Public Information Act - Data Manipulation
HB 304 amends Maryland’s Public Information Act to clarify how custodians must respond to requests for electronic public records when some level of data manipulation is needed. The bill states that if a public record already exists in a searchable and analyzable electronic format, a custodian’s act of providing part of that record in such a format does not count as creating a new public record, even if the request requires data compilation, extraction, querying, statistical aggregation, or other manipulation that the database program can already perform.
The bill also preserves existing limits on disclosure. It allows custodians to remove metadata from electronic documents, but it does not require reconstruction of records that are no longer available electronically, does not require agencies to create or program new records, and does not force disclosure in a format that would compromise security or proprietary software. The measure takes effect October 1, 2026.
HB 304 would amend Section 4-205(c) of the General Provisions Article governing the Public Information Act. Its main legal effect is to clarify that certain database operations performed to satisfy a records request do not transform the response into the creation of a new public record, which may narrow disputes over whether agencies must provide extracted or aggregated electronic data. The bill affects custodians of public records statewide, especially agencies that maintain searchable databases and receive requests for electronic records in analyzable formats.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded opposition or vote history in the provided materials, the bill appears to be framed as a technical clarification rather than a controversial policy change. The sponsor’s approach suggests support for greater access to electronic records while preserving agency limits and data-security protections. No committee testimony or votes are provided, so there is no documented public sentiment beyond the bill’s neutral, administrative tone.
The likely points of contention are the scope of agency obligations and the line between providing existing data and creating a new record. Requesters may favor a broad reading that requires agencies to use database functions such as querying, extraction, and statistical aggregation to fulfill requests, while custodians may argue that such requests can become burdensome or cross into record creation. Another possible issue is whether the bill sufficiently protects confidential information, proprietary software, and system integrity while expanding access to electronic records.