STATE ARCHIVES AND RECORDS COMMISSION MINUTES (Kentucky) June 1999

Members present: Dr. Thomas D. Clark, representing the University of Kentucky; Paul F. Coates, representing Citizens-at-Large; Dr. William J. Morison, representing regional colleges and universities; Ed Hatchett, Auditor of Public Accounts; Dr. Linda E. Johnson, representing Citizens-at-Large; Shelia E. Heflin, representing the Kentucky Library Association; and Lynne Hollingsworth, representing the Kentucky Historical Society.

Representatives present: Lou 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 Ron Jones, representing Stephen N. Dooley, Commissioner, Department of Information Systems.

Members not present or represented: Carolyn N. Murphy, representing local governments; Cheryl Jones, representing Citizens-at-Large; Crit Luallen, State Budget Director, Governor’s Office of Policy and Management; Judge Joseph E. Lambert, Chief Justice, Kentucky Supreme Court; and Dr. Jack D. Ellis, representing Citizens-at-Large.

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; Gerald Thompson, Regional Administrator; Lena Jones Turner, Regional Administrator; Jerry Carlton, Regional Administrator; Jim Terry, Administrative Specialist; Teresa McChesney, Contract Specialist; and B. J. Webster, Administrative Secretary.

Guests present: Bruce Weathers, representing the City of Louisville.

Chairman Nelson introduced Ms. Lynne Hollingsworth, representing the Kentucky Historical Society. Ms. Hollingsworth was sworn in, prior to the start of the meeting.

For the record, Nelson called for introductions of Commission members.

Nelson presented a certificate to Mr. Robert Ocasio, representing Image Entry, a private microfilming company, located in London, Kentucky.

Minutes of the previous Commission meeting were approved on a motion made by Mr. Fox, seconded by Mr. Coates. The motion carried.

NEW OR REVISED RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULES

City of Louisville - Revenue Commission

Dr. Frank Levstik was the regional administrator working on this new schedule. The series being scheduled are: L4800, Federal Employee Taxpayer Account File; L4801, Taxpayer Account File; L4802, Application for Occupational Tax Reporting Number; L4803, Investment Transaction File; L4804, Redeemed Bond and Bond Coupon File; and L4805, Tax Collection Case Files.

The Revenue Commission is the occupational tax collection agent on behalf of the City of Louisville, Jefferson County, the Jefferson County Board of Election, the Anchorage Board of Education, and the Transit Authority of River City (TARC). The Commission also issues various special licenses and collects the transient room tax on behalf of Jefferson County, and the tax on insurance premiums on behalf of the City of Louisville and Jefferson County.

Levstik informed the Advisory Committee members that this work represents the continuing effort of the City of Louisville to update its records retention schedules.

Please see motion below.

City of Louisville - Department of Solid Waste Management and Services

Levstik was the regional administrator working on this new schedule. The series being scheduled is L4799, Route Cards.

The Department of Solid Waste Management and Services is responsible for removing all municipal solid waste from single family households, multi-family dwellings, with eight or fewer units, and small commercial establishments within the City of Louisville. The Department also manages the contracted collection of garbage from condominiums, public agencies, and the Housing Authority of Louisville.

Fox asked about the reference rate for series L4800, Federal Employee Tax Account File, which is listed as 365 re-entries per year. Mr. Weathers explained that staff is in the file every working day, for general inquiries, collection activities, etc. The re-entry rate is considerable, even after five years. The series is scheduled as an eight-year record.

Dr. Clark made a motion to adopt this schedule and the schedule for the Revenue Commission, seconded by Mr. Fox. The motion carried.

Local Government Model - Fire Department

Jerry Carlton was the regional administrator working on this new schedule. The series being scheduled are L4806 to L4830, a total of 25 records.

The fire departments in the state may be designated as municipal, county, a fire protection district (which number more than 130), or volunteer. The Commission on Fire Protection Personnel Standards and Education, which is a part of the State Fire Marshall's Office, Department for Housing, Buildings and Construction, certifies the fire departments. The municipal and county departments are governed by their respective legislative bodies, while the others are considered special districts governed by a seven-member Board of Trustees. Each fire district must submit an annual budget and financial statement to the appropriate fiscal court and to the Department for Local Government.

Carlton explained that this schedule is an addition to the Local Government Model retention schedule. The current schedule for fire departments is a part of the City Model, which was previously approved by the Commission in 1982. Carlton said that the new schedule would be applicable to all fire departments in the state, except those in Jefferson County and the Lexington/Fayette Urban County Government, Lexington.

There being no discussion, Dr. Clark made a motion to adopt this new schedule, seconded by Mr. Fox. The motion carried.

Department of Agriculture – Division of Animal Health

This schedule and the one that follows were considered as a group.

Diana Moses was the records analyst working on this schedule change. The series being added to the schedule are 04865, Tuberculosis Test Record File, 04866, Certificate of Veterinary Inspection File, and 04871, Health Certificates for Small Animals File. The series being changed are 01901, Herd Health Files, from permanent to ten and fifteen years, and 01908, Daily Stockyard Brucellosis Sales Test Record File, from permanent to ten years.

The Department of Agriculture is under the direction of the elected Commissioner of Agriculture, Labor and Statistics, as provided in the Kentucky Constitution. Section 93 of the Constitution provides that law will establish the Commissioner’s duties in KRS Chapters 246, 247, 251, 252, 257, 258, 260 and 261. The basic purpose of the department is to serve farmers, agribusiness and consumers, and this includes regulatory services. The department has regional offices in Paducah, Owensboro and Florence.

The Division of Animal Health keeps livestock certification records and prevents, controls and eradicates livestock diseases, such as brucellosis, tuberculosis, equine infectious anemia, contagious equine metritis, equine viral arteritis and pseudorabies.

Moses explained that the reduction in retention of series 01901 and 01908 is related to recommendations of the U. S. Department of Agriculture.

Please refer to the motion below.

Department of Agriculture - Division of Pesticides

Moses was the records analyst working on this schedule change. The series being added to the schedule are 04867, Wood-Destroying Organism Services Report File, and 04868, Pesticide Control Operator Examination File. The series being changed is 03942, Complaint Inspection File, from ten years to five.

The Division of Pesticides registers and regulates the sale and use of all pesticides, including the registration of pesticide products, licensing pest control operators and commercial applicators, and the certification of farmers to use restricted-use pesticides.

Nelson asked about the reduction in retention of series 03942. Moses explained that actions taken in regard to complaints have to be initiated shortly after receipt of the complaint. A five-year retention period is sufficient for the Department to carryout corrective measures.

Dr. Johnson made a motion to adopt both Department of Agriculture schedule changes, seconded by Mr. Fox. The motion carried.

County Model - County Clerk - Legal Instruments - Personal Property

Carlton was the regional administrator working on this schedule change. The series being added to the schedule is L4835, Fixture Filings. Effective July 1, 1987, this record is to be filed and recorded in the County Clerk's Office, when a security interest is completed, either by a financing statement or within a real estate mortgage. The records are usually maintained in a book; however, some of the earlier recordings may be filed in folders, or, in some instances, in the real estate mortgage books. "Fixtures" are defined as goods that become so related to particular real estate that an interest in them arises under real estate law.

The series being changed are L1362, Financing Statement File, and L1568, Debtor Index to Financing Statements. Series L1362 is being changed from indefinite, destroy lapsed statements five years and 60 days after filing date, to indefinite, destroy lapsed statements six years after filing date. Series L1568 is being changed to destroy six years after filing date of last financing statement entered into the index.

Carlton advised the Committee members that L1362 contains continuation statements, statements of release, assignment, and termination, and related documents, which were previously approved as separate series in the County Model.

Dr. Clark made a motion to adopt this schedule change, seconded by Dr. Johnson. The motion carried.

Department of Education - Management Support Services - District Support Services

Moses was the records analyst working on this schedule change. The series being added to the schedule are 04869, Local School District Worksheet File, and 04870, Russell County Report File.

The structure of the Department of Education was significantly affected in 1990 with enactment of HB 814 and HB 940. The Workforce Development Cabinet was created in HB 814, which required the Department to transfer to the new cabinet the State Board of Adult, Vocational Education and Vocational Rehabilitation; Adult Vocational Education; the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation; and Adult Basic Education programs. HB 940, the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990 (KERA), was enacted in response to a 1989 Kentucky Supreme Court decision that held Kentucky's system of common schools to be unconstitutional. KERA provided that positions in the Department of Education were to be abolished, that all employees were to be terminated at the close of business June 30, 1991, and directed the new commissioner of Education to reorganize the Department with new positions, as of July 1, 1991.

One June 28, 1991, the Commissioner issued Executive Order 91-DOE-01, which reorganized the Department of Education. The Kentucky Board of Education hires the Commissioner of the Department of Education, who serves as the chief state school officer. The organizational structure includes a chief of staff, who is one of four deputy commissioners. The other three deputy commissioners head the Bureau of Management Support Services, the Bureau of Learning Results, and the Bureau of Learning Support. In addition to the Office of the Commissioner, there is the Office of Legal Services and the Office of Communications, Planning and Government Relations.

The Department was reorganized again December 16, 1998, pursuant to Executive Order 98-1671. The Kentucky Board of Education continues to hire the Commissioner of the Department of Education. The organizational structure includes two deputy
commissioners who head the Bureau of Management Support Services and the Bureau of Learning Support Services.

Dr. Johnson questioned the transfer of the records to the State Records Center, given the small volume generated. Moses explained that the volume of the series is not the question. Agencies have the option of transferring any non-permanent series, regardless of size, to the Records Center. The Center regularly receives one-box shipments. The Records Center is the state's centralized storage facility for public agencies and as such the regular transfer of records, regardless of volume, is expected.

Belding informed the Commission members that more than 50 percent of the records scheduled for transfer to the Records Center have retention periods of five or less years and that another 30% have retention periods of five to ten years. The value to agencies of the regular use of the Records Center involves prompt movement off site of records not needed for the conduct of day-to-day business.

After a brief description of the changes by Moses, Dr. Clark made a motion to adopt this schedule change, seconded by Mr. Hatchett. The motion carried.

Public School District Model - Central Office

Levstik was the regional administrator working on this schedule change. The series being changed are L2015, Official Minutes of the Board of Education, and L2639, Complaints Against Staff. The retention of these series is being changed due to inadvertent disposition errors made in preparing the schedule for submission to the Commission at its December 1998 meeting.

Mr. Hatchett asked for a clarification of the term "indefinite." The term means that an action has to occur to trigger the retention period. For example, if the disposition of a contract requires that its destruction occur three years after termination, the indefinite period is the time between execution of the contract and its termination. Once the contract is terminated, the retention of three years begins. After three years, the contracted can be destroyed.

After additional discussion, Dr. Clark made a motion to adopt this schedule change, seconded by Mr. Fox. The motion carried.

State University Model – Student/Course Records

Diana Moses was the records analyst working on this schedule change. The series being added to the schedule is U0476, Student Credential File. The addition of this series is at the request of 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, and partial schedules for other campuses. The State University Model schedule was initially approved in March 1994, and additional records series have been periodically added to it since that time.

Mr. Fox made a motion to adopt this schedule change, seconded by Dr. Clark. The motion carried.

OTHER BUSINESS

Nelson asked Belding to update the Commission members on the status of the Department's capital construction project request. Before Belding began, Nelson advised the members that Lou DeLuca, representing Dr. Marlene M. Helm, Secretary, Education, Arts and Humanities Cabinet, had been named as the Cabinet's Chief Information Officer (CIO). Every cabinet now has a CIO contact, according to Nelson. The CIOs regularly meet with Aldona Valicenti, the state's Chief Information Officer.

DeLuca asked to address the issue of the construction project, prior to Belding's update. DeLuca informed the Commission members that the position of Chief Information Officer for state government has only been in existence for a year. The purpose of the Office is to consider information issues on a state government-wide (enterprise) basis. All the records of state government are considered to be an enterprise issue. The Department's capital construction proposal, to build an addition to the Coffee Tree facility, for the purpose of consolidating its records storage needs, was a project with statewide implications, but was not viewed that way, according to DeLuca. Now, according to DeLuca, all agencies' records are viewed as an information technology issue, as well as a storage issue. The transition to electronic technology has presented a challenge, which requires a re-thinking by the Department of its current proposal. How to manage electronic records that have continuing or archival value is the specific challenge, due to the non-archival quality of electronic media. This challenge has to be confronted
first, according to DeLuca, before the Department can adequately explain the need for the additional storage space. This is due to the simplistic view that electronic technology will solve record storage problems, thereby negating the need for a building addition. Nelson and Belding have been working with Ms. Valicenti's office, because the Chief Information Officer does view the records of government as an enterprise issue. Dr. Clark said that trying to determine the life span of electronic records while the traditional system is being strangled is creating a situation beyond solution in the future.

Belding then explained the Department's revised position in regard to the capital construction project request. The Department is seeking, as it has in the last four six-year planning cycles, support for a building expansion at the Coffee Tree location to address state and local agencies' growth needs for the services of the Public Records Division. For the current six-year planning cycle, the Department has altered its approach to a building expansion. The current proposal is stressing document management/electronic records management concepts, and is driven by the recognition that the Commonwealth needs an enterprise (government-wide) strategy for archiving electronic records created by government.

Belding said that the current request focuses on: 1) expanded space to manage archival collections, in all media, with a special focus on the construction and development of an electronic archives capacity within the addition; 2) increased space for imaging services and micrographics operations, to permit expanded backfile conversion of paper records to electronic form; 3) increased public services areas; and 4) a dedicated records management training facility. According to Belding, the Department's current archival storage capacity is exhausted.

Belding informed the Commission members that the request differs from previous ones in that it no longer seeks to end Department leases for its two off site State Records Center facilities. Under previous proposals, all records operations would have been centralized on the Coffee Tree site. This is not the goal of the current proposal. The Department will retain the leased sites, which operate on a cost recovery basis, improve them where possible, and expand them as demand dictates. The projected addition will be somewhat smaller than that of previous proposals, from slightly over 102,000 square feet to somewhat over 73,000 square feet.

Building an electronic archives capacity is important, according to Belding, but it is not enough to assure that such records are secure and accessible. For an enterprise electronic archives strategy to work, state government needs: 1) a stronger framework of information technology governance, policies and standards; 2) agency acceptance of responsibilities and legal mandates to create and keep adequate records; 3) a cost effective strategy; and 4) good use of emerging best practices in the document
management, records management, and archives management fields. While a key part of the strategy is related to the Department's current capital construction request, equally important are the directional changes it signals and the policy and procedural actions which need to take place to ensure its success.

Belding said these include: 1) top down policy and procedural changes; 2) augmentation of the Commonwealth's Information Architecture and Standards; 3) standardization around a group of document management and electronic records management software tools; 4) incorporation of recordkeeping requirements into systems life cycle design efforts; 5) development of KDLA's data or electronic archives capacity done in partnership with the Department of Information Systems; 6) a working means to get electronic objects into secure archival storage; 7) a robust capacity for document conversion at KDLA, both through imaging and known, reliable media like microfilm; and 8) a means to seamlessly integrate the "old" archives with the new.

The Department recognizes that available resources may limit the extent to which these elements can be undertaken simultaneously, but at the same time, until these resources are available, Belding said, agencies and the Department will continue to need to respond to archival storage, preservation and access requirements that involve many different media. And likewise, so will their facilities.

Dr. Clark said that in all of the discussion of records generally, there is one major barrier that has not been penetrated and that is the durability and life expectancy of electronic records. Dr. Clark believes that this must be acknowledged and that future Commission members will question why this issue was not recognized earlier. Dr. Clark said that the Department is facing a very compelling situation, that is, making a transition from paper-based recordkeeping to electronic. Clark likened the situation to a forest that is almost trackless at the moment. Clark questioned how the transition will be made and how much of the machinery of the past must be preserved to ensure access. That is an important factor that must be discussed. Dr. Clark does not believe that paper will be reduced, but rather that coordination between paper and electronic recordkeeping must be achieved.

Coates said that the Commission has been having discussions about these very issues for the past twenty years. The difference, Coates said, is that technology is more prevalent now and that more people have become aware of the issues of preservation of and access to electronic records. Coates said it is just a matter now of re-emphasizing the politics of the situation and shifting policies and people to be deal with the issues. As to the building expansion, Coates said it is to the place where a new study will have to be formalized to say what records are really necessary and should be retained, and how much of them can be destroyed. The Commission has always had the responsibility to determine which records should be retained and which should be destroyed.

Coates asked for clarification as to why the square footage of the proposed addition was being reduced. Belding said that the change in size of the building reflects, specifically, that portion of the building that would have been devoted to records center operations. Since the Department will be maintaining records center operations in satellite facilities and will continue to increase those, if the demand warrants, the remaining addition responds to the same kinds of archival projections that have been included in previous requests. What has changed is the level of investment in the Department's capacity to carry out document conversion and to extend the life of the archives facility, recognizing that the state will be in a transition mode for some time. There will be a certain proportion of records being created electronically and a certain proportion continuing to be created in paper. The proposal addresses the extent to which the Department can apply conversion technology to those records that are created in paper so that they can be archivally maintained and retained. It may be necessary to run parallel systems of microfilming and imaging to ensure that a known, reliable medium, such as micrographics, can support electronic technologies, where appropriate, in a period of transition. Belding said the Department recognizes that it will have to deal with a mixed environment and that it is trying to position itself to take advantage of the opportunities that technology provides. It will be important to have a facility where agencies can begin to transfer those materials that ought to be in archival custody, to begin the process of their long-term management. It must be recognized that management procedures will be different than those used in the management of paper.

Dr. Morison said that it seemed to him, as someone who has been responsible, for more than a quarter century, for managing, for more than a quarter of a century, the records of the oldest state university, that the Department's revised building proposal was a very sensible one. It is current, professionally, and makes good sense all the way around. Morison said that the Department is still accounting for the storage of paper records, through its leased facilities, while including the new effort to join and help guide the enterprise-wide system for the protection and preservation of electronic records. Also, the Department is acknowledging that this venture is a gamble, but is trying to do the best it can in the present environment. No one knows, Morison acknowledged, how this will all play out over the next five years, or even ten or twenty years. Morison believes the Department is taking a position of leadership, which he applauds. There will be pitfalls and failures along the way, with respect to the attempts to preserve electronically created information, according to Morison, but the Department must move forward.

Dr. Johnson said the Department's plan was clearly articulated, with a vision and a strategy for the future that embraces existing, and in some cases older but emerging, technology that can come into play. Johnson agreed with Morison's comment that the Department is still accounting for the storage of paper records. Should the future prove, as many suspect it will, that the creation of paper documents has decreased, the leased facilities can be adjusted accordingly. By investing capital dollars in electronic technology, the Department has the potential for cost reduction and savings in physical facilities. If the enterprise-wide information system in Kentucky becomes a reality, agencies may be better able to manage the storage of their non-permanent records in the agencies, through electronic storage means. Johnson said that has the potential to be of enormous benefit to the Department, as it would negate the need for expanded physical storage facilities.

Mr. Hatchett said that a strategic alliance with the CIO is a good one but that the Department should proceed cautiously. Hatchett said that the CIO has a very different mission than the Commission has. The mission of the Commission should not be subsumed, totally, under the mission of the CIO. The CIO's mission, under the current administration, is to see that government's use of technology is being properly coordinated so that it can be a part of the electronic world as soon as possible. There is little interest in records retention, as a part of its mission, according to Hatchett. Dr. Clark agreed with Hatchett's remarks and said that the Commission must never let its mission be submerged. Hatchett said that the Commission members must exert themselves more publicly on these types of issues. The Commission needs to say that it has a moral obligation to make sure that in the zeal to get government on the information highway, records retention is not forgotten. Hatchett said this may already have happened and gave as an example the Management and Administrative Reporting System (MARS), the new state financial system, which is being implemented with little thought toward records management requirements. Hatchett reiterated that the strategic alliance with the CIO offers an excellent opportunity; however, the Commission should not allow itself to be completely subsumed within its main mission, which is to get government up and running in the computerized generation.

Johnson agreed, but said that the Department was going to have to satisfy both constituencies for a number of years to come. There is no magic solution that will suddenly make everything electronic, eliminating, totally, paper records. That is not going to happen, Johnson said. The management of paper records will have to continue while the Department pursues other strategies associated with electronic technology. Belding agreed with Johnson and said that the Department has dealt with this issue for the better part of a decade. The Department has identified and discussed these same kinds of steps throughout that period of time. Belding said that, like Hatchett, one of the concerns that staff regularly encountered is the fact that there are costs associated with records management considerations being built into an electronic system. There has to be some way of embracing that fact and acknowledging that it is part of the cost of doing public business. The cost for not considering records management when designing systems is called "building, buildings," according to Johnson. Johnson said that the Department's proposal pursues alternative strategies and mechanisms to solve these issues while keeping in mind that a suitable facility needs to be constructed, and acknowledging the potential offered by electronic storage. The paperless office has been discussed for close to twenty years and hasn't occurred yet.

Dr. Clark said the basic problem in selling any of these ideas to the decision-makers is the lack of knowledge about archival management. There is little understanding about the fundamental importance of records to ongoing political, economic and social processes.

DeLuca acknowledged that the missions of the CIO and the Commission are different, but that Ms. Valicenti, with a better understanding of the Department and its role, can speak to the Governor and legislators in support of the proposal. At the same time, according to DeLuca, the Commission has to carry the message about what the preservation of records means to the history and future of the state to the decision-makers as well. DeLuca said that Secretary Helm intends to be an advocate for the proposal to the same groups. There are now two capital construction priorities: information technology, because of its high costs, and the building expansion. It is hoped that both projects, which are linked, will receive a high priority by the Capital Planning Advisory Board, as it is that process that determines the recommendations which go forward to the legislature. It will be imperative, as well, to have the support of the Office of the Chief Information Officer.

The next item of business was an update regarding the administrative regulation the Local Records staff has been working on with the county clerks. The regulation establishes standards and procedures for: 1) recording, managing and preserving public records; 2) reproduction of public records by photographic or microphotographic process. Specifically, the regulation relates to land records, such as deeds, mortgages and assignments.

Just prior to the Commission meeting, the Department withdrew the emergency regulation, which would have implemented the new standards immediately. The Department will pursue submission of the regulation in July. The emergency regulation was withdrawn to allow time to resolve concerns from interested parties, such as banks and mortgage companies, related to its implementation.

The last item of business was consideration of Local Records grants. The Department is recommending grants totaling approximately $400,000, about two thirds of the total for FY 1999-2000. Ms. McChesney separated the grants into categories and provided summary information. A copy of the summary is attached. During the Advisory Committee meeting, Gabhart said Local Records staff were asked to provide information regarding the distribution of grant funds since the program's inception, in 1985. Approximately 957 grants have been awarded since that time, at a cost of $10,502,013. The four regions of the state (east, west, north and south) have equally received around 25 percent of the grant funds awarded. A copy of the summary by agency type, region, and element of funding is attached.

Gabhart said that a question had arisen during the Advisory Committee meeting regarding the grant funds being awarded for salary support. Gabhart explained that staff who are familiar with recordkeeping in county clerk offices could generally carry out indexing activities much more effectively. For that reason, grants continue to be awarded to offices to assist in indexing activities.

In response to a question, Gabhart informed the Commission members that the Department could not afford to fund part or all of an imaging system or electronic system because it was simply too expensive. If clerks are going to get involved in that area (imaging technology) they need to have enough cash flow every year, so they can budget a significant amount of money for upgrades and maintenance. If they can't afford that, then in Gabhart's opinion, they really should not be purchasing imaging systems.

Dr. Clark said that the Local Records grant program has made enormous differences in the preservation of county records.

After general discussion of the grants, Mr. Fox made a motion to recommend to Commissioner Nelson, as a group, the grants presented for consideration, seconded by Dr. Clark. The motion carried.

Nelson adjourned the meeting at 11:55 a.m.

Return to Top
Return to State Archives and Records Commission Page
KDLA Home Page