Lexington/Fayette Urban County Government
Louisville/Jefferson
County Metro Government
The State Archives and Records Commission met at 10:00 a.m., Thursday, June 10, 2004, in the Board Room, Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives (KDLA), 300 Coffee Tree Road, Frankfort, Kentucky.
Members present: Dr. Thomas D. Clark, representing the University of Kentucky; Dr. William J. Morison, representing regional colleges and universities; Lynne Hollingsworth, representing Citizens-at-Large; James F. Kastner, representing the Kentucky Historical Society; Sandra L. McAninch, representing the Kentucky Library Association; Dr. Jack D. Ellis, representing Citizens-at-Large; and James E. Horner, representing Citizens-at-Large.
Representatives present: Richard N. Belding, representing James A. Nelson, Chairman; Thelma Whiteside, representing Virginia G. Fox, Secretary, Education Cabinet; Amye Bensenhaver, representing Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; Charles Robb, representing Michael Inman, Commissioner of Technology, Commonwealth Office of Technology; Brian Lykins, representing Crit Luallen, Auditor of Public Accounts; and Brandon Haynes, representing Joseph E. Lambert, Chief Justice, Supreme Court.
Members not present or represented: James A. Nelson, Chairman; Brad Cowgill, State Budget Director, Governor’s Office for Policy and Management; Robert Sherman, Director, Legislative Research Commission; Sue Carole Perry, representing local governments; and Paul F. Coates, 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; Glen McAninch, Manager, Technology Analysis and Support Branch; Barbara Teague, Manager, Archival Services Branch; Mark Myers, Resource Management Analyst; Jim Cundy, Regional Administrator; Tim McIntosh, Regional Administrator; and Sunnye Smith, Grants and Contracts Specialist.
Guests present: Ryan Halloran, attorney for the Commission, Office of the Attorney General.
The meeting was conducted by Mr. Belding, in the absence of Chairman James. A. Nelson.
Belding called for introductions by those present.
Prior to a motion to accept the minutes of the March 11, 2004 meeting, Bensenhaver pointed out that the name of the Attorney General was still being shown as A. B. Chandler, III, and not Gregory D. Stumbo. Moses said that the error would be corrected.
There being no further discussion, 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.
NEW OR REVISED RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULES
The following schedules were considered as a group.
Lexington/Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG) Retention Schedule – Department of Public Safety – Department of General Services – Department of Law- Department of Administrative Services
Jerry Carlton was the regional administrator working on this new schedule. The series being scheduled for the Public Safety Department cover numbers L5505 to L5507, Division of Code Enforcement; L5508 to L5514, Division of Building Inspection; L5515 to L5523, Division of Environmental and Emergency Management; and L5546 to L5552, Division of Fire and Emergency Services.
The series being scheduled for the General Services Department cover numbers L5556 to L5562, Fleet Services; and L5563 to L5567, Parks and Recreation.
The series being scheduled for the Department of Law cover numbers L5568 to L5574.
The series being scheduled for the Department of Administrative Services cover numbers L5585 to L5592, Division of Risk Management – Claims; L5593 to L5613, Division of Risk Management – Safety and Health; and L5617 to L5623, Division of Historic Preservation.
Carlton advised the Commission members that this submission represented the second installment in the completion of a schedule for LFUCG. Approximately 82 new series are included in the submission. The following sections were approved by the Commission at its March 2004 meeting: Budgeting, Historic Preservation, Human Resources and Risk Management, under the Administrative Services Department; Engineering, Sanitary Sewers, Solid Waste and Streets and Roads, under the Public Works Department; Accounting, Central Purchasing, Computer Services and Revenue, which completed the schedule for the Finance Department; Corporate Counsel and Litigation, which completed the Department of Law; Building Inspection, Code Enforcement, Detention, Environmental and Emergency Management, Fire and Emergency Services and Police, under the Public Safety Department; Building Maintenance and Construction, Fleet Services, Parks and Recreation and Property Management, which completed the General Services Department; and Adult Services, Family Services and Youth Services, under the Social Services Department.
In initiating the project to create a schedule for LFUCG, Carlton provided key staff in each of the departments with a copy of the Local Government General Records Retention Schedule for their review to determine which series would be applicable to LFUCG. After that identification, Carlton worked with the individual departments to determine the records from the respective offices that would need to be included in the completed schedule. The completed schedule would then be a combination of applicable series from the General Schedule, plus new records not duplicated elsewhere. There are approximately 30 to 40 additional series that will be submitted for approval at the September meeting of the Commission.
Dr. Clark asked if LFUCG was restructuring and whether that was the reason for the creation of the schedule. Carlton said that the schedule was being created because the LFUCG did not currently have one, or at least one that covered all of its records. There were several past efforts on the part of the Local Records staff to develop a comprehensive schedule. Those efforts did not receive the degree of cooperation needed to result in a completed schedule. That changed, Carlton said, when the operation of the Records Center and LFUCG’s records management program became the responsibility of the Council Clerk’s Office. Since that occurred, Carlton said that he has received the full cooperation and support of the Council Clerk, Liz Damrell, over the past year and a half, in the development of a complete schedule for LFUCG.
In response to a question from Dr. Ellis, Carlton explained that the Local Government Retention Schedule contains records that are common across most of the various local governments, such as financial records, personnel and payroll records, law enforcement records, public utility records, etc. The retention and disposition for those types of series would be applicable, regardless of the local government entity.
Dr. Clark asked how the Local Records staff differentiated between Fayette County records and the records created by the Urban County Government. Carlton said that the county clerk’s office is a constitutional office, which didn’t change when the merger of the governments occurred in 1973. The county clerks utilize a retention schedule specific to their operations. There are other offices, such as county judge executives and county attorneys, that are separate from the merged government and that also utilize schedules approved by the Commission that are specific to their operations.
Ms. McAninch asked about series L5585, Workers’ Compensation File, and whether the disposition shouldn’t be “indefinite, destroy five years after claim is settled,” instead of five years, destroy after claim is settled” specified in the submission. Regardless of the use of “indefinite,” the series is still to be destroyed five years after the claim is settled, Carlton said. McAninch said that her concern was that the agency might misread the instruction and possibly destroy records before they should, if the disposition was “five years, destroy after claim is settled.” Carlton said that he would look into it, as the disposition instruction should be as clear as possible regarding the action required.
Ms. Bensenhaver said that she was not familiar with the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, but questioned, since the public has a right to know, the three-year retention period for series L5519, Tier II Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory File, Division of Environmental and Emergency Management. Bensenhaver expressed concern that the three year period was not long enough to ensure the availability of information, should there be public inquiries about the amounts and types of chemical and hazard materials present in the community. Carlton said that the Act specified the three-year retention period, which is the minimum time period that the agency would have to retain the information. Carlton said that the inventory was done periodically and that there should always be information on file identifying the types of chemicals and hazardous materials present in the facility.
In response to a question from Mr. Lykins, Carlton said that L5562, Underground Storage Registration, documented the registration of tanks used by the Division of Fleet Services and was not, as Lykins had initially thought, documenting the registration of tanks in use throughout Fayette County.
Bensenhaver asked if there was a record that documented what happened to vehicles after the LFUCG no longer owned them. The disposition instruction for the Vehicle Information File, L5556, is to destroy the file after the vehicle is no longer owned. Carlton said that he would check, but thought that it would probably be covered in surplus property records found in the Department of Finance section of the schedule.
Return to
top
Bensenhaver also questioned the access restriction reference
(KRS 61.878 (k) (3)) for L5586, General Liability Claims, and L5587, Auto
Liability Claims. If access to the series is restricted, then the reference
should be KRS 61.878 (1) (a). Bensenhaver said that she wasn’t sure that there
should even be access restrictions placed on the two records. In response to
McAninch, Bensenhaver said that any medical information would be protected
appropriately, but was concerned that the public might think that the entire
file was inaccessible. Carlton said that he would check with the agency to
determine whether there should be any access restrictions noted.
In regard to series L5508 to L5512, related to building inspections, building permits, certificates of occupancy and building plans, McAninch said that, given the problems with building inspections in Fayette County, she was surprised that those records were not being retained longer than three years. Carlton said that the records for the Division of Building Inspections came directly from the General Schedule and that their retention periods had been previously approved by the Commission. Moses said that building code enforcement was the responsibility of the Department for Housing, Buildings and Construction, at the state level. Retention of the inspection reports for three years at the local level should be sufficient, since the Department would have similar records and would retain them for a longer period of time. Moses said that the records were not retained permanently, as McAninch suggested they should be.
Bensenhaver said that, in reference to the access restriction on series L5568, General Subject Files, in the Department of Law, Carlton might want to include, in addition to SCR 3.130 (1.6) and KRE 503, CR 2602, for attorney work product. Bensenhaver said if the series was research files, as opposed to communications between the attorney and client, which she believed it to be, the access restriction should relate to attorney work product.
Dr. Clark made a motion to adopt the schedules, seconded by Mr. Horner. Ms. Hollingsworth abstained from voting, due to a conflict of interest related to the Division of Code Enforcement section of the schedule. Hollingsworth’s husband works in the division’s building code enforcement. The vote by the remaining eleven members and representatives present was unanimous.
Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government Schedule – Youth Detention Services
Jim Cundy was the regional administrator working on this new schedule. The series being scheduled are L5651, Individual Case Folder, and L5672, Medical Record of Resident.
Cundy said that the records had previously been included in the Jefferson County Records Retention Schedule, approved by the Commission in 1980. The disposition for the series was “indefinite, destroy 25 years from date of birth.” The disposition for the medical record was “indefinite, destroy five years after age of majority.” Detention center staff asked that the disposition of the case folder and medical record be changed to “indefinite, destroy when resident reaches 19 years of age.” Cundy explained that much of the information concerning residents was retained in files created by either the District Court, court designated workers, or the police department. Any exceptional incidents related to residents are documented and retained for ten years. Also, Cundy said that the statute of limitations on lawsuits by residents against the detention center was one year after the resident reaches the age of majority.
Cundy said that the submission of this schedule change was part of the ongoing efforts to create a schedule for the merged Louisville and Jefferson County governments. Additional schedules for the Louisville Metro Government will be submitted at the September meeting of the Commission.
In response to a question from Dr. Clark, Cundy said that many of the records previously scheduled in the City of Louisville schedule and the Jefferson County schedule would be brought together to create one for the merged government.
Dr. Ellis made a motion to adopt the schedule, seconded by Ms. Hollingsworth. The vote by members and representatives present was unanimous.
Belding then moved to consideration of Local Records grants. Carlton said that the two applications for grants being submitted would deplete the balance of funds for the fiscal year. The first application was for Carter County, in the amount of $21,290, to convert rolls of microfilm to digital images. Carlton said that there are two sets of film. One contains information captured on the microfilm chip in the aperture cards used to document the recording of deeds, mortgages, etc., and one contains information from the cards themselves. By converting to digital images, both pieces of information would be brought together in one record. In response to a question from Dr. Clark, Carlton said that the aperture cards contain information about recordings, covering the period 1975 to 1989. Prior to 1975 and after 1989, the information is recorded in the traditional books. Carlton said that Barren and Ballard counties are still using aperture cards, but would soon be going to a digital format like Carter County. Belding said that the use of aperture cards is an example of a technology that was attractive, as an alternate format for preservation, a few years ago, but which proved to be not as satisfactory over the long term, because the long term implications, not as apparent at the front end of the process, became apparent over time.
The second application was for Montgomery County, in the amount of $7,458, to purchase roller shelving, for storage of permanent records in the Clerk’s Office.
Dr. Clark made a motion to recommend the grants to Commissioner Nelson for his approval, seconded by Dr. Ellis.
Prior to a vote on the motion, Robb asked if the backup tapes of the electronic indexing systems in many of the clerks’ offices were still being sent to the Department. Carlton said that a few counties had their own systems and that backups were retained onsite, rather than coming to the Department. Approximately 70 to 80 counties now use Software Management, Inc., for indexing and the backup tapes are sent directly to SMI.
Robb then asked how many counties had a website for patrons to use when conducting research. Carlton wasn’t sure of the number, but knew that Oldham and Jefferson counties did have a web presence. Several other counties are gradually working toward use of the web for research purposes. Carlton said that the cost of the technology, along with the need to do back file conversion in order to have sufficient information available on the site to conduct searches, are issues that are affecting how quickly counties can move in that direction.
Belding then called for a vote on the motion. The vote by members and representatives present was unanimous.
The next item was Other Business.
Belding distributed a flyer announcement about the Twentieth Annual Kentucky Archives Institute. The annual one-day event is sponsored by the Friends of Kentucky Public Archives, Inc., and the Department’s Public Records Division. The event will be held July 9, 2004, in the Department’s Activity Room. This year’s theme is “Those Less Fortunate”: Early Kentucky Social Welfare Sources.
Belding informed the
Commission members that one of the items that the Electronic Records Working
Group (ERWG) had been working on was the development of a guidance document
related to the management of web-based records. Mark Myers, of the Technology
Analysis and Support Branch, has been working on the project. The state’s Web
Standards Committee is currently reviewing an early draft of the guidelines, as
are university records management personnel. The intent of the document is to
raise awareness of, as well as provide and explain, the currently available
requirements, guidelines and best practices for managing and preserving web
resources that meet the definition of public records, as defined by the Kentucky
Revised Statutes. The purpose of the guidelines document is to assist state
agency personnel in the management of web resources to be compliant with
Kentucky Public Records laws and to promote best practices and suggestions that
facilitate the effective creation, management and retention of web resources as
public records.
Myers said that, unlike
a few years ago when documents placed on web sites were considered duplicate
records, many websites now are the front-end for the database that may hold the
documents. When an individual accesses the website, documents are actually
pulled from the respective database, just as would occur if agency personnel
were accessing or using the database. For the most part, Myers said that many of
the records found on websites continue to be records covered by retention
schedules that have just been converted from a paper format to an electronic
one. There are some agencies, especially at the state level, that have started
to conduct business over the web. The Patton administration was very supportive
of electronic government and encouraged agencies to conduct business, where
appropriate, electronically. It is anticipated that Governor Fletcher’s
administration will continue that practice. More and more records are now being
created electronically because agencies are offering some type of service on the
web. The records may or may not be included in agency retention schedules. The
guidelines document offers suggestions and best practice information for how to
appropriately manage such records and resources. Websites are no longer static
but dynamic, in the sense that the user types in the information wanted and the
website view is created based on the particular search parameters. The website
view itself may not actually exist before the search is made. The records are
put together on the website by the software being used, not necessarily being
created. The guidelines document identifies the different types of websites and
their characteristics and then provides information about the best practices
approach to managing them. There are sections in the guidelines related to
preservation of records of historical value, such as agency publications or
other records that would eventually make their way into the State Archives, and
requirements for the transfer of web-based records of historical value to the
Archives.
Belding said the draft guidelines document would be circulated to the Commission members for their review and discussion at the September meeting.
Belding then informed the Commission members about the recent meeting staff had with Deputy Legal Counsel for the Governor, Michael Adams. The meeting was at the request of Mr. Adams. Adams wanted a briefing on the responsibilities of the Office related to the management of electronic mail. Belding said that the meeting was very productive and gave staff the opportunity to familiarize Adams with the range of services the Department provides to the Governor’s Office, as well as other state agencies. Staff indicated their desire to meet with staff in the Governor’s Office to introduce them to records management issues that they may not be familiar with. Belding was hopeful that such a briefing would occur sometime in the near term.
Belding distributed two versions of the legislative tracking documents that provide information about legislation that was passed during the 2004 session of the General Assembly that has some records management impact and that may require action on the part of the Department. Areas of special interest to staff are legislation related to access to records, legislation that might raise electronic records issues, legislation that may require the creation of records and the revision of retention schedules, and legislation that affects the organizational structure or restructuring of agencies. The reports also included information regarding the management of agency publications and any legislation that may call for the creation of special studies and reports, or the creation of new publications.
Belding mentioned two bills of particular interest to the Department. One is HB 225, which amends KRS 422.090 to establish procedures for county clerks to follow in the release and the destruction of military discharge papers and the other is HB 135, which creates a new section of KRS Chapter 14 to allow the Secretary of State to accept electronic signatures as notarization for business filing requirements.
There followed discussion about the laws that restrict access to certain types of records and the responsibility of the Department to ensure that records that come into its custody that carry access restrictions are not disclosed to the public.
There being no further business, Belding adjourned the meeting at approximately 11:10 a.m.