Just a comment, I haven't really been paying attention to the discussion on this list but about the KY judicial records schedule. This schedule was developed and imposed by the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Chief Justice WITHOUT the advice, consultation, and assent of the State Archives and Records Commission (SARC). There is some dispute over whether or not the Judicial Branch is covered under the state public records act (granting sole authority over disposition to the SARC) but the courts have always participated with the SARC and have a seat on the commission. They made this change on their own without any involvement of the SARC and expected them to simply rubber stamp the final version - because when comments were made at the quarterly commission meeting the commission was told that the Chief Justice had already signed the new schedules into effect and no changes were to be made.
Also, the courts have been in the process of building new courthouses around the state for the last several years with no records storage by design because all of the long-term records will be housed at our facility in the state archives, even though the courts still maintain ownership over the records. They didn't inform any of the local courts about the decision to consolidate records in Frankfort so there have been a slew of news articles across the state talking about how the Dept. for Libraries and Archives are TAKING court records out of the counties. We are the repository (because AOC doesn't keep their own records) but we are not the takers - the state AOC is. Again, they're telling the local officials to call us (archives) if they want their records, but that's it.
This is exacerbating a problem that the state archives has in that we are beyond capacity for our building and have been asking the state for an expansion for about the last 15 years. We have already had one moratorium on taking state records (Executive branch) because of the space issue and are looking at another. Over 2/3 of our 90,000+ cubic feet of records are court records. We love having them and the cooperation with the Judiciary goes back many years, but lately it seems, they are cutting everyone else (local court officials included) and doing everything unilaterally.
(The opinion expressed here are my own, not my employer's.)
Mark J. Myers
Electronic Records Specialist
Technology Analysis & Support Branch,
Public Records Division,
Kentucky Department for Libraries & Archives
300 Coffee Tree Road
PO Box 537
Frankfort, KY 40602-0537
Phone: (502)564-8300 ext. 244
Email: [log in to unmask]
www.kdla.ky.gov
----- Original Message ----
From: Susan Malay <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 12:42:00 PM
Subject: Re: [RM] Retention Schedules and the recent issue in Kentucky
On 12/18/06, Larry Medina wrote:
> The problem here is the scheduled
> retention period didn't meet the needs of the judicial system. So
when it
> was set, not enough was done to involve all of the impacted parties
and a
> retention period was set that was too short to allow effective
prosecution
> of cases.
After a quick review of the Kentucky statutes, the retention period was
unchanged from prior years. And the order came from the judicial branch
- the same branch from which the complaint stemmed. What did change was
that the purge schedule was revised to include electronic records. This
change revealed a common and increasing dilemma: records with a legal
requirement to be destroyed after a period (in this case 5 yrs) linger
beyond their "expiration date", and thus are accessible beyond their
legal "lifecycle". Because the recorded information is available, and
useful, consumers build requirements on the ability to access the
"outdated" data. The dual-edge challenge Records Managers face is
compliance with destruction mandates while satisfying consumer needs to
access information.
> It's not uncommon for organizations to have a two-staged process for
> records that are converted to microfilm and/or electronic form ...
Yes...however once the "expiration date" is reached, even the electronic
or microfilmed records are to be destroyed. And since, in the Kentucky
case, the 5yr retention period had been reached, according to the law
the records were required to be purged.
Do I agree? Probably not. I would likely have leveraged the clause that
the records still maintained "administrative value", and determined to
keep the records beyond their retention period to satisfy this need.
Does this emphasize that the Records Manager is in the uncomfortable
position of being non-compliant with the law if records schedules are
not followed? Probably.
Do we need to do a better job of defining and refining needs of records
in the age of digital information, and in particular address the
question "when does the life of and access to an electronic record
expire", and who needs to be notified? Yes.
Are Records Managers, in particular Clerks who service the Courts, in a
difficult situation when the judicial branch passes legislation
dictating retention periods...and then are harassed for performing their
assignment? Absolutely!
Susan M
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
