Higher Education Student
Loan Corporation
State University
Model Records Retention Schedule
The State Archives and Records Commission met June 8, 2000, in the
Board Room, Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives (KDLA).
Members present: Dr. Thomas D. Clark, representing the University of Kentucky; Paul F. Coates, representing Citizens-at-Large; Dr. Linda E. Johnson, representing Citizens-at-Large; Dr. Jack D. Ellis, representing Citizens-at-Large; Dr. William J. Morison, representing regional colleges and universities; Lynne Hollingsworth, representing the Kentucky Historical Society; Ed Hatchett, Auditor of Public Accounts; and Shelia E. Heflin, representing the Kentucky Library Association.
Representatives present: Louis DeLuca, representing Dr. Marlene M. Helm, Secretary, Education, Arts and Humanities Cabinet; Leslie Smith, representing Robert Sherman, Director, Legislative Research Commission; Victor Fox, representing A. B. Chandler, III, Attorney General; and C. J. Chapman, representing Stephen N. Dooley, Deputy Chief Information Officer, Governor's Office for Technology.
Members not present or represented: Carolyn Nichols, representing local governments; Cheryl Jones, representing Citizens-at-Large; Dr. James R. Ramsey, State Budget Director, Governor’s Office of Policy and Management; and Judge Joseph E. Lambert, 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; Charles Robb, Manager, Technology Analysis and Support Branch; Jerry Carlton, Regional Administrator; Lena Jones Turner, Regional Administrator; Jim Terry, Administrative Specialist; Michele Staton, Administrative Specialist; Teresa McChesney, Grants and Contracts Specialist; and B. J. Webster, Administrative Secretary.
Guests present: Mr. Fox introduced Ms. Amye Bensenhaver, who will represent the Attorney General beginning with the September meeting.
For the record, Nelson called for introductions of Commission members.
Nelson informed the Commission members of the death of Dr. Frank Levstik, who served as a regional administrator for the Department's Local Records Program. Nelson said that Dr. Levstik, a long time employee of the Department, would be greatly missed.
Dr. Clark made a motion that a resolution be drafted for presentation to Dr. Levstik's family, seconded by Mr. Fox. The motion carried.
Nelson advised the Commission members that Lexington Records Management and Storage, Inc., was awarded a certificate to film public records. The certificate will be mailed, as a representative was not present to accept it.
A motion to accept the minutes of the previous Commission meeting was
made by Mr. Fox, seconded by Dr. Ellis. Before acting upon the motion,
Dr. Johnson asked that the word "needed" in the fourth paragraph, line
eight, page 7 of the minutes be changed to "available." The minutes were
approved, as amended.
NEW OR REVISED RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULES
Diana Moses was the records analyst working on this revised schedule. The schedule comprises 51 series, of which 15 are additions. The remaining series (thirty-six) were listed on the previous schedule. Approximately 18 series were deleted as a result of the revision of the schedule.
The elective office of Attorney General is established by the Constitution of Kentucky. Sections 91 and 93 of the Constitution provide that the duties of the Attorney General, as well as other constitutional officers, shall be those prescribed by law. Other sections of the Constitution that pertain to the Attorney General include: Section 84 (petition to have Governor declared disabled), Section 87 (service as acting Governor), Section 92 (qualifications), Section 95 (time of election), and Section 96 (compensation). KRS Chapter 15 provides with specificity the duties of the Attorney General and the Department of Law. KRS 15.020 establishes the following duties:
Moses explained that this submission was a comprehensive revision of the schedule for the Department of Law. The original schedule was approved in 1977. Since that time there have been numerous changes to it, but not a comprehensive revision. Moses directed the Commission members to the Agency Function and Records Summary for an overview of the additions, changes to existing series, and the deletion of series from the schedule, as part of the revision. The records being deleted from the schedule are covered by the General Schedule for State Agencies, are no longer being created, or have been merged with other existing series.
Dr. Clark made a motion to adopt this new schedule, seconded by Dr. Johnson. The motion carried.
Dr. Clark asked what prompts there are to make revisions or changes to retention schedules. Moses explained that many agencies advise staff of the need to make a change to a schedule, based on the creation of new records or recordkeeping systems. The Department tracks all legislative actions, many of which result in the creation of new recordkeeping systems, the creation of new agencies, or the reorganization of agencies. Such actions often result in the revision of existing schedules, or in the creation of new ones.
Dr. Clark then asked whether the legislature gave consideration to the effect of its actions on agency recordkeeping. Belding said that there is not a records management impact analysis of the sort there is for draft legislation that has a financial or fiscal impact on affected agencies. Belding said there is a real fiscal impact related to records management that has escaped notice by the legislature.
Dr. Johnson said that Dr. Clark raised a very interesting question, one that Johnson thinks is important to address, in terms of long term procedures. Tangentially related to that, Johnson said, are policy decisions made about records and how long they are kept.
Johnson's specific concern was with permanent records, one or two of which at the university level Johnson thinks should be revisited. As an example, Johnson said, most, if not all, of the universities are now keeping their student record systems in an electronic format, which means there is no longer a paper transcript for students. Since the universities have made the decision to maintain electronic student record systems, what has been created is an unfunded mandate to keep all those records active in perpetuity, because the records are scheduled for permanent retention. The permanent retention of the academic student record may be appropriate, although Johnson questioned whether it would be important 200 years from now to know she had received an undergraduate degree from Western Kentucky University. Another example is faculty personnel files, which are currently scheduled as permanent records in the State University Model. Given the number of faculty across the state, personnel files represent a substantial amount of material to be maintained and preserved. How often the policy decisions are reviewed, Johnson believes is directly related to the issue Dr. Clark raised.
Nelson encouraged the Commission members to bring policy issues that are of concern, such those raised by Johnson, to the Commission, so that the Department staff can review and respond to them. Moses said that permanent records are regularly re-evaluated as revisions are made to schedules and that many such retention periods are significantly reduced. In the area of personnel records, retention periods have been reduced to more acceptable levels. The retention period for faculty personnel records could also be re-visited, Moses said. A re-evaluation of the retention period for student academic records would be more involved, as those records have traditionally been considered permanent records.
Dr. Ellis said that the Commission had generally taken the position
that it is much better to have a longer retention period for records, which
can then be reduced, than to have short retention periods that could result
in the untimely destruction of records. Dr. Ellis said that Johnson was
right to bring the matter to the attention of the Commission. Nelson asked
that Moses conduct a review of faculty personnel files for consideration
by the Commission at its September meeting. Moses said it would take some
time to re-evaluate both personnel files and student academic records,
as all of the campuses would need to agree on any proposal to reduce their
retention periods.
Higher Education Student Loan Corporation
Moses was the records analyst working on this schedule change. The series being added to the schedule are: 04973, Data Processing Request Form File; 04974, Disbursement Rosters; and 04975, Journal Entry File. The series being changed are: 04945, Correction of Error Form File, from three years to five; 04946, Reconciliation Report File, from three years to five; 04947, Bank/Cash Reconciliation File, from three years to five; 04961, Loan Origination File, from 20 years to five; 04962, Special Purchase of Loans File, from 20 years to five; 04963, Repurchase of Loans File, from 20 years to five; 04964, Loan Consolidation File, from 20 years to five; and 04967, Autopay File, from three years to five.
The Corporation was created in 1978 and is governed by a board of directors (KRS 164A.050). The Executive Director of the Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority serves as the Executive Director of the Corporation. The Corporation's statutory powers include the making, purchasing, or selling of insured student loans; procurement of insurance in respect to all student loans; and making agreements with any federal or state agency, person, corporation, association, or entity to accomplish its statutory purposes. The Corporation is comprised of the following: Executive Office; Human Resources; Information Systems; Debt Recovery; Loan Servicing; and Financial Services.
After a brief explanation by Moses, Dr. Johnson made a motion to adopt
these schedule changes, seconded by Dr. Ellis. The motion carried.
Moses was the records analyst working on this schedule change. The series being added to the schedule are: 04976, Master Folder - Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner; 04977, Reinstatement Credential File (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner); 04978, Renewal Application File (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner); and 04979, Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Program Documentation File. The series being changed are: 00760, Reinstatement Application File, from 50 years to ten; and 00761, Change of Licensure Status Application File, from 50 years to ten. The series being deleted are 00753, Licensure Verification to Other State Boards of Nursing, and 00762, Request for Letter of Verification of Licensure. The General Schedule for Electronic and Related Records is used to manage the deleted series.
The Board of Nursing is responsible for the licensing of Registered Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses and Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners, and the registering of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners. The purpose of licensure boards is to license and regulate the statutorily designated occupations and professions, in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. To accomplish this, boards have two primary areas of responsibility: licensure and enforcement.
The licensure function deals with entry into the profession. In broad terms, the boards determine an individual's initial fitness and competency to practice an occupation or profession. Boards process applications for licensure, check qualifications against statutory requirements, administer licensing examinations and issue and renew licenses.
The enforcement function involves tasks designed to assure that licensees continue to practice competently after initial licensure. Specifically, boards administer continuing education requirements, process complaints against licensed practitioners, conduct investigations, hold hearings and take disciplinary actions against incompetent or fraudulent practitioners. Disciplinary sanctions range from reprimands to license revocation. In performing certain enforcement functions, board members act in a quasi-judicial capacity.
After a brief explanation by Moses, Dr. Morison made a motion to adopt
these schedule changes, seconded by Mr. Hatchett. The motion carried.
Revenue Cabinet - Department of Property Valuation - Property Valuation Administrator
Moses was the records analyst working on this schedule change. The series being changed is 03366, Property Tax Roll, from permanent to five years.
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 Cabinet is made up of the Office of General Counsel, the Department of Property Valuation, the Department of Compliance and Taxpayer Assistance, and the Department of Administrative Services.
The Department of Property Valuation is responsible for the administration and supervision of the programs and processes involved in state and local property tax assessment and equalization, and in state and local tax collection. The general authority is outlined in KRS 13.020-030; however, numerous statutes in KRS Chapters 131, 132, 133, 134, and 136 define and describe the duties of the Department. These include providing administrative support, technical assistance and supervision to 120 Property Valuation Administrator's offices and the coordination of the property tax activities of sheriffs, county clerks and other local officials. In addition, the Department directly assesses public service companies and various other classes of property; administers the centralized Motor Vehicle Tax System (MOTAX); administers the centralized Intangible Property Tax Assessment System; administers a program to audit taxpayer compliance in listing tangible and intangible personal property; administers the mapping program; and administers programs to collect delinquent and omitted taxes. The Department consists of three divisions: Local Valuation, State Valuation and Technical Support.
Moses explained that Property Valuation Administrators (PVAs) are not required to retain a permanent copy of Property Tax Rolls (Tax Assessment Books). PVAs, by law, are required to maintain the tax rolls for each assessment period in their offices for five years, for inspection by the public. After five years, the tax rolls are to be transferred to the respective county clerk for permanent retention. As provided for in Attorney General Opinion 61-831, the County Clerk is the proper custodian of completed tax rolls. The change being proposed is to reflect a transfer of the tax rolls to county clerks, after the required five-year period.
Gabhart said that staff has had several discussions with the Revenue Cabinet about the format in which tax assessment information would be retained in the long term. According to Gabhart, this series is a prime example of a record that contains valuable information that is not used by researchers to the extent it should be because of its format. Tax assessment books are large, oversized volumes that are cumbersome to use. Over the past several years, PVAs have been using an electronic format with which to capture tax assessment information. The Revenue Cabinet is in the process of preparing to revise the system currently in use by PVAs, which should improve future access to the information. Gabhart said that Department staff would be working with Revenue staff, as the system is overhauled. Standardization of equipment and software by the Cabinet will be critical to long term access issues.
Dr. Ellis made a motion to adopt this schedule change, seconded by Dr. Johnson. The motion carried.
The schedules that follow were considered as a group.
State University Model Records Retention Schedule - General Records - Personnel Records
Moses was the analyst working on this schedule change. The series being added to the schedule are U0313, Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Form (duplicate copy), and U0314, Request to Interview Candidate (duplicate copy).
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.
Before proceeding to the next schedule, there was discussion about the value of duplicate records and the reasons why they must be scheduled.
Please refer to the motion below.
State University Model Records Retention Schedule - Student Affairs - Financial Aid
Moses was the analyst working on this schedule change. The series being changed is U1500, Student Loan Documentation File, from five years to three.
Dr. Clark made a motion to adopt these schedule changes, seconded by Mr. Coates. The motion carried. (Mr. Fox voted Yes for the change to the Student Affairs section of the schedule and No to the addition of duplicate copies, in the change to the General Records section of the State University Model).
Dr. Ellis offered resolutions on behalf of the Commission in recognition of Darrell Gabhart, who is retiring from the Department effective July 31st, and Victor Fox, Assistant Attorney General, and representative of the Attorney General on the State Archives and Records Commission, who also is retiring from state government service.
Dr. Ellis made a motion that letters of appreciation be drafted from
the Commission and sent to Mr. Gabhart and Mr. Fox expressing the deep
appreciation of the members for their counsel and service, respectively,
to the Department and the Commission over many years and expressing the
members' very best wishes to them in their retirement. Dr. Ellis asked
that the motion include a similar letter of appreciation to Ms. Teresa
McChesney, Grants and Contracts Specialist, Local Records Branch, on the
occasion of her departure from the Department, to accept a new position
in the Division of Water, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
Cabinet. Dr. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
Nelson advised the Commission members that the Department was successful in securing two capital appropriations in the 2000 session of the General Assembly. The first appropriation was for $200,000 in planning money for an archival facility addition to the Coffee Tree Road location, and the second was for $1.188 million, for both planning studies and equipment purchases related to a document management digitization system (DMDS). Originally, DMDS was part of a proposed major building addition. Nelson said that when the building request was presented in the last two planning cycles, the Department indicated it was making a strong commitment to expanding its format conversion facilities for micrographics and digital scanning operations. Funding for the total facility was not forthcoming, but funds to plan for these services were appropriated, as well as funds for the initial purchase of equipment. Nelson invited those Commission members who have an interest to work with Department staff on the projects noted above. Nelson said there would be a meeting sometime after July 14th, when the funds become available, to go over the planning process. Any members so inclined would be welcome to participate in those discussions. In addition, Department staff has begun holding weekly meetings to work on the projects, given the complexity of the planning process and the issues involved.
Dr. Clark asked how the $200,000 in planning money would be used. Nelson said it would help determine what type of facility is needed and how that would relate to the issue of electronic records management. Other agencies, such as the Department for Military Affairs and the Secretary of State's Office have previously expressed some interest in sharing space in the new archival facility. Dr. Clark said it would be good to bring together the archival collections of the Department for Military Affairs and the Secretary of State's Office into a central location. Nelson said an issue that is important to other agencies is maintaining separate identities in a merged facility. Belding said the planning money also would aid the Department in taking into account the integration of the long-term preservation of electronic records into archival management structures. It is a complicated issue that must involve the Department, as well as policy-making bodies that can have an impact on records creators in a way that the Department cannot.
Dr. Johnson asked about how the $1.188 million would be spent. Belding said that approximately $375,000 had been designated as planning money. No equipment purchases will occur until planning has been carried out. Johnson asked if the Department expected to purchase equipment and house it in existing facilities. Belding said that was an issue the Department is currently working on. He indicated that one of the questions asked in a request for a capital appropriation is what the operational budget impact of the request is expected to be. The operational impact of the Department's request would involve related personnel costs, possible facilities expenses, and operations and supply costs. If the Department does not have a new building in which to house the equipment, it must have an interim solution. The Finance and Administration Cabinet has allowed the Department a longer period of time in which to expend the funds, as part of an alternative solution.
Dr. Clark said this was an opportune time to be dealing with these issues, as the National Archives and Records Administration is faced with many of the same problems. Belding then asked Charles Robb, manager of the Department's Technology and Analysis and Support Branch, to update the Commission members on the super computer project currently underway, with National Archives' support.
Robb said that the National Archives is developing a model electronic archiving mechanism through the San Diego Super Computer Center (www.sdsc.edu). It promises to be a scalable solution that will work for the National Archives, as well as for state archives and other smaller institutions. It is not a working model yet. Kentucky will be looking at the model as a possible solution to its electronic archiving issues. The cost of the project, should it be operational, is staggering, according to Robb.
Dr. Morison distributed to the Commission members the first page of a nine-page document titled Electronic Records at U. of L.: Guidelines for Access, Retention, Destruction. Morison said feedback concerning the site would be appreciated. Interested parties can visit: http://www.louisville.edu/library/uarc/recmgmt/elecmgmt.htm for additional information.
Belding gave a brief update on the status of the bill tracking system the Department has been utilizing since the beginning of the 2000 legislative session. A total of 459 bills were tracked, 195 of which passed into law. The number of bills that passed that had a records management impact were as follows: 70 involved some type of organizational change; 25 required the creation of new records or recordkeeping systems; 40 required the creation of publications or reports; 14 involved access issues; six impacted record retention; 14 dealt with library issues; and 26 had some type of general records impact. Belding also distributed a final report to the Commission members that provided bill numbers and titles, brief descriptions of the bills, and required actions.
DeLuca said one of the major items in this legislative session was the number of capital construction projects submitted. There were approximately 700 projects to be considered, up from 350 the previous legislative session. The projects covered every area of the state and were in direct competition with the Department's project proposal. DeLuca said the Department has to be more prepared than it ever has been to compete in this area. Dr. Clark said it is incumbent upon the agency to develop a process with which to better educate legislators about the Department, its roles and responsibilities. Coates said a possibility might be re-naming the agency so that public records has an equal, open presence. The name "Department for Libraries and Archives" does not suggest public records, in Coates' opinion.
After a brief break, Nelson moved to consideration of the local records grants. Dr. Ellis complimented the local records staff for the excellent job they had done in balancing the various aspects of the goal of the legislation which funds the program. Grants to local governments range from those for conversion of records for preservation purposes to those that provide funds to assist in the payment of salaries for indexing projects.
Mr. Coates made a motion to recommend approval of the grants presented for consideration, as a group, to Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Dr. Ellis. The motion carried.
Nelson adjourned the meeting at 11:55 a.m.
Last revised Sep 18, 2000
Return to Top
Return to
State Archives and Records Commission Page
KDLA Home Page