by Andy Updegrove
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20060313134136490
Consortiuminfo.org
Andy Updegrove There are over 1,000,000 supported
standards, with more being developed all the time. The
Standards Blog examines how standards are developed,
and their impact on business, society, the world, and
the future. This site is hosted by Gesmer Updegrove
LLP, a technology law firm based in Boston,
Massachusetts, USA. GU is an internationally recognized
leader in creating and representing the consortia that
create and promote standards and open source software.
The opinions expressed in the Standards Blog are those
of Andy Updegrove alone, and not necessarily those of
GU..
__________________________________________________
An Interview with Mass. Supervisor of Public Records Alan
Cote
Thursday, March 09 2006 @ 01:41 PM EST
Views: 78
OpenDocument When it comes to politics and technology,
there are always (at least) two opinions. Today, I
provide the full interview with Massachusetts
Supervisor of Public Records Alan Cote, whose views on
ODF differ substantially from those usually expressed
in the Standards Blog
Regular readers of this blog will know that I am an
advocate of open standards in general, and of the
OpenDocument Format (ODF) in particular. They will also
know that while Massachusetts has endorsed ODF (and
Adobe PDF) for saving Executive Agency documents, that
decision has been contentious. By definition, if there
is contention over a decision, there are (at least) two
views on whether that decision is appropriate or not,
and each view merits attention in order to move
forward. That is the purpose of this blog entry.
Parties in Opposition: Those that have questioned or
oppose adoption of ODF in Massachusetts fall into four
camps:
1. those vendors (most notably Microsoft) that have
decided not to support ODF and several industry
groups that include vendors in their membership that
oppose ODF;
2. Massachusetts officials in the office of
Secretary of the Commonwealth William Francis Galvin
who are displeased with the exercise of power by the
Information Technology Division (ITD) in adopting
standards for documents;
3. Massachusetts legislators who are not yet
convinced that adopting ODF is a wise move; and
4. members of the community of the disabled that are
concerned that office productivity applications that
support ODF will not be as able to meet their needs
as does Microsoft Office (together with existing
accessibility tools from independent software
vendors).
Various individuals have become most associated with
each of these positions. In the case of Microsoft, that
person is Alan Yates, general manager of business
strategy for Microsoft's Information Worker Group. In
the case of Massachusetts legislators, Senator Marc R.
Pacheco, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Post
Audit and Oversight has been most visible and most
often quoted in the press. Several individuals have
been vocal on behalf of the community of the disabled,
many of whom are employees of associations that work to
protect the rights of the disabled.
In the case of the office of the Secretary of the
Commonwealth, Secretary Galvin has never (to my
knowledge) been directly quoted on the topic of ODF,
although it is known that he expressed "grave concerns"
to the Romney administration over the adoption of ODF.
Instead, the views of Secretary Galvin's office have
often been communicated by Alan Cote, the Supervisor of
Public Records in the Public Records Division of the
Secretary's office. In that capacity, Alan Cote has
frequently spoken to the press, as well as participated
in various meetings and hearings, including the hearing
held by Senator Pacheco on October 31, 2005.
Last month, I spoke at length with Alan Cote, and
reported on that conversation in a blog entry called
The Other Side of the ODF Coin: an interview with Mass.
Supervisor of Records Alan Cote. At that time, I noted
that Alan had agreed to a written interview, and that
interview is reproduced in full below, without editing.
Issues: As you will see, the interview focused in part
on process and authority, given that Secretary Galvin's
office and Alan have voiced the opinion that the ITD
did not have the authority to adopt version 3.5 of the
Enterprise Technical Reference Model (ETRM) with the
inclusion of the parts that mandate use of ODF.
Alan is strongly of the opinion that the ITD did not
have this power, while then Secretary of Finance and
Administration Eric Kriss and former Massachusetts CIO
Peter Quinn were just as forcefully of the opposite
conviction. As a result, many of the individual
conclusions and positions on the law expressed in this
interview are different than those that would be taken
by the ITD. The clearest statements of the ITD position
may be found in two places: The first, and most
concise, appears in the FAQ posted by the ITD on
September 21, at the time that it announced the
adoption of ETRM version 3.5. The second and much more
detailed argument appears in a brief submitted by ITD
General Counsel Linda Hamel, in response to a request
by Senator Pacheco at the October hearing. Finally, for
a full, chronological review of the events covered in
this interview, see the Feature Article of the
September 2005 issue of the Consortium Standards
Bulletin.
The Public Records Office and the Public Records
Supervisor: Alan Cote became Supervisor of Records in
February of 2002. In doing so, he became responsible
under relevant law (Chapters 9 and 66 of the General
Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) to, "take
necessary measures to put the records of the
commonwealth, counties, cities or towns in the custody
and condition required by lawā_2?." Historically, this
has meant assuming control of paper documents, and
ensuring that they were stored in conditions under
which they would remain stable and accessible. The
office of the Supervisor of Records is also responsible
for entertaining requests for access to public
documents, and therefore for evaluating which records
must be produced and which may be withheld.
Appropriate to such a task, Alan Cote's academic
credentials include a bachelor's degree in public
administration and a law degree. But although his
undergraduate studies also included a minor in computer
science, he points out that his duties relate to
implementing policy, not implementing technology.
Instead, he relies "heavily on [the state's] various
state CIOs, our state Archivist and his staff, other
statesā¢?? chief record officers, the federal
government record officers and representatives of
industry when deciding on technology issues." The
Interview:
I. The Public Record Office
CSB: Does your office have it's own IT staff, or does
it rely on the ITD or another IT center?
Cote: The office of the Secretary of State has its own
CIO and an IT Staff.
CSB When did your office first begin archiving
documents electronically?
Cote: My office does not archive documents
electronically. All records whether paper or electronic
belong to the various agencies. As the agencies run out
of storage space, they are allowed to request storage
space from the Record Conservation Board (RCB). The
Board then works closely with the State Records Center
located at Columbia Pointe, to provide low cost storage
options to all agencies as needed.
CSB: Approximately how many documents are added to the
archive each year? How many are deleted?
Cote: The Archive staff and the RCB review all records
for archival quality as they are presented to the RCB
for destruction. As you may know, every record has a
specific lifespan. As the record reaches the end of its
life, the agency presents that record to the RCB and
asks for permission to destroy it. The destruction
procedure is a widely accepted and integral component
of proper record management. Before permission is
granted to destroy the record, the members of the
Archive staff review the record and if it is deemed to
be historically significant, the record may be
transferred to the Archives for permanent retention and
preservation.
CSB: What percentage and types of documents are kept
indefinitely?
Cote: The federal government estimates that it retains
2% of all documents permanently. I would guess that we
retain 5 ā¢?? 7% of all state records for more than 30
years with only 3-5% being retained permanently. The
majority of those are payroll and personnel records.
CSB: Please describe briefly how documents are
electronically archived now.
Cote: Electronic records transferred to the archives
facility because they contain historically significant
material are stored in many different media. Some are
printed, some are captured through microfiche or
microfilm and some are stored in multiple electronic
formats to ensure readability in the future. We are
always looking at new electronic formats for our
electronic records. Dr. Warner and I constantly review
archival science journals and working groups such as
NARA and NAGARA to find information on trends and best
practices. It is a fluid program that has worked well
for some time now.
CSB: Anything else I should have asked to get a flavor
for what your office does that's relevant to this
issue?
Cote: Actually, I donā¢??t know where to start to
answer that question. The staff of this office, the
archives facility and the state record center work
diligently every single day to make sure that the
records of our government are captured, maintained and
preserved for posterity regardless of form or format.
We have many dedicated employees who eat, sleep and
breath record management and archive science. They may
not all be technology gurus but they genuinely care
about this issue and they work very hard and I think
the Commonwealth has been served well thus far.
II. Relations with the ITD Questions
CSB: When and how did you first learn that document
format standards might be included in a new ITD policy?
Cote: I believe that I first learned of the new
document format inclusion during a summit in June 2005.
I may have heard vague rumors before that but I am not
sure exactly. News that an agency may be discussing a
new document format would not have caused me any alarm
because the RCB and I routinely allow agencies to adopt
new document formats, as they deem necessary to perform
their mission critical tasks. In other words, we have
many agencies such as MassGIS that store their
documents and data in a format that is different than
say, DSS or DOR. As long as the format is well
researched and reasons for adoption clearly explained
to this office and the RCB, it is generally approved.
CSB: What opportunities were you given to provide
input?
Cote: I believe I was asked to provide comment after
the first version of the ETRM was published. The RCB
has never been asked to review the ETRM or to provide
comment.
CSB: At what point did you learn that the new policy
would only apply to the Executive Agencies?
Cote: I knew immediately that this policy, if approved,
would only effect the executive branch agencies as ITD
does not have the authority to establish policy for any
other branch of government or the municipalities.
CSB: What do you believe should have been done
differently?
Cote: Honestly, I donā¢??t know where to start to
answer this question. I wish ITD had come to me and to
the RCB in the beginning to explain the need for
adopting a new format. As I mentioned before, I
donā¢??t even know how many of the agencies under the
executive branch can follow this policy since their
agency may require alternate forms and formats. I
donā¢??t know if anyone has looked at the financial
aspects of adopting such a policy or if the policy is
well researched and understood by ITD staff. I mean, is
this providing good value to the taxpayers? How does it
promote and improve interoperability if no one else in
the state adopts this policy? There are so many
questions that need answers and there was a process in
place that was completely subverted.
CSB: At Senator Pacheco's hearing, I recall your
stating that you believed that the ITD had violated
applicable law in promulgating the policy on its own.
What laws do you believe the ITD violated, and was this
also the conclusion of any state attorneys that support
your office?
Cote: Section 17 of the Massachusetts Uniform
Electronic Transactions Act (which I drafted with Linda
Hamel of ITD) clearly states that ITD, the RCB and the
Supervisor will work together in drafting and
promulgating regulations concerning electronic records.
ITD simply does not have the authority to adopt this
policy on its own.
III. Format Questions
CSB: What is your opinion of document formats like ODF?
Do you think that they show promise and will be useful
to you?
Cote: I think a great more work needs to be done to
fully understand this very complex issue. I am not
opposed to ODF and I think it does show promise as one
of the formats our government should use to accomplish
our goals of preserving records and serving the public.
It is interesting to note that according to a recent
article in the Wall Street Journal (Dec. 29, 2005), the
federal government has recently awarded a six year,
$308 million dollar project to Lockheed Martin Corp.
concerning this very issue. Lockheed will use a
ā_5?handful of widely accepted formatsā_2? such as HTML
to save electronic records. Like the federal
government, I donā¢??t think that adopting one format
and drawing a line in the sand is the solution.
Clearly, Massachusetts is not the only place dealing
with electronic records issues. Understanding what has
worked in other venues and learning from other
peopleā¢??s experiences is very valuable and saves the
Commonwealth money.
CSB:Do you have any opinion about whether ODF or the
Microsoft XML Reference Schema would serve you better?
Cote: I donā¢??t think choosing one over the other is
the answer and I donā¢??t think we need to restrict
ourselves to just one format. I believe that a
statewide policy setting forth broad concepts of
ā_5?opennessā_2? with a clear outline providing
guidance for record creation, maintenance and
preservation is the best choice.
IV. Next Steps Questions
CSB: What do you think should happen next?
Cote: I believe that there are too many commissions,
advisory boards and task forces performing the same
function. I strongly believe that the legislature needs
to get behind the original, existing record management
framework setup by statute, that is to say we need to
strengthen the authority of the Record Conservation
Board. I would like to see more agencies included in
the RCB, especially the municipalities and the
judiciary. I think we need a flexible but comprehensive
records management plan for the Commonwealth
concentrating on technology issues and true
interoperability.
CSB:What do you expect will happen next now that Louis
Gutierrez has taken over the CIO's job?
Cote: I am very encouraged by his appointment. I think
he brings a great deal of talent and experience to the
table and I look forward to working with him in a an
open and cooperative manner to resolve this issue in a
positive way.
CSB:Any last thoughts?
Cote: I think it is important to understand that we are
public servants first and foremost. That our actions
should be guided always by what is best for our
customer, the taxpayers.
This is a huge issue, now and in the future. It will
affect each and every citizen of the Commonwealth
through his or her daily interactions with government.
We owe it to them to properly research and implement
this program openly and honestly, in the most
transparent forum available and in a manner that
instills confidence in our abilities and judgment.
I want to thank you for the chance to answer these
questions and I look forward to future conversations on
this and many other important issues of the day.
[To browse all prior blog entries on this story, click
here]
subscribe to the free Consortium Standards Bulletin
Story Options
* Mail Story to a Friend
* Printable Story Format
Permalink
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20060313134136490
Trackback
Trackback URL for this entry:
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/trackback.php?id=20060313134136490
No trackback comments for this entry.
An Interview with Mass. Supervisor of Public Records
Alan Cote | 0 comments | Create New Account
[Oldest First] [Threaded...] Refresh
Reply
The following comments are owned by whomever posted
them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
(617) 350-6800
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20060313134136490
by Andy Updegrove
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
