."
###
P SAVE PAPER - Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary.