I wanted to keep those interested in the loop!
  
To my understanding, the committee voted "Do Pass as amended" with  the term
"microfilm" or "microfilming" put back in, and "state of the art technology"
changed to read "appropriate technology".   We will be looking for the
Engrossed Bill when it is on the House floor. 
 
There were some good arguments against the Bill, including an attempt to
make the effective date 7/1/07.  Rep. Pederson said that he had received a
lot of e-mails against the Bill ;0), but still thought that it was a good
one.  He believes that since there is  wording in the statutes as to the
authority of the director of the State Parks and Cultural Resources to
review and approve technology, that it will provide the controls necessary
on the implementation and use of new appropriate technology.  
 
House Bill 270 barely passed the House and is headed to the Senate.  
 
At this point it seems that the wording has been changed to become a
non-issue and when our Agencies are fighting for other more pressing funding
support I figure they will not  pursue making this a bigger issue than it
needs to be. 
 
The analysis from the list serve has been very helpful.  I would appreciate
your comments about letting the sleeping dog lie at this point or if you
detect a hidden threat that I should be aware of so I can keep up my barage
of "all about RM in 10 emails or less for elected officials"!
 
Here are some comments that were sent to the legislature by others that
influenced the change of wording:
 
Below I have listed my concerns:
 
1. At the present time, there is no known long term way of preserving
information which is born or stored only on digital media. The National
Archives and Records Administration has been dealing with this issue for
a number of years and as of this date have been unsuccessful in their
attempts. They have spent millions on their Electronic Records Archives
initiative and are still five to ten years from any solution. The
National Archives with all their resources still are losing digital
records. HB0270 will allow State agencies to take permanent documents
(those which must be preserved for hundreds of years) and permit them to
be moved to digital media and destroy the archival documents.
 
2. HB0270 states that there is no fiscal impact to this bill. That is
incorrect. As I understand it this bill will require the Department of
State Parks and Cultural Resources to  "Establish and operate a central
conversion technology division..." 9 2 406 (a)(vii). This will have a
large financial impact on the state. At the present time, this agency
does not have the equipment, personnel or expertise to comply with this
section. There will be the ongoing expenses of additional staff, and at
least bi annual upgrades to new technologies. Staff would have to be
dedicated and trained in the identification and migration of information
from one technology to the newest and greatest at least every other
year. States who have gone down this road are finding the effort to be a
losing battle and valuable historic information is being lost to future
generations. Do we want this?
 
3. It would appear that HB0270 changes would all but eliminate the use
of microfilm for the  preservation of permanent records. Multiple times
the word microfilm@ is lined out and the words conversion technology@ or
Conversion@ are used to replace the word. As I stated above, these
changes are asking for the loss of information which is vital for
historical and liability reasons. Large multinational corporations are
finding the chance of losing information which was born digitally@ is
too great to chance in today=s world. They are returning to microfilm to
insure vital information is available when required by regulators or
litigation. In the last year there has been a renewed sales in equipment
which converts the digital to microfilm. Do we want to tell our
grandchildren that we failed to exercise due diligence in preserving our
history for them? Do we want to tell future generations we don=t have
the information they need to determine where toxic waste sites are
located or what is in them? These are the issues we chance if we go to
the latest state of the art technology@ without proper thought. Some
water thirsty state would be happy to hear we have digitized all of our
old water maps and deeds. They could wait 25 or 50 years and sue us
again. Maybe we would have the data necessary to defend our state and
maybe we would not. Is it worth the risk?
 
4. HB0270 changes the definition of a public record. The current
definition is "'Public record' includes the original and all copies of
any paper, correspondence, form, book, photograph, photostat, film,
microfilm, sound recording, map, drawing or other document, regardless
of physical form or characteristics, which have been made or received in
transacting public business by the state, a political subdivision or an
agency of the state." W.S. 9 2 401(a)(v) and W.S. 16 4 201(a)(v). The
phrase regardless of physical form or characteristics, which have been
made or received in transacting public business by the state, a
political subdivision or an agency of the state."  includes all media
and technology.  To change the wording to include Converted using the
latest state of the art technology@ does not change the meaning. It is
the content of the records which makes it a record and determines how
long the information should be kept not the method in which the record
was produced. It is the fact that the information contained was A...made
or received in transacting public business@ which is the qualifier.
 
The latest state of the art technology is good for the short term, but
when we are talking 50, 100, 200 years and longer do we want to trust
our heritage to it. We are finding CDs are starting to lose information
and become useless in less than five years. Some CDs are guaranteed for
100 years, and if anything goes wrong, the company will give you a brand
new CD. No company guarantees the data will be available or there will
be anything to read the data on.
 
and another:
 
 
When you use terms like "latest state of the art technology", no one
knows what that might be or how long term the storage media may last.
Even with guidelines and policies, there is no control over what someone
will use to store documents, and most storage medias are only around for
about 5 years and then change.
 
Government agencies are not known for their support of data processing
systems, and the maintenance that is required to preserve and access
information forever.   If the records custodian is not knowledgeable of
data processing systems, it will not be protected and the system would
become obsolete and the valuable information would not be accessible.
 
1.  The "latest technology" will probably not be a permanent storage
media, since no electronic storage media is permanent.
 
2.  Government may not, and probably will not, provide budget and
necessary support to maintain electronic records storage systems for all
organizations.
 
3.  The Wyoming State Archives does not have the personnel or resources
to assist or control the use of technology, as outlined in the
legislation.  Special equipment would be necessary, trained people to do
the work, and environmental controlled facilities would be necessary.
 
4.   Funds would be necessary to purchase computers that the public
would use to access the information, and this would be a cost to
government.
 
It is not just electeds who will be given free reign, but every agency
in the state both state and local. We are working on rewriting the bill.
 
and finally Archives response:
 
H.B. 0270 - PUBLIC RECORDS MANAGEMENT
Prepared by Roger Joyce, State Archivist and Linda Reynolds,
Intergovernmental Affairs Liaison - State Parks and Cultural Resources -
January 24, 2005
 
State Parks & Cultural Resources does not support this legislation as
currently written for the following reasons:
 
Ø      There is no long-term media (except microfilm) for storing scanned
images/electronic records.  The National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA) have developed requirements (not standards) for scanned images that
have been scheduled as PERMANENT records that they will store.  Records that
have been scheduled as permanent cannot be destroyed after becoming scanned
images - the original record or microfilm copy are the only acceptable
long-term storage media.
Ø      As the bill reads the State Parks and Cultural Resources Department
will need to "Establish and operate a central conversion technology division
…"9-2-406(a)(vii).  We do not have the equipment, personnel or expertise to
do this.  We would need to work directly with the State's Chief Information
Officer, and Information Technology Division to achieve this conversion. 
The costs and timelines for this are unknown.  The ongoing up-dates to the 
latest state of the art technology" and migration of one technology to the
newest would be a major fiscal impact to our Department and others.
Ø      The problem with scanned images/electronic records being the sole
source of the records are the instability of the technology.  The
obsolescence of equipment to make the information accessible; the
vulnerability to storage media to degradation in information content; the
lack of standards for creating scanned images or electronic records; expense
of maintaining the program - capital expenditures, storage media,
operational expenses, maintenance contracts, and migration/conversion costs.
Ø      It would be our recommendation that a study be requested through the
Management Council for the Chief Information Officer to determine costs,
timelines, evaluate existing statutes and make recommendations on equipment,
personnel, and infrastructure for the 2006 session.  
Ø      Wyoming Statutes 40-21-101 thru 119 - Uniform Electronic Transactions
Act - currently addresses many electronic records.
Ø      Other entities have expressed concerns with this legislation as
written - Laramie County Clerk of District Court, Wyoming Supreme Court, and
Secretary of State's Office.
Ø      Without the necessary funding and personnel appropriated, we would
not be able to meet the mandates of this legislation, or other bills
referencing electronic records.
            
            Our State Archivist - Roger Joyce would be available to address
other questions you may have on this legislation.  777-7020.  
 
 
 
Janie  Wait
 
 
Janie Wait, CRM, MBA
President
Director of Marketing
Intermountain Record Center, Inc
3765 Airport Parkway, Casper, WY 82604
PO Box 2770, Mills, WY 82644
 307-265-9553
 307-237-8225
[log in to unmask]
 www.irc-wyo.com
 
 

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