I guess the only thing that bothers me about the amendment is that seems to
be about replacing microfilm.   When the Illinois Legislature did something
similar a few years ago they left microfilm in the law but added the imaging
option.  Of course, I think that happened after the State Archivist and the
State Records Commission spoke up.  (IIRC, the Illinois amendment was also
introduced by someone who had not consulted with the Archivist before
introducing the amendment!)

Gary Vocks
Records Management Officer
Southern Illinois University
School of Medicine
Springfield, Illinois  USA

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Cunningham" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: Help, need ammunition to defeat the worst possible public
records legislation EVER proposed!


> Couple things...
>
> First of all, I would expect that the WY State Archives, the State
> Archivist, or the Secretary of State's office (or whatever elected
> government official ultimately has responsibility for the State's
> records) would take responsibility for responding to this bill. I would
> tend to think that a bunch of email from out of state records managers
> would have little bearing on the deliberations of a state legislative
> body. Certainly, local governmental officials in WY who are impacted by
> the law have something to say.
>
> Second, in reading the redraft of the law (which needs to be
> proofread), I'm not quite as alarmed. I don't care for the term "latest
> state of the art technology", but I can see what they are getting at.
> They just wrote the inserts in a manner that probably says what they
> intend, but likely could be phrased more broadly and accurately. Having
> said that, the law still provides controls. The "director" of public
> records is accountable to approve the means of conversion and must
> write rules to govern the process. My experience is that the rules and
> regulations ultimately contain the meat of how things get done in
> government, not the statute. The statute merely opens the door for more
> permissive regulations to be written.
>
> Third, while shifting governmental records away from microfilm
> technology tends to give me the willies (I've always been a fan of
> microfilm for preserving historical records merely because a strong
> magnifying glass and a light source allow you to retrieve information),
> the reality is that many organizations would like to be able to do more
> with public records from an accessibility standpoint. They would like
> to make records available over the Internet and having records in
> electronic form makes that possible. I'm also reasonably certain that
> there are municipalities in Wyoming that are putting into place records
> management systems for public safety, which effectively convert most
> paper reports into electronic documents. In my view, the onus is on the
> State Archives to write reasonable rules that allow the use of
> electronic record-keeping systems, but still protect the integrity nad
> future availability of the information. A key point here is ensuring
> the future migration of the information as technology evolves.
>
> As we know, microfilm is not a perfect medium of storage and is often
> difficult to integrate with today's records creation systems (how are
> you going to microfilm the contents of a GIS system?).
>
> So is this the worst EVER? Hardly. If the legislation disbanded the
> State Archives and put all governmental records disposition into the
> hands of elected officials, I'd say we all had something to scream
> about. As long as the rules are well-written, I think the people of
> Wyoming can rest easy. I'm not going to downplay the potential
> stupidity of gullible local officials, but law or no law, they might
> still make bad decisions regarding their records.
>
> Patrick Cunningham, CRM
>
> List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
> Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
>

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