We’ve always been big proponents of records access at Extract. It’s almost counterintuitive, but we contribute to open records by removing information. We don’t use our automated redaction software to weigh in on the nuance of what needs to be redacted, focusing our efforts on personally identifiable information (PII) for our government customers. By removing information that could be used for underhanded purposes like identity theft, documents like court and land records become more shareable, with less of a reason to restrict public access.
Outside of the content of documents, government offices have often grappled with organizations like news outlets over issues such as cost, timeliness, and accessibility. The Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) was supposed to resolve these problems, but in a rare show of bipartisanship, Colorado lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agree that the law hasn’t accomplished its goals.
Back in 2019, the Denver Post found unpredictability in how different agencies retained emails, which led to officials saying they’d take care of the issue in 2020. The pandemic delayed work until 2021 and then finally in April 2022, Democrat Sen. Chris Hansen announced that the bill he planned to sponsor alongside Republican Sen. John Cooke will not be introduced.
It may not come as a surprise to those who work in redaction day in and day out, but the state senators were finding the process more complicated than expected and noted that small changes seemed to have large ripple effects.
The bill had made strong progress and several ideas seem ironed out. These include eliminating per-page fees, increasing availability to digital formats, and meeting CORA requirements. Where things start to break down are with an itemized time receipt requirement, suggested email retention policy working group, and unknown costs. The problem surrounding cost is that it can be difficult to know how long redaction should take in a given instance and whether or not the times are accurate.
It's an important project for the state and one that lawmakers will want to be sure to get correct. Given that the bill started with some agreement that progress needs to be made, it’s unfortunate to see this bill slip yet again, particularly when there appears to be some common ground on the table.
If you’re interested in redaction, and you’d like to see how we can automate the process for you, please get in touch and we’d be happy to schedule an introductory call or demonstration.
About the Author: Chris Mack
Chris is a Marketing Manager at Extract with experience in product development, data analysis, and both traditional and digital marketing. Chris received his bachelor’s degree in English from Bucknell University and has an MBA from the University of Notre Dame. A passionate marketer, Chris strives to make complex ideas more accessible to those around him in a compelling way.