Ideally, from the perspective of many records managers posting here, all 
electronic records would generate only electronic responses and you could capture 
the full spectrum of transactions, decisionmaking, etc. by saving records in 
an EMRS and bypassing paper records.  But, as many of you have pointed out, 
we're not there yet.  So, yes, paper or electronic, content matters.

Chris recently said that an electronic record may have less intrinsic value 
than a paper record.

I've recently pointed out how annotations written by hand on a typed note can 
enrich the record and reflect the recipient's reaction.  A couple of months 
ago, I used two examples from the old days, before we were widely using 
computers -- the Nixon and Reagan administrations.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/when_nixon_met_elvis/images/chapin.jpg
and
http://media.nara.gov/media/images/22/22/22-2152a.gif

Nowadays the typed notes would be computer generated.  As has been pointed 
out here during the recent debate about paper vs. electronic, the electronic 
versions would be saved on a computer, storage media or in ERMS.  But even in 
this day and age, there still is the potential for handwritten annotations 
written on a paper version.

Look at the note pictured on the White House web site at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/elections/freedomessay/ .  Yes, I know, 
this is entirely handwritten -- I'm using it to present a hypothetical derived 
from that note.  If the note from Condoleeza Rice had been computer generated, 
say in MSWord or WordPerfect, and the President had written his reaction ("Let 
freedom reign") on a hard copy printout, then obviously the paper version 
would be a record.  It would have additional information on it -- and would 
thereby be a more useful record -- than the copy preserved electronically on the 
computer of the writer (or in the ERMS).  (Yes, I know, this probably was not a 
really spontaneous reaction and most likely was planned in advance.  But we've 
all seen records where an official scribbles spontaneous reactions in the 
margin of a hard copy, thereby enriching the original content for legal or 
historical purposes.)

Of course, one could and should scan the note with the annotation to created 
a digitized version.  To be useful for future research, you'd have to make 
sure you could associate the received, annotated version with the original record 
created and submitted to the recipient by the sender, as well as any 
background files used by the sender, blah blah blah.  But the fact remains, nowadays 
people still write annotations on pieces of paper that are handed to them.  And 
in those annotations can have legal or historical significance and thus add 
value to the record..  

Thus far, Presidents have been less likely to use email than lower ranking 
officials.  The Clinton White House generated a huge volume of email, but only 
one message reportedly was from the President.  And President George W. Bush 
came in to office determined not to use email:  According to the New York Times 
(March 17, 2001), "The President explained to his friends and family: 'My 
lawyers tell me that all correspondence by e-mail is subject to open record 
requests,' Mr. Bush wrote. . . . 'Since I do not want my private conversations 
looked at by those out to embarrass, the only course of action is not to correspond 
in cyberspace.'"  How much President Bush uses other computer applications 
remains to be seen, perhaps some of that will become apparent when the National 
Archives tries to open the records of his presidency.

Maarja





List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance