Warning - semi-lengthy post - Those not on the southern left coast of
the USA may not be interested---then again, this may be a growing
problem for all of us?

Good afternoon to all records pundits -

With the growth of video surveillance cameras for security, traffic, law
enforcement, etc. we have run into a concern with California Government
Code section 34090.6 (a) - (d). This particular code section requires
retention of recordings for a 1 year period, as noted in the following
extract (omitted (b)):

"34090.6.  (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 34090, the head
of a department of a city or city and county, after one year, may
destroy recordings of routine video monitoring, and after 100 days may
destroy recordings of telephone and radio communications maintained by
the department. This destruction shall be approved by the legislative
body and the written consent of the agency attorney shall be obtained.
In the event that the recordings are evidence in any claim filed or any
pending litigation, they shall be preserved until pending litigation is
resolved. . .  

(c) For purposes of this section, "routine video monitoring" means video
recording by a video or electronic imaging system designed to record the
regular and ongoing operations of the departments described in
subdivision (a), including mobile in-car video systems, jail observation
and monitoring systems, and building security  recording systems. 
(d) For purposes of this section, "department" includes a public safety
communications center operated by the city or city and county."

The following Code section (34090.7) reduces the one year requirement to
90 days, if the events on the recording are transcribed, or an audio
recording is created. However, even with this, the now duplicate needs
to be retained for the 90 day period, by my reckoning. 

" For purposes of this section, video recording media, including
recordings of "routine video monitoring" pursuant to Section 34090.6,
shall be considered duplicate records if the city keeps another record,
such as written minutes or an audio recording, of the event that is
recorded in the video medium. However, a video recording medium shall
not be destroyed or erased pursuant to this section for a period of at
least 90 days after occurrence of the event recorded thereon"

Ok, so there are some problems here, Since most monitoring cameras do
not have audio, written minutes or audio recording capabilities are a
"mute" point.

The meat of my problem is the storage requirements for a large number of
cameras, some motion activated, and some are 24/7 monitoring and the
resulting storage requirements for even 90 days are HUGE. 

So the question is, what are other California cities, agencies,
districts, counties, etc. doing to meet these requirements? Is anyone
aware of a waiver process to gain an exemption to the time requirements?
Since courts tend to frown on the excuse of "can't afford it" we are
open to suggestions from all sources. 

Our current retention schedule designates the 1 year retention period,
however our IT dept. is hemorrhaging over the storage requirements. We
are discussing this with our City Attorney and IT staff but any and all
suggestions, hints or solutions in place elsewhere would be most
welcome. 


John Guthrie
City Clerk Records Manager
City of Oceanside California
760.435.3004/3024

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]