Department
of Insurance - Division of Financial Standards and Examinations
Real Estate Commission
Revenue
Cabinet - Office of Financial and Administrative Support - PVA Administrative
Support
Revenue
Cabinet - Department of Information Technology
Revenue
Cabinet - Department of Property Valuation
Revenue
Cabinet - Department of Tax Administration - Compliance and Taxpayer Assistance
Revenue
Cabinet - Office of the Secretary - Ombudsman’s Office
State
University Model Records Retention Schedule - Student/Course Records
Transportation
Cabinet - Department of Vehicle Regulation - Division of Driver Licensing
Other Business
The State Archives and Records Commission met September 11, 1997, 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. William J. Morison, representing regional colleges and universities; Dr. Jack D. Ellis, representing Citizens-at-Large; Melba Porter Hay, representing the Kentucky Historical Society; and Carolyn N. Murphy, representing local governments.
Representatives present: Leslie Smith, representing Don Cetrulo, Director, Legislative Research Commission; Victor Fox, representing A. B. Chandler, III, Attorney General; Mark Board, representing Stephen N. Dooley, Commissioner, Department of Information Systems; Donna Dixon, representing Ed Hatchett, Auditor of Public Accounts; and Geoff Pinkerton, representing Dr. James Ramsey, State Budget Director, Office of Policy and Management.
Members not present or represented: Dr. Roy P. Peterson, Secretary, Education, Arts and Humanities Cabinet; Howard T. Goodpaster, representing Citizens-at-Large; Cynthia Etkin, representing the Kentucky Library Association; Cheryl Jones, representing Citizens-at-Large; 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; Barbara Teague, Manager, Archival Services Branch; Charles Robb, Manager, Technology Analysis and Support Branch; Jim Terry, Records Analyst; Bill Richardson, State Publications Coordinator; Glen McAninch, Automation Consultant; Nicole Justice, Thomas D. Clark Intern; and Connie Renfroe, Administrative Secretary.
Guests present: Jim Livers, Vicki Deaton, and David Gabbard, Kentucky Revenue Cabinet.
Chairman Nelson called for introductions of Commission members.
Minutes of the previous Commission meeting were approved on a motion made by Dr. Ellis, seconded by Mr. Coates. The motion carried.
NEW OR REVISED RETENTION SCHEDULES
Revenue Cabinet - Department of Property Valuation
Diana Moses was the records analyst working on this schedule revision. The series being added to the schedule are: 04672 to 04673; 04677; 04678; 04680; 04682 to 04701; and 04703 to 04705. The series being changed are: 03728; 03729; 03736; 03737; 04681; 04707; 04708; 04710; and 04711. The series being deleted are: 285; 290; 293; 294; 299; 301; 305; 306; 308; 309; 310; 312; 313; 314; 318; 319; 336; 337; 338; 03922; 03923; 03924; 03925; 03734; and 03735.
The Revenue Cabinet is the chief revenue collection agency for Kentucky state government. As such, it is responsible for administration of all General Fund taxes, major Road Fund taxes, and the assessment and collection of 44 separate state taxes. The Cabinet’s duties include equalization of tax assessments, assessment of public utilities and public service corporations, and enforcement of revenue and tax laws (KRS 131.030).
The Department of Property Valuation (previously the Department of Property Taxation) 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, and 136 define and describe the Department’s duties. 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 and administers: the centralized Motor Vehicle Tax System (MOTAX); the centralized Intangible Property Tax Assessment System; a program to audit taxpayer compliance in listing tangible and intangible personal property; 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 this was a total revision of the schedule for the Department of Property Valuation, formerly the Department of Property Taxation, and that many of the series included in the schedule were electronic systems. Moses directed the members to the Agency Function and Records Summary, which details the addition of new series, changes to existing series, and deletions from the schedule, as a result of the revision. Moses pointed out a few of the major electronic systems that are being scheduled, such as the Tangible/Intangible Property Tax System, Geographic Information System, and the Motor Vehicle Tax System, all of which facilitate the assessment and collection of taxes.
Moses said that there was discussion in the Advisory Committee meeting about local assessments and how they have improved in the past few years, particularly with the use of technology as an assessment and collection tool.
Chairman Nelson asked to what extent the Empower Kentucky project has helped to drive the changes in the Revenue Cabinet’s use of technology. Mr. Livers responded that the effect of Empower initiatives would be more evident in future applications, such as the integrated tax system currently under development.
Dr. Clark asked about the reason for the number of series being added and deleted from the schedule. Livers explained that many of the changes have come about due to legislative changes and judicial rulings that have impacted tax collection and assessment. Dr. Clark also asked what happens to discontinued schedules. According to Moses, when schedules are revised, an evaluation of each series is carried out to determine which records are still valid and which should be deleted because they are no longer being created. Some records are deleted because the function now belongs to another agency or another administrative unit within the same agency, the records are covered by the General Schedule for State Agencies, or the records are no longer being created. The Agency Function and Records Summary, which accompanies each schedule change or revision, provides detailed information about the status of deleted records. Moses further explained that each edition of a schedule, and the changes which result, is retained by the Division as a permanent document, to provide a record of all scheduling activity that has occurred.
Dr. Ellis made a motion to adopt this revised schedule, seconded by Dr. Morison. The motion carried.
Department of Insurance - Division of Financial Standards and Examinations
Jim Terry was the records analyst working on this schedule change. The series being added to the schedule is 04657, Holding Company Files.
The Department of Insurance has authority under KRS Chapter 304 to administer Kentucky’s insurance laws, regulate the conduct of the insurance business, license agents and other company representatives, administer insurance taxes, operate the State Fire and Tornado Insurance Fund and otherwise procure insurance for state agencies. Additional duties include licensing bail bondsmen and insurance adjusters, enforcing the insurance code, disapproving companies that engage in illegal or unethical insurance practices, and periodically examining all insurance companies doing business in Kentucky to determine their solvency.
The Division of Financial Standards and Examinations admits and licenses insurance companies, and conducts examinations and audits. It also coordinates information sharing between the Department and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
After a brief explanation by Terry, Mr. Fox made a motion to adopt this schedule change, seconded by Dr. Morison. The motion carried.
Moses was the records analyst working on this schedule change. The series being added to the schedule are: 04713, Continuing Education Provider Files; 04714, Continuing Education Record File; and 04715, Time-Share Property Registration File.
The Real Estate Commission has authority under KRS 324.281 to administer Kentucky’s real estate laws, regulate the conduct of the real estate business, license brokers and agents, register real estate development, regulate standards in real estate advertising, issue approval to licensed representatives for the promotion of sales of property outside of Kentucky, and certify college and university programs as approved real estate schools. Additional duties include investigating complaints against licensees, promulgating regulations, suspending or revoking licensees, and holding disciplinary hearings.
Moses said that a question had been raised during the Advisory Committee meeting about whether complaints resulting from the promotion of property located outside of Kentucky would be contained in series 04715, Time-Share Property Registration File. All such complaints would be referred to the Consumer Protection Division, Office of the Attorney General, or the local Better Business Bureau for resolution and would not be a part of this file. This series is a registration of property only.
Dr. Clark made a motion to adopt this schedule change, seconded by Mr. Fox. The motion carried.
Revenue Cabinet - Department of Information Technology
Moses was the records analyst working on this schedule change. The series being added to the schedule are: 04658, Master Agreement File; 04659, Confidential Records Request File; 04660, Internal Revenue Service Request for State Tax Information File; 04661, Kentucky Revenue Cabinet Request for Federal Tax Information File; and 04662, Federal Tape Extract Program.
The duties of the Department of Information Technology include recordkeeping, providing data services, and providing liaison with federal and state agencies.
There being no questions, Dr. Clark made a motion to adopt this revised schedule, seconded by Dr. Ellis. The motion carried.
Revenue Cabinet - Office of the Secretary - Ombudsman’s Office
Moses was the records analyst working on this schedule change. The series being added to the schedule are 04663, Problem Resolution Case Record, and 04664, Problem Resolution Program.
The Office of the Secretary was created as part of the 1982 reorganization of the Department of Revenue. The Secretary is responsible for the operation of the Cabinet, as required in KRS 131.020. The Ombudsman’s Office is responsible for investigating taxpayer complaints.
There being no questions, Dr. Morison made a motion to adopt this schedule change, seconded by Mr. Fox. The motion carried.
Revenue Cabinet - Office of Financial and Administrative Support - PVA Administrative Support
Moses was the records analyst working on this schedule change. The series being added to the schedule are: 04674, Property Valuation Administrator Personnel File; 04675, Property Valuation Administrator Bond File; and 04676, Property Valuation Administrator Time Sheets.
PVA Administrative Support provides budgetary and fiscal services to all 120 Kentucky property valuation administrators and their offices. Among the section’s duties are handling payroll and insurance matters for the PVA offices and their 685 employees, establishing and maintaining a classifications system for deputy PVAs, processing paperwork for the hiring of deputy PVAs and auditing PVAs’ budgets, to ensure expenditures do not exceed available funds. The section serves as a miniature personnel cabinet for the PVA offices. Although all deputy PVAs serve at the pleasure of the elected PVAs, all appointments in the offices go through the Administrative Support section.
Other duties of the section include preparing budget requests to the General Assembly for funding for PVA offices and notifying county judge-executives of the statutory contribution amount fiscal courts must provide to local PVA offices.
Moses explained that the retention of the PVA Personnel File and Time Sheets was in keeping with other similar records. The master personnel file for state government employees in the classified service is 70 years. Time sheets are generally retained for three years. Dr. Ellis asked what the basis was for the 70 year retention for personnel files. Moses explained that in recent scheduling projects, the retention of personnel files has consistently been lowered from permanent to a lesser period, 50 to 70 years generally. Seventy years approximates a life time and should provide for the retention of information for employees who work into their eighties. A personnel file’s primary value is administrative, in that it provides information needed to calculate retirement, social security and other benefits.
Dr. Ellis made a motion to adopt this schedule change, seconded by Dr. Morison. The motion carried.
Revenue Cabinet - Department of Tax Administration - Compliance and Taxpayer Assistance
Moses was the records analyst working on this schedule change. The series being added to the schedule are: 04665, Coal Severance Tax Seller’s Certificate File; 04666, Coal Tax Database; 04669, Field Audit Assignment System (FAA); 04670, Taxpayer Registration Application File; and 04671, Cross Reference Index System (CRIS). The series being changed are 04667, Coal Tax Return File, from permanent to seven years and 04668, Coal Tax Historical File, from permanent to ten years after dissolution of company, and audit. The series being deleted from the schedule are 147, Official Correspondence, which is covered by the General Schedule for State Agencies, and 150, Coal Severance Tax Audit Folders, which is now the responsibility of the Department of Law.
The Department of Tax Administration consolidates into one major operating unit all the functional responsibilities related to enforcing Kentucky’s tax laws (except for ad valorem taxes) and processing tax information. The Department’s duties include recordkeeping, providing data services, conducting audits, rendering taxpayer assistance, collecting delinquent taxes, providing word processing services, and enforcing the criminal laws involving revenue and taxation.
Moses explained that series 04668, Coal Tax Historical File, despite its title, is an administrative record only and not an archival record. Ten years is sufficient retention for the Revenue Cabinet to establish a relationship with a coal company for tax assessment and collection purposes, which is what this series documents. Specific information dealing with the number of employees hired by a company, the amount of coal mined, and other statistical-type information is contained in the Cabinet’s annual report.
Dr. Clark made a motion to adopt this schedule change, seconded by Mr. Board. The motion carried.
Nelson commented on the progress made by Kathy Gilliland, Records Officer for the Revenue Cabinet. Ms. Gilliland was previously a records analyst with the Department for Libraries and Archives. Moses also complimented Gilliland on the amount of work completed thus far to revise the retention schedule. Additional schedules will be submitted over the next few Commission meetings, until a completely revised schedule is accomplished.
Transportation Cabinet - Department of Vehicle Regulation - Division of Driver Licensing
Moses was the records analyst working on this schedule change. The series being added to the schedule are the records of the Graduated Licensing Program: 04716, Graduated License Instructor Guide; 04717, Graduated License Course Roster; and 04718, Graduated License Data Packet.
The Department of Vehicle Regulation was established by the 1974 General Assembly, with the enactment of Senate Bill 112 (KRS 174.015). The Department performs all the activities associated with the licensing of motor vehicles and drivers in the Commonwealth. Authority is provided in KRS Chapters 138, 186, 186A, 189, 190 and 281.
The Division of Driver Licensing administers KRS 186.400 - .649, relating to licensing and maintenance of driver history, and records for motor vehicle operators. The unit also supervises the state’s driver improvement program for new drivers and traffic offenders.
The Graduated Licensing Program was enacted by the 1996 General Assembly, as a licensing requirement. Drivers between the age of 16 and 18 are required to learn more about the privilege of driving in Kentucky, as a licensing requirement. The class is taught by an instructor who has been trained and certified by Eastern Kentucky University, which administers the educational portion of the program. Topics covered in the class include: 1) licensing and the point system; 2) driving behavior; 3) highway safety facts; 4) traffic laws; 5) causes of traffic accidents; 6) defensive and perceptive driving; 7) driving under the influence; and 8) occupant protection.
Dr. Ellis asked what the Course Roster actually documents. Moses said that it is a roster of students who have attended the Graduated Licensing course and is used to verify student participation, in case questions arise. The student’s name must appear on the roster a minimum of two times, for the course to be considered valid.
There being no further questions, Dr. Clark made a motion to adopt this schedule change, seconded by Dr. Ellis. The motion carried.
Mr. Coates commented about "Graduated" as part of the title of the program. Moses explained that the name of the program was established in statute.
State University Model Records Retention Schedule - Student/Course Records
Moses was the records analyst working on this schedule change. The series being added to the schedule is U0467, Academic Records - Correspondence/Independent Study (High School Division).
In September 1991, Commissioner James A. Nelson informed each of the university presidents about the Department’s plans to create, in cooperation with each campus, a model retention schedule for use by each of the state’s eight public universities. Prior to the idea of creating a model schedule, Public Records Division (PRD) staff had attempted to work with each campus to create individual schedules. Over the years, several such schedules were developed and approved by the State Archives and Records Commission, including complete schedules for Eastern Kentucky University and the University of Kentucky. Scheduling of university campuses began with the University of Kentucky, in the late 1970s, and extended to the development of partial schedules for most of the remaining universities, with the last partial schedule developed for Morehead State University in the late 1980s.
The Student/Course component of the Model provides retention and disposition instructions for records associated with class instruction and student records.
There was some discussion about students who take correspondence courses for college credit and to what extent this occurs in Kentucky. According to Moses, Western Kentucky University brought the need to add this series to the State University Model Records Retention Schedule to her attention.
Dr. Ellis made a motion to adopt this schedule change, seconded by Mr. Fox. The motion carried.
Three items of business were brought before the Commission. The first item dealt with the Department’s request to build an addition to the Department’s Coffee Tree facility. Chairman Nelson reiterated that the Department’s request remains Secretary Peterson’s number one budget priority. At this point, according to Nelson, no one has been advised of the Capital Planning Advisory Board’s final capital project listing, to know where the Department’s request places. Nelson recalled Governor Patton’s visit to the Department and his tour of both the Archives Center and the main Records Center facility, located on East Main Street. The Governor was well apprised of the need for the addition and staff is hopeful that the Department’s capital construction project will be favorably heard. The biennial budget goes to the Governor’s Office for Policy and Management, for the Governor to make his decisions about which budget requests will go forward to the legislature, for deliberations during the 1998 Regular Session.
Before the next item of business, which was a report by Charles Robb on the progress of the Kentucky Information Resources Management Commission’s (KIRM) workgroup on electronic signatures, the Commission members were shown a video titled Signing on the Digital Line.
According to Robb, the workgroup has been studying the issue of electronic signatures for the past six to eight months and is comprised of members from various bodies, including non-governmental agencies, and various levels of government. All the agencies involved are interested in enhancing their ability to do business electronically. The use of electronic signatures is an emphasis of Empower Kentucky and KIRM, which Nelson also chairs, and is a vital element of the Statewide Strategic Plan for Information Technology. According to Robb, to be able to do business electronically finally means making computerized systems keep better records. One way to accomplish that is to have electronic signatures, which then makes records reliable and authentic. This is a characteristic that has always been present in paper-based documents.
Robb also mentioned the *Web site (see attached document), which summarizes the activities of the group and the research that has been done, and which is ongoing. (The address for the Web site can be found at the end of this document.) The site shows the subgroups associated with the work of the group, such as the implementation team, which is working on the legislation that will be proposed during the 1998 legislative session. Robb stressed that a particular technology is not being selected in the legislative draft. The legislation will enable the use of electronic signatures. The statutes will be changed slightly so that agencies are not precluded from doing business using electronic signatures. Technical standards will be developed as it becomes clearer which technology is the most appropriate. Robb explained that the need for the use of electronic signatures is based on risk. For example, the Revenue Cabinet faces more risk if it receives something that is inauthentic than would the Department for Libraries and Archives (KDLA). At the same time, there are activities that KDLA is involved in that also involve risk. The need for electronic signatures is directly related to the varying differences in agency responsibilities. The University of Kentucky Medical Center, for example, ultimately wants to keep an electronic patient record, making the doctor’s signature a key component of the file, and, potentially, an area of high risk . Its use of technology may then be different than what would be used in state government offices.
Robb said that there are many questions associated with the use of electronic signatures for which there currently are no answers; for instance, authenticating a signature fifteen years after the fact. These and other questions are being explored through the standards-making groups and the development of a statewide architecture to make sure that at any point it will be possible to have a valid archival record. Dr. Clark asked how a permanent archival record can be assured. Robb explained that part of the problem is that technical standards change over time and, as technologies evolve and standards change, the record, which is authentic today because of the system in which it resides, will have to be migrated forward through a standardized mechanism to the new technology. At the end of the transfer, the record is just as authentic and accurate as it was initially. An archival record, then, can be achieved by moving electronic records through different computer systems over time. If it is not feasible economically to continue to migrate records forward, the user can decide to go to an alternate format, such as paper or microfilm, because it may be less expensive and may be all that is needed to assure an archival record. Ultimately, the decision will be based on cost and the value of the record. Robb said that his work in this area is exciting because agencies are having to develop a better understanding of what a record is in relation to computer systems than they ever had to before. Agencies, according to Robb, are grappling with the mechanisms to do this now for the first time. Computerized data has been in existence for a long time but agencies have not thought in terms of real records that have a given content, structure and reliability. That is not to say that computerized data are not reliable, but they may not really have been records of basic business transactions.
Dr. Clark said that the electronic issue involves a deep fundamental, human social question and that is, why is society in such a hurry to get information at such a rapid rate and why are those who are involved in information dissemination so testing civilization? Robb said that this was addressed in the video shown earlier, when it was said that "the doors of electronic commerce will fly open." Robb agreed that electronic commerce was changing society and that it was being driven by business need.
Coates said that society has become sensitized to financial transactions, such as bonds and stocks trading, being conducted in an electronic environment. Coates asked how the transactions were confirmed and whether signatures were required. Robb said that the systems used by financial markets are closed systems where security is a given. Essentially, there are working arrangements between the broker and the client that are password protected or that employ other mechanisms to ensure security of the transactions. Physical signatures are not required. The digital signature process works very well and is probably well established in these instances. Digital signatures can offer another level of security. Coates asked about the involvement of Kentucky’s legal community in studying the issue of electronic signatures. According to Robb, the legal community in Kentucky state government is heavily involved in this issue. Additionally, national efforts are underway to develop model laws. Dr. Clark said that there is a deep historical significance or implication to this issue, embraced in sectionalism. It no longer makes any difference whether individuals are in the north, south, east or west. Nelson recounted a statement made by Mike Mullins, Director of the Hindman Settlement School in Hindman, Kentucky, who said that technology would do more to break down some of the barriers in the Appalachian region than anything to date.
Mark Board commented on Robb’s remarks by saying that the implementation workgroup has put the electronic signature issue on a fast track, trying to meet a deadline of October 22nd, which is the date for the final meeting of the Interim State Government Committee, chaired by Representative Charles Geveden. The Interim Committee has requested that the implementation workgroup appear before it to discuss the issue, prior to the beginning of the Regular Session of the General Assembly, in January 1998. According to Board, the legislation being proposed appears to be taking a more enabling business approach, rather than a restrictive one, as was seen in legislation proposed in Utah and Washington. Board said that the Auditor’s Office, which has an interest in establishing audit trails, and the Secretary of State’s Office have been heavily involved in this issue. Many secretary of state offices across the country act as a certification authority and Secretary of State John Y. Brown, Jr., has been kept apprised of the various issues which would impact his office.
Dr. Clark asked about what would be needed in the way of legislation to permit use of electronic signatures. Board said that legislation is required to be able to conduct business electronically. Robb commented that the legislative changes may be as simple as saying that where signatures are required, electronic signatures would be acceptable. According to Robb, this approach has been taken in several states. Since this is an international issue, Nelson wondered why there wasn’t at least a national standard. Robb said that three-fourths of the states are working on this issue, but that the national efforts have not kept pace with the work of individual states.
Nelson turned the meeting over to Belding for a report on the Department’s imaging system. Belding recalled that this was an initiative for which the Department first sought funding as an additional funding item in the 1994 biennial budget, and which was given support in the 1996 budget, to create a documents image conversion service that builds on the experience and background of document format conversion services offered through the Division’s micrographics program. Through the Empower process there is great stimulus to do more business in state government electronically, according to Belding, and the Department wants to be in a position to provide scanning and imaging services, as more and more agencies are seeking this type of service.
Belding introduced Glen McAninch, automation consultant in the Department’s Technology Analysis and Support Branch, who has worked with the many issues involved with providing imaging services, such as equipment purchase and initial configuration. The initial configuration is just that, according to Belding. Additional or expanded configurations may be needed, as staff are trained and undertake various projects that test the limits of current capacities, for the Department to provide the range of services it expects will be needed in the future and that is projected for the new Records Services Center addition, when it is constructed.
McAninch spoke about the scanning and imaging capacities that the Department has begun to build, the staff training that has occurred, the kinds of projects that the Division has undertaken as part of the training component, and the future prospects for agency projects the Division may be involved in. With the funding provided, the Department was able to purchase an additional workstation, which serves as a server, three high resolution monitors, three paper scanners, a printer, writable CD ROM, and software installation and maintenance. Four workstations are earmarked for current and future projects.
Belding also introduced Bill Richardson, PRD Publications Coordinator, and Nicole Justice, Thomas D. Clark intern, who is currently assisting Richardson in the Division’s Publications Program. Belding explained to the Commission members that one project that the imaging services staff has been involved in as part of their training has been the state publications project, which involves scanning a portion of the state publications that the Department receives from state agencies, as record material. One of the issues that is interesting about this project from a training aspect, according to Belding, is that the Department receives a wide range of material that must be dealt with and that scanning of the publications offers the opportunity for much more effective distribution of the information to KDLA’s client community, that is, making it available through the Internet. According to McAninch, the project allows PRD staff to train in the use of all the scanners and provides them with a variety of experiences that can be applied to future backfile conversion projects the Department might undertake.
There followed a discussion of the publications initially being scanned from the Division’s Core Collection. Currently, the Core publications are made up of approximately 100 of the 800 plus titles that are routinely received from state government every year. Richardson explained, on a question from Dr. Clark, that the Core publications are identified by a group of academic and special librarians that review the accessions received by KDLA for reference value, overlap, coverage, etc., and make a decision about which publications should be included in the Core Collection. Richardson also pointed out that more and more publications are being created electronically, meaning a paper copy is not available, making it even more important that KDLA be able to identify those that would be a part of the Core Collection and make provision for capturing and making available electronic publications.
Coates commented about the potential long term use of imaging technology. Nelson said that imaging is a very expensive technology and one of the roles the Department plays is to consult with agencies about its use and to advise them as to whether it is the most appropriate solution for their particular business problems. If the Department provides a backfile conversion service, then agencies will not have to purchase expensive equipment and maintain staff for this purpose, unless having their own equipment is the better solution to the particular business problem. Coates commented that it appeared to him that the Department was experimenting to find out what it could recommend to agencies, rather than being an on-line service. Nelson responded that the Department would do both and that it already plays this role in the area of micrographics services. Coates said that the documents that would be scanned are generated by other agencies and the Department has, in the past, acted as a repository and in a limited way, has provided access to the information being collected. The agencies producing the records share, according to Coates, a major responsibility for providing access to them, rather than the Department. Coates believes the Department is going from an archival function and a limited research function to a missionary outreach program. Nelson said this wasn’t entirely so because documents that the Department now receives in a paper format, as they become electronic, will be received in that format, which means that the Department will have a quality control role to play so that certain standards are adhered to. Nelson said he could envision a time when imaging will no longer be a technology because records will be produced electronically to begin with, thereby making it unnecessary to digitize the information. In this environment, paper would be used as a medium only upon demand. According to Nelson, the issue is how to convert all the documents that exist only in a paper format to an electronic one, in preparation for the exclusive use of technology to produce all records. Nelson said that is the primary reason why the Department wants to be poised to provide a backfile conversion service.
Belding said that the Department is in a transition stage where microfilm is still a very valid technology for a number of applications and will continue to be, until more progress is made in the imaging area.
Nelson informed the Commission members of the existence of the state Information Technology Strategic Plan, which will be available through KIRM’s Web page. The plan is expected to be the context within which the soon-to-be-hired Chief Information Officer will manage technology within state government. There is also a new architecture standards document which informs state government of technical standards and, in many cases, what products should be purchased. If an item is not on the purchase list, the agency will have to make a business case for why it needs to go outside normal procedures to purchase the product(s), or the purchase will not be approved. Nelson said that what is occurring is more standardization at the statewide level, which will help the Department in terms of keeping control of electronic formats.
On a motion by Dr. Clark, Chairman Nelson adjourned the meeting at 11:35 a.m.
*Web site address is: http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/elecsig/index.html
Return to Public
Records Services Menu
Return to Department for Libraries
and Archives Homepage
Last revised: December 12, 1997