Indiana Governor Holcomb Vetoes Public Records Search Fee

Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb used his first veto Monday — on a piece of legislation that would have allowed units of government to charge the public up to $20 an hour for producing public records.

In a statement, Holcomb said he understood the intent of the legislation but did not support additional barriers to accessing public documents.

House Enrolled Act 1523 would have allowed an hourly charge to kick in for a records search requiring more than two hours of work. It also required government units to offer electronic versions of documents if requested, which Holcomb supported.

6 Comments

To address the issue that Indiana Governor Holcomb tackled: good for him! We don’t mind paying the fees for a document but in the case of us genealogists, charging by the hour to copy and certify the documents is something we could not afford on a personal level, unless we were being paid to do a family history. I was hit with the reality of a Circuit Clerk’s office charging fees in addition to the documents while I was in Duluth, MN seeking estate papers for a deceased veteran. I merely wanted his estate papers. They quoted a fee for each document and in the end they were charging for EACH page. A page does not represent a document if there is more than one page to the pleading that was filed. As a 50 year legal secretary, I do know the difference. When I returned to pick up what I thought was a few pages, they wanted over $300. Short ending, I left. Every Circuit Clerk has a regulated fee to charge. Some counties in other states might charge $2.00 while in another area for the same type document, it might be $15.00. If an hourly fee were to be demanded, it becomes excessive.

Like

I have tried to order records from Indianas neighboring Illinois, and have found that unless one knows the records are what you need in advance, you would have to settle for ordering unknown records that may or may not be what you sought. So glad for Indiana’s governor to have have waived this fee, which would have chilled more research

Like

The link in your newsletter is not to the article. Perhaps the article has been removed from the paper’s site.

Like

    —> Perhaps the article has been removed from the paper’s site.

    I am not surprised. That is very common. Many newspaper web sites publish articles, leave them visible for a day or perhaps a few days, then remove them.

    Like

–>”I am not surprised. That is very common. Many newspaper web sites publish articles, leave them visible for a day or perhaps a few days, then remove them.”
And/or to be able to require you to sign up/sign in, and pay a ‘fee’ for access to the desired article as many newspapers are doing these days. It seems so many have their hand out in order to obtain info that could just be available to search and save or print for yourself. One really has to wonder what the ‘real’ end profit is to such companies for doing things this way where they charge for information, even to the point of not even letting you ‘see’ if what you are looking for is the right thing before they want you to plunk down your money. Too much money-grubbing these days, sadly, over and above the costs of providing said information. How does $2.95 for one article from a newspaper site – not even making so that you can know it is the info you are looking for – helping anyone but their own pocket?

Like

Leave a Reply

Name and email address are required. Your email address will not be published.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <pre> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> 

%d bloggers like this: