Minutes of Meeting on

November 19, 2001

(As approved by Board)

The meeting of the Colorado Task Force on Information Technology ("Task Force") was called to order by Secretary of State Donetta Davidson, at 2:00 p.m. on November 19, 2001 at the offices of McKenna & Cuneo, L.L.P., Denver, Colorado.

Present were Secretary of State Donetta Davidson, Al Dominguez, Bill Mitchell, Amy Redfern, Ron Binz, Senator Ken Gordon, Representative Matt Smith, Mary Pat Adams, Sara Rosene, Kathryn M. Krause, Joe Dickerson, and Dave Baker by proxy. Also present were Dana Williams, Administrative Assistant to Ms. Davidson and I. Thomas Bieging, counsel to the Privacy Task Force. The meeting was recorded by tape.

Ms. Davidson opened the meeting and requested approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of October 15, 2001. Upon motion duly seconded and carried, the Minutes of the Meeting of October 15, 2001 were approved as prepared.

Ms. Davidson reviewed with the members of the Task Force the draft Report circulated previously to the Task Force members. Copies of the Report also had been provided to members of the public who were present at the meeting. The purpose of the November meeting was to approve the final Report which will be submitted to the Legislature on December 1, 2001.

The Task Force proceeded to discuss various aspects of the Report. Comments from the Task Force members and the public included:

1. The Report was amended to include its due date of December 1, 2001, and to refer to the "people" of the State of Colorado, rather than the "citizens". "People" was thought to be a broader term and consistent with the intent of the Task Force.

2. The Task Force discussed the provision of paragraph III (A). Among the laws thought to be appropriate to reference were relevant criminal justice laws, such as the Criminal Justice Open Records Act. That language was included.

3. Paragraph III. (B) was amended to indicate that while the regulation of the Internet is difficult, it was not impossible.

4. Considerable discussion followed regarding paragraph III (G). The discussion focused upon the level of consumer demand for protection through legislation or regulation. The conclusion by the Task Force was that consumer demand for such protection varies over time. This language was included in the report. It was additionally discussed whether consumers consider that benefits outweigh liabilities in the development of the Internet. Since clear evidence of this point had not been presented to the Task Force, that language was deleted.

5. The Task Force considered Recommendation A and requested the following changes:

a. Language was to be inserted to make clear that the recommendations of the Task Force pertain only to governmental entities.

b. Concern was expressed by members of the Task Force and the public regarding whether the State's Privacy Policy should require that PII be disclosed only if there was an affirmative requirement by statute, regulation, rule or written policy. Considerable discussion occurred regarding the various interests of agencies and the public relating to the disclosure of PII. It was ultimately concluded that the State's Privacy Policy should prohibit governmental agencies from sharing PII among other agencies or third parties when required by statute, regulation, rule or written and published policy. The language adopted in the Report allowed flexibility to governmental entities, after consideration of a Privacy Policy, to adopt appropriate regulations, rules or written policies depending upon the circumstances appropriate to the governmental entity. The recommendation was approved and incorporated in the Report.

c. Discussion followed regarding the Fair Information Practice Principles, particularly the Choice Principle. The phrase "if appropriate" was inserted after "options". The approval of this language was approved on a vote of seven in favor and two opposed.

d. The Task Force also discussed the access principle and agreed upon an amendment adding as an option, the opportunity to participate in correcting information.

6. The Task Force then discussed Recommendation B. The discussion included comments upon the proposed language of Recommendation B and whether it reflected too narrow a view of the interrelation between state and federal legislation. Mr. Ron Binz proposed alternative language for Recommendation B which, after amendment, was unanimously adopted by the Task Force.

At the conclusion of these discussions, the Task Force requested that Mr. Bieging prepare an amended copy of the Report and circulate it to all Task Force members by e-mail. All Task Force members will vote by e-mail and Mr. Bieging will reflect their vote in the introduction to the Report. Prior to concluding the meeting, Ms. Davidson thanked all the members of the Task Force for their efforts on behalf of the State of Colorado.

There being no further business to come before the Task Force, the meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.