STATE ARCHIVES AND RECORDS
COMMISSION
Minutes of the Quarterly
Meeting
Department for Libraries and
Archives
The
State Archives and Records Commission met at
Members present: James A.
Nelson, Chairman; Dr. Thomas D. Clark, representing the
Representatives present:
Lewis DeLuca, representing Dr. Marlene M. Helm, Secretary, Education, Arts and
Humanities Cabinet; James Ringo, representing A. B. Chandler, III, Attorney
General; Charles Robb, representing Aldona K. Valicenti, Chief Information
Officer, Governor's Office for Technology; Leslie Smith, representing Robert
Sherman, Director, Legislative Research Commission; Stephanie Robey,
representing Ed Hatchett, Auditor of Public Accounts; Brandon Haynes,
representing Joseph E. Lambert, Chief Justice, Supreme Court; and Geoff
Pinkerton, representing Mary Lassiter, Acting State Budget Director, Governor’s
Office for Policy and Management.
Members not present or
represented: Paul F. Coates, representing Citizens-at-Large; and Linda E.
Johnson, representing Citizens-at-Large.
Public Records Division
staff present: Richard N. Belding, Director, Public Records Division; Diana
Moses, Manager, State Records Branch; Jerry Carlton, Manager, Local Records
Branch; Barbara Teague, Manager, Archival Services Branch; Glen McAninch,
Manager, Technology Analysis and Support Branch; Mark Myers, Resource Management
Analyst; and B. J. Webster,
Administrative Secretary.
Guests present: No guests were present.
Nelson called for
introductions by those present.
The new members were sworn
in prior to the meeting.
Dr. Ellis made a motion to
accept the minutes of the previous Commission meeting, seconded by Mr.
Haynes. The vote by members and
representatives present was unanimous.
Quarterly Meeting
Page 2
NEW OR REVISED RECORDS
RETENTION SCHEDULES
Local Government General
Records Retention Schedule
Jerry Carlton was the
regional administrator working on the schedule changes. The series being changed are L4768,
Periodic Accounts Receivable Activity Report, and L4940, Audio/Video Recordings
of Official Meetings. The series
being added to the schedule are L5360, Certificate of Occupancy; L5361,
Inspection Reports; L5362, Violation File-Zoning, Building and Housing; L5363,
Violation File, Weed, Rubbish, Junk Car and Sidewalk; L5364, Surveillance
Video/Audio Recordings; L5365, Service Work Order; and L5366, Sales Tax
Report.
The Local Government General
Records Retention Schedule was approved by the State Archives and Records
Commission at its September 1999 meeting, and is applicable to all local
government agencies. The records
series contained in the schedule are identified by function, rather than office
of origin. The schedule is
used in conjunction with agency specific schedules.
The primary series being
changed is L4940, Audio/Video Recordings of Official Meetings. The disposition was changed from
“destroy or re-use after minutes are officially accepted” to “destroy or re-use
30 days after minutes are officially accepted, if no litigation is pending.” The
30-day retention period should provide sufficient time for questions about or
challenges to the transcribed minutes.
Series L5364, Surveillance
Video/Audio Recordings, which is an addition to the schedule, pertains to
general access areas in public buildings.
Morison asked, in regard to
the audio/video recordings, if it was generally understood that the use of the
term “litigation” in the disposition applied to open records requests, as an
action with legal consequences. Staff opted not to put any
reference to open records requests in the disposition, as it could apply to
virtually any record created by a public entity. Use of the term “litigation” was thought
to encompass any action that could result in a legal action, such as an appeal
to the Attorney General’s Office, under the Open Records
Act.
Quarterly Meeting
Page 3
Dr. Clark made a motion to
adopt the schedule changes, seconded by Dr. Ellis. The vote by members and
representatives present was unanimous.
The most significant change
being made to the schedule is series L1948. The change provides for the tenth month
attendance report to be retained for 20 years, with the balance of the reports
being eligible for destruction after two years. Previously all the monthly reports were
retained for 20 years. The tenth month report is cumulative and, therefore, the
most important one. As the
remaining reports are voluminous, space savings would be realized.
Dr. Clark said that the
change is an example of the direction archives and records management will have
to take. By force of circumstance,
it will be necessary to identify and retain only the most significant records,
while allowing for the destruction or disposal of the balance. Nelson said that many people don’t fully
understand that the identification of irrelevant records, or records that can be
destroyed at some point, is one of the more important tasks that the Commission
performs.
Dr. Morison made a motion to
adopt the schedule changes, seconded by Mr. Ringo. The vote by members and representatives
present was unanimous.
The next item was Other Business.
--Local Records Program
Workshops
Belding said that over the
past several months and in the months coming up, Local Records staff had been
and will be conducting workshops for local government officials. The workshops are conducted on-site at
various locations across the state.
Belding underscored the impact the workshops have had on the local
governments and that they included a segment on electronic records management
that Mark Myers, of the Technology Analysis and Support Branch, presented. There has been a great deal of interest
on the part of local officials to learn more about the management of electronic
information and Myers’ presentations were designed to respond to that need. The recent publication of Enterprise Standard: 4060 Recordkeeping –
Electronic Mail by the
Quarterly Meeting
Page 4
Governor’s Office for
Technology and the publication of the Department’s Guidelines for Managing Electronic Mail
have been positive developments in the management of electronic information and
on the training front, Belding said.
The workshop on the
management of paper and electronic records will be conducted one more time, with
Myers presenting the electronic records segment,
As an aside, Belding said
that the Lexington/Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG) had renewed its
interest in completing a comprehensive retention schedule with which to better
manage its records. With more than
30 divisions in that government, LFUCG’s interest in working with Local Records
staff to create the schedule was a very encouraging development.
Quarterly Meeting
Page 5
use of the Local Government
Records Retention Schedule, which is on KDLA’s website, to make disposition of a
significant number of records.
--
The State Historical Records
Advisory Board (SHRAB) was the primary mover behind the creation of a Kentucky
Archives Week, the first of which was held in October 2002. Belding said that
--Gubernatorial
Transition
Belding informed the
Commission members of the meeting he and Chairman Nelson had with the Governor’s
Executive Cabinet related to records management considerations during the
gubernatorial transition. A copy of
the briefing document from that meeting was distributed to the members. As a result of that meeting, Aldona
Valicenti, the state’s Chief Information Officer, invited staff to talk about
transition with the Chief Information Officers Advisory Council, which is made
up of officers from each cabinet within the Executive Branch, as well as the
constitutional offices, who have responsibility for information technology
issues. At the meeting, particular
emphasis was placed on the issues related to the management of electronic mail
and the identification of records created in that format that would have
historical value, such as official correspondence of cabinet secretaries or
other senior administrators, before they leave state government. The portion of messages that would be
created using electronic mail that would need to be retained is a very small
percentage. The majority of
electronic mail is disposable after a short period of time, as it is either junk
mail or reference and informational messages. The informational content of the
communication is what determines its retention. Electronic mail is a communications
tool, not a record type. Belding
said the long term intent is to see that the steps involved in the management of
electronic mail, which help to determine its value, are institutionalized as a
part of regular business and not just something that occurs at the end of a
gubernatorial transition.
Quarterly Meeting
Page 6
In response to a question
from Dr. Clark, Myers said that there is not much difference between written
communications and communications created using electronic mail, in that sender
and receiver are identified, the subject of the communication and the text, as
well as dates and who received copies are present. With electronic mail, additional
information is captured, such as the systems the mail was routed through, the
time it was created and whether or not the receiver opened the message. It can’t be determined whether the
message was read, just that it was opened.
Users of electronic mail may tend to be more casual and conversational,
rather than formal, when creating communications, Myers said. This transition period represents the
first attempt for the Department to try and capture official communications in
an electronic format.
--Evolving Relationship with the
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)
The Department has worked
very closely with AOC over the past two or three decades in a very productive
way to provide archival and records management services, including micrographics
services, to judicial offices. AOC,
particularly with the construction of a number of new courthouses, has become
aware of the challenge and expense that managing records represent to the
judicial offices located in each of the 120 counties. As a measure of good management, AOC has
determined that some things need to change in the way the records have been
managed in the past. AOC has
decided that it is interested in moving directly into records management
activities itself, while working closely with KDLA to provide micrographics and
repository support services, both archival and records center. It is also
interested in seeing that more records are transferred to KDLA than has been the
pattern in the past, so that work processes can be more efficiently managed at
the local level. Under this plan,
the courts would have only the records they need to meet current local business
needs. Records not needed for that
purpose would be eligible for transfer to the Department. Court records represent approximately
two-thirds of the records that are requested in the Archives Research Room, in
hard copy form, and represent more than 50% of the total holdings in the State
Archives. Belding said that the
Department was looking forward to the next stage in its relationship with the
courts.
In a related issue, Belding
said that state government may be in a fiscal downturn but there is no shortage
of litigation and no shortage in the creation of records, which applies to all
state government agencies.
Holdings, particularly in the
Quarterly Meeting
Page 7
demonstrate the Department’s
need to have an expansion of the Coffee Tree Road facility to be able to respond
to the kind of archival growth that is anticipated over the next few years.
Belding said that a meeting
of the Capital Planning Advisory Board, which meets during the summer of odd
numbered years to review capital expansion and equipment requests occurred in
July. At the meeting, Secretary
Helm presented the cabinet’s requests for expansion, with one of those being an
expansion of the
After a short break, the
meeting reconvened to discuss the last item of business.
--
The issue of these records,
a substantial amount of which are stored in the State Archives, relates directly
to the challenges the Department faces in making the most efficient use of
available storage space in the Archives.
Belding said that for a couple years, staff had been following a six or
seven point program trying to free up additional space in the Archives. Part of the program involves the regular
review of schedules for changes in retention that would have an impact on
records stored in the Archives, where the retentions have been reduced from
permanent to a lesser period, based on decisions the Commission might make. This review has helped ensure that those
records are then either destroyed or transferred to the
Quarterly Meeting
Page 8
Related to that continuing
reassessment, one group of records that staff has reevaluated is the
several years ago. Belding distributed a memorandum
addressed to the Commission members, which included an appraisal reassessment of
the files, for their review. The
reassessment document provides background information about the records and
their transfer to the Archives, which was approved at the time by the
Commission. The question for
discussion is whether the records continue to meet accepted criteria for
archival storage.
Belding said that staff felt
that these particular records were appropriate for reappraisal at this time for
several different reasons. One is
because the records represent a unique case. The records came into the Archives as
unscheduled; that is, no retention period had been approved by the Commission
for them in advance of the transfer.
The records, after the closure of the hospital, were in danger of being
destroyed, if a repository was not found for them. At that time, the issue was brought
before the Commission, and the decision was made to accept them into the
Archives. The total volume accepted
was approximately 1,594 cubic feet, covering the years 1923-1959. In addition, the University of
Louisville accepted a large volume of the more current records (those dated
1960-1977) into its facility. Dr.
Morison echoed Belding’s comments that the volume of records being stored is
huge for both facilities, and that a reappraisal of their archival value is much
needed.
Morison said that the
question the University had at the time it accepted the records was whether they
had reached their disposition period.
It was decided that they had not and they continued to be stored in the
facility. Several years later, the
University broached the subject of destruction of the records, believing that
any retention of the records had long since been met. Approval to destroy the records, under
appropriate laws and guidelines, has not, up to this point, been given.
The interest in the records
when they initially became available was that they were records of a public
general hospital and there was some belief that at the time they were unique, in
the sense that they documented, or perhaps might document, medical services
delivery to an underserved or under documented population, during a period that
spanned about 50 years. Of the
1,594 cubic feet of records, approximately 1,408 are patient medical records,
Belding said. Another 150 cubic
feet are patient folders that are on an outdated, proprietary-style microfiche,
for which microfilm readers no longer exist. In addition, there are patient summary
cards, which are small IBM punch cards, with punch data on them. The assessment document that each of the
members was given was prepared by Tim Tingle, who is the Department’s chief
appraisal archivist and head of the Arrangement and Description Section. It addresses some of the issues that are
relevant in terms of retaining patient case file material. It includes recommendations from
professional associations and medical records providers, such as the American
Health
Quarterly Meeting
Page 9
Management Association, and
from others that have responsibility for retaining similar information for
medical purposes and for service to the original clients. The document also includes statutory
references regarding the retention of medical information. Tingle also reviewed retention
requirements of other states, finding that the maximum time period for retention
was 30 years.
Given the lack of definitive
information regarding retention, the next step was to define what obstacles
there were to providing access to these kinds of records. One clear obstacle is that the only
people who have ready access to the records are the individual patients
themselves, their guardians or the executors of their estates. Over the past few years, the amount of
entry into the nearly 1,600 cubic feet of the records at the Archives has
averaged about three to four per year.
Dr. Ellis said he imagined that the re-entry would have been greater into
the more recent records, not those were more than 50 years old. Belding said that that was correct. Belding pointed out that the run of
records that the Archives has is not complete. There are gaps in the records for any
particular year, so there is no assurance that the Archives would have a
requested record.
In response to a question
from Dr. Clark, Morison said that the records held at the University cover the
period 1960-1977, which represents the most recent portion of the records. They were retained for the purpose of
physician consultation for patient care for persons who were treated during that
period. The number of requests for
the records by either physicians or patients was very low. As the years have progressed, the
requests have been fewer and fewer, Morison said. Another reason for retaining the
records, Morison said, was their possible historical research value, which
Morison acknowledged they could have.
To date, there has been no historical research activity in the files
maintained at the University.
Belding said that the same held true for the records stored in the
Archives. At the time of the
initial decision to retain the records, two medical historians and a
statistician informed the Commission members of the impact of sampling
techniques and made observations about the value of the material for potential
historical research. Their
observations have not proven to be the case. None of those who provided the earlier
assessments have ever expressed any research interest in the files or directed
anyone to use the holdings in the Archives. Partly, that can be attributed to the
number of statutory restrictions on access to medical information, Belding
said. Stephanie Robey, representing
the Auditor’s Office, asked if the Archives held other medical records of the
same type. Belding said that it did
not. Robey then raised the issue of
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) and whether the
access restrictions imposed by that Act, which are very stringent, would have
any impact on research use of the records.
Robey said there could be
legal liability for keeping that kind of information. Ellis said that he thought the only
reason the records were retained initially was because of their possible
research value, not because of their value to clinicians.
Quarterly Meeting
Page 10
Dr. Clark asked if any of
the information contained in the files would also be retained in vital
statistics records. Belding said
that the files consist of different information and that, as Robey had pointed
out, access to the information would restricted in terms of its use because of
personal identifiers. The same would not be true of vital statistics or census
records, as they contain abstracted information.
Belding said that
information had been obtained from several sources, including the municipal
archives of both the city of
Nelson said he thought there
might have been a question early on about the value of the records in
determining whether genetically-transferred illnesses or health issues were
present in later generations.
Morison said that he knows of no instance where that type of research has
occurred at the University. Belding
said that another way in which the records might have been used in a kind of
archival context would have been in a clinical setting, where new doctors would
be trained in diagnostic techniques.
They might have been given medical information from a much earlier period
for them to use as a test case.
There has never been any interest in using the files under consideration
in that way, partly because the Department is not located near any major medical
research center. The likelihood of
these records being used in that way is very slight.
Belding said that five or
six factors had been identified as being crucial to a final decision being made
regarding the ultimate disposition of the records. The factors include the size of the
collection, which is a space issue for the Archives; the significant access
restrictions on the records, which precludes use of the files to anyone other
than the individual patient, guardian or executor; the scarce use of the
materials over time; the gaps that exist in the files; and the very significant
issue of being able to preserve and read the information that is on the outdated
microfiche cards, which have steadily
Quarterly Meeting
Page 11
degraded over the past years
and will continue to degrade, even in an archival environment, because of their
chemistry.
Taking all the factors into
consideration, as well as the issues brought forward by Dr. Morison regarding
the University’s holdings, Belding said that staff wanted to bring the
information to the Commission, as it was involved in the original decision to
retain the records 20 years ago, with a recommendation that the continued
retention of the patient files is not justified. Dr. Clark asked how the University
became the recipient of the files it now has. Morison said that the older files are
housed in the State Archives, with the University having the more recent
ones. Nelson said that when Humana
took over the
Dr. Clark asked Morison
about his attitude toward continuing to hold the records. Morison said that, in a perfect world,
his inclination, as a historian, would be to retain these records, as well as
other types of records forever, but in a practical world that isn’t
possible. Morison said that he
supports the recommendation of the Department that the records be
destroyed. Belding said that the
Archives continues to hold approximately 270 volumes (approximately 85 cubic
feet) of admissions and registration logs from the hospital that are not
included in the present discussion, but which may be the subject of future
discussions. The same issues
regarding privacy of medical files exist for the logs, as personal patient
information is recorded in them.
Their ultimate disposition would need to be decided at a future
date.
Dr. Clark asked if there
were any statutory barriers to the destruction of the files. Belding said that there was not. The question was raised as to whether,
under HIPPA regulations, there would be a prohibition against destruction of the
files without having first advised or notified former patients that the records
exist. Teague asked if that aspect
could be handled by placing a notice in appropriate newspapers. Morison said that that possibility had
been discussed and that the University would go forward with it, if the
Commission approved the destruction of the records. DeLuca asked if the University would
continue to hold its records, if the approval to destroy the ones in the
Archives was approved. Morison said
the University would be guided by the will of the Commission.
Robb made mention of a
reference to the existence of indices for the files, which were created by
Humana. Teague said that the
Archives has been dependent upon those parties holding the indices to determine,
when a request was received, as to whether or not a given file was its
holdings.
Quarterly Meeting
Page 12
In response to a question
from
Robb said that if the
Department advertised that it had the records, that might prompt more than one
or two research queries a year.
Robb was also concerned about the public’s reaction if word of the
destruction of the records were to get out. Teague said that records that have
ceased to have value are routinely destroyed, without antagonizing the public,
and that the records under discussion are no different than other hospital
records that are destroyed. In
response to a question from Belding, Moses said that clinic-type records, such
as those maintained by local health departments are destroyed after ten
years. A new file would be created
if the individual returned for treatment after the expiration of the ten-year
period. A question was asked as to
whether the patient would have any right to take possession of his record, prior
to its destruction. Nelson said he
supposed that the Department would only issue a notice of the availability of
the general hospital records if it was legally required to. Related to the issue of access
restrictions, Pinkerton said that he did not believe that HIPPA, which was
recently enacted, would pertain, given that the records span the period
1923-1977. There was no consensus
among the Commission members or staff as to whether HIPPA had retroactive
application. Pinkerton said that he
believed the only reason the records would need to be retained was if someone
had a legal interest in them and that, given their age, any statute of
limitations would probably render that interest as purely academic. Morison agreed.
Morison said that the
placement and type of notice advertising the availability of the records would
also need to be discussed with University legal staff and its medical and
hospital community, if the decision was made to take that action. Also, how the destruction of the records
would be carried out would need to be addressed, if the Commission approved
their disposal. Morison said the
University would try to take prudent steps in regard to any public notices about
the records, but felt, in the final analysis, that the Commission might just
have to take the action it deemed appropriate and accept the consequences of
that action, as it should with any actions it took.
Quarterly Meeting
Page 13
consult with the medical
community, unless legal staff advised it not to. Nelson clarified the motion by saying
that if no reason was found to delay the destruction of the records, their
disposal would proceed. Any final
action would be addressed by the Commission
when it meets in December,
to give time to consult with the relevant communities. Belding said, in response to a question
from
There being no further
business, Nelson adjourned the meeting at approximately