Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Records Shielding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rusk County staff draft local policies to handle Act 235 shielding requests
Summary
Register of Deeds and department staff described draft procedures to remove or redact certain public records under Act 235, but raised practical questions about implementation, cross‑office access and duration of shields.
At a Rusk County committee meeting, the register of deeds described departmental draft procedures to implement Act 235 requests to shield specified public records from the county’s public indexes.
The draft described by Mary, the register of deeds, would remove shielded documents from the public index, store originals in a locked, classified file and keep an electronic scanned copy in a secure folder accessible only to intake staff; an edited copy with personally identifiable information redacted would remain for routine local use. Mary said the shielded status would last “10 years or death.”
The proposal grew out of questions about a judicial officer’s request to shield a certified survey map (CSM) and uncertainties about how shielding would appear on committee agendas and county web maps. Department speakers said the county’s mapping platform (the “Beacon” parcel web map) already supports parcel‑level shielding that hides searchable names and permit links from public view but said paper records and local file practices still require clear internal rules.
Why it matters: Act 235 shielding affects how property and court‑related records appear in public databases and on county websites, and it can change how staff process and index land records. Committee members repeatedly said procedures must preserve legally required survey information while protecting personal identifiers when the law requires shielding.
County staff and committee members sought to balance statutory obligations and operational details. The proposed local practice would: - Place flagged records in a locked file and add a visible cover sheet to hard copies noting “shielded information — do not copy or distribute.” - Retain a full scanned original in a secure folder accessible only to intake staff and keep a redacted electronic version for routine internal use. - Use parcel‑level checks in the web map to create a “black hole” effect: the parcel outlines remain but searchable details and permit links are suppressed.
Committee members raised practical questions that staff said remain unresolved: how agendas will show a mix of shielded and unshielded CSMs, whether the assessor or treasurer systems will be able to honor shields, and how to revert shielding if a shielded person later authorizes release. Mary and other staff said departments will supply their draft policies to the county administration and the county’s resolution calls for each department to build on the county policy and route drafts to administration and county legal staff for review.
The committee did not adopt a uniform county policy at the meeting; staff said departments will refine their drafts and that the board’s policy framework already contemplates departmental procedures.
Staff and committee members asked staff to document operating steps and a checklist for later review so county employees who handle land records will be able to identify and process shielded documents consistently.
Ending: Staff said they will continue to refine the departmental procedures and return with language and a recommended operational checklist for committee and administrative review.
