UPDATE: SB 135 passes by a vote of 93-1 with no discussion.
*****
A bill that appears in the House of Representatives’ Orders of the Day, and will be debated — if at all — this afternoon, is difficult to reconcile with SB 63. It is scheduled for a vote.
Consistency is not, in all cases, the hobgoblin of small minds.
Described as a “modernization” bill, SB 135 requires county clerks to “provide and maintain” a publicly accessible electronic portal that contains all recorded instruments including, but not limited to, deeds, mortgages, powers of attorney, land contracts, wills, federal and state tax liens, child support liens, and civil penalty liens.
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/recorddocuments/bill/22RS/sb135/bill.pdf
I haven’t examined each of these types of recorded instruments — which under current law are available for onsite inspection in the county clerk’s office — to determine their content. But it’s a safe bet they contain some personally identifiable information — as that term is defined in SB 63 — including date of birth, home address, and Social Security Number.
Why else would SB 135 permit county clerks to “redact Social Security numbers from electronic copies of recorded instruments and other personal information from recorded instruments upon request from a law enforcement agency or judicial officer.”
SB 135 does not permit clerks to redact the same information as it relates to any other person under any other circumstances. Such information will be accessible at the touch of a computer button — one click away, as they say. No doubt a convenience — a modernization as it were — but at what expense to personal privacy (real or imagined)?
SB 63 has been described as a bill to protect certain at risk public officers — judges, police officers prosecutors, and others, as well as their immediate family — by enabling them to demand that any public agency redact personally identifiable information, including date of birth, home address, and Social Security Number, from any public record in the agency’s custody.
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/22rs/sb63.html
Only one Senator, Adrienne Southworth, questioned SB 135 and the posting of personal information on a publicly accessible portal, focusing on Social Security Numbers. She alone voted against SB 135.
The sponsor of SB 63 —Senator Danny Carroll — voted for it, apparently failing to appreciate the irony or satisfied that law enforcement and judicial officers have an opt out.
County clerks apparently support SB 135, but many have expressed concern about the nearly impossible challenges of implementing SB 63. Although SB 135 is an unfunded mandate, it may ease the burden on these clerks, “cutting out the middle man” by reducing the number of people coming to their offices to inspect the recorded instruments onsite and/or the number of requests for copies by mail.
In particular, they express concern about altering public records through redaction of information.
https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/protection-or-logistical-nightmare-kentuc…
But if, as expected, SB 135 passes by a resounding majority, it well create another publicly accessible record containing personally identifiable information that ostensibly puts law enforcement and judicial officers at risk. As noted, they may protect their personally identifiable information from easy public access by notifying the county clerk in any county where they currently reside, or resided in the past, to scrub that information which SB 135, if passed as expected, will require clerks to publish in their new publicly accessible portal.
As for the rest of us, that information —including social security numbers, addresses, dates of birth — will be accessible with a click of a computer button.
This is, of course, the same information lawmakers vigorously argued for protection of in passing 2021’s HB 312, shielding themselves from the open records law in the name of protecting their constituents’ personal information (Social Security Numbers in particular) in communications with those constituents.
The Kentucky Open Government Coalition supports proactive disclosure of nonexempt public records, but questions the sanity of lawmakers who vilify the open records law for purportedly affording predators access to sensitive information through a well established legal process while at the same time creating a shiny new statutory mechanism by which predators can access the same information at the click of a button..
The House of Representatives should slam the brakes on SB 135 — until, at least, lawmakers can ensure that sufficient guardrails are in place to protect personally identifiable information for all.
Otherwise, lawmakers should admit that the only personally identifiable information worthy of “protection” is that of judicial and law enforcement officers under SB 63.
