WPC02 o{(wayU߁`:`\`KK؟4+g$f͠dMƉS]Q`Cjp@+$c P92Ѽx_˟/ɖmKv""HoW )1iV3*0aEdT|O?VAq vb[EoW闳u|Sm9/s3"9 "KNHEx?ne5 a-6FY@N4"`6HM/8}QU}yzM43~ֻ2F$ 'm6,m_&4>l*I`Mz2QGwLPL@:/ 8+j?J`|;Vd$$DK?AԌGBXޕk ⒎hQScf/8_ (⽔qؘ#E3%*hKR\|Á;# :bE %M 0(Sw@{4U :U :RU:Z 0r 0 D K> U: [  U:)cU:A{MTU:sU:dU:N 1m B 0cU:uSU:!d.*jx` `@E"` 8ttxPZ  tߛ-$@)DATNASHVILLEXXX XԈ  М@NN$D(HEARDATSHELBYVILLE)̛̜ `     h      p FORPUBLICATION  Z ~ THETENNESSEAN,adivisionof  )  p Filed:November16,1998  , P GannettSatelliteInformation    )  < Network,Inc.,andFRANK    )  "  SUTHERLAND,   h     ) p DAVIDSONCHANCERY    `     h     )̜ `  Appellants, h     )    `     h     )̜Vs. `     h     ) |   `     h     ) p HON.ELLENHOBBSLYLE, b  ELECTRICPOWERBOARDOF    ) p   CHANCELLOR Hl NASHVILLE,   h     ) .R  `     h     ) p  8  `  Appellee. h     ) p NO.01$$S $ $019709CH00181    XXXXForAppellants:   h      p ForAppellee: x М AlfredH.Knight   h      p LarryStewart h WILLIS&KNIGHT   h      p CharlesW.Cook X| Nashville,Tennessee h      p NancyA.Vincent Hl  `     h      p STOKES&BARTHOLOMEW,P.A. `     h      p Nashville,Tennessee `     h  `     h      p EugeneWard `     h      p N.E.S.GeneralCounsel `     h      p Nashville,Tennessee#XXX X #  XXXXForAmicusCuriae,Tennessee   p ForAmicusCuriae,Tennessee '!% PressAssociation: h      p MunicipalElectricPower #XXX X # ("&  XXXXRichardL.Hollow   h      p Association: #XXX X*# t)#'  XXXXNathanD.Rowell   h      p FrankS.King,Jr. d*$( WATSON,HOLLOW&REEVES     p KING&BALLOW#XXX X# T+x%) Knoxville,Tennessee h      p Nashville,Tennessee D,h&*  `     h  XXXX#XXX X#  XXXX AX X@&DOPINION  0*/ # XX A#COURTOFAPPEALSREVERSED;   p      x #XXX X# 615 REMANDEDTOTRIALCOURT     p      x ANDERSON,C.J.  726( $$$$7  XXdXXd7 ` Wegrantedthisappealtoaddresstwoquestionsoffirstimpressionunderthe  TennesseePublicRecordsAct:$$first,$$whetheragovernmentagencyshouldberequiredtodiscloseitscustomernames,addresses,andtelephonenumbersasapublicrecord,eventhoughitdidnotmaintaintheinformationinitscomputerintheexactformatinwhichithadbeenrequested;andsecond,whetherthesamegovernmentagencymayrequirepaymentofcostsincurredindisclosingtheinformationandthecostofnotifyingitscustomersthattheinformationhadbeenrequested. #  1          ` Thetrialcourtfoundthatthegovernmentagencyinthiscase,theElectricPowerBoardofNashvilleandtheNashvilleElectric$$Service,$$wasrequiredtodisclosethenames,addresses,andtelephonenumbersofitscustomersasrequestedbyThe  Tennessean,aNashvillenewspaper,butthattheagencycouldrequirepaymentof  costsincurredindisclosingtheinformationandthecostofnotifyingitscustomersthattheinformationhadbeenrequested.TheCourtofAppealsreversed,concludingthattheinformationrequestedbyTheTennesseanwasnota recordkeptbytheagency.  0 Thecourt,however,upheldthedisclosureandnotificationcostscharged$$bytheagency.$$ ` WeagreewiththetrialcourtsfindingthattheinformationsoughtbyThe t$" TennesseanisapublicrecordunderthePublicRecordsActandconcludeitis D&h $ consistentwiththelegislativemandateofproviding thefullestpossiblepublicaccesstopublicrecords.Tenn.CodeAnn.$$107505(d)(1992).$$WefurtherconcludethatthePublicRecordsActauthorizedtheagencytorequirepaymentforthecostsofdisclosingtherecordsbutnotforthecostsofnotifyingcustomersthatarequesthadbeenmadefortheinformation.Tenn.CodeAnn.$$107506(a)(1992$$&Supp.$$1998).$$Accordingly,wereversetheCourtofAppealsjudgmentandremandthecasetothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings.@kk*D BACKGROUND  t606  ` TheTennesseananditseditor,FrankSutherland,soughttoobtainfromthe  ElectricPowerBoardofNashvilleandtheNashvilleElectricService$$(hereinafter NES)a$$listofnames,addresses,andtelephonenumbersofitscustomers.$$The$$requestwasrefusedonthegroundthat$$NES$$didnotpossessarecordcontainingthespecificinformationsought. ` VictorHatridge,VicePresidentandChiefInformationOfficerforNES,statedinanaffidavitthatNESdidnothavea listordatacompilationthatcontainedonlytheinformationsoughtbyTheTennessean,norhaditeverneededsuchalisttoconduct , business.$$He$$indicatedthattheclosestcompilationNEShadfoundwasamicrofichereportthatwasgeneratedmonthlyandcontainedthenamesandaddressesofservicemeterlocations.HealsostatedthatNEShadsolicitedtelephonenumbersfromitscustomerstoinstallanInteractiveVoiceResponsesystem;approximately$$ninety$$percent$$(90%)of$$thenumbershadbeenaccumulated,butnodistinctionhadbeenmadebetweenpublishedandunpublishednumbers.AccordingtotheaffidavitofWendallWheeler,anemployeewiththecontractorofNESsinformationsystems,thecostofwritingacomputerprogramtoaddthetelephonenumberstothelistofnamesandaddresseswas$4,500. ` HatridgestatedthatNESalsohadaMasterTapethatcontainednotonlytheinformationrequestedbyTheTennesseanbutalsovariousadditionalinformationsuch +%* asservicenumbers,customernumbers,locations,criticalhealthindicators,anddistributionnumbers.HatridgesaidthatthecostofcomputertimetoproduceacopyoftheMasterTapewas$100,andthecosttomodifytheMasterTapetofittheformatrequestedbyTheTennesseanwasapproximately$1,800. 2,2  ` TherecordreflectsthatNESgaveTheTennesseananestimateofthecosts `606 incurredindisclosingtheinformationaswellascoststotaling$86,400fornotifyingits292,000customersthatarequestforinformationhadbeenmade.Thecustomer 94: notificationpolicy,whichwasadoptedbyNESonDecember21,1994,aroseoutofconcernfortheprivacyandphysicalsafetyofits$$customers$$and$$requires$$individualnoticetobesentbyfirstclassmailtoacustomerwhoseaccounthasbeenaccessedbyathirdparty.$$$$$($ #  2      $$ @ d @S S D TRIALCOURTSFINDINGSANDCONCLUSIONS     ` Afterconsideringtheevidenceandargumentsoftheparties,thetrialcourtmadefindingsoffactasfollows:1b   ` 1ba(0   ThatNESdidnotpossessasingledocumentcontainingthenames, <` addresses,andtelephonenumbersofitscustomersasrequestedby$$The$$ "F $$Tennessean;$$1ba((݌, % % Ќ  8 ` 1b  1b*0 ` (#` (#  ThatNESdidpossessamicrofichereportcontainingcustomer  namesandaddressesofservicelocations;1b* *݌  (# (# Ќ  8 ` 1b  1b+0 ` (#` (#  Thatthecostofwritingacomputerprogramtoaddtelephone  numberstothelistofcustomersnamesandaddresseswasapproximately$4,500;1b+3+݌  (# (# Ќ  8 ` 1b  1bQ,0 ` (#` (#  ThatNESdidpossessaseparateMasterTapewithallthe B informationsoughtaswellasinformationthatwasnotsought;1bQ,l,݌  (# (# Ќ  8 ` 1b  1bv-0 ` (#` (#  ThatthecostofcopyingtheMasterTapewas$100;1bv--݌  (# (# Ќ  8 ` 1b  1bI.0 ` (#` (#  ݀Thatthecostofwritingaprogramtoextracttherequested "  informationfromtheMasterTapewas$$$1,800;$$ #  3      ׀and1bI.d.݌#! (# (# Ќ  8 ` 1b  1b/0 ` (#` (#  ThatthecostofnotifyingNESscustomersbyfirstclassmailthat N%r# informationhadbeenrequestedwas$86,400.1b//݌  (# (# Ќ   ` ThetrialcourtdecidedthatNESwasrequiredtodisclosetherequestedinformation,stating:$$8 `  In$$that$$ Public$$$$Record$$$$$$isdefinedtoencompass$$ other$$material,regardlessofphysicalformorcharacteristicsmadeorreceived...inconnectionwiththetransactionofofficial$$business,$$$$$$combinedwiththestatutoryrequirementthattheCourtmustconstrue$$ access$$togivethefullestpossiblepublicaccesstopublicrecords,andthattheburdenof provingjustificationfordenialofaccessisontheofficialdenyingaccess, 1,1 theCourtfindsthatNEShasfailedtocarryitsburdenandthattheinformationrequestedinthiscaseisapublicrecord. ` (#` (#  ThetrialcourtalsoupheldthecostschargedbyNESforproducingtherequestedinformation,aswellasthecostofnotifyingitscustomers,relyingonastatutoryprovisionallowingthelawfulcustodianofrecords toadoptandenforcereasonablerulesgoverningthemakingofsuchextracts,copies,photographsorphotostatsofsuchrecords.Tenn.CodeAnn.107506(a).ThecourtthenconcludedthatNESsproductionandnotificationcoststotaling$91,619wereappropriate.$$$$$.$ #  4      $$ p  @#D COURTOFAPPEALSRULING  ,  ` Bothsidesappealedthetrialcourtsruling.NESarguedthatthetrialcourterredinrequiringittoproduceas$$apublic$$recordinformationthatwasnotcontainedinitscomputerintheexactformatrequestedbyTheTennessean.Thenewspaper l concededthatitshouldpaythecostofproducingtherecordsbutobjectedtothepaymentofnotificationcosts. ` Inreversingthetrialcourtsjudgment,theCourtofAppealsconcludedthata naturalandordinarymeaningof recordmeant informationgatheredororganizedonaparticularsubjectandinaparticularformat.SinceitwasundisputedthatNESdidnotpossessalistcontainingonlyalistofitscustomernames,addresses,andtelephonenumbersintheparticularformatrequestedbyTheTennessean,the )#( $$appellatecourt$$heldthatNESwasnotrequiredtocreatea newrecordtosatisfytherequest.The$$appellatecourt$$alsoupheldtherightofNEStodemandpaymentunderitscustomernotificationpolicy. ` WegrantedthisappealtoreviewthesequestionsoffirstimpressionundertheTennesseePublicRecordsAct. 4.4 Ї@JJ+D ANALYSIS   @&D PublicRecordsAct   Ѐ ` WefirstreviewtheprovisionsoftheTennesseePublicRecordsActandthis t  Courtsprevious$$interpretations$$oftheAct.Likeeverystateandthefederalgovernment,Tennesseehaslegislationallowingcitizenstoinspectcertainpublicrecords.$$$$$ $ #  5      $$TheTennesseePublicRecordsActprovides,inpart:   8 ` (a)Allstate,countyandmunicipalrecordsandallrecordsmaintainedbytheTennesseeperformingartscentermanagementcorporation...shallatalltimes,duringbusinesshours,beopenforpersonalinspectionbyanycitizenofTennessee,andthoseinchargeofsuchrecordsshallnotrefusesuchrightofinspectiontoanycitizen,unlessotherwiseprovidedbystatelaw. ` (#` (# Tenn.CodeAnn.107503$$(1992&Supp.1998).$$$$ #  6      $$   ` TheActdefines$$ public$$$$record$$as alldocuments,papers,letters,maps,books,photographs,microfilms,electronicdataprocessingfilesandoutput,films,soundrecordings,orothermaterial,regardlessofphysicalformorcharacteristicsmadeorreceivedpursuanttolaworordinanceorinconnectionwiththetransactionofofficialbusinessbyanygovernmentalagency.Tenn.CodeAnn.$$107301(6)(1992).$$ThoserecordswhicharetobekeptconfidentialandnotdisclosedarespecificallysetoutintheAct.Tenn.CodeAnn.107504(1992&Supp.$$1998).$$񀀀 ` IfdeniedaccesstopublicrecordsunderthisAct,eitherinwholeorinpart,acitizenis entitledtopetitionforaccesstoanysuchrecordandtoobtainjudicialreviewoftheactionstakentodenytheaccess.Tenn.CodeAnn.107505(a).Theburdenofproofforjustifyingnondisclosureordemonstratingthatarecordisstatutorilyexemptfromdisclosurerestswiththeagencythathasdeniedaccess.Tenn.CodeAnn.$$107505(c).$$Thelegislaturehasexpresslystatedthatinreviewingapetitionforaccess,the 3-3 courtsmustconstruetheAct soastogivethefullestpossiblepublicaccesstopublicrecords.Tenn.CodeAnn.$$107505(d).$$񀀀 ` Ourrecentcasesreflectthebroadconstructionof recordundertheActandaconsistentadherencetothepolicyoffullpublicaccess.See,e.g.,Memphis$$Publg$$Co.  0 v.CityofMemphis,871S.W.2d681(Tenn.$$1994)(depositions$$takeninbankruptcy   proceedinginwhichthecityandcountywerepartieswerepublicrecords);Griffinv.   CityofKnoxville,821S.W.2d921(Tenn.$$1991)(the$$PublicRecordsActis anall p  encompassinglegislativeattempttocoverallprintedmaterialcreatedorreceivedbygovernmentinitsofficialcapacity.);Memphis$$Publg$$Co.v.Holt,710S.W.2d513 , (Tenn.$$1986)(closed$$investigativereportoftheMemphisPoliceDepartmentwasapublicrecord).InHolt,thisCourtspecificallyrejectedaninvitationtojudiciallycreatea  publicpolicyexceptiontotheAct,reaffirmingthat:8 ` ItistheprerogativeofthelegislaturetodeclarethepolicyoftheStatetouchingthegeneralwelfare.$$Andwherethelegislaturespeaksupona$$particular$$subject,itsutteranceisthepublicpolicy$$...upon$$thatsubject. ` (#` (# Id.at$$517(citationomitted).$$ "   ` Inthepresentcase,weareconfrontedwithanissueoffirstimpressioninTennessee,thatis,theapplicationofthePublicRecordsActtoinformationthatisstoredandmaintainedviacomputerizedtechnology.Ourinterpretationwillhavebroadapplicationbecauseoftheincreasinguseofsuchtechnologytostorepublicinformation.Asonecommentatorhassaid:8 ` Overthepastdecadeormore,governmentcomputerusehasincreaseddramatically.Injustafewyears,someagencieshavegonefromfilingpaperrecordsonseeminglyendlessrowsofshelvesinhugestorageroomstokeepingmostofthoserecordsincomputers.$$.$$..Asyearshavepassedandgovernmentshavegrown,sohastheamountofrecordsgovernmentskeep.Inmanycasesithasbecomeimpractical,ifnotimpossible,tocontinuetohandlepaperrecords.Ittakestoomuchspaceandtoomanyemployeestokeeptrackofpaperrecords.Atthesametime,thecostofbasiccomputertechnologyhasplummeted,makingcomputersaffordabletoeventhesmallestgovernmentalunits. ` (#` (#  94: $$MatthewD.Bunker,$$$$Access$$toGovernmentHeldInformationintheComputerAge:  ApplyingLegalDoctrinetoEmergingTechnology,20Fla.St.U.L.Rev.$$543,559$$  (1993). ` AsBunkersuggests,amoredifficultissuewithregardtopublicaccessisgeneratedfromthenumerousformatsinwhichelectronicinformationmaybestoredandretrievedfromcomputersystems.Forexample,heasks:8 ` Arecomputerizedpublicrecordssubjecttothesame$$degreeofaccess$$asrecordsintheirtraditionalforms?Whodecidestheforminwhichcomputerizedrecordsaremadeavailabletothepublic?Isacomputertapeitselfapublicrecordandsubjecttocopying,orcanagenciesmeettheirstatutoryobligationsbyprovidingpapercopiesofinformation?Arecomputerprogramsthemselves,asdistinctfromtheinformationstoredincomputers,publicrecords? ` (#` (# Id.at568;seealso$$HenryD.Perritt,Jr.,$$$$$$ElectronicAcquisitionandReleaseofFederal l AgencyInformation:AnalysisofRecommendationsAdoptedbytheAdministrativeConferenceoftheUnitedStates,$$41$$Admin.$$L.Rev.253,295(1989).Thefollowing ( exampleisillustrative:8 ` $$[A$$$$]$$journalistmightwanttosearchacourthousecomputerdatabasetodeterminewhetheracertainjudgehasbeentoughorlenientinsentencingdrunkdrivers.Butratherthanreviewingeverydrunkdrivingcase,thejournalistmaywanttosortthecasesbythejudgesname.Sothejournalistmightasktherecordscustodiantomodifythe$$databasemanagement$$systemorapplicationsprogramtoallowthesearch.Some ($"& usersbelievethattotakefulladvantageofthenewelectronicinformationtechnology,agenciesshouldprovidethistypeofreprogramming.Somerecordscustodians,however,havearguedthatsuchsearchescreatenewrecords,somethingnotrequiredundermostfreedomofinformationlaws.Inaddition,custodianshavesaid,thecostandthetimeittakestoreprogramare$$prohibitive.d-',` (#` (# $$Bunker,supra,at561(emphasisadded). 0:*/  ` WhileitruledinfavorofNES,theCourtofAppealsdidnotdirectlyaddresstheseissues.Itinsteadnarrowlyinterpretedthedefinitionofa recordinTenn.CodeAnn.107503(a)as informationgatheredororganizedonaparticularsubjectandinaparticularformatandnottheinformationordataitself.Sincethepartiesagreedthat 9639 NESdidnotpossesstherequestedmaterialintheparticularformatrequestedbyThe  Tennessean,i.e.,customernames,addressesandtelephonenumbers,theappellate  courtreasonedthatthePublicRecordsActdidnotrequireNEStoalteritsexistingrecordsortocreateanewrecordattherequestofacitizen.The$$appellatecourt$$alsoconcludedthattheinformationrequestedbyTheTennesseanwasnot madeor  0 receivedpursuanttolaworordinanceorinconnectionwiththetransactionofofficialbusiness.$$$$SeeTenn.CodeAnn.107301(6).$$    ` WebelievetheCourtofAppealsemphasisonthephysicalformatofarecordisinconsistentwiththelanguageinthePublicRecordsActanditspolicyoffulldisclosure.ItisclearthatthelegislatureintendedthatthePublicRecordsActapplytocomputerrecordsbydefininga recordtoinclude electronicdataprocessingfilesandoutput.$$Id.Moreover,arecordasdefinedintheActalsoincludes othermaterial,regardlessof l physicalformorcharacteristics.Id.A record,therefore,isbroadlydefinedbythe 8\ legislatureanddoesnotconsistofaparticularphysicalformatorform.$$$$&$$$"$ #  7      כ$$ (  ` Inaddition,althoughfewcourtshaveaddressedthepreciseissuepresentedinthiscase,severalhave$$previously$$analyzedtheformatissueandheldthattheparticularformatofarecordisnotdispositiveofwhetheritmustbedisclosedtothepublic. ` Forexample,aFloridaappellatecourtconsideredtheformatissueinSeiglev. )#( Barry,422So.2d63(Fla.$$Dist.Ct.App.$$1982).Accesswassoughttopublicrecords +%* maintainedon$$computer,$$andpaymentwasofferedforaprogramthatwouldproducetherecordsinthedesiredformat.Thecourtbeganitsanalysisbyobservingthat there$$canbe$$nodoubtthatinformationstoredonacomputerisasmuchapublicrecordasawrittenpageinabookoratabulationinafilestoredina$$fil$$ing$$cabinet.$$Id.at65.The$$ 2,2 courtalsoexplainedthat alloftheinformationinthecomputer,notmerelythatwhicha 4.4 particularprogramaccesses,shouldbeavailableforexaminationandcopyinginkeepingwiththepublicpolicyunderlyingtherighttoknowstatutes.$$Id.$$   ` Thecourtthenturnedto themoreinsidiousquestionofwhetherthepublicmayrequireinformationcontainedinpublicrecordstobemadeavailableforinspectionandcopying$$in$$aparticular$$format.$$$$Id.(emphasis$$inoriginal).Afterdiscussingthe   competinginterestsbetweenthepublicsrightofaccesstoinformationinameaningfulformatandtheburdenonanagencytocomplywithrequestsforinformation,thecourtheldthatanagencynotonlymustallowaccesstocomputerizedrecordsthroughtheuseofitsexistingprograms,butalsomustcreateanewprogramtoaccesspublicrecordsincircumstanceswhere$$ available$$programsdonotaccess$$all$$ofthepublic  recordsstoredinthecomputersdatabank.Id.at$$6667$$$$(emphasis$$inoriginal).The  $$court$$remandedthecaseforahearingontheseissues. ` TheIllinoisSupremeCourtconsideredthesameissueandreachedasimilarconclusioninHamerv.Lentz,547N.E.2d191(Ill.1989).There,theplaintiffs   requestedinformationfromtheGeneralAssemblyRetirementSystem,whichincludedthelengthofserviceandthetotalpensionofallformerGeneralAssemblymembers.Thedefendantrefusedtodisclosetheinformation,arguingthatitwasnotrequiredtogothroughitsrecordsandcreateanewdocument.TheIllinoisSupremeCourtrejectedthisargumentbysaying:8 ` [T]hedefendantspositionseemstobethatifinformationislocatedintwodifferentplaces,producingthatinformationinvolvesthecreationofanewrecord.Suchapositionissupportedneitherbylegalauthoritynorbylogic.$$ ` (#` (# 8 `  We$$concludethattheappellatecourtcorrectlyruledthat$$defendant[s]$$mustdisclosealloftherequestedinformation. ` (#` (# Id.at194.The$$court$$alsosaidthatifnecessarythedefendantwasrequiredtocreatea 4.4 computerprogramthatwouldgeneratetherequestedinformationontohardcopy.Id.at `606  195.SeealsoFamilyLifeLeaguev.$$Department$$!$O!$"$o"$f$$Pub.$$Aid,493N.E.2d1054(Ill. ,8P28 1986)(defendantwasorderedtocreateaspecialcomputerprogramtodeletetheexemptedinformation).  ` TheKansasSupremeCourtconsideredtheissueofconfidentialinformationinStateexrel.Stephanv.Harder,641P.2d366(Kan.1982).Theplaintiffssoughtnon  0 exemptmedicalinformationfromtheSecretaryofSocialandRehabilitativeServices.Thedefendantasserted,andthetestimonyshowed,thattheinformationsoughtwascontainedintheagencyscomputersystem,butwascombinedwithotherinformationthatcontainedconfidentialinformation.Theevidencealsoshowedthatacomputerprogramcouldbedesignedtoextractthenonexemptmaterialfromtheconfidentialinformation.Thetrialcourtruledthattheagencyhadnodutytosegregatethedisclosablematerial,buttheKansasSupremeCourtreversed:8 ` Weholdthatthe[publicrecords]actimpliesadutyupontheagencytodeleteconfidentialandnondisclosableinformationfromthatwhichmaybedisclosed,andthustocarryouttheactspurposeofmakingavailableforpublicinspectionalldisclosablepartsofthepublicrecord.Werethisnotso,anyrecordwhichanagencyisrequired$$bylawto$$$$keepcould$$berenderedinaccessibletopublicscrutinybyincludingconfidentialmaterialtherein. ` (#` (# 8 ` $$ The$$disclosureoftheinformationsought,eitherbydeletingconfidentialinformationfromtheexistingrecordorbyextractingtherequestedinformationtherefrom,doesnotrequirethecreationofanewpublicrecord. ` (#` (# Id.at374. ( #'  ` Finally,inaConnecticutcase,Maherv.Freedom$$of$$$$Info.$$$$Commn,$$472A.2d321 ~,&+ (Conn.1984),avarietyofinformationwasrequestedregardingmedicationprescribedtostateMedicaidrecipients.Theinformationwasmaintainedoncomputertapebythe$$Department$$ofIncomeMaintenance(DIM).TheConnecticutSupremeCourtrejectedDIMsdefensethatitdidnotmaintaintherecordsintheformrequestedandconcludedthat [w]here,ashere,theinformationsoughtispresentlystoredintheagencysdata base,andthecostofthenewprogramistobebornebythepersonseekingthe F7j17 information,anordercompellingproductionofcomputertapesiswithinthepowersstatutorilyconferred....Id.at325.    ` Onecommentatorhasobservedthat [i]tismoredesirabletochargerequesterstheactualcostsofretrieval,orprovidethemwithretrievalhardware,softwareanddocumentation,thantodecline...requestsforelectronicinformationbecausetheyrequireprogrammingorgeneratingnew$$records.$$Perritt,supra,at$$295(footnote   omitted).$$$$$ #  8      $$ p   ` ThedefendantNEShascitedtwocasesforanopposingviewwhich,inourjudgment,aredistinguishable.InSeatonv.Johnson,898S.W.2d232(Tenn.$$App.$$  1995),anattorneyrepresentingvictimskilledinanautomobileaccidentthatoccurredatarailroadcrossingsoughtwhattheCourtofAppealscalleda shoppinglistofinformationfromtheDepartmentofTransportation,includingtheaveragedailyvehicleandlocomotivetrafficattheaccidentsite,themethodforcomputingtheaveragedailytraffic,theaccidenthistory,andtheinstallationcostsandhistoryoftrafficcontroldevices.TheCourtofAppealsheldthatdisclosurewasnotrequiredbasedonafederalstatutethatpreemptedtheTennesseePublicRecordsAct.Id.at237. h$"  ` TheothercasereliedonbythedefendantisGeorgev.RecordCustodian,485 ($"& N.W.2d460(Wis.$$Ct.App.$$1992).There,aninmateaskedforthenumberofclaimsreceivedbytheDepartmentofJusticefrom19881990,thenumberofcasessettledwithout$$litigation,$$andthenumberofcasesdisallowed.TheWisconsinappellatecourtheldthattherecordscustodianwasnotrequiredunderthepublicrecordsactto collectorcompilestatisticsorcreatearecordforthebenefitofarequester.Id.at462. 0 +0  2,2  ` IncontrasttoSeatonandGeorge,TheTennesseansrequestdidnotrequire  NEStocompileorcollectstatistics,nordiditrequireanexplanation,interpretation,oranalysisofinformation.NESdidnotclaimthattherequestedinformationwasexemptfromdisclosure,nordiditcontendthatitlackedtheinformation.Thequestionpresentedinthiscase$$isoneof$$formatandaccess. ` Werecognizethecompetinginterestsatstake:thepublicsrighttoaccessandagovernmentagencysburdenofcomplyingwiththePublicRecordsAct.Yetonceinformationisenteredintoacomputer,adistinctionbetweeninformationandrecordbecomestoalargedegreeimpractical.Inourview,itmakeslittlesensetoimplementcomputersystemsthatarefasterandhavemassivecapacityforstorage,yetlimitaccesstoanddisseminationofthematerialbyemphasizingthephysicalformatofarecord.Asonecommentatorobserved, [a]genciesmaynotdesignsystemswithaccessinmind,onlytoclaimlaterthatinformationisunavailablebecauseourcomputerscantdothat.Bunker,supra,at594.Indeed,suchadefenseinvokedat ( randombyanagencywouldfrustratethepurposeofthePublicRecordsActatnearlyeveryturn. ` Accordingly,wereversetheCourtofAppealsandreinstatethetrialcourtsjudgmentthatNESwasrequiredtodisclosetheinformationunderthefactsofthiscase.@..-D Costs +%*   ` WenowaddresstheissueofthecostschargedbyNESforproducingthe d-', requestedmaterialandfornotifyingitscustomersbyfirstclassmailthatarequestfortheinformationhadbeenmade.Inupholdingsuchcosts,boththetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppealscitedthefollowingprovisionunderthePublicRecordsAct:8 ` Inallcaseswhereanypersonhastherighttoinspectanysuchpublicrecords,suchpersonshallhavetherighttotakeextractsormakecopiesthereof,andtomakephotographsorphotostatsofthesamewhilesuchrecordsareinthepossession,custodyandcontrolofthelawfulcustodianthereoforsuch$$authorizedcustodians$$deputy;provided,thelawful 9639 custodianofsuchrecordsshallhavetherighttoadoptandenforce 94: reasonablerulesgoverningthemakingofsuchextracts,copies,photographsorphotostats.` (#` (# Tenn.CodeAnn.$$107506(a)(emphasis$$added).  ` AlthoughTheTennesseanconcedesthatNEScouldproperlychargeforthe  0 costsincurredinmakingorextractingtherequestedmaterialfromitsexistingrecords,itarguesthatthechargesassessedunderNESscustomernotificationpolicywerenotauthorizedbystatuteandamountedtoaneffectivedenialofrecords.TheTennessean p  maintainsthat$$$$$$506(a)$$conveysonly aministerialauthorityto...chargefororallowtimeperiodsfor,thecopyingofdocumentsandnotauthoritytoimpose substantiveconditionsfordisclosinginformationrequiredundertheAct.NESargues,andthelowercourtsfound,thatthenotificationpolicywasareasonablemeanstoprotecttheprivacyandsafetyofitscustomers. ` WethinkthelanguageandmeaningofTenn.CodeAnn.107506(a)isplain:thatanagencymayenforcereasonablerules governingthemakingofsuchextracts,copies,photographsorphotostats.ThoseactualcostsincurredbyNESfordisclosingthematerialrequestedbyTheTennesseanarerecoverableunderthisstatute.In h$" contrast,thereisnoauthorityundertheActallowinganagencytoestablishrulesthatwouldsubstantiallyinhibitdisclosureofrecords.Moreover,limitinganagencytorulesthatgovernonlytheactual makingoftheextracts,copies,photographsorphotostatsisconsistentwiththelegislativepolicyinfavorofthefullestpossiblepublicaccess. ` OurreviewisgovernedsolelybythelanguageinthePublicRecordsActandtheclearmandateinfavorofdisclosure.WedonotquestionthesincerityorintentionofNESinmakingapolicythatis,onthesurface,intheinterestsofitscustomersprivacyorsafety.YettheseandanyothermattersofpublicpolicythatmayaffecttherightsofaccessunderthePublicRecordsActmaynotbeadoptedadhocbyagovernmentagencywithoutactionbythelegislature.AswesaidinHolt: ,8P28  94: 8 ` ItistheprerogativeofthelegislaturetodeclarethepolicyoftheStatetouchingthegeneralwelfare.$$Andwherethelegislaturespeaksupona$$particular$$subject,itsutteranceisthepublicpolicy$$$...$upon$$thatsubject. ` (#` (# 710S.W.2dat$$517$(citationomitted)$.$$ ` Accordingly,wehavedeterminedthatthePublicRecordsActauthorizesNEStorequirepaymentforactualcostsincurredindisclosingtherequested$$records$,$$$butcontainsnostatutoryauthorizationforrequiringpaymentofcoststoimplementNESscustomernotificationpolicy.$$$$$$@*D CONCLUSION    ` Weconcludethatthetrialcourtcorrectlydeterminedthattheinformationsought  byTheTennesseanconstitutedapublicrecordthathadtobedisclosedbyNESunder Rv theTennesseePublicRecordsAct.WefurtherconcludethatwhileNEScouldrequirepaymentofcostsincurredindisclosingtherequestedmaterial,itwasnotauthorizedbytheActtorequirepaymentofcostsforitsowncustomernotificationpolicy.Accordingly,thejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsis$$reversed,$$andthecaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings.CostsonappealshallbepaidbyNES,forwhichexecutionshallissueifnecessary. `     h      p _______________________________ `     h      p RILEYANDERSON,CHIEFJUSTICE$$ $Panel$$CONCUR$:$$ 0/T).  Drowota,Birch,andHolder,JJ. 0 +0 Russell,Sp.$$J.$$$)$$$