Fiscal Note & Local Impact Statement
123 rd General Assembly of Ohio
·
No
direct fiscal effect on the state.
|
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT |
FY 2000 |
FY 2001 |
FUTURE YEARS |
|||
|
Counties |
||||||
|
Revenues |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
|||
|
Expenditures |
Increase, potentially up to $1.0 million statewide |
Increase, potentially up
to $2.0 million statewide |
Increase, potentially up
to $2.0 million statewide |
|||
Note: For most local governments, the fiscal year is the calendar year. The school district fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.
·
The
bill will have an impact on domestic relations courts due to the programmatic
changes for hard copy and computer generated records that would be necessary to
insure only privileged access to certain personal information. It is possible
that each county domestic relations court would need one additional full-time
file clerk staff (at approximately $20,000/year plus 25% for benefits =
$25,000) for hard copy record maintenance and organization, which could result
in an annual increase in county expenditures statewide of up to $2.0 million.
·
The
bill will most likely have a minor impact upon probate courts due to the
programmatic changes that would be necessary to insure only privileged access
to the SSNs on marriage licenses. The nature and extent of these changes may
vary by jurisdiction depending on current administrative and programmatic
practices. LBO assumes, however, most of these changes would be one-time in
nature resulting in, at most, a potential minimal increase in county
expenditures for the first year of implementation.
|
|
The bill repeals the
requirement that a marriage license issued must include the SSN (SSN) of each
party to the marriage and specifically prohibits the display of the SSN on the
marriage license issued. The bill requires a probate court, except under
certain circumstances, to delete SSNs from records pertaining to marriage
licenses when those records are made available for public inspection.
In addition, the bill
requires the domestic relations division of a court to delete or remove SSNs,
dates of birth, bank account, debit card, and credit card numbers from case
records so that these items are not available for public inspection.
Existing Law
Section 3101.05 of the Ohio
Revised Code specifies that each marriage license issued must include the SSN
of each party to the marriage, as stated on the marriage license application.
Under the Public Records Law (section 149.43 of the Ohio Revised Code)
generally, all probate courts, upon request, must furnish copies of records
pertaining to the issuance of marriage licenses. Currently, records of marriage
licenses issued reveal the SSN of the parties to the marriage.
Under
Federal Law, the SSNs of the parties to the marriage do not need to be included
on the marriage license issued. Parties who choose not to include SSNs on the
marriage license can do so under federal law by signing a disclaimer through a
probate court.
The existing Domestic Relations Law requires that the record of any action instituted under Chapter 3105. of the Revised Code include the SSNs of both parties. These actions include divorce, annulment, legal separation, and dissolution of marriage. Under the Public Records Law, domestic relations court records are available for public inspection.
The bill’s provisions have no direct fiscal
effect on state government.
Probate Courts. Based on discussions with probate courts and
county judges, the bill will have a minor impact upon probate courts due to the
programmatic changes that would be necessary to insure only privileged access
to the SSNs on marriage licenses. Several probate courts stated computers are
used to generate marriage license information, some of which are accessible to
the public. In addition, marriage applications and hard copy records of
marriage licenses display SSNs of the parties of the marriage and these records
are open to public inspection. The programmatic changes made necessary by the
bill may vary by jurisdiction, the full extent of which will depend on current
administrative and programmatic practice.
In order to fulfill the SSN
access prohibition, probate courts may need to take the following actions: 1)
change current marriage license applications to make SSNs optional, 2) change
computer programming to “hide” or otherwise remove SSNs from the public
accessible computer screens, 3) change computer programming to generate
marriage licenses without the display of the parties’ SSNs, and 4) remove SSNs
from any hard copies of a marriage licenses.
LBO assumes most of these changes would involve a one-time cost resulting
in a potential minimal increase in county expenditures for the first year of
implementation.
Currently,
Henschen Associates provides computer services to approximately half of the
state’s 88 probate courts. According to the manager of Henschen Associates, the
maximum total cost to reconfigure the databases to hide SSNs on all of the
probate courts they service would be up to $3,000. If LBO assumes the scope of
the changes that the other one-half of the state’s probate courts will have to
undertake would be fairly similar, then the total one-time cost statewide to
implement the bill’s provisions relative to SSNs and marriage licenses would be
up to $6,000.
Domestic
Relations Courts. In order to fulfill the bill’s requirements, domestic
relations courts will need to do the following: 1) remove or “hide” SSNs, dates
of birth, bank account, debit, and credit card numbers from any hard copies in
the case file, and 2) change computer programming to block the above list of
personal information from the computer terminals accessible to the public.
Based on discussions with
domestic relations courts and county clerks of courts, the bill will have an
impact on domestic relations courts due to the programmatic changes for hard
copy records that would be necessary to insure only privileged access to
certain personal information. Several
clerk of courts stated that all filings in domestic relations court cases
include the information listed above and are accessible to the public.
According
to the Ohio Courts Summary, there were a total of 77, 318 new cases statewide
filed in Domestic Relations Courts and Divisions in 1998. LBO assumes that the bill’s requirements
would involve hand-changing case filing and records to make SSN, DOB, and
account numbers inaccessible by the public. Several courts have stated that the
bill would involve hiring additional staff to create and reorganize the current
file system, which would involve creating two separate files (a court file and
a public file) for each new case.
If a public record request were submitted for past years’ case filings, the court would need to remove the personal information from the files on a case-by-case request. This would involve staff training and implementing programmatic changes to determine the pieces of information that cannot be accessed by the public and making copies of the file. The bill does not apply to certain privileged persons (law enforcement, child support enforcement, and the party to which the record pertains to) and, as a result, a form for identification purposes may need to be created to differentiate between persons who are exempt from the bill’s requirements and the general public.
In addition, several
domestic relations court staffers stated that computers are used to generate
case information, some of which are accessible to the public. According to two
court information management system vendors, Henschen and Associates and
Manatron, the maximum cost to reconfigure the databases to “hide” certain
personal information would be approximately $300 to $500 per court. If LBO
assumes the scope of the changes that the other domestic relations courts, not
using the above vendors, will have to undertake would be fairly similar, then
the total one-time cost statewide to implement the bill’s provisions relative
to SSNs, dates of birth, and account numbers on computer terminals would range
between $21,900 and $36,500.
At this point in time, without implementation, the exact costs associated with the bill’s requirements are difficult to estimate. If LBO assumes that each domestic relations court statewide would need one additional full-time file clerk staff (at approximately $20,000/year plus 25% for benefits = $25,000) for hard copy record maintenance and organization, then the potential additional annual staff costs to counties statewide could be up to $2.2 million.
q LBO staff: Amy Frankart,
Budget/Policy Analyst
\\Budget_office\isis_vol1.lbo\FN123\HB0519HR.doc