Access Maryland 2003
The following are the results of an audit of state agency compliance with Maryland's Public Information Act.

View the stories:

Audit Reveals Problems with Access to Public Records

Electronic Records Scarce in Some Departments

What People Should Know About Requesting Records

About the Audit:

I. Introduction/Methodology

II. Records sought

III. Summary of results

IV. Summary of auditor experiences

V. Complete audit narratives

VI. Charting the results

I. Introduction/Methodology

In 2002 the Freedom of Information Subcommittee of the Maryland-Delaware-D.C. Press Asso-ciation began planning for an audit of state agencies to test compliance with the state's Public Information Act.

Under the direction of Chairman Tom Marquardt, Editor of The Capital in Annapolis, the committee selected 16 records that it believed would be of general public interest (see Section II). Three of the state agencies have multiple satellite offices, and auditors were sent to three representative offices around the state.

Auditors were recruited from MDDC-member newspapers, including The Capital, the Carroll County Times of Westminster, the Hagerstown Herald-Mail, the Salisbury Daily Times, Patuxent Publishing Company, the Frederick News-Post, the Easton Star-Democrat, and the Cumberland Times-News.

Auditors received a standard form to fill out concerning their experience and were asked to provide a narrative of any positive or negative encounters in their quest to secure the record. (See Section VI)

On Aug. 21, 2003, the auditors visited in person or called the respective agencies, following up with additional calls, letters or visits where necessary. This report outlines their results.

1. A list of teachers whose certification has been revoked. Having certified teachers in classrooms is a part of the recently enacted federal No Child Left Behind Act. Knowing if teachers who have had their certification revoked are still in classrooms as well as the number of decertified teachers in a given school district is an important ingredient for parents looking to relocate or people looking to move into Maryland.

2. Real estate property appraisal. (Three offices visited) Every property owner in Maryland has a stake in how their property is assessed and whether it is being assessed similar to others in their neighborhood. People moving in to an area or selling their home also need to know assessed values. The state maintains a database that is available on line. Visitors can also stop by their local property tax assessment office for the information.

3. A list of complaints against real estate appraisers. As noted in Nbr. 2, property assessments have a high public interest and knowing that an appraiser has a good record is essential to individuals looking for appraisers to assess their property or property they are thinking of purchasing.

4. Travel expense reports. Tracking how government workers are spending tax dollars is an important part of insuring money is being spent wisely. Throughout the years, stories about government workers using tax dollars for what essentially amount to personal vacations have been well-documented. We entrust our officials with public money, but they must be accountable for how they spend it.

5. Chauffeur services log. As in the case of travel expenses, government use of taxpayer-purchased equipment must be limited to official uses, yet instances where officials use government vehicles on personal trips and abuses of the system have been well-documented. Tracking use of these vehicles en-sures they are being used as intended.

6. The latest inspection report of the Bay Bridge. Tens of thousands of vehicles pass over the Bay Bridge every day and it is a matter of extreme public interest whether the bridge is safe. Results of bridge inspections should be readily available to the traveling public.

7. A report of the activities of the state's Emergency Response Team from the Maryland Department of the Environment. State responses to emergencies - such as the 2001 tunnel fire in Baltimore - are of extreme public interest, especially in the current era of terrorist threats. In addition, monitoring the expenditure of state funds to ensure they are being used effectively is essential to good government.

8. A list of complaints against lottery vendors. Lottery sales and the money brought in are of high public interest, especially in times of tight budgets. Vendors who operate faulty machines or who are slow to respond to customer complaints should not be allowed to continue to operate and reviewing the data is essential to determining if the public's needs are being met.

9. Vendor report. The state contracts out for many jobs, including construction projects for buildings and other facilities. Those contracts, as well as any change orders that result in additional project costs, are public records because they deal with the expenditure of public money. Instances of contractors submitting low bids and then coming along later with changes increasing the cost of the project have been well-documented over the years, and have thrown many budgets into the red.

10. Vehicle emission report. Vehicles in Maryland have to pass emissions testing and it is in the public interest to know how many vehicles are passing and how many are failing. Extremely high pass or failure rates could indicate a problem with administration of the system.

11. Maryland Occupation, Safety and Health on-site inspection reports. (Three regional offices). Making sure that Maryland employees have a safe working environment is essential to the public in-terest. In addition, residents around facilities have a right to know if the business is operating within guidelines established by law.

12. Maryland Commission of Indian Affairs correspondence. Tribal recognition is a long and involved process and residents need to be aware of where tribes stand in their efforts to gain recognition. With the possible legalization of slot machines at Maryland racetracks, and the fact that recognized tribes operating on tribal land could open a casino, the issue of tribal recognition is of strong public interest.

13. MVA 3-year driving record. (Three regional offices). The MVA failed a 2000 audit performed by the Maryland-Delaware-D.C. Press Association, and the administrator at the time promised additional training initiatives to ensure better compliance. For the public, knowing the driving record of bus drivers or others is essential to ensuring safety on our roadways.

14. Death certificate. Under law, death certificates are available only to "people of interest," such as relatives in need of settling an estate. Still, the process of getting this record is one that every Maryland family at one time or another will have to do and it is essential that state employees provide prompt, courteous service to residents making the request.

15. Lobbyist disclosure. Lobbyists in Annapolis have made headlines in recent years for questionable actions, and disclosure statements are required under law to ensure high ethical standards. Because of their importance, it is essential that the public have quick and easy access to these reports.

16. Restaurant inspections. (Three regional offices) Almost every family in the state occasionally enjoys a meal out. Ensuring that the facilities operated in Maryland comply with minimum standards is essential to public piece of mind.

Auditors were denied access to 10 of 25 records sought, or 40 percent of the time.

Auditors were asked who they were in 11 of 25 instances, or 44 percent of the time.

Auditors were asked why they wanted the record in 7 of 25 instances, or 28 percent of the time.

Auditors were asked who they worked for in 5 of 25 instances, or 20 percent of the time.

Under Maryland law, a person requesting a record does not have to say who they are, why they want the record or who they work for.

In one case, the employee told the auditor that his simply wanting the public record was not a good enough reason for her to provide it.

Auditors were required to file a written Public Information Act request in 15 of the 25 instances, or 60 percent of the time.

Of the 10 denials, 5 were outright and in 5 cases the auditors are still trying to secure the desired record.

In one MVA case, the employee was ready to provide the record until he saw it was the driving re-cord of a state official, then he denied the request.

In a majority of the instances where records were not immediately provided, auditors had to make multiple follow-up visits or calls and oftentimes got shuffled from one person to another without receiving any positive results.

With the exception of the state Department of Taxation and Assessment, which has the information available on-line, no public agency was willing to provide the information in electronic format and no public agency would provide a database of the information. In many cases, employees were more willing to provide a single record than a series of records.

Auditors who visited offices in person or who sought commonly requested records more often received the records they asked for than auditors who asked for less-sought-after records.

1. Real Estate Appraiser Complaints
Record Received: No

In a telephone conversation with an employee of the Department of Labor and Licensing, the auditor was told to send a PIA request to the Board of Real Estate Appraisers. More than a month passed before any response was received. After sending $5.75 to cover the cost of copies as required by the agency, no records were ever sent to the auditor.

2. Latest Bay Bridge Inspection Report
Record Received: No

In a telephone conversation with the State Highway Administration, auditor quizzed about employment and told to send a PIA request. A week later, auditor was told "security" had to check to make sure the record was releasable. Multiple phone calls to the agency have produced no results, no record.

3. Teacher Certifications Revoked. Record Received: No

In a telephone call with the State Department of Education, auditor quizzed about employment and why he wanted the records. Auditor told information not available to the general public and simply wanting it "was not a good enough reason." Written PIA requested, and sent. Multiple phone calls to the agency have produced no record, no one willing to assist in obtaining it.

4. Vehicle Emissions Report
Record Received: Yes

Auditor experienced problems getting into the Maryland Department of Environment office complex at 1600 Washington Blvd., Baltimore. Turned away twice by security. When admitted, personnel inside apologized profusely for the problem and went out of their way to assist auditor in obtaining the requested records.

5. Vendor Expense Report (Louis Goldstein Memorial)
Record Received: Yes

Auditor directed to Comptroller's office and, from there, sent to Department of General Services in Baltimore. After several contacts, auditor wrote out a PIA request for the Public Information Officer and received the document two weeks later.

6. Hazardous Waste Spill - Emergency Response Team
Record Received: No

At the Department of the Environment headquarters, auditor encountered secretary who made several calls in order to find the right person to talk to. The PIA coordinator asked if the auditor wanted "all the records," and required a written PIA request, but later the auditor received a letter saying no records were located and there was no information available "in this area."

7. Complaints against Lottery Vendors
Record Received: No

Auditor visited state lottery offices asking for complaints against vendors in 2002. A written PIA request was required. Auditor received a written reply from the attorney general's office on Sept. 25 dated "August 21" saying the request was too broad to be filled. The answer came after the 30-day limit allowed by law.

8. Tribal Recognition Correspondence
Record Received: Yes

Auditor visited office in Crownsville and was quizzed about who she was and why she wanted the record. Written PIA request required. On Sept. 30 - past the 30 days allowed by law - auditor received two letters that agency says are the only correspondence received for the period asked for.

9. Lobbyist Disclosure Form - For Joseph Schwartz
Record Received: Yes

At the office of the State Ethics Commission, auditor was directed to a binder kept on a shelf with the desired records and received them immediately.

10. Vital records - Death Certificate **
** This record is available only to someone who is a relative or a "person of interest"
Record Received: Yes

Auditor, who was seeking the death certificate of a relative, retrieved the record in about 20 minutes from the state's Division of Vital Records, where the staff was helpful and professional.

11. Travel Expense Records (A. Dir. Of Md. Film Commission; B. Secretary, DBED)
Records Received: Yes

Auditor entered the office of Maryland Film Commission and was quizzed about who he was. After several contacts, the auditor was asked to make a written PIA request. Afterward, the auditor went to the office of the Secretary of DBED and was again asked to make a written PIA request. The following week the auditor received some "sample" records and was told there would be a cost associated with duplicating all of them.

12. Log of Chauffeur Services for Public Officials
Record Received: No

Auditor was shuffled from Maryland State Police in Pikesville to Annapolis, to the Executive Protection Unit and was told by an officer "We can't just give it out to just anybody for safety reasons." The officer did not explain how giving out a log of past usage, already completed, represented a "safety" problem. The officer directed the auditor back to Pikesville and he was told to submit a request in writing. Auditor received several responses from multiple agencies, each saying they did not keep such records. He never got a response to his PIA from the State Police.

13. MOSH Reports (Three offices)
Records Received: Yes 1 of 3 times

One auditor arrived at the MOSH office in Hagerstown and spoke to a secretary who refused to provide the information but did give the number for another contact. Auditor left messages with that em-ployee, who never returned calls.

The second auditor arrived at the Maryland Department of Labor and Industry office and, within a week of requesting the records, received them.

The third auditor called the MOSH Region V office and has been unable to secure a database of the information requested, although he has been quizzed about who he is and why he wants the information.

14. MVA 3-Year Driving Record (Three offices)
Record Received: Yes 1 of 3 times

At the Frederick MVA office, the receptionist told the auditor he could not have the record because it was closed under the "Maryland Privacy Act." No such act exists.

At Easton, the auditor received the record within 15 minutes.

At Towson, the employee called up the record on a computer but refused to give it out when he realized it was the driving record of a public official.

15. Restaurant Inspection Reports (Three offices)
Record Received: Yes 3 of 3 times

In Salisbury, auditor was asked for a smaller request because of the number of inspections performed. After revising the request, the auditor received the records on Sept. 23.

In Hagerstown, the auditor was referred to the local newspaper, which publishes the inspections, by the custodian in an effort to save the auditor the cost of paying for the records. Ultimately was able to secure requested documents at a cost of $.50 per page on Sept. 9.

In Cumberland, auditor was asked to revise the request because of the number of inspections, but was able to secure the records by Oct. 20.

16. Property Assessments (Three offices)
Records Received: Yes 3 of 3 times

Property assessments are available on line, but auditors visiting regional assessment offices were assisted in a helpful, professional manner in each instance. Offices audited included: Salisbury, Hagerstown and Frederick. In every instance the auditor was able to secure the record in a matter of minutes.

1. Real Estate Appraiser Complaints
Record received: No

12:55 - after waiting 20 minutes on hold, customer service representative (Mrs. Harrison) at the state Department of Labor and Licensing Regulation told me Patty Schott had the information and trans-ferred me. Left voicemail.

1:30 - Left second voicemail

3:30 - Left third voicemail

8/22 - Finally reached Schott by telephone at 12:45 p.m. She told me that I had to file a written request and that it would be reviewed by the compliance officer to see "if you are allowed to have it." She would not identify who the compliance officer was and told me to address the PIA request directly to the Board of Real Estate Appraisers. She also told me that I would have to pay for the files. I asked why I wouldn't be allowed to see them since they are part of the Md. Public record and she replied "It has to be reviewed."

8/25 - PIA request sent after being returned by USPS.

9/5 - Called office to check on status of request. Told it hadn't been received.

9/8 - Second PIA request sent.

9/24 - Spoke with Schott again. She said my request had been referred to legal counsel and she couldn't tell me anything more, except that legal counsel would respond.

9/29 - Letter received from Schott saying six complaints that resulted in fines are available pending re-ceipt of $5.75 from me.

9/30 - Check cut and letter requesting records sent.

10/27 - No response, no records received.

2. Latest Bay Bridge Inspection Report
Record received: No

8/25 - 1:45 p.m. spoke with "Adrian" at State Highway Administration, who referred me to the Md. Transportation Authority.

1:47 - Cheryl, administrative assistant, asks me directly if I work for a newspaper so I said yes. She said she will have someone from PR call me back and asks what my deadline is.

3:55 - Cheryl calls, tells me "we're in a point of transition" and assures me someone will call the fol-lowing day.

8/26 - 11:10 - Bryan Johnston calls, I told him what I wanted and gave him my e-mail address. 5 p.m. - Johnston tells me the report is a "large, mostly indecipherable document" but that an execu-tive summary is available and he can get an engineer to explain it to me. Says the actual report is too long to fax and asked for a PIA request.

8/26 - Sent PIA request via e-mail to Johnston.

9/8 - Called at 4 p.m., talked to Cheryl about status of request, she said she'd pass along the message.

She called back at 4:15 and said they were putting it together but the holdup was to check for security risks and that it was going through a review. Also says bridge guy's wife had a baby and he won't be back until the 23rd.

9/24 - Called and left a message for Cheryl at 4:20.

9/25 - Johnston called back and said he has not been able to check with security supervisor yet, that he would send me a note saying so. No note ever received. No document as yet received.

10/27 - No note, no record received.

3. Teacher Certifications Revoked
Record received: No

On Aug. 21 I contacted the Maryland Department of Education, Certification Department, to request a list of teachers who had lost their certification in 2002.

I spoke to Dr. Joanne Ericson, who asked for my name and wanted to know why I was requesting the information. She said that she needed the request in writing so she could have the department's legal counsel review it. She said how much information would be released depended on who requested it.

She advised me that the list would not be available to the general public, and that just requesting it be-cause it was public information probably wouldn't be a good enough reason to get the list.

She gave me the office fax number, and asked that I follow the faxed request with a mailed copy. When I tried to fax the request, the fax didn't go through. When I called to confirm the number a woman who refused to give her name said that the fax wasn't working and there was no other fax number.

On Sept. 3 I received my copy of the request in the returned mail and it was marked undeliverable. I called to confirm the address and resent the request.

On Sept. 10, 17, 24, 25 and 29 I spoke to Francine Bradford and asked to speak to Joanne Ericson. Each time I was told she wasn't in the office. I left a message and a telephone number for her each time, but never got a response.

On Sept. 29 Francine Bradford called me and said she'd searched for a copy of my request but couldn't find it. She asked me to fax it to the office, which I did.

On Oct. 6 I called and spoke to Francine Bradford again and she told me she had spoken to Joanne Er-icson and that she'd been advised my faxed request was the first time Joanne had seen the request.

Francine advised me that public information requests were responded to in the order in which they are received and that Joanne would be in touch with me.

Oct. 27 - No record received, no word from agency.

4. Vehicle Emissions Report
Record received: Yes (Aug. 26)

I visited the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1600 Washington Blvd., Baltimore, on Aug. 21. The office is in a large office complex called Montgomery Park Business Center (the giant sign on top of the building says "Montgomery Plaza). It is a former 1925 Montgomery Wards building, refur-bished. The building is set back from the road.

The outside of the building does not indicate which offices are inside. The only sign lists companies involved in redevelopment of the property. Himmerlich Associates (410-385-1234) was listed as the main company, apparently the property owner.

There is a security booth at the beginning of the driveway with entrance and exit signs. No one can drive in without checking in with the guards.

I drove up at 11:30 a.m. I mistakenly said I was looking for the MVA office. The guard said MVA is not here. I asked if there were any state offices there. He said MDE. He told me that no one was allowed in without an appointment.

I said I was there to see someone at the MVA. He asked who. I said Jim Pettit. He didn't know who that was. He decided to call inside and asked my name. I decided that having him call Pettit and give him my name might raise suspicion so I said I must have the wrong place. He raised the gate to allow me to turn around and I left.

I went down the road a bit to a gas station to call Terry. He suggested calling Tom Marquardt. Tom suggested going back and giving my name and going inside.

I drove back to the security booth at 11:54 a.m. A different security guard was there - Officer L. Rogers. I said I wanted to go to the MDE. He asked if I had an appointment. I said no. "They won't see you," he said. I asked why not. "They used to take walk-ins, but it got too busy," he said. "You have to call ahead for an appointment." He also raised the gate and let me turn around.

I drive back to the gas station and called Liz Thompson, the city editor at the Herald-Mail. She looked up the phone number for MDE.

I called MDE at noon. A woman answered. I told her I was trying to get inside but that I didn't have an appointment so I'd like to make one. Just drive in, she said. I told her that the guards wouldn't let me in. "I've never heard of such a thing," she said. I told her they said I needed an appointment. She told me to say I had one. I told her that I tried and that didn't work. She told me to drive back over and say I talked to her. She realized she would have to go over and talk to someone, and she quickly did after she hung up the phone.

I drove back to the guard booth at 12:05 p.m. Officer L. Rogers was sitting outside. I heard someone say to him over his walkie-talkie "No, not true. Disregard that." He raised the gate and let me in. He directed me where to park. I asked if he realized I was supposed to be allowed in. "No one told me," he said.

I entered the building and walked into the MDE office at 12:10 p.m. It looked as if a press conference was going on because one person was standing at a podium announcing things while a crowd of about 20 or 25 people looked on. I was later told that the secretary of the department was addressing county health officers.

I stood at the desk for a minute or two before the woman who answered the phone noticed me. She asked if I just called. I said I did. She shook her head and gestured over to another MDE employee, Lorrie van Pizzo (SP?) and explained to Lorrie what had happened to me. Lorrie escorted me to a couch in a large lobby next to a table and a phone. She sat down, called the extension for the Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program and asked exactly what I wanted as she waited on the phone. By then, all the people who could help in the VEIP were at lunch.

As we sat and talked, a woman named Rita came over and sat down. They asked me to tell them exactly what had happened to me when I was turned away outside. I did. It turned out that Rita is the facilities manager. She was outraged. She said this can't happen. "We need to fix this immediately," she said. She and Lorrie decided that I should write down my name and phone number in case I am called upon later to answer questions about the incident. Rita left.

Lorrie explained that everyone in the VEIP was at lunch. She took out a sheet of paper and wrote the extension down, if I wanted to come back in an hour and use the same phone. She also explained that I could leave and call from somewhere else. I asked if MDE owns the property. She said no. Himmerlich does, and that MDE is still relatively new there. She said it's been a year, which may seem like a while, but not everything is settled. She said MDE used to be in Dundalk.

I asked how Himmerlich could keep people out. "They make up their own rules," she said. I asked if she heard of anyone else being turned away. She hadn't. "We're a business," she said. "We have customers and we can't be turning people away." She apologized several times for the delay faced and for the fact that people were at lunch. But if I wanted to wait, there's a food court nearby in the building.

I went to the food court for lunch. Rita saw me there at about 12:30 and apologized again.

I went back inside the MDE lobby at 1:15 p.m. I sat on the couch, called the extension and talked to a woman named Nicole. I told her what I wanted. "It wouldn't be able to happen today," she said. She got a woman named Audrey, who said she would look for Mary Jane or Kathleen Field (SP?).

Mary Jane got on the phone at 1:20 p.m. She asked my name and I gave it to her. She asked who I represent. I said "Just me, myself." She asked what I wanted and I told her.

"And how are you planning to use this information," she asked.

"I'm just curious," I said.

"Oh, OK."

She told me that it would take some time to gather the information.

I asked if I needed to come back. She said no, that we probably could go over the information over the phone. She said she'd call me the next day and took my phone number.

As I was leaving at 1:35 p.m. the receptionist asked me to repeat what had happened outside. I told her the story. She was amazed. "That's insane," she said. "We're here to serve. Now, my concern is how many people were turned away who didn't say anything." She apologized again to me.

Mary Jane Ritkowski (SP?) called me at 1:40 p.m. on Friday. She said she had the information I wanted.

I asked what she had found out. She said she had general program statistics, such as failure rate. I asked if there was a breakdown by year and by model. She said she could provide a breakdown by year, but MDE doesn't break the figures down by model because failure is more a function of the owner's treatment of the car than of the manufacturer. The breakdown by year makes sense "because of conventional wisdom" she said.

She took my address and said she would mail the information to me at home early the following week. I asked if there was a charge. She said no, but if I decided I want more extensive information, I would have to file a PIA request and then there would be a charge.

"We'll get this out as early as we can next week," she said.

Received results in a letter dated Aug. 26.

5. Vendor Expense Report - Louis Goldstein Memorial
Record received: Yes (Sept. 10)

I went to the Louis Goldstein building in Annapolis at 11:20 on Aug. 21.

I told the receptionist that I wanted to obtain the expense report of the vendor who built the Louis Goldstein statute in Annapolis.

The receptionist asked what organization I worked for. I said I didn't think that was required for me to make a freedom of information request. He directed me to Ken Smith of the state comptroller's office, who said he didn't have that information.

He said the custodian was Rio Woodard of the state Department of General Services in Baltimore. I went to her office, arriving at 2:30 p.m. Her secretary asked for my name and, later Woodard did as well. In both cases I said I didn't think I needed to give my name to make the request.

Woodard said she didn't have the record but thought a colleague, Gary Reisman, had it. She walked me over to Reisman's office and told him my request.

Amidst his cluttered desk he responded "And I'm supposed to find that?"

He asked what organization I was with and I again said I didn't think that was needed to make a records request. He then said I needed to go through Anne Hubbard, DGS public information officer, and file a Freedom of Information Act request.

I wrote my request out and gave it to Hubbard, who was in a meeting at the time.

I received the document in the mail on Sept. 10, within the time frame allowed by the Freedom of Information Act.

6. Hazardous Waste Spill - Emergency Response Team
Record received: No

I entered the Maryland Department of Environment headquarters, 1800 Washington Blvd., at about 10:30 a.m. on Aug. 21 and told the receptionist I wanted to speak to someone who could provide me with actions taken by the state Emergency Response Team in 2002.

Some phone calls were made on my behalf and within a few minutes I was met by Joane Mueller, the PIA coordinator. I told her my request and she politely told me to put it in writing, then gave me a piece of paper and sat me down in a room with a desk, for my convenience.

She did not ask my name, job description, employer or anything else. No questions except about the request - "Did I want all the actions?" I said I wanted all of them and I put the request in writing. I asked how long the search would take, how much it would cost, what format would be used. The attached letter reiterates what she replied.

Denial states: "After conducting a thorough search of our files, the Technical & Regulatory Services Administration has no records responsive to your request. There were no charges incurred as a result of this search." (10 Sept. 02)

I called Susan Douglas Sept. 30 to follow up on her response to me, and she said there was no information in the files on "this area."

7. State Lottery records
Record received: No *****

** Letter dated 20 Oct. from Asst. Attny. Gen. Laura Tilley advises to refine request because it is too large

I went to the lottery offices to request a copy of all complaints against lottery vendors for 2002 and any records pertaining to disciplinary actions as a result of those complaints.

The receptionist, Ms. Duke, was polite and made several phone calls on my behalf to locate the office that could help me. During one of those calls, she was asked to ask me who I was.

"Are you a vendor or a citizen," she asked.

I told her I was a citizen, which Duke repeated before being transferred to another department. She fi-nally landed with the agency's legal department.

A few minutes later, Ms. Schmeka Herndon, a legal assistant with the agency, came down the office to meet with me.

Herndon explained that I would have to make me request in writing.

"We ask that all our requests by made in writing," she said. "I can provide you with a piece of paper and pen if you would like to make the request now."

I accepted the offer and wrote a brief letter as follows:

"I would like to look at all complaints against state lottery vendors for the year 2002 and any records of disciplinary action taken as a result of the complaint. I would also like to be informed if this infor-mation is available in electronic format."

I then signed my name and handed over the sheet.

Herndon reviewed the letter, double-checked the address and then said I would probably receive a written response by next Tuesday (8/25). She also gave me her name and the name of the chief legal counsel for the agency, as well as each of their phone numbers.

I took the information and left.

In a letter dated Aug. 21 from the Attorney General's Office saying the request was "overly broad."

"Please specify if you are interested in a specific agent, period of time, and/or geographic location."

8. Tribal Recognition Correspondence
Record received: Yes (30 Sept.)

The records were kept at 100 Community Place, Crownsville.

I first encountered security. The guard didn't know where to send me and finally called down for someone. I was then introduced to Bernadette, who asked me for my name and what I wanted. When I asked whether my name was required for the record she said no, but it would help her "understand" what I was looking for. Afterward, she asked why I needed it. She also asked me to put it in writing. I told her I was doing research.

I offered to write my request on the spot, so Bernadette led me upstairs to a library area where she gave me a slip of paper. She again asked what the information was for. Again I said it was for research. After I wrote down my request she took it and was gone for about 5 minutes. When she came back she told me that the person who could help me - commission administrator Suzanne Almalel - would be out of town through the weekend. Bernadette told me my request would be forwarded to Suzanne.

Afterward, Bernadette asked me if I knew anything about Indians. I said no. She then handed me a bunch of brochures on the commission and the state's bylaws on tribal recognition. All the while she was very polite, but somewhat clueless about what I wanted (despite repeated explaining).

Letter dated 30 Sept. includes two letters related to Piscataway-Conoy Confederacy and Subtribes (PCCS).

9. Lobbyist Disclosure Form - For Joseph Schwartz
Record received: Yes (Immediately)

Annette Johnson, secretary at the office of the state Ethics Commission quickly directed me to the information I wanted, no questions asked when I went to the agency’s Annapolis office at 11:30 a.m. The record was kept in a binder on a shelf, as were other lobbyists’ disclosure forms. There was no charge to read or access the documents, but there is a 20-cent charge per photocopy.

10. Vital Records - Death Certificate **
Record received: Yes (Immediately)
** Death certificates are available only to someone who is a relative or "person of interest."

I had previously ascertained from a voice recording at the telephone number for the Division of Vital Records that certified copies of death certificates were available by mail (address a post office box) or in person to relatives or other authorized persons.

The recording gave the address at Reisterstown Plaza shopping center, but the address in the latest Verizon telephone directory is incorrect. (4201 Patterson Avenue, Baltimore)

Having made the initial call a couple months ago I went to the address in the telephone book. A guard at the parking lot entrance told me the Vital Records office was across the street at the shopping center. As I drove into the parking lot directly opposite, I saw a sign for the state Health Department. I parked, but as I was about to enter a lady who was apparently taking a smoking break asked me where I was headed. She told me the records office was inside the enclosed mall. She said it had not been in the Patterson Avenue office building for seven years.

I drove around the building and parked as close as I could get to the nearest entrance. There was not a handicapped parking space in sight. (I later found there was a cluster of them at the mall’s main entrance, a couple hundred yards away on the other side of the building - small comfort on a stinking hot day).

I found the office inside the mall and entered at 1:30 p.m. I took a letter from my wife authorizing me to get a copy of her heath certificate (I was seeking a copy of her mother’s death certificate from 1984) to the appropriate window.

At first the clerk said it had to be notarized. Then she called over to another clerk, who said I qualified as a relative. She directed me to a table with a form that needed to be filled out. They were basi-cally the questions you would expect.

I took the form with a check for $12 (the standard fee for certified copies since June). I was second in line.

The clerk took the form, letter and check and gave me a receipt. She said I would get the certificate in 20 minutes. My name was called out in 10 minutes.

I got the form and left. Total elapsed time about 20 minutes.

The telephone recording promised delivery "within an hour."

11. Travel Expense Records - (A. Director, Md. Film Comm.; B. Secretary DBED)
Record received: Yes (Aug. 28)

11A -- I arrived at the office building containing the Maryland Film Commission (217 E. Red-wood St., Baltimore) at about 10:55 a.m. A security guard in the lobby asked where I wanted to go. I told him and he asked me why. I asked whether I had to give a reason. He said nothing but picked up the phone. He told the person at the other end I wanted to see some records and asked my name. I gave it. He told me to sign in a log asking my name, whom I wanted to see and time of day. He gave me a visitor tag and directed me to the elevator.

When I reached the ninth floor a young woman awaited me. She identified herself as "Katie, the computer nerd" and apologized that the receptionist and secretary were not there.

She took me into the outer office (electronic lock on the door) and I told her what I wanted. She apologized that she did not know the procedure, and summoned a young man by phone. He said his name was Jason or Josh Thomas, and he said he did marketing.

My impression was that no one in authority was present. He made a phone call from the reception desk, explained my request and handed me the phone. A woman who identified herself as Laila Atallah (according to the Maryland Manual she’s the general counsel for the Department of Business and Eco-nomic Development, of which the film commission is a part). Atallah told me (accurately) what the PIA provisions were and told me to make a written request. She said I could do it right there and I did.

It was addressed to Tori Leonard in the Communications Office, cc: Legal. I wrote the request on a pad furnished by Thomas and left at 11:15 a.m.

Records received Aug. 29 -- SAMPLES -- complete records would cost more.

11B --Immediately upon leaving the film commission office I proceeded to the office of the Secretary of DBED, which I had ascertained from a directory in the lobby was on the top (23rd?) floor.

The elevator I took to get to the film commission did not go above the ninth floor. I should have gone down to the lobby and started over. However, I slipped over to another bank of elevators that went all the way.

I entered the outer lobby of the DBED office. No one was at the reception desk, but a sign directed me to a hallway. I reached another reception desk and explained what I wanted. She seemed a little sur-prised I had reached the office unannounced. The receptionist led me back to the outer room and asked me to wait.

She returned in about five minutes and asked me to write down exactly what I wanted and my name and address. (I added my telephone number).

She did not ask for a formal letter. I specified that I only wanted to see the file and that I would not necessarily request copies of everything.

She said they would let me know when the information would be available. I strongly suspect the receptionist had consulted Atallah, the assistant attorney general, who must have realized a test was being conducted. In fact, I may have walked past Atallah’s open office as I approached the second recep-tion desk. Total elapsed time 15 minutes.

Records received Aug. 29 -- SAMPLE -- complete records would cost more.

12. Log of Chauffeur Services for Public Officials
Record received: No

Drove to Maryland State Police in Pikesville on Aug. 21. At front desk, Sgt. Jones first said he didn't know of such a record, then said it was kept ``probably in Annapolis.'' Then, he said to call the Media Communi-cations Office at 410-653-4239.

When I called them, they asked my name (which I declined to give); they then referred me to the Executive Protection Unit at 410-974-2991.

The operator refused to speak to me when I wouldn't give my name, but he referred me to Capt. Pallozzi. Pallozzi said, ``We can't just give it out to just anybody for safety reasons.'' He said to provide a PIA.

``For safety reasons, I am going to argue about it,'' Pallozzi said.

He said after more questioning that his department provides services to the governor, lieutenant governor, comptroller, treasurer, attorney general, house speaker and senate president.

``I don't keep track of where everybody goes every day,'' Pallozzi said.

Pallozzi said I should talk with Maj. Shipley in Pikesville (410-486-3101) if I wanted more information. Maj. Shipley was not in at 1:35 p.m. (though operator said he'd be in by 1:30 p.m.) or at 1:50 p.m. Nor was he in office on Monday, Aug. 25, or Tuesday, Aug. 26. (Receptionist said he would be available these days.)

Receptionist named Denise said to submit request in writing.

Monday, Sept. 1, Labor Day--wrote Gov. Ehrlich, Lt. Gov. Steele, AG Curran, Comptroller Schaeffer, Treasurer Kopp, President Miller, Speaker Busch and Maryland State Police, asking for details of each trip.

Sept. 8, Miller wrote that he didn't keep records.

Sept. 8, Curran wrote that he didn't keep records.

Sept. 15, Busch wrote that he didn't keep records.

Sept. 30, Kopp wrote that she didn't keep records.

Oct. 3, Ehrlich's office called and left message saying they were getting information from Maryland State Police and would provide it for Mr. Ehrlich and Mr. Steele. Caller said several times that it was going to take a while--as of Oct. 23, no response has been received.

Never heard back from Mr. Schaeffer or State Police.

13. MOSH Reports (Three offices)
A. Westminster
Record received: No ** **Auditor asked to revise request and is working to get database of information I called the Region V office (8/21) and spoke to Delores Carbaugh, the secretary. She was polite and fairly helpful, explaining that I needed to contact the PIO at the central office and would probably need to submit my request in writing.

I called Joe Seidel at 10:27 a.m. He told me that me request couldn’t be fulfilled, as it was more than 1,000 files and that the records weren’t available electronically. He then told me to file a PIA request and that the department’s computer staff would contact me. He gave me the name and address of the computer office manager (Gary Henderson) telling me "he’s knowledgeable enough to help you with a request like that - I seriously doubt he could help you with a request like that." He cited the expense of the request, noted that the IT office wasn’t set up to print that volume of information, and reiterated that the information wasn’t available electronically.

I spoke to Mr. Henderson, who suggested I go to the office’s Web page to get the information I was seeking there. I inquired about getting a copy of the database and was told that that was not possible because the inspections were divided across multiple tables and weren’t linked. Further requests for the information in an electronic format were answered with "That’s not something that we do." "There’s not a way to do it." "each inspection involved many, many tables," and "I wouldn’t know how to do that." He eventually, after asking who I was and why I wanted the information, which I declined to answer, suggested that I file a PIA request and continuing on from there.

I sent out and faxed the PIA letters that afternoon, addressing it to Seidel and cc’ing Henderson and Takeithia Harris.

8-28 - I received a call from Jack English, the MOSH program manager responsible for I. He explained to me that the information I was requesting would require more than 14,000 pages and, at a cost of 25 cents a page, and the $20 per hour for the PIO to review each record, would greatly exceed the reasonable funding limit I had placed on my request. As for electronic requests, the information is stored in a proprietary Informix database consisting of about 100 tables, which there was no easy way to output. In a later conversation, he said it would cost less to replace the entire system than to try and upgrade it. He sent me a list of the roughly 1,400 inspections MOSH had conducted in 2002 and suggested I may want to narrow my request.

8-30 - I received the list that English had promised, along with his written reply to my request.

9-25 - I called Seidel again, as I had been unable to contact English despite several attempts (admittedly this was about the time Isabel hit). I was told that English would be out of town until the following week. What follows is the end of the conversation, after I had asked if Seidel could assist me:

"Who’re you from? The New York Times?"

"No. I’m an individual." (I had never identified myself as a reporter or mentioned any newspaper in my communications with MOSH.)

"I think you better talk to (Mr. English) then."

10-8 - English did call me back the following week and I am still talking to him, trying to get a better idea of what information the records contain and trying to develop a narrow request. He seems to be genuinely interested in helping me get the information I’m looking for.

13B. Hagerstown
Record received: No

I arrived at the Hagerstown office of the Maryland Occupational Safety Health Office on Aug. 21 at 11:05 a.m., which is located to the rear of the building.

The door to the office was locked but I could see people inside the office. A few moments later, a woman opened the door and stood in the doorway as she asked if she could help me.

I told her I would like copies of the 2002 on-site inspection reports by that MOSH office. The woman told me she did not understand my request and said that MOSH was the Maryland Occupa-tional Safety and Health Office.

I said, "Yes, and doesn’t the office do on-site inspections?"

She then asked me if I was looking for the reports of the inspections and I told her I was, but just for 2002.

She told me that the information was not public, and told me to come inside the office so she could give me a name and a number. We walked back to her desk and her name plate identified her as Dolores.

She told me MOSH was not authorized to give copies of the reports to the public. She said she was aware of the Public Information Act (without me bringing it up), but that she cold not gave me the information. She said she wasn’t trying to give me a hard time.

Immediately following those comments, and without me saying a word, she said the information was pub-lic, but repeated that she was not authorized to give me the records.

She wrote down the number, name and address for Joseph Seidel, the Public Information Officer for MOSH.

She told me to contact him and tell him what I was looking for and tat he might be able to help me. As she was writing down the contact for Seidel, she asked me if I wanted the information for a school project. I told her I was interested in looking at the reports.

She did not ask my name or address.

I called Seidel from home at 1:52 p.m. His voicemail said he’d be out of the office until Sept. 4 and directed all public information calls to Ms. Harris. I left a message for Ms. Harris. She never returned the call. I was unable to get the inspection reports.

C. Frederick
Record received: Yes ** (Aug. 29)
**Request encompassed only the Frederick area.

I had no problem finding the Maryland Department of Labor and Industry. Although the clerk was slightly confused at first that I had shown up at the office and made the request, informing me I would have to apply in writing.

I asked if I could have a piece of paper and do it there. After checking with a supervisor (who was in an-other room) she said that was fine. Another employee asked for clarification of the records I had asked for and said "Sure, that shouldn’t be a problem. Let’s give it a shot."

I received a written reply on Aug. 29 confirming the records were available and to submit an $8.75 check to the department. The letter was signed Joe Seidel.

14. MVA 3-year driving Record (3 offices)
14A Frederick
Record received: No

I went in and was met by Trooper McKenrick. I told him I was there to request driving records. He handed me the paperwork (included) and then asked "They are yours, right?" I said no.

He told me "The Maryland Public Information Act doesn’t allow you to access other people’s records, it only allows you to access yours."

He turned to the next person in line, while somebody came up with a power of attorney advice for me. So I edged back in and told McKenrick that I was fairly certain this was public information.

Here he pointed to the form, which had several types of records one could request, to the second type of record labeled Complete Driving Record - Available to: individual of record, defendant’s attorney, police or judicial system and authorized representatives of any federal, state or local government.

I said I understood, but that I really thought this was public information. I asked him about the three-year record, which ha no such clause next to it even though it was the first record type on the list.

He didn’t answer the question, asked me why I wanted them or who I worked for. He just said "The Mary-land Privacy Act doesn’t allow you to access someone else’s records."

Then he began to help the next person in line again.

14B. Easton
Record received: Yes

At the motor vehicle administration information desk I said I needed to look up a three-year driving record.

The man handed me a form to fill out, which I did. He also told me not to worry about the vehicle title number or tag or VIN, but just fill in the driver’s license number. I told him I did not have the license number, but I did have the date of birth and full name. He said that should be fine and proceeded to look up the name (Richard A Sossi) on his computer.

After pulling up Sossi’s name and verifying the date of birth and address, he filled in the form and gave me a ticket with a number and told me to wait for the next window. He said he made my request a priority since it only takes a minute.

In a lobby full of people I became the second person on the list and was called to the window within two minutes. At the window I was asked to show my driver’s license and whether I wanted a certified or non-certified copy. I said the certified copy would be fine.

She gave me a receipt after charging me $7 and handed me the three-year driving record for Sossi, containing hi full name and address, height, weight, race, sex, date of birth, driving privilege status, license information, list of traffic violations since 2001 and the number of points on his record. The whole transaction took about 15 minutes, most of which was simply waiting in line at the information desk. Overall both employees I dealt with were pleasant, the process went smooth and was basically the polar opposite of any prior dealings I’ve had with the MVA.

14C. Towson
Record received: No

I went to the MVA office at Kenilworth Mall to request the three-year driving record for State Sen. Katherine A. Klausmeier.

The line for the booth where I was to obtain the information was clearly marked. A nearby table was stacked with pens and forms to request the information. I filled out the form, including the senator’s home address. On the form, I left blank the line asking why I was requesting the information.

After waiting a few minutes I was assisted by an MVA employee identified only as "Chris."

Chris looked at my request and then asked why I wanted the information. I asked if that was necessary to have the request honored. He said it was, but then told me I could simply write "Self or employment." He then drew a circle on the line and passed it back to me to complete. I wrote "Self."

Chris then requested my driver’s license. Again I asked if this was necessary and he said it was. I gave him my license.

Chris then noticed the request was for Klausmeier and told me I could not have the requested information.

"Isn’t this a public record," I asked.

"No," he replied.

"Are you certain," I asked.

He looked at me for a moment and then moved over to a nearby computer and began to type in the info, asking me to spell the senator’s name out loud, which I did.

I believe he was able to pull up the information. He looked at it and then back at me and then got up and walked away, taking m driver’s license and paperwork with him.

A few minutes later he returned, followed by a woman who did not identify herself or even speak. The woman (her badge said either Arlen or Adreine) stood behind Chris while he explained that I could not have the information.

When I asked why, he told me it was private. He said all he could give me was "her insurance information."

I said I thought the three-year driving record, including citations and accidents, was public record. "No," he said. "It’s all private."

I again asked if he was absolutely certain.

He said yes and returned my license and told me to have a good day.

15. Restaurant Inspection Reports (3 offices)
15A. Salisbury
Record received: Yes *** (Sept. 23)
**Revised, smaller request

They asked "What restaurant?"

Did I want just one or more copies?

They have full reports of all inspections and summaries.

They said they could make some copies of some, but Id still have to make an appointment.

"Who are you with?" I told her I was a citizen who just wanted to see the inspections.

They kind of gave me a funny look when I said I wanted to see the inspections.

I need to make an appointment to sit down with someone to go over the inspections. There is a fee per hour to view them.

I called to make an appointment and I spoke with Edward Potetz who was informative but rather short. He said I must submit a letter with specific information.

They never really opened all their records to the public and because of the manpower they have it is not really easy to sit down and have people go through all the records, especially since they need to block out portions. There is some info they don’t show the public and Potetz would be the only one available to go through the records with me.

After submitting a written request I received the most recent inspections for two restaurants in Ocean City.

15B. Hagerstown
Record received: Yes (Sept. 9)

I arrived at the Washington County Health Department - Environmental Health at 10:15 a.m. and was immediately approached by a person by the name of Tracy and asked what I needed. I told her that I would like to have a copy of restaurant inspections for the month of June 2003.

She then explained to me that I needed to fill out the Freedom of Information Act form and proceeded to get me one. She told me to put in writing exactly what I wanted and to make sure I put down my name, address and phone number. She also told me that it could take up to 30 days for me to receive them.

I filled out the form and handed it back to her. She checked to make sure it was complete and told me that she would give it to her supervisor.

I asked if there were any charges for this information and she stated no there wasn’t. I thanked her and left.

Friday, Aug. 22 - At 12:40 p.m. I got a phone call at home from the Washington County Health Department from a guy who stated that his name was Jeff and that he had gotten my request for information on restaurant inspections for the month of June 2003.

He told me that there were approximately 50 pages and that there was a charge of 50 cents per page, totaling approximately $25 and did I still want them. Said yes, I supposed so, but Tracy had told me there was o charge. He told me she was mistaken ad, yes, there was a charge.

He then asked me what I wanted them for and as there a particular restaurant that I was interested in. I told him I was interested in several that I visited and that I was mostly interested in the ones in Smithsburg since that is where I live.

He explained to me that they do different restaurants every month and that there were two different sets, one with lots of figures and numbers and then the ones with the violations. I told him that I wanted the one with the violations and things that included things like the bugs in the soup that was reported for one restaurant.

He told me I wanted the second set he described. He also told me that perhaps the ones I was interested in may not have been done that month. He also explained that the Herald-Mail publishes them monthly and that I could get them off the Internet and the Herald-Mail’s Web site. I told him I looked on their Web site and didn’t find them.

He then told me that the Herald-Mail has an archives system and that perhaps I could get them there at no cost or at a cheaper fee than they were going to charge.

I explained that I did not get the paper and that I would still like to get them from him.

He told me it would be no problem but they needed payment first. I told him I’d let him know if I decided to go ahead and get them and that I would be in to make the payment. He told me that I could get parts of the report in groups of maybe 10 pages and maybe the ones I was interested in wouldn’t be in that group. Again he told me to check with the Herald-Mail to see if I could get a copy of just the ones I wanted but that he would gladly print them out for me as soon as he got payment. He was very polite and concerned that I could get them without cost if I wanted. He was more than willing to do whatever I wanted.

Tuesday, Aug. 26 - At 9:45 a.m. I went back to Environmental Health and told them hat I had been there last week and requested restaurant inspections for the month of June 2003.

They told me they needed to get Jeff, he was the one in charge of that. Jeff came out and greeted me and asked if I was the one he talked to last week and I said yes. He had my request in his hand and asked to be more specific as to which ones I was requesting. He told me that there was a fee and was I going to be paying it then? I told him yes and told him again that Tracy had told me that there was no charge. Again he told me there was.

He told me that the first 20 pages were free but then there was a charge for the rest and that he had figured there would be a total of 50 pages and that left 30 for me to pay for. Tracy took the $15 payment and I got a receipt.

Jeff told me I could come back to pick them up if I wanted or that they could be mailed. I told him to go ahead and call me and that I would pick them up. He told me that he would put them on a shelf and pointed out where and that he would put my name on them and call me when they were done. I thanked him and left.

Monday, Sept. 9 - Jeff Reed from Environmental Health called around 2:30 p.m. and told me my paperwork was done and ready to be picked up.

He also told me that one of the inspections of a new catering store was not included due to the fact that the inspector didn’t have it written up, but that there were no violations there. He also told me that he have me the first 20 pages free and that they normally didn’t do that. He asked me if I wanted a refund for the report. I declined.

Tuesday, Sept. 9 - I picked up the paperwork around 3:30 p.m. and again Jeff told me about the missing report and asked if I wanted a refund of $1. I declined after getting the first 20 pages free. I received these 20 days after requesting them.

15C. Cumberland
Record received: Yes (Oct. 20)

The first time I went to the Allegany County Health Department to request records (and each time after) I was dressed as a regular guy. The first visit date was Aug. 21, the time was 10 a.m.

I asked for a copy of restaurant inspection records for the month of July.

I was told to talk to a lady named Treva Duerr, who was very polite and who informed me that there were so many restaurant inspection records that it would be difficult for me to have a copy of all of them. She said she didn’t understand the request. The violations were listed on computer, she said, but they didn’t detail violations. She then told me that the first five copies are free, and that for every page after that the cost would be a dollar a page.

They informed me that restaurant inspections happen every four months, and that there would probably be 100 files to pull. There would also be three papers detailing each current inspection. They also made me fill out a request letter for the records. She said her director would have to approve, and he would not be back until Friday.

I received a letter from Duerr’s director the next week. The letter stated that they would have to charge me for the amount of time spent pulling the files and making copies. A copy of the letter will be sent.

I went back to the health department after I received the letter. It was the beginning of September. I was told again about how many records I’d be getting if I got them all. They asked if I wanted to get a list of restaurants to pick from. I asked them if they could give me a while and maybe I’d come back and make a request like they’d suggested.

I called Terry (Headley) to ask what to do. He said to pick five. When I went back I said to Duerr I’d like to get five restaurant inspection records. They printed me off a complimentary list of restaurant inspection records, nine pages long, that contained inspection dates. I left with these.

I went back Oct. 20 at 2 p.m. to ask for five records. Duerr sat the records I asked for out on a table and told me I could look at them. I asked if I could get copies. She told me about the charge for copies after the fifth one. I’d requested records for Taco Bell, McDonald’s, The Creamery, Ed’s Canal Street Pub and Roy Rogers.

Duerr said Roy Rogers was currently being inspected and its most current inspection records were out with the inspector.

I ended up getting about eight pages of records. I had to pay $3.

16. Property assessments (3 offices)
16A. Salisbury
Record received: Yes (Immediately)

I went in the office and asked for an assessment. The woman on duty directed me to a work station. I then had to ask her how to search by name because that was not one of the choices. She came to help me, then stayed near by in case I had other questions. I found what I was looking for, printed it out and she said I could search for this on the Internet anywhere. She gave me a bookmark with the Web address.

I later called back to see about getting previous assessments. She said I could access them on the Internet. I also asked for assessor’s notes. She said they don’t give those out.

16B. Hagerstown
Record received: Yes (Immediately)

I arrived at the Maryland Property Tax Assessment office in Hagerstown on Aug. 21 at 10:50 a.m. A woman named Debbie immediately got up from her desk and asked if she could help me. I asked for the property assessment of 1117 Oak Hill Ave., Hagerstown, the history o assessment on that property and the assessor’s notes.

Debbie told me that the office had a computer available to he public to look up property assessments and asked if I had ever used the computer before.

I told her I hadn’t and she accompanied me to the computer. She typed in the address I had given her and the property assessment popped up. She then printed out a one page sheet and explained that the sheet contained the name of the property owner, the deed reference, information about the property and the sale/transfer information. There was no charge for the printout.

I asked if I could also have a copy of the assessment history and the assessor’s notes. She told me those items were not public information.

I told her I thought they were public information and she again said they were not.

Debbie also said that the assessor’s notes were not available for the public view and that I would not be able to get that information. I said "Just to sum things up, you’re saying the assessment history on the property and the assessor’s notes are not public information." She told me no.

She said the assessment history was available to property owner, and if the property owner wanted to share it, then that’s how I would be able to get that information.

I left the office with the property assessment, but not the history of assessment or the assessor’s notes.

Debbie was nice, courteous and professional, but she was adamant about denying access to the assessment history and the assessor’s notes.

She did not ask my name, identification or why I wanted the information.

C. Frederick
Record received: Yes (Immediately)

When I entered one man was already at the counter. Almost immediately a clerk came over, asked who was first and began helping him.

Not 15 seconds later a voice behind me asked if I need help.

The woman apparently was returning to the office from some type of break. I told her I wanted to get as-sessment records for a home. She asked if I knew the address and I gave it to her.

She walked to a computer terminal at a desk and accessed the information, then verified that she had the correct address by asking if Suzanne Atkins was the homeowner. When I answered yes, she printed out the sheets with the owner, location and value information, told me what the assessment value was and gave me the sheets.

I asked if there was a charge and she said no. I asked her name and she responded Carla. I thanked her for being so helpful and left.