The State Archives and Records Commission met March 12, 1998, in the Board Room, Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives (KDLA). James A. Nelson, Chairman, presided.

Members present: 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; Ed Hatchett, Auditor of Public Accounts; Dr. William J. Morison, representing regional colleges and universities; Carolyn Murphy, representing local governments; and Dr. Linda E. Johnson, 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; Victor Fox, representing A. B. Chandler, III, Attorney General; and Riggs Williams, representing Stephen N. Dooley, Commissioner, Department of Information Systems.

Members not present or represented: Cynthia Etkin, representing the Kentucky Library Association; Cheryl Jones, representing Citizens-at-Large; 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; Gerald Thompson, Regional Administrator; Jim Terry, Records Analyst; Teresa McChesney, Contract Specialist; and Connie Renfroe, Administrative Secretary.

Guests present: Boyd Sigler, Transportation Cabinet.

Chairman Nelson introduced Dr. Linda Johnson, who was recently appointed to the Commission to represent citizens-at-large. Dr. Johnson, a graduate of the University of Kentucky, with a background in information technology, is on the faculty of Western Kentucky University. Dr. Johnson, along with Paul Coates and Dr. Jack Ellis, who were re-appointed to the Commission, were sworn in prior to the meeting.

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

As the party did not appear at the meeting, the micrographics certificate which was to be awarded was not presented.

Minutes of the previous Commission meeting were approved on a motion made by Dr. Clark, seconded by Dr. Ellis. The motion carried.

Nelson advised the Commission members that Cynthia Etkin, representing the Kentucky Library Association, was recently appointed to a position in the Office of the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C., making her position on the Commission vacant. Nelson said he would be attending a meeting of the Association in the near term and would discuss the matter of a replacement for Ms. Etkin. A list of current members was distributed to those present.

The order of the agenda was changed to accommodate the guest present.

Diana Moses was the records analyst working on this schedule change. The series being changed are 03452, Kentucky Accident Reporting System (KARS), from seven years to three, and 04754, Traffic Accident Imaging System, previously Uniform Traffic Accident Report, from five years to three. The series being deleted are 460, Legal Opinions of Office of General Counsel, which is now covered by the General Schedule for State Agencies, and 03453, KARS Rural Accident Buildup Report, which is no longer being created in hard copy form.

The Department of Highways was established by Executive Order 83-72 and confirmed by the 1984 General Assembly and is headed by a Commissioner, who is responsible for the construction, reconstruction and maintenance of the state primary road system. The Department also includes the State Highway Engineer and the twelve Chief District Engineers. The five organizational units of the Department are Program Management Staff, Highway District Offices, Office of Project Development, Office of Construction/Operations, and Office of Intermodal Planning.

The Division of Traffic is headed by a Director and is responsible for traffic signs, signaling devices, and markings on the state highway system.

Moses explained the first change, which was to reduce the retention of 03452, Kentucky Accident Reporting System, from seven years to three. The second change was to replace the hard copy series for the Uniform Accident Report, previously a five year record, with the Traffic Accident Imaging System, also proposed as a three year record. The hard copy report would be discarded, after scanning and verification.

The Kentucky Accident Reporting System is administered by both the Justice Cabinet, Department of State Police, and the Transportation Cabinet. The Department of State Police, according to Moses, has responsibility for entering data from the accident report into the system and transferring the hard copy to the Transportation Cabinet for inclusion in the Traffic Accident Imaging system. The system was purchased in 1994 and is used to capture actual diagrams of accidents, as submitted by law enforcement agencies. Previously, the accident reports had to be microfilmed to capture the diagrams.

Moses informed the Commission members of the discussions which took place during last week’s Advisory Committee meeting. There were questions about the proposed reduction in retention, how the information in the system is currently used, and whether the information was being used to its full potential. As was done during the Advisory Committee meeting, Moses mentioned the two primary publications which result from the accident reporting system: Kentucky Accident Facts, published by the Department of State Police, and Analysis of Traffic Accident Data in Kentucky, a yearly publication of the Kentucky Transportation Center, University of Kentucky, which contains data in five-year segments. The information for the second publication is forwarded electronically by the Cabinet to the Kentucky Transportation Center, for its use in conducting research.

Moses said that the Advisory Committee made a recommendation to forward the schedule to the Commission for its approval, with the stipulation that a representative from the Transportation Cabinet be present at the meeting to answer questions. Moses reiterated that the system serves an administrative purpose. The Justice Cabinet, by statute, is required to maintain an accident reporting system, which is fulfilled by the Kentucky Accident Reporting System. In addition, the Transportation Cabinet uses the information to study high accident location areas and to make recommendations for roadway changes, always using the most recent three years’ worth of data.

Coates said that, after looking at examples of the publications mentioned above, site-specific information is eliminated, which was one of the concerns raised during the Advisory Committee meeting. Since a cumulative history of accidents occurring in a specific area is not included in the publications, Coates was concerned that a three-year retention would not be adequate to address specific neighborhood interests in high accident areas. Coates used as an example his own neighborhood in Louisville, which he believes has been a high accident area for almost thirty years. Coates was concerned that with a three-year retention, all the previous information about the high occurrence of accidents in given areas and neighborhoods would be lost. If the information is replenished every three years and the previous information is not retained, according to Coates, a critical level of interest is never reached. Coates said he didn’t know what the critical point was for Transportation to take action to install traffic lights, put up roadway signs, or make other changes in high accident areas.

Dr. Clark asked if these records were used in litigation or to resolve insurance disputes. Dr. Ellis asked if the retention began with the date of the accident report. Moses confirmed that it did, that the records would be destroyed three years after the reporting date. Ellis said that the statute of limitation on suing in liability cases is two years from the date of the accident, or two years from the date of the last payment for a no-fault insurance claim. Clark noted that access to the records is minimal. Mr. Sigler said that insurance inquiries are directed to the Department of State Police, as it is responsible for providing access to and answering questions regarding accident reports.

Moses reiterated that, according to the Transportation Cabinet, three years’ worth of data is the national standard for the identification of high accident locations. Even if the information was retained for a longer period, the most recent three years’ worth of data would be all that would be used to support identification of high accident areas and to determine what roadway changes need to be made. In response to a question by Dr. Clark, Sigler said that the accident reporting system is queried daily by both Transportation staff, including District Highway Offices, and law enforcement agencies.

Moses said, in response to the statute of limitation regarding litigation based on the date of the last payment for a no-fault insurance claim, that it would be almost impossible for Transportation to know that information to be able to apply disposition instructions. The two-year personal liability issue mentioned above is covered in the proposed retention of three years.

Mr. Fox asked if Transportation scanned the entire accident report into the imaging system. Sigler answered in the affirmative. Moses reiterated that both the database and the imaged record would be retained three years, under the current proposal. On a question by Fox, Moses said that requests for copies of accident reports related to insurance needs would, generally, be referred to the law enforcement agency that completed the initial report.

Coates said he thought that the proposed retention of three years is probably satisfactory to meet insurance purposes. The larger question, according to Coates, is what happens to the data and how is it used internally by the Transportation Cabinet. Sigler responded that there is an ongoing process to identify, on a yearly basis, high accident locations, based upon the three-year criteria that is the generally accepted engineering standard throughout the United States. The proposed change in retention is directly related to this standard. The data to identify high accident areas come from the accident reporting system and are used in conjunction with information supplied to the Cabinet by the Kentucky Transportation Center, which does the yearly research to identify the statewide average accident rate for a three-year period. Once the Cabinet receives the data, the computer identifies those locations that should be further evaluated, based on the critical number of accidents that are input and accident rate calculations. The information is then forwarded to a traffic engineer for further study. Coates asked if neighborhood groups could input to decisions made about roadway changes, even when the suggestions did not meet the standards employed by the Cabinet. Sigler said that traffic engineers are always willing to work with individuals and local groups and do so on a regular basis. The suggestions offered are taken into consideration and further reviews are conducted to determine whether the locations in question are statistically high accident areas, based upon the Cabinet’s established criteria.

Belding asked if it wasn’t a fair assumption that the areas identified by the computer are more likely to receive corrective measures than those identified by local groups, especially when the information provided is not supported using the Cabinet’s standard criteria. Sigler said the Cabinet uses a standard, ongoing program to determine high accident locations and, in addition, receives letters and inquiries on a daily basis from citizen groups and private individuals wanting Transportation to examine specific locations, which the traffic engineers take into consideration. Even if the information from the system was retained for longer than three years, the Cabinet would not do anything differently.

Dr. Clark said that the question before the Commission was whether three years was an adequate period of time for Transportation to carry out its duties in this regard. Dr. Ellis voiced his concern that the accident report, which contains not only a diagram of the accident, but witness statements and other information needed for insurance purposes, would only be retained for three years. Ellis again raised the issue of the possibility of a lawsuit two years after the last payment to a physician or health care giver is made. Mr. Fox explained, based on his understanding of no-fault insurance, that after the amount of the payments to the accident victim exceeds $10,000, a lawsuit could automatically be filed. Fox did not see a problem with the three-year retention and the statute of limitation of two years for filing a suit based on personal injury.

Dr. Johnson asked if the data were transferred electronically to the Kentucky Transportation Center. Sigler responded in the affirmative. Johnson then asked Sigler if the Center manipulated Transportation’s database or did it import the data into its own system for manipulation. Sigler said the data were imported by the Center on a yearly basis. Johnson said, that being the case, the Center could keep the data for as long as it wanted to generate statistical reports and could have full historical reference, if all of the data were retained. Johnson then asked if the computer algorithm currently being used was for three years’ worth of existing data, so that years four through seven were not figured into it. Sigler again answered in the affirmative.

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

Diana Moses was the records analyst working on this schedule change. The series being added to the schedule is 04753, Teacher Education Portfolio File. This series was created by student teachers and was used to measure their progress toward meeting student teacher certification.

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; 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 1991.

On 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, 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 Office of Teacher Education and Certification is responsible for setting minimum teacher certification requirements, operating a state licensure/certification system, establishing teacher training programs at colleges and universities, and comparing personnel assignments with qualifications, to ensure local school districts comply with state standards. In addition, the Office assists local school district administrators in organizing, implementing and evaluating all instructional programs; monitors, by visitation or by report, all schools annually; and makes recommendations to the State Board of Education on ratings for public elementary and secondary schools.

Moses explained that the series in question was a closed series, that is, it is no longer being created but must be retained to satisfy retention requirements. The portfolios were used to measure progress toward meeting student teacher certification. The series is closed because the legislature did not provide funding to the Department to continue administration of the program. The program, however, will continue under the administration of local colleges and universities, based on guidelines established by the Department of Education. The accumulation of portfolios at the Department level is not accessed and now serves no purpose. The records have been transferred to the State Records Center, until final disposition can occur.

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

Diana Moses was the records analyst working on this schedule change. The series being changed is 04252, Answer Sheet File, from three years to one.

On December 13, 1995, Executive Order 95-19 created a new cabinet of state government, the Personnel Cabinet, and transferred to it all powers and responsibilities of the Department of Personnel. As the 1996 session of the General Assembly failed to confirm the Executive Order, on July 11, 1996, Executive Order 96-909 was issued to again create the Personnel Cabinet. Executive Order 96-909 also abolished the position of commissioner of Personnel.

The Department of Personnel Administration is comprised of the following: the Office of Personnel Management, which is responsible for coordinating and implementing employment performance evaluation systems throughout state government; the Division of Employee Records, which is responsible for maintaining the central personnel files, processing personnel documents and position actions, operating and maintaining a uniform payroll system, implementing lay-off plans, certifying payrolls, and monitoring and assisting state agencies in complying with the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Division of Classification and Compensation, which is responsible for maintenance of plans of classification and compensation for state service, as well as review and evaluation of the plans; and the Division of Staffing Services, which is responsible for operation of a centralized applicant and employee counseling program, operation of an examination program for state employment, preparation of registers of candidate employment, coordination of outreach programs, and construction of merit examinations.

Moses explained that test scores are only good for one year. Therefore, there is no basis for retaining answer sheets longer than the scores to which they pertain.

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

There being no other business, Chairman Nelson called for a brief break before moving into the review of local records grants.

Mr. Gabhart said that the only question raised during the Advisory Committee meeting was the number of grants being given to counties for salary support during this cycle. Gabhart said part of the reason was that there are fewer micrographics vendors than in previous years and those that had been awarded grants were staying behind in their work. He reported that some grant projects are as much as three years behind. Gabhart said that grants for salary support was an area where funds are well used, in that they assist the clerks in providing access to the records in their respective offices. The funds are used to hire deputy clerks (a preferred approach, as they are already trained) to perform data entry, after hours, or, where there is a business college or school in close proximity, to hire talented keyboarding students. The work involves using the automated indices to key in information related to deeds, wills, mortgages, etc., directly from the books, rather than from the older index books, which often have inaccuracies in them. This work provides the offices with accurate, automated indices, which gives the public better access to the records. Gabhart believes this is an excellent use of grant funds.

Mr. Hatchett asked how the effectiveness of the use of the money was judged; that is, is there accountability, such as how many records are entered and in what period of time, built into the awarding of these type grants. Gabhart said that the data provided to grant recipients by the local records program from other similar grants are the basis for establishing acceptable levels of performance. The reports submitted by counties are very specific as to the amount of work completed. Shelby County, for instance, is way ahead of schedule, having already indexed approximately 150,000 names. The county has completed in three months what it estimated would take a much longer period. Part of the success in completing the work in a timely fashion is to hire talented data entry operators.

Dr. Clark asked how far along the program has progressed in improving the basic records found in the various counties, over the period of time the grant program has been in operation. Gabhart said that anyone could walk into any courthouse across the state and see evidence of what the local records grant program has accomplished. Generally, the records are in much better condition than previously. Clark also asked about the quality of the microfilm being produced. Gabhart said the quality was excellent, due mostly to the stringent filming standards developed by the department. Dr. Ellis said that the main factor in the beginning of the program was preservation of permanent records, especially those that were being stored in less than optimal conditions and were rapidly deteriorating, and that this had been accomplished. In addition, equipment, such as mobile shelving purchased through the program, has aided in providing better storage facilities for records that were at high risk. The program has gone a long way toward securing some of the more important, vital records, such as deed books, will books, marriage books and order books.

Dr. Ellis asked about the projects that were not recommended for approval and the criteria used to make those determinations. Gabhart said that the basic criterion was the amount of money available to fund the grant proposals. Local records staff reviewed each grant proposal, and based on the amount of funding available, made their recommendations based on what projects were the most critical. Gabhart, in response to a question by Dr. Ellis, said that staff was not comfortable recommending grants for imaging systems, without the applicant having looked closely at whether continuing funds would be available to maintain the system, what would be accomplished by its purchase, and whether an imaging system is the appropriate solution for a particular records management problem; in other words, whether a needs analysis study had been completed in advance of a request for grant support. Through work with counties that are interested in purchasing imaging systems, Gabhart wants to develop standard needs analysis guidelines that other clerks can use in determining whether imaging systems are the proper solution.

Nelson suggested that local records staff become familiar with and be able to provide guidance in the state’s information architecture and standards so that local governments can achieve standardization. According to Nelson, there are technology standards in place that state agencies have to adhere to. Local governments are not required to use the standards, but Nelson has found, particularly in the library environment, that agencies want this kind of guidance. The idea is that agencies not get into technology that will isolate them from the mainstream and that has been proven to be ineffective. The ongoing analysis of technology can prove helpful to local governments. Gabhart said this is an area that staff need to make local governments aware of, to make sure local entities are moving in the same technology direction as the rest of the state.

Hatchett asked to what extent the changes in recording media are recognized under the state’s information architecture guidelines, and whether the change was all at once or gradual. Nelson said the technology standards are designed specifically to deal with first purchases of hardware, software, telecommunications equipment, etc. There is constant change but the idea, according to Nelson, is to keep agencies moving closer and closer to achieving the standards so that all of state government will be using the same product-specific or technical standards. Hatchett asked about microfilm versus other media. Nelson said the architecture is specific to electronic technology. There are already standards for the use of microfilm.

Nelson said that Gabhart had raised an important issue, that imaging systems are not always the right solution in every application. The cost to scan documents is usually higher than the cost to microfilm them and the cost to store a cubic foot of records in the State Records Center is $3.96 per year. To realize economies and to be effective, agencies must make the proper decision when reformatting. A key role of the department is to assist agencies in making those determinations so that the right solutions are found and archival concerns are taken into consideration.

Dr. Clark asked if counties are properly equipped to take care of the microfilm being produced through the program. Gabhart said that varies from county to county. The silver master of all film produced by counties and through grants is stored in the department’s microfilm vault, for security. Many counties still prefer to use hard copy records, rather than microfilm, while others have the appropriate equipment on site for researchers to use to access the film.

Mr. Hatchett said the reason for his earlier question about standards was that the department and Commission have tried to bring agencies into compliance with micrographics standards. At what juncture will those standards be replaced with the next generation of standards that would be applicable to records issues in the various counties and what sort of planning needs to be done to bring this about. Hatchett assumed that most of the grant funds expended thus far had been for micrographics. Gabhart concurred that a substantial amount had been spent in this area. A new set of standards is needed now to respond to the newer technologies, such as imaging. There are many complicated issues which must be dealt with in this area. The first step was the department’s Policy Memorandum on Optical Storage of Public Records, which, according to Gabhart, addresses some of the standards known at this time. At the local level, counties utilizing imaging applications must maintain hard copy as the primary backup to the systems. Nelson said the medium is typically not the issue in the electronic environment, but the readability of the electronic version. That is why the department’s policy memorandum requires a migration plan, so that agencies can move from one version of the technology to the next, thereby facilitating preservation of and access to the information.

On a question by Dr. Clark, Gabhart said that local records staff had made a thorough examination of all of the grant proposals and that the projects before the Commission were the result of that review and the applications recommended were a prudent selection to consider.

Dr. Clark made a motion to recommend to Commissioner Nelson, as a group, the grants presented for consideration, seconded by Mr. Coates. The motion carried.

Chairman Nelson adjourned the meeting at 11:20 a.m.

Return to KDLA Home Page

Return to Public Records Menu Page

URL for this Page http://www.kdla.state.ky.us/pubrec/SARCMar98Min.htm