Abstract:
Systems and methods for facilitating access to open public records are provided. The system for facilitating access to open public records comprising an open public records computer system for electronically receiving a request for a public record from a requestor computer system of a requestor, and a database in electronic communication with the open public records computer system, the database storing an updatable index of custodians of records thereon, wherein the open public records computer system automatically identifies a custodian appropriate for the request from the index, and transmits the request anonymously on behalf of the requestor to a custodian computer system of the custodian identified thereby preserving an identity of the requestor.

Description:
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS 
       [0001]    This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/856,298 filed on Jul. 19, 2013, the entire disclosure of which is expressly incorporated herein by reference. 
     
    
     BACKGROUND 
       [0002]    1. Field of the Disclosure 
         [0003]    The present disclosure relates to a system and method for facilitating access to open public records. 
         [0004]    2. Background 
         [0005]    Citizens and residents are allowed the potential for unprecedented access to government records throughout various levels of government (e.g., municipal, state, federal, etc.), usually as a result of legislation (e.g., New Jersey Open Public Records Act (OPRA)). However, the current system for filing a public records request (e.g., OPRA request) lacks standardization, accountability, and transparency. Individual municipalities handle requests differently, resulting in a filing process that can be confusing, difficult, and often inaccessible to citizens and residents. Requests are often wrongfully denied, costs for filing a request vary greatly across municipalities, and many people are reluctant to make requests for fear of retribution from government officials. Further, the current system lacks a centralized database to make the responses to requests available to the public. Therefore, there is a need for a system and method for facilitating access to open public records that addresses these challenges. 
       SUMMARY 
       [0006]    A system and method for facilitating access to open records is disclosed. The system allows for anonymous requests for public records from any number or types of government entities and provides a centralized location for custodians of records to handle such requests. Interactive tools are provided to requestors to assist them in creating a proper public records request. Interactive tools are also provided to custodians of records to fulfill requests and supply reasons and explanations for their decisions. An index of custodians of records for all levels of government can be created and updated by the system. Received requested documents can be archived and made publicly accessible. Any problematic requests can be flagged for community review and input for subsequent resubmission. 
     
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
         [0007]    The foregoing features of the disclosure will be apparent from the following Detailed Description, taken in connection with the accompanying drawings, in which: 
           [0008]      FIG. 1  is a diagram showing a system for facilitating open public records requests; 
           [0009]      FIG. 2  is a diagram showing hardware and software components of a computer system on which the system of the present disclosure could be implemented; 
           [0010]      FIG. 3  illustrates processing steps of the system of the present disclosure; and 
           [0011]      FIG. 4  illustrates processing steps of the open public records system of the present disclosure. 
       
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION 
       [0012]    The present disclosure relates to a system and method for facilitating access to open public records, as discussed in detail below in connection with  FIGS. 1-4 . The open public records system (e.g., website, open source web application, smartphone app, tablet app, etc.) and method of the present disclosure promotes greater access to public records (e.g., municipal, state, and federal public records, etc.), streamlines the filing process for those seeking public records, and efficiently handles multiple requests. The open public records system encourages residents to learn more about the issues in their communities, share their findings with the public, and play a greater role in the state&#39;s civic and political life. It provides a platform for governmental transparency in every community and encourages community-driven discussion to take place around primary source documents. The system could be utilized by a variety of users (e.g., researchers, journalists, activists, attorneys, citizens, etc.) and improves the capacity for media outlets (e.g., television, print, web) to provide better reporting and coverage of municipalities, counties, state agencies, etc. 
         [0013]    The open public records system (by default) can make requests anonymously on behalf of a requestor, thereby removing any chilling effect that may have existed from a fear of retribution from a government official. Requests (and related documents) can be fulfilled through the present system and made available to the public through an easily accessible centralized location (e.g., wiki-style archive). This alleviates the work of government entities that have to respond to redundant public disclosure requests because they can simply redirect such requests to the open public records system if such documents have already been provided. Further, the system fosters community support for understanding, collaboration, identifying wrongfully denied requests, and potential financial backing, as will be described. More specifically, as there are often filing fees and other administrative costs associated with a public records request, a requestor can use the system to seek a financial sponsor for the request (e.g., contacting members directly, posting in a forum, etc.). 
         [0014]    An interactive tool is provided to requestors to assist them in creating a proper open public records request. The interactive tool could provide a simplified version of the public records request form with step by step instructions, prompt the requestor for all required information and then automatically format the request, and/or manage multipart requests piece by piece to ensure that all parts are fulfilled, etc. The open public records system could utilize a database to store and update a moderated index of custodians of records for all levels of government. Custodians of records are provided with interactive tools to fulfill requests and provide reasons and explanations for their decisions (e.g., explanation for denials). Additionally, custodians can manage all requests through a single system and interface. 
         [0015]      FIG. 1  is a diagram showing a system for facilitating open public records requests, indicated generally at  10 . The system  10  comprises a computer system  12  (e.g., a server) having a database  14  stored therein and an open public records engine  16 . The computer system  12  could be any suitable computer server (e.g., a server with an INTEL microprocessor, multiple processors, multiple processing cores) running any suitable operating system (e.g., Windows by Microsoft, Linux, etc.). The database  14  could be stored on the computer system  12 , or located externally (e.g., in a separate database server in communication with the system  10 ). 
         [0016]    The system  10  is web-based and remotely accessible such that the system  10  communicates through a network  18  with one or more users over a variety of computer systems  20  (e.g., personal computer system  22   a,  a smart cellular telephone  22   b,  a tablet computer  22   c,  or other devices). Network communication could be over the Internet using standard TCP/IP communications protocols (e.g., hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP), secure HTTP (HTTPS), file transfer protocol (FTP), electronic data interchange (EDI), etc.), through a private network connection (e.g., wide-area network (WAN) connection, emails, electronic data interchange (EDI) messages, extensible markup language (XML) messages, file transfer protocol (FTP) file transfers, etc.), or any other suitable wired or wireless electronic communications format. Further, the system  10  could communicate with a requestor system  24 , a moderator system  26 , and a custodian system  28 , as explained in more detail below, such as through an application programming interface (API). 
         [0017]      FIG. 2  is a diagram showing in more detail hardware and software components of a computer system  10  on which the system of the present disclosure could be implemented. The system  10  comprises a processing server  32  which could include a storage device  34 , a network interface  38 , a communications bus  40 , a central processing unit (CPU) (microprocessor)  42 , a random access memory (RAM)  44 , and one or more input devices  46 , such as a keyboard, mouse, etc. The server  32  could also include a display (e.g., liquid crystal display (LCD), cathode ray tube (CRT), etc.). The storage device  34  could comprise any suitable, computer-readable storage medium such as disk, non-volatile memory (e.g., read-only memory (ROM), eraseable programmable ROM (EPROM), electrically-eraseable programmable ROM (EEPROM), flash memory, field-programmable gate array (FPGA), etc.). The server  32  could be a networked computer system, a personal computer, a smart phone, tablet computer etc. It is noted that the server  32  need not be a networked server, and indeed, could be a stand-alone computer system. 
         [0018]    The functionality provided by the present disclosure could be provided by an open public records program/engine  16 , which could be embodied as computer-readable program code stored on the storage device  34  and executed by the CPU  42  using any suitable, high or low level computing language, such as Python, PHP, Java, C, C++, C#, .NET, MATLAB, etc. The network interface  38  could include an Ethernet network interface device, a wireless network interface device, or any other suitable device which permits the server  32  to communicate via the network. The CPU  42  could include any suitable single- or multiple-core microprocessor of any suitable architecture that is capable of implementing and running the engine  16  (e.g., Intel processor). The random access memory  44  could include any suitable, high-speed, random access memory typical of most modern computers, such as dynamic RAM (DRAM), etc. 
         [0019]      FIG. 3  illustrates processing steps  50  of the open public records system of the present disclosure. Of note, at least some of the functionality that is automatically provided by the system as described below could alternatively be provided manually by the requestor and/or an authorized user. In step  52 , the open public records system electronically receives a request for public records from a requestor system  24  (see  FIG. 1 ) of a requester registered with the system. A requestor (or any other user) can register with the open public records system by providing, for example, a username, password, identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), and contact information (e.g., email address, mailing address, etc.). To submit a request, the user may login to the open public records system using the username and password previously provided. 
         [0020]    In step  53 , the open public records system creates a file history and adds the initial request submission thereto. The file history can be reviewed by others as explained in more detail below. In step  54 , the open public records system transmits for review the request to a moderator system  26 , such as by email, posting, etc., (see  FIG. 1 ) of a moderator registered with the system. The moderator can be a user authorized by the system to review requests for compliance and potential errors. This filters out improper requests early and decreases costs to the requestor. However, if a requestor has sufficient experience, as automatically determined by the open public records system (e.g., after a user has submitted five requests) or manually entered by an authorized user of the open public records system (e.g., administrator), the requestor can be its own moderator such that once the request is submitted to the open public records system it is then transmitted to a custodian system (as explained below) without first requiring moderator approval. Prior to moderator review, the requestor could edit the request as desired, and any edits could be recorded in the file history. In step  56 , the open public records system electronically receives (e.g., email, account posting, etc.) the moderator&#39;s decision from the moderator system  26  (which could be recorded in the file history). In step  58 , a determination is made as to whether the moderator approved the request. If a negative determination is made, in step  60  the open public records system transmits a notification to the requestor system  24  notifying the requestor of the denial and the revisions needed to the request. In step  62 , the open public records system then subsequently receives a revised request from the requestor (which is recorded in the file history), and the process reverts to step  54 . If a positive determination is made in step  58 , then in step  64  a notification is transmitted to the requestor notifying him or her of approval by the moderator of the request. 
         [0021]    In step  65 , the open public records system automatically matches the request with a custodian of records from an index. The system compiles the index of custodians of records of all levels of government (e.g., municipal, county, state, federal, etc.) and determines which custodian is appropriate for the particular public record request being made based on the nature of the request (e.g., based on the level of government, department, geographic location, etc.). The index could be compiled in any number of ways including automatic Internet searches, crawling specific websites or databases, crowdsourcing, and/or manual user input (subject to moderation by site administrators). 
         [0022]    Once the appropriate custodian is identified, the open public records system transmits (e.g., emails, posts to their account, etc.) the request to the custodian at a custodian system  28  (see  FIG. 1 ) so that the identity of the original requestor is not revealed. In this way, a requestor registered with the system can make an anonymous request for public records without fear of retribution by government officials because the system acts as an intermediary between the requestor and the custodian of records such that only the system knows the identify of the requestor. The custodian can, but does not have to, be registered with the open public records system. After the request is transmitted to the custodian at the custodian system  28 , the request can no longer be edited or revised by the requestor. Further, transmission of the request to the custodian starts the time period for review (which may be of a particular limit set by law), as discussed below. The open public records system could further include a payment system (e.g., PayPal integration, credit card processing, etc.) to facilitate payment of costs (e.g., filing fees, administrative fees, etc.) associated with the submission of the request. Alternatively, the request could be sent by physical mail and the system could facilitate payment of shipping costs, filing fees, and other costs. 
         [0023]    In step  66 , the open public records system determines whether the custodian&#39;s response is overdue based on a predetermined time period that starts running once the request is transmitted to the custodian. This predetermined time period could be a default setting, automatically set as the time period required by the request itself (if available), or set by the requestor or authorized user. If the custodian response is overdue, the process proceeds to step  68  and the open public records system transmits a notification to the requestor and custodian notifying them that a response is overdue (and adds this event to the file history). Overdue requests could also be highlighted for community review and input. The process then reverts back to step  66 , so that these reminder notifications reoccur until the custodian&#39;s response is received (i.e., notifications are sent every week, two weeks, month, two months, etc.). If in step  66  the system determines the response is not overdue and has been received, the process proceeds to step  70 . 
         [0024]    In step  70 , the open public records system receives the custodian response (e.g., by email, uploaded directly to the system, scanned into the system (if physically mailed), etc.) which marks the request as fulfilled or denied (and is added to the file history). The custodian response could include text comments as well as attached files (if the response is emailed) or uploaded files (if the response is uploaded directly to the system). In this way, the custodian could answer questions regarding the response, supply the requested document(s), or deny the request with an explanation and appropriate documentation. In step  72 , the system transmits the custodian&#39;s response to the requestor (thereby preserving the anonymity of the requestor). In step  74 , the system receives the requestor&#39;s reply (e.g., by email, a reply uploaded directly to the system, etc.) to the custodian&#39;s response (which is then added to the file history). 
         [0025]    In step  76 , the open public records system evaluates the content of the custodian&#39;s response and the requestor&#39;s reply and determines whether the custodian marked the request as fulfilled and the requestor agreed. If a positive determination is made, then in step  78  the system marks the request as fulfilled and in step  80  (unless otherwise indicated by the custodian or the requestor) provides electronic public access to the request and related documents (which is added to the file history). As a result, if a custodian receives future requests for the same document, the custodian can direct the future requests for the same information to the open public records system. Further, fulfilled requests can be shared via social media websites, tagged by users of the open public records system, and/or discussed through comments. 
         [0026]    If a negative determination is made in step  76 , then in step  82  the open public records system determines whether the custodian marked the request as fulfilled and the requestor disagreed. If a positive determination is made, then in step  84  the system marks the request as incomplete (which is added to the file history) which usually indicates that the requestor believes the custodian&#39;s response was not responsive to the request. In step  86 , the system flags the request (e.g., “Status: Troubled Request”) for community review and input and in step  88  provides electronic access to the file history and related documents (e.g., private user to user messages, public website posting, publicly accessible website archive, etc.) to one or more users (e.g., user(s) selected by the requestor, or the public, etc.). In this way, the community can evaluate the problematic request and file history and weigh in on whether they agree with the custodian&#39;s response and/or offer suggestions for improving the request or otherwise resolving any issues. Depending on the community feedback, the requestor could then revise and/or resubmit the request, which would restart the above process. 
         [0027]    If a negative determination is made in step  82 , then in step  90  the open public records system determines whether the custodian marked the request as denied and the requestor disagreed. If a positive determination is made, then in step  92 , the request is marked as denied (which is added to the file history), and the process proceeds to step  86 , discussed above. Preferably, a custodian will indicate the cause or reason for denial and offer ways to improve the request. Regardless, the community can then offer their input to improve and revise the request, and the requestor could then revise and/or resubmit the request. 
         [0028]    If a negative determination is made in step  90 , then the process proceeds to step  94  and the open public records system determines whether the custodian marked the request as denied and the requestor agreed. If a positive determination is made in step  94 , then in step  96  the request is marked as unfulfilled (which is added to the file history). If a negative determination is made in step  94 , and none of these scenarios are applicable (e.g., due to a system timeout from the requestor failing to submit a reply, due to a technical error in the system itself, or any other reason), then in step  98  the system marks the request as requiring review for error or noncompliance in the request, the custodian response, and/or the requestor reply. 
         [0029]      FIG. 4  illustrates processing steps  100  of the open public records system of the present disclosure. The system (e.g., the open public records system) facilitates user access to previously filed requests (e.g., from a central database), which allows users to make duplicate versions of the request to reuse and/or modify the request as needed. In this way, the system could guide a requestor through making an initial request (e.g., regarding form of the request, incorporating boilerplate language, etc.), and then utilize community input for the more specific or unique aspects of their request. 
         [0030]    In step  102 , the system electronically receives and stores (e.g., in a database  104 ) an original request and/or related information (e.g., regarding the outcome of the request) from a requestor. The system can monitor/track (and requestors can report) the success and/or failure of an open public records request in obtaining the documents sought by the requestor. For example, a requestor can indicate the outcome (e.g., fulfilled, incomplete, denied, unfulfilled, etc.) of an open public records request through a survey requested by the system after the open public records request process is completed. 
         [0031]    In step  106 , the system electronically receives a query from a user for information regarding the original request (or a type of request, or any other particular request, etc.). In step  108 , the system electronically transmits the queried information to the user. This allows a user to compare preliminary information regarding a request (e.g., success rate, user ratings, etc.). In step  110 , the system electronically receives a query from the user for a digital copy of the original request (and/or any other particular request). The original request could be visible on the user&#39;s public profile and/or could be searchable in the central database. In step  112 , the system electronically transmits a digital copy of the original request (and/or any other particular request) to the user. This allows users to search for (and/or view) a particular type of request and choose from the most successful and/or popular request among them. One or more users can download a digital copy of a particular request to improve the request and/or to tailor the request to the user&#39;s particular needs and situation. 
         [0032]    In step  114 , the system electronically receives and stores (e.g., in a database  104 ) a revised request from the user. The revised request could be received as a result from the user filing his/her own request, and/or to improve the original request. The system thereby makes the revised request searchable and accessible to users for further copying and/or revisions. This also allows the requestor to incorporate the changes into his/her own original request. 
         [0033]    Optionally, when a request is duplicated and/or modified, the original requestor (and/or the creator of that particular version) could be notified (e.g., by a counter) that his/her request was duplicated and/or modified by another user. 
         [0034]    Having thus described the system and method in detail, it is to be understood that the foregoing description is not intended to limit the spirit or scope thereof. It will be understood that the embodiments of the present disclosure described herein are merely exemplary and that a person skilled in the art may make any variations and modification without departing from the spirit and scope of the disclosure. All such variations and modifications, including those discussed above, are intended to be included within the scope of the disclosure.