Administrative Office of the Courts
Revenue Cabinet
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet
State University Model Records Retention Schedule
The State Archives and Records Commission met March 9, 2000, in the Board Room, Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives (KDLA).
Members present: Dr. Marlene M. Helm, Secretary, Education, Arts and Humanities Cabinet; 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; Stephen N. Dooley, Deputy Chief Information Officer, representing the Governor's Office for Technology; and Shelia E. Heflin, representing the Kentucky Library Association.
Representatives present: Leslie Smith, representing Robert Sherman, Director, Legislative Research Commission; Victor Fox, representing A. B. Chandler, III, Attorney General; and Donna Dixon, representing Ed Hatchett, Auditor of Public Accounts.
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; Jerry Carlton, Regional Administrator; Dr. Frank Levstik, Regional Administrator; Gerald Thompson, Regional Administrator; Larry Barnett, Regional Administrator; Jim Terry, Administrative Specialist; Michele Staton, Administrative Specialist; Teresa McChesney, Contracts Specialist; and B. J. Webster, Administrative Secretary.
Guests present: No guests were present.
For the record, Nelson called for introductions of Commission members.
Minutes of the previous Commission meeting were approved on a motion made by
Dr. Morison, seconded by Dr. Ellis. The motion carried.
NEW OR REVISED RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULES
Administrative Office of the Courts - Juvenile Services - Court Designated Worker Program
Larry Barnett was the regional administrator working on this new schedule. The series being scheduled are: 03481, Juvenile Case Record; 03482, Tracking Card File; 03483, Court Designated Workers' Diversion Agreement Log; 03484, Court Designated Workers' Log; 03485, Statistical Report File; 03486, Court Designated Workers' Diversion Agreement Log; 03487, Court Designated Workers' Log; and 03488, Court Designated Workers' Statistical Report File.
The Administrative Office of the Courts was created in 1976, by ratification of an Amendment to the Constitution, in November 1975. Pursuant to Section 110 (5) (b) of the Constitution, the agency:
Barnett explained that this was the first effort toward the creation of a retention schedule for the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). The schedule for the Court Designated Worker Program is applicable to both field offices and the central office.
Dr. Clark made a motion to adopt this new schedule, seconded by Dr. Johnson. The motion carried.
Moses was the records analyst working on this new schedule. The schedule contains approximately 216 series, of which 48 are automated systems.
The seven-member State Tax Commission created in 1916 was comprised of four state representatives and three state senators selected by the Governor. A new three-member State Tax Commission was created in 1917 and it assumed the duties of the State Board of Valuation and Assessment and the State Board of Equalization. In 1934, the Department of Revenue and Taxation was created and the existing State Tax Commission was authorized to organize the department. In 1936, the Department of Revenue and Taxation became the Department of Revenue and was headed by a commissioner. The Kentucky Tax Commission was established in the department, along with the Division of General Taxation, the Division of Motor Vehicles, the Division of Local Finance, and the Division of Research and Statistics. The Revenue Cabinet was created by Executive Order, effective July 1, 1982.
The Revenue Cabinet is the chief revenue collection agency for Kentucky State government. As such, it is responsible for administration of General Fund taxes and the major Road Fund taxes, and the assessment of forty-four 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 law (KRS 131.030). The cabinet is comprised of the Office of the Secretary, the Department of Tax Administration, the Department of Property Valuation, the Department of Information Technology, and the Department of Law.
Moses explained that the purpose for the submission of the schedule is to ask for a revised approval date of March 9, 2000. The schedules for each of the departments listed above were revised and approved by the Commission over the course of the past two years. A current re-issue date will simplify use of the schedule by the Cabinet.
Dr. Clark made a motion to adopt this schedule with a revised date of
March 9, 2000, seconded by Dr. Morison. The motion carried.
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet - General Administration and Support - Division of Administrative Services
Moses was the records analyst working on this schedule change. The series being added to the schedule is 04970, Conflict of Interest File, which documents employment and financial interests of employees who work in a surface mining related, decision making position within the agency.
The Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet is charged with broad responsibilities for the protection and balanced management of land, air and water resources. The Cabinet is an integrated program agency with five major units: the Department for Natural Resources, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Surface Mining, the Department of Law, and General Administration and Support. Created originally to conserve, maintain and preserve our land and water resources, the Cabinet is also the chief agency responsible for the prevention, abatement and control of all water, land, and air pollution, and the reclamation of lands adversely affected by surface and underground mining.
The General Administration and Support unit is statutorily based on KRS Chapter 224 and is the administrative component supporting the four program departments within the Cabinet. It is responsible for providing an administrative system through which the goals and objectives of the Cabinet can be achieved. The program provides administrative direction, state and federal coordination, data and informational input from program operations, accountability for financial resources, centralized procurement, legal services for agency and program operations, recruitment of new employees, personnel records maintenance, and public awareness of agency and program operations. The unit includes the Office of the Secretary, the Office of Information Services, the Office of Administrative Hearings, and the Division of Administrative Services.
The Division of Administrative Services provides centralized support to the Cabinet in areas of personnel, finance, budgeting, data processing, property and facilities management, grant administration and other administrative functions.
Moses explained that the series is similar to the financial disclosure document certain employees are required by the Executive Branch Ethics Commission to complete. The retention of both series is the same. As stated above, completion of this series is limited to those in surface mining related, decision-making positions, and is a requirement of the federal government.
After a question by Coates regarding the contents of the file, Ms. Dixon
made a motion to adopt this schedule change, seconded by Dr. Clark. The
motion carried.
Moses was the records analyst working on this schedule change. The series being added to the schedule is 04969, Complaint File - Unfounded. The series being changed is 04396, Examination File, to allow for the destruction of audiotapes and examination sheets after forty-five days.
The Board of Pharmacy is responsible for the licensing of Pharmacists. 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 revocations. In performing certain enforcement functions, board members function in a quasi-judicial capacity.
Moses explained that complaints that result in formal investigations are documented in the Master License File, which is a permanent record. In regard to the destruction of audiotapes and examination sheets, an examinee has a period of thirty days after taking an examination in which to take issue with a particular score. The forty-five day retention period should be more than sufficient to cover questions that might arise.
Dr. Ellis made a motion to adopt this schedule change, seconded by Dr.
Morison. The motion carried.
State University Model Records Retention Schedule - Affirmative Action/Employee Relations
Moses was the analyst working on this schedule change. The series being added to the schedule are U0632, Vacant Faculty Position Retention Form; U0633, Position Control Form; U0634, Description of Available Position; U0635, Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Form; U0636, Justification of Waiver Request File; U0637, Search Committee Form; U0638, Request to Interview Candidate; U0639, Interim Affirmative Action Report; U0640, Summary of Affirmative Action Process; and U0641, Preferred Candidate Identified Form.
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.
Moses explained that the records being considered were brought to the attention of the Division by the University of Louisville.
Dr. Clark made a motion to adopt this schedule change, seconded by Dr.
Ellis. The motion carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
Nelson informed the Commission members that the funds for planning for organizational coordination and requirements for an archival addition to the Department, to include a digital archives for the Commonwealth, remain in the Governor's budget. The proposed funds for the data management and imaging system project, which the Department wants to pursue, also remain in the Governor's budget. Since both projects have planning elements, work will be underway in advance of the new fiscal year to begin formalizing requirements. Dr. Clark believes there is legislative support for both projects and that the items will remain in the Governor's budget.
Dr. Helm spoke about her appearances before House and Senate legislative committees in regard to the above projects, and the importance of having good documentation to present to legislators. Helm said that after having read an article by John W. Carlin, Archivist of the United States, she was reminded that the nature of records is changing very rapidly. In order to preserve information in an electronic format, agencies have to continually migrate information forward as the technology changes, a point that Helm relayed to the respective legislative committee members. Helm said that the Department, the Cabinet and the Commission must be visionary in planning undertaken and must identify the types of storage media that will be needed to preserve information over the next twenty-five years or more.
Coates, in response to Helm's comments, said that the Department had historically put great emphasis on planning for future needs. Coates believes it is impossible to plan for the year 2025 and beyond, in concrete terms, because of the rapid changes in technology. According to Coates, it has been amazing the changes that have occurred in technology in just the past three or four years. About the only thing that can be predicted, Coates said, is that more and more technology will be available and it will be more complicated and more expensive to purchase and use. Coates said that the Department has lost a lot of momentum in this area due to a lack of funds. More funds are needed now to deal with current problems the Department faces. The amount of funds the Department receives should then increase yearly to meet future needs.
Dr. Clark agreed with Dr. Helm that it is extremely important that the Department develop concrete plans for how the projects above will be carried out. Clark also said that a major issue before the Commission is determining what records, particularly those in an electronic format, should be retained permanently.
Dr. Ellis said the Commission and Department are caught in a tremendous bind because of the rapid changes in technology. No one knows with certainty what format will be used to store, preserve and retrieve electronic information in the future.
Dr. Johnson echoed Dr. Clark's comment about the challenge of determining what records should be preserved. It is necessary, according to Johnson, to look closely at what records are defined as permanent and how those decisions are reached. Johnson said her concern for some time has been the number of records that are identified as permanent and what those records consist of and whether the definition used to determine a record's permanent value is one that will be appropriate for the future. The volume of records within institutions of higher education, not to mention the rest of state government, amounts to thousands of individual records. The available resources needed to adequately manage the volume of records in the public universities are very minimal, according to Johnson. There are a number of significant challenges ahead of the Department, Johnson said, that will require additional funding, as well as continued planning efforts, while at the same time looking at how permanent records will be defined in the future.
According to Dooley, the question of whether appropriate equipment will be available to run and access electronic records over time will always be an issue. It will be necessary in the archival community, as it has been for some time in the technology world, to upgrade systems and convert them to newer technologies to preserve and provide access to electronic records. Funding for a digital archives must take into consideration the need to stay current with technology, according to Dooley. Dr. Clark said a major challenge for the Department is to educate those who make decisions, particularly about funding issues. Dooley said there still is a tendency to think of funding in technology as a one-time expenditure, when it is not. There is a life cycle to technology and it must be periodically refreshed, to ensure preservation and access to electronic records. Dooley agreed with Dr. Clark that it is an education issue. In response to a question from Nelson, Dooley said that the initial purchase of hardware and equipment is usually 20-30% of the actual total cost, with the life span of most technologies being three years. Most of the costs associated with technology are in maintenance and support.
Nelson asked Belding to update the Commission members on the status of the legislative bill tracking the Division has been doing, since the beginning of the 2000 session of the General Assembly. This is an exercise Division staff has been involved in for the past few legislative sessions. Of particular interest to the Department are those bills that call for creation of new records systems; bills that call for organizational changes; bills that impact records retention; bills with an impact on records or information access issues; and bills calling for issuance of a publication or report. To date, 505 bills have been tracked. This number will not increase, as the time for the introduction of new bills has passed. More information will be made available at the June meeting of the Commission, when it will be known which bills passed and which did not.
Johnson asked if any bills ever called for the deletion of records, as opposed to creation. Belding said that that rarely happens. Johnson said the tracking of bills by staff illustrates that technology allows the ability to work faster and smarter, but it does not allow for the disposal of information. In fact, technology allows people to process larger quantities of information in a faster environment. Johnson said this illustrates the significant impact, especially with the number of bills that affect records creation and maintenance, on the Department and how it manages information, and what funding sources are required for it to carry out its responsibilities.
Belding informed the members of the Department's involvement with the Kentucky State University investigations. The Department first became involved in December 1999, due to allegations of records destruction at the University. Staff continues to work with the other organizations that are involved in the investigations.
Dr. Morison commented about the seemingly insurmountable problems that those present at the meeting deal with everyday. There are problems for which there don’t seem to be ideal solutions. One of the themes that appears to unite most of what has been discussed in the meeting is the word "education," according to Morison. As employees in the public sector, Morison believes staff has more responsibility than ever before, because of the distributed nature of information. The Commission makes decisions about the preservation or destruction of information, possibly faster than members can think about those decisions, and possibly without appropriate guidelines. The responsibility for making the decisions does exist, however. Morison said at the University of Louisville and, he felt sure, in other agencies, terminology is a problem. The term "permanent" can have different meanings, depending on the individual. The term "archival" also can mean different things to different people. In an electronic environment, to "archive" can mean something totally different than "archiving" to an archivist. Employees and those involved in the archival community are both educators and students, according to Morison.
Morison complimented Belding and his staff on the legislative tracking reports that are created during and after each regular session of the General Assembly. Morison said that the effort to track all bills is a very valuable service and the resulting reports are very useful.
Nelson then moved to consideration of the local records grants. Gabhart commented about the grants reflecting both the older recordkeeping systems and the newer technologies, such as imaging systems. Many local governments want grant support for the new technologies that, from a funding standpoint, can create difficulties for the program. The major concern for the program is the long-term preservation of information that is of continuing value to the public. At the present time, according to Gabhart, the best way to preserve records for the long-term is through retention of the hard copies or by converting the information to a microform format.
Dr. Clark made a motion to recommend to Commissioner Nelson, as a group, the grants presented for consideration, seconded by Mr. Fox. The motion carried.
There followed discussion about funding for the Local Records Program and the amount of money that is diverted from the fees collected by county clerks to the General Fund, rather than going to provide additional funds for the program.
According to Belding, the Local Records Program was the first legislatively funded re-grants program in the United States. The funds for the program result from fees collected by county clerks for the filing of particular legal instruments. The fee, which was $1.00 in 1931, was raised to $2.00, in 1984, to provide funds for the program. The fees result in the collection of around $3 million, with approximately $1 million going to fund the program. There is an increased need for additional money for the program, especially in light of the number of local governments that need grant support to install new technologies, such as imaging systems.
In response to a question from Dr. Ellis, Belding said that when the program was established, there was no legislative linkage language between the money that was collected and the amount of money that would be used to fund the program. At the time legislation was passed to fund the program, no one anticipated the level of growth and the amount of money that would be collected. Nor did the Department anticipate the level of funds that would be needed to preserve local government records over the long term.
Gabhart suggested that any change to the legislation should result in the full amount of fees collected going to the program and that there should be a rollover fund to accept these so that these resources could be carried from one fiscal year to the next. It was noted that a lot of administrative time is spent by staff in determining how best to utilize funds so that they do not lapse to the General Fund at the end of the year. A revolving fund arrangement could help solve this problem.
Nelson said the program had accomplished solid, demonstrable results, in spite of funding constraints, but that additional funding is needed, due to the high costs associated with reformatting.
Nelson adjourned the meeting at 11:00 a.m.
Return to top
Last revised June 18, 20000
Top of Page
Return to State
Archives and Records Commission Page
KDLA Home Page