[FIT] FW:

[SMITH Cy * EISPD GEO]

Most of you have probably heard that OGIC is pursuing data sharing legislation.  The following message was sent out this morning to OGIC and various State agency stakeholders that had asked for specific changes to the legislative concept.

cy

Cy Smith, Oregon State GIO
DAS/EISPD Geospatial Enterprise Office
Secretary, Coalition of Geospatial Organizations (COGO)
Past President, Urban & Regional Info Sys Assoc (URISA)
Past President, Natl States Geographic Info Council (NSGIC)
503-378-6066          http://gis.oregon.gov

From: PETTY Dugan A * EISPD ADMIN
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 8:35 AM
To: SOLLIDAY Louise; ALLEN Patrick; PACK, Barry; COLBERT Debbie L; EVANS Richard; WILLIAMS Mary; SCHERZINGER Jim; MCCONNELL Vicki
Cc: SMITH Cy * EISPD GEO; McSPADEN Sean L * EISPD ADMIN; TAYLOR Marjorie * DO EXEC
Subject:

Attached is a revised draft of the proposed legislative concept 110700/018 dealing with emergency preparedness geospatial data sharing.

We made a number of revisions to the proposed language based on the comments we received. In general we tried to narrow the universe of the data to that needed for public safety or emergency preparedness/response and to make sure that those eligible to receive the data had a  legitimate need for this type of data.

Here is a summary of the specific changes:


1.      The language is more explicit in the type of data that will be shared. It must be, "necessary for public safety, preparedness and/or emergency management and response, for which they are the custodian as per ORS 192.410(1)".  If exempted under ORS 192, then it is not subject to sharing under this LC.

2.     Since this will take more definition, the bill will not be implemented until an administrative rule-making process is completed that will identify the information to be shared and the agencies involved.

3.     We clarified that only public bodies engaged in public safety, emergency management preparedness and emergency management response activities, or public bodies that support them can receive this data.

4.     We did not establish the frequency of data sharing, but included that in Administrative Rule

5.     The language addresses transfer standards.  If there is a state standard set, it must be transferred in that standard, if not the data can be shared in the format that the custodian kept the data.

6.     By limiting the universe of data subject to sharing and by limiting the data transfer to either an adopted state standard, or if no standard the format maintained by the custodian, we believe that agency costs should be reduced.

7.       Clarified that a public body that shares geospatial data with another public body for the purpose of this statute will continue to retain the primary custodian ownership of the data.

We will submit this language on Monday to the Legislative Coordinator.  If you have additional comments or suggested edits, please let us know by 9:00 am Monday morning..

Thank you for your interest and comments.

Dugan A. Petty
State Chief Information Officer
DAS Enterprise Information Strategy & Policy Division
503-378-2128
Data Classification 1 - Published

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/fit/attachments/20120706/9f91ca22/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Proposed Oregon language in  070612 (2).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 16512 bytes
Desc: Proposed Oregon language in  070612 (2).docx
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/fit/attachments/20120706/9f91ca22/attachment.docx>