Lexington/Fayette
Urban County Government
Social
Services
Public Works
Department
Ethics
Commission
Louisville/Jefferson
County Metro Government
The State Archives and Records Commission met at 10:00 a.m., Thursday, March 11, 2004, in the Board Room, Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives (KDLA), 300 Coffee Tree Road, Frankfort, Kentucky.
Members present: James A. Nelson, Chairman; 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; Paul F. Coates, representing Citizens-At-Large; Sandra L. McAninch, representing the Kentucky Library Association; Dr. Jack D. Ellis, representing Citizens-at-Large; James E. Horner, representing Citizens-at-Large; and Sue Carol Perry, representing local governments.
Representatives present: Sally Hamilton, representing Virginia G. Fox, Secretary, Education Cabinet; Amye Bensenhaver, representing Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; Doug Robinson, representing Aldona K. Valicenti, Chief Information Officer, Governor's Office for Technology; Leslie Smith, representing Robert Sherman, Director, Legislative Research Commission; 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: Brad Cowgill, State Budget Director, Governor’s Office for Policy and Management.
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; Trace Kirkwood, Regional Administrator; Larry Barnett, Regional Administrator; Tim McIntosh, Regional Administrator; Sunnye Smith, Grants and Contracts Specialist; and B. J. Webster, Administrative Secretary.
Guests present: Carla and Rodney White, Business Micrographics
Chairman Nelson presented a certificate to Carla and Rodney White, Business Micrographics, located in Evansville, Indiana. The certificate recognizes that the firm is a certified micrographics vendor and films state and local public records according to the Department’s standards.
Nelson called for introductions by those present.
Dr. Ellis made a
motion to accept the minutes of the previous Commission meeting, seconded by Mr.
Coates. 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 – Social Services – Public Works Department – Ethics Commission
Jerry Carlton was the regional administrator working on this new schedule. The series being scheduled for Social Services cover numbers L5375 to L5380, Adult Services; L5381 to L5386, Family Services; and L5387 to L5392, Youth Services.
The series being scheduled for the Public Works Department cover numbers L5427 to L5431, Public Works; L5393 to L5401, Engineering; L5402 to L5415 and L5432 to L5434, Sanitary Sewers; and L5416 and L5417, Solid Waste. The majority of the records for the Public Works section came from the Local Government General Records Schedule.
The series being scheduled for the Ethics Commission cover numbers L5419 to L5425. The Ethics Commission records were previously approved under the Local Government General Records Schedule. As the records would be same, regardless of which entity the Commission falls under, they were transferred to the schedule for LFUCG.
Carlton said that the submission of these three schedules was the first installment in the development of a comprehensive schedule for LFUCG. The development of the schedule was prompted by the impending relocation of the Records Center operated by LFUCG. Carlton said additional sections of the schedule would be submitted for approval at the June 2004 meeting of the Commission.
By way of explanation, Carlton said that the departments and divisions within the government were given copies of the Local Government General Records Schedule so that staff could identify records from that schedule that would be appropriate for inclusion in LFUCG’s. The agency prefers that there be just one schedule for use by the staff. Carlton said that for some areas, the records identified in the Local Government schedule would be sufficient and that they would be added to the agency-specific schedule.
Dr. Clark made a motion to adopt the schedules, seconded by Mr. Coates. Prior to voting, Dr. Morison asked if the series included in the schedules were similar to other county records. Carlton responded that they were. There followed additional discussion about general retention schedules and their applicability to agencies that share common records and agency-specific schedules that document records unique to a particular government agency.
There being no further discussion, Nelson called for a vote on the above motion. The vote by members and representatives present was unanimous.
Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government – Air Pollution Control – Vehicle Emission Testing (VET)
Jim Cundy was the regional administrator working on this new schedule. The series being scheduled are L5577, Vehicle Repair Form; L5578, Vehicle Emissions Testing Appeal Form; L5579, Repair Industry Update Form; L5580, Registration Revocation Report; L5581, Voided Vehicle Inspection Reports; L5582, Report is Issued 30-Day Notices; L5583, Docket Reports; and L5584, Repair Industry Report.
The series being scheduled cover some of the records created by the program that existed in Louisville/Jefferson County from 1984 to 2003. The program was originally court-enforced, through the District Court system. On July 15, 2000, enforcement of the program changed to a registration/revocation process handled through the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. The VET program was discontinued October 31, 2003. Vehicle emission testing resulted from the Clean Air Act of 1970, and the Environmental Protection Agency having classified Jefferson County as part of an “ozone non-attainment area.”
Cundy said that there was a movement under way to create a similar program for the Metro Government and that it was likely that the records from the new program, if implemented, would be similar in nature to those of the former one.
Dr. Clark remarked that there were municipalities within Jefferson County that had not merged with the Metro Government. Belding asked if the municipalities that had not elected to become part of the Metro Government would continue to be governed by the Local Government General Retention Schedule and the schedule for municipalities. Cundy said that they would. Cundy said that common records that were created by the VET program, such as annual reports, fiscal records, etc., would also be managed using the Local Government general schedule.
Dr. Clark made a motion to adopt the schedule, seconded by Dr. Morison. The vote by members and representatives present was unanimous.
The next item was Other Business.
Belding distributed a list of the legislation that the Department has been tracking during the current session of the General Assembly. Of particular interest is legislation that has a records management impact, such as the creation of publications, the creation of electronic systems, the reorganization of state agencies, and records access issues, as well as legislation that may have an impact on the library community.
Also distributed was a document that contains information on more than 80 bills that have seen some action during the session, but have not been signed into law. In all, approximately 145 bills have been tracked, many of which have seen little or no activity up to this point of the Session. Belding said that more than 200 bills have been identified as having some records management impact, if passed. The purpose for the Department’s tracking of legislation is an attempt to anticipate the impact, should the bills be enacted.
Of particular interest to the Department is HB 263, which relates to the dissemination of public information and, if passed, would require the Office of the Attorney General to distribute to key local officials written information that explains the procedural and substantive provisions of the Open Meetings and Open Records Acts, along with information provided by KDLA that explains proper retention and management of public records. Belding said that the Department sees the requirement to disseminate records management information to key officials as an opportunity to reach a number of officials that may not be fully aware of their recordkeeping responsibilities. There are more than 900 locally elected officials and more than 400 cities and municipalities, as well as 120 county governments, 176 school districts and 1,300 schools that Local Records staff must deal with. Belding said that the bill would permit the electronic dissemination of the information to selected officials. In addition, the bill would require a signatory response by the official receiving the information. As of five weeks ago, Belding said that the bill had passed out of the House and had been assigned to a Senate Committee. As of today’s meeting, no further action has occurred.
Discussion then followed regarding HB 328, an Act relating to county clerks that would allow the clerks to accept documents via electronic means and maintain information in electronic formats, and that would require the Department to promulgate related administrative regulations; HB 402, an Act relating to the discharge of liens that would require, rather than allow, county clerks to maintain marginal entry records in the discharge of liens; and HB 611, an Act relating to county clerks that would, among other things, increase selected fees they collect, and that would assist the Department for Local Government in establishing and implementing a standardized indexing system to be used by the clerks.
Nelson introduced Sally Hamilton, who is representing Virginia Fox, Secretary of the Education Cabinet. Ms. Hamilton, who was not able to attend the first part of the meeting, is the Chief of Staff for the Cabinet.
Belding distributed to the Commission members the draft Guidelines for Responding to Open Records Requests for Public Records in a Database, for their review. The proposed guidelines are a product of the Electronic Records Working Group (ERWG), which is comprised of staff from the Department, the Office of the Attorney General, the Auditor of Public Accounts Office, and the Governor’s Office for Technology. Amye Bensenhaver, Brian Lykins and Doug Robinson, representing their respective offices at the Commission meeting, also are members of ERWG.
Belding explained that the guidelines were developed as a form of practical advice to agencies that are confronting new kinds of challenges in responding to open records requests in an increasingly electronic age. The guidelines are voluntary and general in nature and are not intended to address all the various issues that can arise in responding to such requests. They are based on Kentucky’s Open Records laws as of December 2003, the Enterprise Architecture and Standards, and accepted recordkeeping practices.
Mark Myers, Technology Analysis and Support Branch, said that the guidelines do not determine what is or is not a valid Open Records Request. The determination as to whether a request is valid or not would be up to the respective agency and its legal counsel. Myers said that one of the problems with laws that specify a particular type of technology to be used is that they are not updated as quickly as the technology changes. That is true in the case of the Open Records law. Years ago, Myers said, it was difficult to get records out of a database without going to a lot of time and expense. That is not the case now, with today’s technology. Because of that, ERWG wanted to provide some guidance to agencies that have to respond to requests for information contained in databases.
Myers said that the guidelines had been sent to various groups, including selected agency general counsels and records officers, the Chief Information Officer Advisory Committee, and local government and university officials, for their review and comment. Belding said that Department staff who work directly with state and local agencies in the planning and design of electronic systems try to encourage them to think in terms of the way in which information is going to be made accessible from the systems, particularly if they contain information to which access is restricted, as well as information that is not restricted.
Mr. Robinson said that a critical point in the guidelines is the directional statement related to online access. State and local agencies should be strongly encouraged to move toward providing direct and ubiquitous access to databases online so that the business process is not encumbered with constant requests for information that is freely and publicly available. Robinson said that there are already 130 to 140 online services, through the state’s electronic government activities, and that many of those are supported by backend databases that serve up information to citizens on a 24-hour basis. Robinson said that that should be the direction, as opposed to constraining access through formal requests under the Open Records laws. It is costly to respond to requests for information contained in databases. That the guidelines contain a reference to making databases available online and searchable by the general public is a step in the right direction, Robinson said.
Nelson commented that the Open Records Act was changed in 1994 to reflect that in order to be in compliance with provisions of the Act, agencies needed to plan their records management activities in line with the Department’s guidelines and their technology planning in line with those required by what is now the Governor’s Office for Technology. If those things are done, responding to requests for information is made easier, Nelson said.
In response to a question from Dr. Clark regarding the volume of open records requests that are received, Robinson said that he didn’t know the specific number but that GOT handles a number of requests on a weekly basis related to records that are freely available to the public, though not in an electronic format. Those requests are being looked at with an eye toward building an E-Government portfolio, to make the information available online. As an example, Robinson mentioned approximately 28 licensing agencies that, through prompting by GOT, now make license information available on the Internet. By making the information available online, requestors do not have to go through the formal process of writing out their requests and sending them to the appropriate agency, and the agency does not have to expend the time and resources necessary to respond to the request. Restricted information is redacted so that the requestor is only seeing information that is open to public inspection. Robinson said that the Kentucky Government Portal experiences approximately 14 to 15 million hits, or visitors, each month. Citizens want to do as much business electronically with state government as possible, Robinson said. In response to a question from Ms. Perry, Robinson said that most of the information is free, although there are some use charges on some of the transactions that are being used by commercial entities. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are another example, Robinson said. In the past year or so, tremendous progress has been made in making information available from the systems. There is now a half a terabyte of GIS data that is available for public inspection and use.
Related to Dr. Clark’s question regarding the volume of open records requests received, Morison said that the University of Louisville, in calendar year 2003, had more than 200 formal requests for information. There were many more that the university was able to respond to without having the requestor go through the formal process.
Robinson complimented Mark Myers and other KDLA staff who were involved in the creation of the guidelines. Robinson said that responding to requests for records contained in databases is a complex area and that agencies need the kind of guidance provided by the document.
Nelson moved to consideration of Local Records grants. For the benefit of the new members, Carlton explained the grant review process. Local Records staff makes recommendations with regard to the applications for grants that are submitted by local entities. Carlton directed the members to the Applicant Summary sheet, included in their packets. Approximately 49 applications, at a cost of $659,282, were received and reviewed prior to this meeting. Of the 49 applications, 40 were recommended for full or partial funding, at a cost of $476,752. Carlton said that all of the applications received had merit and qualified for consideration. Because of budget constraints, Carlton said it was necessary for staff to prioritize the requests, based on the local agency’s need and also based on the need to, as fairly as possible, distribute available funds across the state. The mainstay of the program is the grants for micrographics projects, to secure the historical record, Carlton said. This grant cycle is no exception, since approximately 50% of the amount recommended for funding was for such projects.
Nelson explained that the Local Records Grant program was implemented for the purpose of microfilming vital, historical local government records to ensure their long term preservation. With the proliferation of technologies and the push to have as much information as possible available electronically, it has become necessary to fund those kinds of projects, as well. This grant cycle approximately $135,000 is being recommended to fund electronic projects.
Dr. Clark made a motion to recommend the grants to Commissioner Nelson for his approval, seconded by Mr. Coates. The vote by members and representatives present was unanimous.
There being no further business, Nelson adjourned the meeting at
approximately 10:50 a.m.