Summing up the portion of this discussion I am interested in is Steve Whitakers statement:

"The issue is whether others have rights to request and expect to see records of public agencies and governmental units
with whom they have no connection.    IMO a "public" record is and should be public only to those particular citizens and constituencies; those of that country; state or commonwealth; city, county, etc."

Doesn't this runs contrary to the normal interpretation of the equal protection clause:  "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  I realize that we can all read/misread this to conform with our personal opinions, but hasn't the thrust of case law been to require that states provide the citizens of other states the same services available to its citizens.  Certainly there are different fee schedules for tuition and hunting and fishing licenses, but can a service be refused?

If only there were someone on this list knowledgeable in the law (HINT, HINT--John).



Paul R. Scott, CA, CRM
Records Management Officer
Harris County, TX
713 368-0039

Under the Texas Public Information Act most written communications to or from public employees are considered to be public records and will be made available to the public and the media upon request.  This e-mail and any direct reply may be subject to public disclosure.

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]