Introduction
City
of Louisville - Louisville Development Authority
City
of Louisville - Louisville/Jefferson County Office for Economic Development
City of
Louisville - Job Training Partnership Act/Private Industry Council
City of Louisville
- Department of Public Works
City of Louisville
- Waterfront Development Corporation
Area Development District
Model
Department for Local Government
Department of Workers’ Claims
Lexington/Fayette
Urban County Government - Division of Revenue
Revenue Cabinet
- Department of Information Technology
Revenue
- Department of Tax Administration - Division of Compliance and Taxpayer
Assistance
State
University Model Records Retention Schedule - Student/Course Records
Other Business
The State Archives and Records Commission met December 11, 1997, in the Board Room, Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives (KDLA). James A. Nelson, Chairman, presided.
Members present: Dr. Roy P. Peterson, Secretary, Education, Arts and Humanities Cabinet (for a portion of the meeting); Dr. Thomas D. Clark, representing the University of Kentucky; Paul F. Coates, representing Citizens-at-Large; Dr. Jack D. Ellis, representing Citizens-at-Large; Melba Porter Hay, representing the Kentucky Historical Society; and Howard T. Goodpaster, representing Citizens-at-Large.
Representatives present: Lou DeLuca, representing Dr. Roy P. Peterson, Secretary, Education, Arts and Humanities Cabinet; Leslie Smith, representing Don Cetrulo, Director, Legislative Research Commission; Jean Ann Myatt, representing A. B. Chandler, III, Attorney General; and Donna Dixon, representing Ed Hatchett, Auditor of Public Accounts.
Members not present or represented: Dr. William J. Morison, representing regional colleges and universities; Carolyn N. Murphy, representing local governments; Cynthia Etkin, representing the Kentucky Library Association; Cheryl Jones, representing Citizens-at-Large; Stephen N. Dooley, Commissioner, Department of Information Systems; Dr. James Ramsey, State Budget Director, Governor’s Office of Policy and Management; and Robert F. Stephens, Chief Justice, Kentucky Supreme Court.
Public Records Division staff present: Richard N. Belding, Director, Public Records Division; Diana Moses, Manager, State Records Branch; Darrell Gabhart, Manager, Local Records Branch; Dr. Frank Levstik, Regional Administrator; Lena Jones Turner, Regional Administrator; Jerry Carlton, Regional Administrator; Jim Terry, Records Analyst; and Connie Renfroe, Administrative Secretary.
Guests present: Bruce Weathers, City of Louisville.
Chairman Nelson called for introductions of Commission members.
Chairman Nelson turned the meeting over to Secretary Peterson for an update on the status of the department’s capital construction project request for a building addition to its Coffee Tree facility. Dr. Peterson said that cabinet and department staff had been in intense, ongoing discussions about the department’s need for the addition to its facility, but that those discussions had not resulted in the inclusion of the building addition on the Capital Planning Advisory Board’s priority list of construction projects. Not making the Board’s priority list is a major setback for the project, according to Peterson. There continue to be discussions to determine what the next steps should be, and how the department can overcome the difficulty of not having the project included as high priority by the Board. Dr. Peterson said that he had had several conversations with Governor Patton and his staff about the importance of the construction of a new Central Records Services and Electronic Conversion Center, and the importance given to the project by making it the cabinet’s number one budget priority. The major obstacle to overcome, according to Peterson, has been to convince others that the cabinet’s number one priority should be their number one priority as well. Governor Patton is currently considering what capital projects should be in the budget that he submits to the General Assembly, when it convenes in January 1998, and this clearly is a critical point for the department’s building request. The Governor, according to Peterson, can include or not include the project and either option can lead to department and cabinet staff discussing what the next steps should be. If the project is included in the Governor’s budget, the next step will be to see that the proposal is accepted and implemented by the Legislature. If it is not included, staff will have to consider what can be done to assist the Legislature in accepting the project as one of its priorities. It is at this stage, Peterson said, that the department and cabinet will need the assistance of Commission members and other constituencies in moving the project to the forefront. To make substantial progress in seeing this project to fruition will take the concerted effort of many people, not just the Governor. It is time, according to Peterson, to determine the roles interested parties must play in convincing others of the importance of the construction of the building addition. Peterson said that over the next few weeks, Chairman Nelson and Richard Belding will be talking with constituents about their potential roles in this process. Peterson encouraged Commission members to step forward and participate in helping others understand the importance of the project to garner support for its inclusion in the state budget.
Dr. Clark mentioned his meetings with Chief Justice Robert F. Stephens and the support for the project that could come from the Supreme Court. As more than 45 percent of the department’s holdings are court records, the Judicial Branch has a big stake in the construction of an additional facility. Dr. Peterson acknowledged that the Chief Justice’s support for the building would be of tremendous help in making it a top priority item for both the Governor and the Legislature. What is needed, Peterson said, is a coordinated approach for making the best possible case to the Governor and the Legislature about the importance of the project. The efforts of many will be needed, especially from those individuals who are willing to communicate with their legislators about the need for the project and its importance to the citizens of Kentucky.
Chairman Nelson then distributed to the Commission members a one-page background information document (see attached) that was developed by department staff and Deputy Secretary Lou DeLuca as a speaking document. It was felt that it could be of use to those who would be willing to encourage others to support the project. Nelson said that the other relevant piece to this initiative is the efficient management of government records as a companion to the Governor’s Empower Kentucky initiative. Crit Luallen, Secretary of the Governor’s Cabinet, said, after a meeting with Chairman Nelson and other cabinet staff earlier in year, that a possible next phase in the Empower initiative could be working with agencies in improving the management of their records, particularly with the evolution of electronic records and the need to bring together and keep together the electronic and paper record. The new Central Records Services and Electronic Conversion Center would essentially be the keystone for that strategy. Dr. Clark said that records across government agencies continue to be as poorly and ineffectively stored as in the early years of the Archives and Records Act and that this continues to cost the state money and the cost will escalate, as long as the construction of a new building is not forthcoming. The building initiative is an investment for the Commonwealth, not on the part of any special interests, and the whole spectrum of state government is involved, said Clark. Nelson agreed and said that staff were working both at the state and local levels to garner more support for the construction of the building addition. Nelson thanked Secretary Peterson for his staunch support of the project and asked the Commission members to assist in any way possible to bring the project to a higher level of recognition.
Minutes of the previous Commission meeting were approved on a motion made by Mr. Coates, seconded by Dr. Clark. The motion carried.
The order of the agenda was changed to accommodate the guest present.
NEW OR REVISED RETENTION SCHEDULES
City of Louisville - Louisville Development Authority
Dr. Frank Levstik was the regional administrator working on this new schedule. The series being scheduled are: L4203, Urban Renewal Project Files; L4204, National Register of Historical Places File; and L4205, Address Case File.
The predecessor of the Louisville Development Authority (the Office of Downtown Development) was created in 1988, as a cabinet level department, to act as the primary city entity coordinating development and planning in the central business district and surrounding neighborhoods. The Office of Downtown Development was responsible for working with other city agencies, private development organizations, and the private development sector in planning, managing, financing, and implementing development programs and projects in the downtown area. The Parking Authority of River City (PARC) was also part of that department. In 1991, the Board of Aldermen created the Louisville Development Authority, which was intended to expand the jurisdiction of the Office of Downtown Development, to provide similar development and planning services to the entire city. All major real estate, design and planning functions of the city are integrated into this entity.
The mission of the Louisville Development Authority is to plan, manage and implement the continued physical growth and revitalization of the City of Louisville, including its downtown and all its neighborhoods, in a manner that will support and encourage economic growth, create a more vibrant and livable city, foster a well planned and well managed city, and provide a solid economic basis and return for the city’s real estate investments.
Levstik said that this schedule and the four that follow are part of a continuing effort to update and keep current the retention schedules for the City of Louisville. More schedules will be presented to the Commission for its approval over the next year or so.
As there were no questions, Dr. Clark made a motion to adopt this schedule and the four that follow as a group, seconded by Dr. Ellis. The motion carried.
City of Louisville - Louisville/Jefferson County Office for Economic Development
Levstik was the regional administrator working on this new schedule. The series being scheduled are L4206, Small Business Loans Case Files, and L4207, Economic Development Case File.
The Louisville/Jefferson County Office for Economic Development (OED) was created under the terms and conditions of the 1986 Louisville-Jefferson County Compact. This joint city/county office is local government’s advocate for the business community in Louisville and Jefferson County. Its function is to assist local business by: 1) fostering and encouraging industry growth and to focus community attention on the particular needs of small and medium-sized companies; 2) administering a minority business development program focusing on training and education through advocacy and coordination of agency programs and services; 3) providing a comprehensive approach to the development and revitalization of Louisville and Jefferson County retail/commercial areas and neighborhoods; 4) promoting local governments’ economic development programs, services and activities to the business community and to the public, and promoting a positive business climate in Louisville-Jefferson County; and 5) providing the most current, accurate and pertinent economic development information in efficient, cost effective and reliable means, through the use of on-line data bases, electronic bulletin boards, CD-ROM diskettes, send-fax systems, and E-mail. OED also provides support and assistance in community efforts to attract new businesses and industry to the city and county. The City of Louisville is the fiscal agency for the OED, which is jointly funded by the city and county.
The mission of OED is to provide leadership and facilitation that leads to business growth and economic development in Louisville and Jefferson County, through networking and education, and to provide innovative and creative services to the businesses of the region.
Please refer to the motion and second made for the Louisville Development Authority above.
City of Louisville - Job Training Partnership Act/Private Industry Council
Levstik was the regional administrator working on this new schedule. The series being scheduled are L4208, Participant File, and L4209, Contract File.
In 1983, the federal Job Training and Partnership Act (JTPA) replaced CETA (Comprehensive Employment and Training Act) as the nation’s employment and training program. Major amendments to the original JTPA legislation took effect in 1993. JTPA is governed by the Private Industry Council (PIC), which is composed of thirty-eight members. The Council provides direction, guidance and formal approval in the development and yearly update of a two-year operating plan for the agency’s training and employment programs. The mayor and county judge/executive each appoint one half of the members of the PIC. The Council must represent private businesses and industry, community-based organizations, economic development agencies, public education, post-secondary education, vocational education, vocational rehabilitation, the state employment service, welfare agencies, and labor. The agency’s programs and services are available to any individual(s) in low-income categories. The agency has responsibility for the operation of all JTPA programs within Jefferson County and, additionally, has been designated by the Governor as the state’s subgrantee for Title III, Dislocated Worker funds, for Trimble, Henry, Oldham, Shelby, Spencer, Bullitt and Jefferson Counties.
The mission of the JTPA/PIC is to develop relevant training programs, solicit business and industry input and participation for such programs, market the programs within the business community, and increase job placements by establishing business "ownership" of training programs, and link various resources in the community through representation on the local Private Industry Council.
Please refer to the motion and second made for the Louisville Development Authority above.
City of Louisville - Department of Public Works
Levstik was the regional administrator working on this new schedule. The series being scheduled are L4210 to L4236, a total of 27 records.
The Department of Public Works is comprised of the Director’s Office and five divisions: Administrative Services; Engineering and Architecture; Roads; Public Properties; and Fleet Services. The Department maintains public streets and right-of-ways, city government buildings and vehicles, administers city capital construction projects, and provides professional engineering and planning services. It operates under the authority established in Ordinance number 68, Series 1986. Its mission is to maintain the city’s infrastructure, including streets, city-owned buildings, equipment and land.
The Director’s Office provides organizational leadership, as it directs and monitors all departmental operations. The Director serves as a commissioner on the Louisville-Jefferson County Planning Commission. The Division of Administrative Services provides departmental support services, financial control and budgetary planning, policy and program planning, management of personnel requirements, departmental records management, data and mapping services, coordination of right-of-way permitting, coordination of the street lighting program, and administration of city occupational safety and health. The Division of Engineering and Architecture plans and oversees city capital construction projects and investigates technical problems, coordinates urban design and forestry, plans and supervises major street resurfacing projects, and provides consultative services as needed by the city. The Division of Roads maintains city streets, traffic signals, roadway markings and signs, performs right-of-way inspections, manages roadside programs, and operates and maintains the city parking meter system. The Division of Public Properties provides custodial services and buildings and grounds maintenance for city facilities, including the city government complex and city-owned open spaces. The Division of Fleet Services provides maintenance and fuel service for the city’s fleet, except fire, EMS and Otter Creek vehicles.
Please refer to the motion and second made for the Louisville Development Authority above.
City of Louisville - Waterfront Development Corporation
Levstik was the regional administrator working on this new schedule. The series being scheduled is L4202, Waterfront Master Plan.
The Waterfront Development Corporation was formed in 1986 to act on behalf of the City of Louisville, Jefferson County, and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, for the purpose of planning, coordinating and implementing public projects relating to the development of Louisville’s waterfront. The agency is a non-profit corporation, under the terms of KRS 58.180. The City of Louisville acts as the fiscal agent, with funding provided by the three incorporating entities.
The mission of the Corporation is to be responsible for implementing and coordinating the long-term riverfront development strategy, which encompasses Louisville’s riverfront from Gibson Lane to Zorn Avenue. The Corporation is governed by a fifteen-member Board of Directors.
Please refer to the motion and second made for the Louisville Development Authority above.
Area Development District Model
Jerry Carlton and Lena Jones Turner were the regional administrators working on this new schedule. The series being scheduled are L4238 to L4303, a total of 67 records.
The fifteen Area Development Districts (ADDs) were organized during the period from 1967 to 1972, following authorizations given in federal acts, such as the Appalachian Regional Development Act and the Public Works and Economic Development Act. The boundaries of the ADDs were established by Executive Order 67-233, signed March 30, 1967. This was followed by Executive Order 71-1267, signed November 16, 1971, establishing the ADDs as the official planning and development agencies for their respective geographical areas. KRS Chapter 147A, enacted by the 1972 General Assembly, established the ADDs as public agencies and provided for their basic organizational structure. The combination of federal programs and state enabling legislation provided a national strategy and funding mechanism that followed the creation of the ADDs.
The broad mission of the ADDs is to coordinate with local civic and governmental leaders to accomplish major objectives and to assist local governments in taking advantage of opportunities which are difficult to achieve without assistance. The ADDs are responsible for a wide variety of programs which serve local governments, both through contractual arrangements with federal, state and local governments and as a designated delivery system for various activities. These programs include community and economic development, health and human services, public management and administration, and technology support. Various federal and state agencies use the Joint Funding Administration (JFA) as a means of combining funding, administration, accounting and scopes of work into a single program. JFA is administered by the Department for Local Government, with the ADDs being the administrator of the funds for local agencies. The JFA funding is divided into the following areas: 1) community and economic development; 2) community development block grants; 3) management assistance; 4) program administration; 5) health services planning; and 6) criminal justice planning. In addition to the JFA, ADDs may receive other funds to carry out activities in the following areas: 1) aging programs; 2) community development block grant administration; 3) economic development programs (promotional marketing, financial packaging, grant administration and community analysis); 4) Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA); 5) Kentucky Transitional Assistance Program; 6) Community Connections for Children; 7) early intervention services; 8) local planning services; 9) transportation; and 10) in some ADDs, cartography and geographic information systems services.
In addition to administering federal and state funds, the ADDs also contract with local governments to do specific tasks. They serve as forums, clearinghouses, technical centers, and as a place where local agencies may convene and discuss common problems. The ADDs provide complete coverage to all 120 Kentucky counties and are the primary linkage between local agencies and the Governor’s Office, state and local agencies, and private organizations.
The organizational structure of the ADDs is established by state law, regulations and each district’s by-laws. Each district has a Board of Directors made up of a majority of elected officials, with the following composition: 1) the county judge/executive (or designee) from each county; 2) the mayor (or designee) of the county seat in each county. (In counties containing a city of the first, second or third class, the major from the next largest city, if there is one, also is on the Board; and 3) two citizen members from each county, plus two at-large members. Citizen members are chosen for three-year terms by the Board’s elected officials. The Board of Directors has four officers, including a chairman, vice-chairman, secretary and treasurer. The officers are elected for a one-year term and are limited to serving two consecutive terms. The Board may establish advisory committees and other boards as needed, and an Executive Board may be established to do business when the district Board of Directors is not in session.
There have been retention schedules produced in the past for four of the ADDs: Green River, in 1976; Bluegrass and Pennyrile, in 1980; and Barren River, in 1986. The schedule being proposed was created as a model schedule to apply to all fifteen ADDs and is intended to encompass all records series maintained by them. The Description and Analysis (D&A) forms used to compile the schedule were completed by staff in the Bluegrass Area Development District, over a six-month period. The Bluegrass ADD was selected because of its proximity to Frankfort, but mainly because of its size and scope of responsibilities. The ADD was very cooperative in helping staff to compile the schedule. The draft of the schedule was distributed to the remaining fourteen ADDs and the Department for Local Government (DLG) for review. The Northern Kentucky ADD submitted comments and valuable input was received from DLG. Because of the differences in size and demographics of the fifteen ADDs, program emphasis and assistance given to local governments may vary.
Carlton explained to the Commission members that the Area Development Districts are somewhat different from other public agencies in that they are self-sustaining through the fees which are collected for the various services rendered to other entities. The ADDs mainly serve as brokers or administrators of federal and state funds granted or given to local agencies.
Dr. Ellis said that the ADD serving the Morehead area had been very instrumental in the acquisition of a new airport, which was needed to complement the economic development going on in the area. The ADD worked to help obtain the land needed for the airport, which encompassed two counties, by working with the respective officials in the counties to secure the necessary agreements.
Dr. Clark made a motion to adopt this new schedule, seconded by Ms. Dixon. The motion carried.
Department for Local Government
Diana Moses was the records analyst working on this revised schedule. The series being added to the schedule are: 04719 to 04722; 04724 to 04725; 04727 to 04730; 04732 to 04735; and 04748. The series being changed are: 00553; 00561 to 00562; 03107 to 03108; 03142; 03159; 04726; and 04636. The series being deleted are: 1 to 169; 00547 to 00552; 00554 to 00555; 00559; 03158; and 03160, a total of 181 records. The series being deleted are covered by the General Schedule for State Agencies, or have been combined with other existing series. In addition, the following series, representing the county fee system, were transferred to the Finance and Administration Cabinet: 00509 to 00511; 00514; 00521 to 00523; 00525; 00528 to 00536; 00539 to 00546; and 03161 to 031623.
The predecessor to the Department for Local Government dates to 1963, when the Kentucky Area Program Office (KAPO) was created to act as liaison between local, state and federal units in the area of development planning. In 1965, KAPO became the Kentucky Area Development Office (KADO). Three years later, KADO was joined by the Office for Urban Affairs, the Office of Economic Opportunity, the Division of Community Planning and Development, and the Outdoor Recreation Program, to form the Kentucky Program Development Office (KPDO). KPDO was given statutory life by the 1970 General Assembly to act as liaison with state and federal agencies, assume many of the then-existing duties of various state planning entities, and provide liaison between state government and local governments and Area Development Districts. The Program Development Office was repealed in 1974 and placed within the Executive Department for Finance and Administration, for administrative purposes.
Executive Order 75-114 established the Office of State Planning. Executive Order 75-197 created the Office for Local Government with the Executive Department for Finance and Administration. Executive Order 76-639 detached the Office for Local Government from Finance and Administration and created the Department for Local Government. In 1982, the Department for Local Government was organized under the Office of the Governor as an independent agency of the Commonwealth.
The Department coordinates for the Governor the state’s responsibility for certain federal programs, provides technical assistance to units of local governments, exercises functions of the state local finance officer, and requires reports of local governments (KRS 147A.021). In 1994, it was charged with fixing the annual rate of compensation to which commonwealth’s attorneys and county attorneys are entitled, pursuant to the increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index, with maintaining a list of cities and counties that have adopted a code of ethics, and notifying state agencies of cities and counties that do not adopt a code and comply with the statutory requirements. The Commissioner’s Office establishes and maintains a liaison with state and federal agencies which deal with the Commonwealth’s local governments and fifteen Area Development Districts.
The Department recently reorganized into four divisions: Community Development Training; Training and Area Development District Services; Financial Services and Support Services. In addition, the State Local Finance Officer within the Department coordinates for the Governor the state’s responsibility for general revenue sharing for local government, provides technical assistance to units of local government on fiscal management and purchases, and conducts training programs to instruct county and other local officials on collection, expenditure and management of public moneys. Executive Order 96-1376 transferred the duties and functions relating to the State Local Debt Officer and debt issuance for local entities from the Office of the Controller, in the Finance and Administration Cabinet, to the Division of Financial Services, formerly the Division of County and Municipal Accounting.
Administrative bodies attached to the Department include: Local Government Training Advisory Council; Local Government Advisory Council; Appalachian Development Council; Kentucky Urban Affairs Council; and the Water Resources Development Commission.
Moses explained that during the course of the work to revise the schedule, the agency underwent a reorganization. The Department is now comprised of four divisions: Community Development Training; Training and Area Development District Services; Financial Services; and Support Services. Due to the reorganization, which took place late in the process of revising the schedule, there may be a need to revisit the work completed thus far to make adjustments to the schedule resulting from the organizational changes.
Moses directed the Commission members to the Agency Function and Records Summary, which provides detailed information and the addition of new series to the schedule, changes to existing series, and, most important, the deletion of series from the schedule. The majority of the deletions were to remove series which are now covered by the General Schedule for State Agencies.
Dr. Clark made a motion to adopt this revised schedule, seconded by Dr. Ellis. The motion carried.
Moses was the records analyst working on this revised schedule. The series being added to the schedule are: 04738, Twenty-Four Hour Coverage Pilot Project Files; 04739, Citation Files; 04740, Utilization Review and Medical Bill Audit Plan File; 04741, Request for Assistance File; 04742, Certified Managed Health Care Plan Files; 04743, Fraud Lead Case Files; and 04744, South East Restoration Fund File. The series being changed are: 01637; 01640; 03022; 04082; 04084; and 04086. The series being deleted are: 03021, Group Self-Insurance Files, now in series 04082; 04083, Group Self-Insurance Financial File, now in series 04082; and 04120, Workers’ Compensation Rehabilitation System, which is no longer required to be maintained.
The Department of Workers’ Claims, under the direction and control of the Commissioner, is responsible for administering and enforcing the workers’ compensation program in Kentucky. It processes workers’ compensation claims and provides the first step in the appellate review of contested workers’ compensation claims; regulates compliance with the self-insurance and certain insurance requirements of the workers’ compensation laws; and orders and enforces rehabilitation of injured workers in the Commonwealth.
The Department is organized into units with various responsibilities relating to the administration and processing of workers’ compensation claims. Prior to the enactment of House Bill 1, during the 1987 Extraordinary Session of the General Assembly, the agency was administered by a commissioner and was divided into the Division of Workers’ Compensation and the Division of the Special Fund. Each division was under the control and direction of a director, with the commissioner and the directors under the control of the Secretary of the Labor Cabinet. As a result of House Bill 1, the Department was reorganized. As a result of the reorganization, the agency was attached to the Labor Cabinet for organizational purposes only, and the restructured Workers’ Compensation Board, through its commissioner, was made totally responsible for the administration and operation of the workers’ compensation program, with the exception of the Division of the Special Fund and the Uninsured Employers’ Fund. The 1990 General Assembly confirmed the reorganization of the Department, by Executive Order 89-727. In 1994, however, the commissioner, rather than the Board, was charged with administering the Department.
The Office of Administrative Services coordinates activities with the Office of Administrative Services in the Labor Cabinet. The Office of General Counsel provides legal services for the Department and is directly responsible to the commissioner and the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Department consists of the following divisions: Claims Processing and Appeals; Administrative Law Judges; Security and Compliance; Arbitration; Information and Research; and the Ombudsman and Workers’ Compensation Specialist Services.
The Workers’ Compensation Board was created in 1916, as a result of the enactment of the workers’ compensation law in the Commonwealth, and is to be abolished on July 1, 2000. Until the enactment of House Bill 1, the primary function of the Board was to render initial decisions on workers’ compensation claims. With the enactment of House Bill 1, the structure and function of the Board changed significantly. The Board is composed of three full time members and provides the first step in the appellate review of workers’ compensation contested claims, rather than rendering initial decisions in such claims. Also, the Board is totally responsible for the administration and enforcement of the workers’ compensation program. Legislation enacted during the 1996 Extraordinary Session of the General Assembly, requires the Board to be abolished on July 1, 2000. After that date, all appeals from final order of administrative law judges will be directed to the Court of Appeals (KRS 342.215).
In conjunction with the Labor Cabinet, the Department of Workers’ Claims is utilizing an imaging processing system. Currently, series 01642, Claim and Agreement File, and series 01655, First Report of Injury or Illness File, are scanned into the imaging system. Both series include a notation on the schedule, which identifies them as part of the imaging system.
Moses briefly explained the work involved in revising the schedule and described the changes, additions, and deletions that occurred as a result of that work. The retention period for several series had to be increased from twenty-one years to thirty, due to the possibility that asbestos and radiation-related claims against employers could be filed.
Ms. Dixon asked about the proposed reduction in retention of series 04086, Self-Insured Employer’s Audit File, from twenty years to three. Moses explained that the series acts as an audit file and that the previous retention of twenty years was excessive. A three-year retention period for a series of this type is in keeping with other similar series.
Dr. Ellis asked a similar question about series 01640, Self-Insured Employer’s Financial File. The retention period for this series was lowered from seventy-five years to thirty. According to Moses, the file only needs to be retained to satisfy the possible filing of asbestos and radiation-related claims, which is thirty years.
Mr. Coates made a motion to adopt this revised schedule, seconded by Dr. Ellis. The motion carried.
Lexington/Fayette Urban County Government - Division of Revenue
Jerry Carlton was the regional administrator working on this schedule addition. The series being added is L4194, Audit File.
The Lexington/Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG) was chartered in 1974, in accordance with KRS Chapter 67A, making it the only merged government in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Because of the unique nature of a merged local government, model retention schedules for cities and counties do not always apply, therefore, separate schedules for LFUCG are being compiled.
After a brief explanation of the change by Mr. Carlton, Mr. Goodpaster made a motion to adopt this schedule change, seconded by Ms. Dixon. The motion carried.
Revenue Cabinet - Department of Information Technology
Moses was the records analyst working on this schedule change. The series being added to the schedule are: 04651, Electronic Filing Transfer (CARS); 04652, Daily Accounts Receivable Journal Voucher (110/120) Printout; 04653, Daily Payment Listing Printout File; 04654, Worksheet Payment Listing (160) Printout File; 04655, Daily CARS Printout Report File; 04656, Monthly CARS Account Receivables Report File; and 04737, Compliance and Receivables System (CARS/OSCAR)
The Revenue Cabinet is the chief revenue collection agency for Kentucky state government. As such it is responsible for administration of all General Fund taxes, major Road Fund taxes, and the assessment and collection of 44 separate state taxes. The Cabinet’s duties include equalization of tax assessments, assessment of public utilities and public service corporations, and enforcement of revenue and tax laws (KRS 131.030).
The Department of Information Technology was created by Executive Order 97-715, issued on June 11, 1997. The Department deals with issues of physical property, budget, human resources, training, and tax return processing, as well as various facets of information availability, processing, management and other technology issues.
After a brief explanation of the changes by Moses, Dr. Ellis made a motion to adopt the schedule changes, seconded by Mr. Goodpaster. The motion carried.
Revenue Cabinet - Department of Tax Administration - Division of Compliance and Taxpayer Assistance
Moses was the analyst working on this schedule change. The series being added to the schedule is 04749, CSC Oil Company, Transit Company vs Revenue Cabinet Lawsuit.
The Department of Tax Administration consolidates into one major operating unit all the functional responsibilities related to enforcing Kentucky’s tax laws (except for ad valorem taxes) and processing tax information. The Department is made up four divisions: Collections; Field Operations; Compliance and Taxpayer Assistance; and Revenue Operations. Its duties include recordkeeping, providing data services, conducting audits, rendering taxpayer assistance, collecting delinquent taxes, providing word processing services, and enforcing the criminal laws involving revenue and taxation.
After a brief explanation by Moses, Ms. Dixon made a motion to adopt this schedule change, seconded by Dr. Clark. The motion carried.
State University Model Records Retention Schedule - Student/Course Records
Moses was the analyst working on this schedule change. The series being added to the schedule is U0468, Personnel Records – Students, which documents the work history of those students employed by the various campuses, particularly Western Kentucky University.
In September 1991, Commissioner James A. Nelson informed each of the university presidents about the Department’s plans to create, in cooperation with each campus, a model retention schedule for use by each of the state’s eight public universities. Prior to the idea of creating a model schedule, Public Records Division (PRD) staff had attempted to work with each campus to create individual schedules. Over the years, several such schedules were developed and approved by the State Archives and Records Commission, including complete schedules for Eastern Kentucky University and the University of Kentucky. Scheduling of university campuses began with the University of Kentucky, in the late 1970s, and extended to the development of partial schedules for most of the remaining universities, with the last partial schedule developed for Morehead State University in the late 1980s.
The Student/Course component of the Model provides retention and disposition instructions for records associated with class instruction and student records.
Moses explained that the need to schedule this series was brought to her attention by Western Kentucky University. Employers frequently make inquiries to the University about prior work histories, thus the need for a five-year retention period. Moses also said that more changes to the State University Model could be expected over the next few months as a result of work being done by Western and the University of Kentucky.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Goodpaster made a motion to adopt this schedule change, seconded by Dr. Clark. The motion carried.
Dr. Clark pointed out the Commission’s policy of identification of records that are non-permanent and that can eventually be destroyed was just as important as its policy regarding the preservation of records of continuing value. The identification of records that can be destroyed at some point is a big factor in the generation of savings to state government, and a major function of the Commission. Chairman Nelson said that this aspect of the Commission’s work was often not well understood by top level administrators and to those from whom the department hopes to gain support for the construction of a building addition to the Coffee Tree facility.
Belding said that in the last fiscal year the combination of records that were destroyed in agencies, under approved retention schedules, and those destroyed from the State Records Center, also under approved schedules, totaled in excess of 45,000 cubic feet. According to the department’s current formula, that is, based on what it would cost to continue to maintain the same amount of records in agencies, these destructions represent a cost avoidance of more than $8 million. Nelson said that a press release advising the public of these kinds of savings is in order.
Prior to adjourning for a demonstration of the Oldham County Clerk’s Indexing System and online Optical Imaging System, Mr. Gabhart briefed the Commission members on the importance of the systems and how technology has offered an opportunity to improve on the department’s mission to ensure that agencies manage their records in the most efficient manner possible, preserve those of continuing value, and provide better access to information being created and maintained. The Local Records program has contributed to the creation of these systems through the issuance of grants to Oldham County, for the purpose of purchasing key pieces of equipment with which to build these systems. According to Gabhart, the county has contributed more than 75 percent of the funds needed to finance the projects. Oldham County has grown considerably in the past few years, which has increased the number of records being filed in the Clerk’s Office. Due to this growth and its impact on recordkeeping, the Office has had to look at alternative methods for managing and providing access to its records.
Gabhart said the imaging system employed by Oldham County is somewhat different from other systems in the state in that it is Windows based, with images residing on the hard drive rather than on an optical drive, which improves access tremendously. Local Records staff have worked with the Clerk’s Office throughout creation of the system and have assisted both in the planning and implementation stages. For optimum security, an external company has been contracted with to take tapes of the digitized images and convert them to microfilm, thus ensuring the long term preservation of the information. In addition, the microfilm will contain a complete index to each entry. As this work has just recently begun, a copy of the microfilmed images was not available for review by Commission members. Gabhart said that the film test strips that have been viewed thus far are of excellent quality.
Information from the Oldham County system is available to researchers and other interested parties through the Internet. Gabhart said that, to his knowledge, there is only one other county clerk (or registrar of deeds) office in the United States that provides access to its records through the Internet and that is Maracopa County, Arizona. In January 1998, Oldham County plans to begin assessing a modest entry fee and subscriber fee, which will provide funds to support the system.
Mr. Coates asked if once the system is paid for, Oldham County will continue to assess subscription fees. Gabhart said that it would. Belding said that the fees only applied to remote access users, not researchers who come into the office and access the system.
On a motion by Mr. Goodpaster and a second by Dr. Clark the meeting adjourned at 10:55 a.m. to the Department’s Conference Room for a demonstration of the Oldham County online Optical Imaging System and Indexing System.