Cabinet for Families and Children
Local Government General Records Retention Schedule
A special meeting of the State Archives and Records Commission was held June
26, 2003, in the Board Room, Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives
(KDLA). The regular meeting of the Commission, scheduled for June 12, 2003,
was postponed, due to the absence of James A. Nelson, Chairman, and Richard
N. Belding, Director, Public Records Division.
Members present: James A. Nelson, Chairman; Paul F. Coates, representing Citizens-at-Large; Dr. William J. Morison, representing regional colleges and universities; and Dr. Jack D. Ellis, representing Citizens-at-Large.
Representatives present: Lewis DeLuca, representing Dr. Marlene M. Helm, Secretary, Education, Arts and Humanities Cabinet; Amye Bensenhaver, representing A. B. Chandler, III, Attorney General; Charles Robb, representing Aldona K. Valicenti, Chief Information Officer, Governor's Office for Technology; Leslie Smith, representing Robert Sherman, Director, Legislative Research Commission; Brian Lykins, representing Ed Hatchett, Auditor of Public Accounts; Brandon Haynes, representing Joseph E. Lambert, Chief Justice, Supreme Court; Allen Eskridge, representing Mary Lassiter, Acting State Budget Director, Governor’s Office for Policy and Management.
Members not present or represented: Shelia E. Heflin, representing the Kentucky Library Association; Dr. Thomas D. Clark, representing the University of Kentucky; and Lynne Hollingsworth, representing the Kentucky Historical Society.
Public Records Division staff present: Richard N. Belding, Director, Public Records Division; Diana Moses, Manager, State Records Branch; Jerry Carlton, Manager, Local Records Branch; Barbara Teague, Manager, Archival Services Branch; Tim McIntosh, Regional Administrator; Trace Kirkwood, Regional Administrator; Larry Barnett, Regional Administrator; Jim Cundy, Regional Administrator; Mark Myers, Resource Management Analyst; Sunnye Smith, Grants and Contracts Specialist; and B. J. Webster, Administrative Secretary.
Guests present: No guests were present.
All meetings which are not regular scheduled meetings are special meetings, under the Open Meetings Act. Nelson explained that because this is a special meeting, the agenda, which was posted prior to the meeting, would have to be strictly adhered to.
Nelson called for introductions by those present.
Dr. Morison made a motion to accept the minutes of the previous Commission meeting, seconded by Dr. Ellis. The vote by members and representatives present was unanimous.
NEW OR REVISED RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULES
Moses was the records analyst working on this revised schedule. The series being scheduled are 01114, Federal Grant File; 01115, Staff Development Training File; 01117, Staff Development Training Program File; 01129, Vendor Personnel File; 03672, Vending Facility File; 03673, Equipment Maintenance Record; 03675, Business Enterprise Program Operator’s Monthly Reporting System; 03674, Case Management System; 01135, Client Case Record File (District Offices); 01173, Client Case Record File (Central Office); 01174, Service Utilization Report File; 01180, Class Schedule;
01182, Instructional Manual; 01183, Federal Quota Account Record File; 03676, Evaluation File; and 03677, Consumer Case File. The series being deleted are 03683 to 03690; 03671; 01131; and 01177. The deleted series are covered by the General Schedule for State Agencies. Series 03691 to 03696 are no longer the responsibility of the Department and have been removed from the schedule. The responsibility for Industries for the Blind now rests with a private non-profit organization.
The Department provides services to approximately 1,500 persons with severe visual impairments so they can receive education and specialized training services to become independent and self-sufficient.
During the Advisory Meeting, Bensenhaver had requested that an access restriction be placed on series 03675, Business Enterprise Program Operator’s Monthly Reporting System. Moses said that the change had been made, as well as the correction of a typographical error.
Dr. Morison made a motion to adopt the schedule, seconded by Dr. Ellis. The vote by members and representatives present was unanimous.
Cabinet for Health Services – Quality and Human Resources Management – Administrative Hearings
Moses was the records analyst working on this schedule revision. The series being scheduled is 05387, Administrative Hearing File.
The Cabinet for Health Services is the primary state agency for operating the public health, Medicaid, certificate of need and licensure, and mental health/mental retardation programs in the Commonwealth. The function of the Cabinet is to improve the health of all Kentuckians and to improve the functional capabilities and opportunities of Kentuckians with disabilities, including the delivery of population, preventive, reparative and containment health services in a safe and effective fashion. The Cabinet accomplishes its function through direct and contract services for planning through the state health plan and departmental plans, for program operations, for program monitoring and standard setting and for program evaluation and resource management.
Moses explained that the Administrative Hearing File had previously been included in the General Counsel Litigation file. Since the two records document different activities, the hearing file was being scheduled separately. It would, however, carry the same twelve-year retention period as the General Counsel file.
Dr. Ellis made a motion to adopt the schedule, seconded by Dr. Morison. The vote by members and representatives present was unanimous.
Cabinet for Families and Children – Department for Community Based Services – Family Support
Moses was the records analyst working on this schedule change. The series being changed is 05386, Case Record – Inactive, from three years to five. The series, which was previously 1745, has a proposed increase in retention from three years to five, to meet Medicaid requirements. The series being deleted from the schedule are 1742, Active Case Records – All Programs; 1743, Pending Case Records – All Programs; 1744, Public Assistance Recipients Card File; 1748, Eligible Purchase Listings; 1749, Error Listings – Master Update; 1750, Statistical Reports; and 1753, Workers – County Statistical Reports. With the exception of the first two series, all are covered by the General Schedule. Series 1742 and 1743 are redundant.
The Cabinet for Families and Children is the primary state agency responsible for leadership in protecting and promoting the well being of Kentuckians through the delivery of quality human services. It delivers social services to promote the safety and security of children and to preserve their dignity. In addition, it promotes collaboration and accountability among local, public and private programs to improve the lives of families and children. The Cabinet administers income supplement programs that protect, develop, preserve and maintain families and children in the Commonwealth.
The Department for Community Based Services administers an array of services, including child and adult protection, permanency, and services to enhance family self-sufficiency.
The Division of Family Support provides technical assistance and support to the fourteen service regions for welfare reform and moves families towards self-sufficiency, processes claims, determines program eligibility, and administers the energy program.
In response to a question from Dr. Ellis, Moses said that the series was quite voluminous and that there were currently more than 1,700 cubic feet of the records stored in the State Records Center. The series is transferred to the Center from field offices across the state.
Dr. Ellis made a motion to adopt the schedule, seconded by Mr. Coates. The vote by members and representatives present was unanimous.
Cabinet for Health Services – Department for Medicaid Services
Moses was the records analyst working on this schedule change. The series being added to the schedule is 05385, Recovery Case File.
The Department for Medicaid Services administers the Kentucky Medical Assistance Program, under the legal authority of Title XIX of the Social Security Act and KRS 205.520. The program provides coverage for preventive and remedial medical care not otherwise available to financially indigent and medically indigent persons, within the state’s funding limitations and eligibility requirements. A total of 28 health services are covered by Medicaid, including hospital inpatient care, physician services, pharmacy services and skilled nursing and intermediate care services.
Moses explained that the series documents the recovery of Medicaid funds expended by the program for medical care related to injuries sustained in an accident. If the individual receives an insurance settlement as a result of the accident, the program would take action to recover the amount of Medicaid funds used for medical treatment.
Dr. Morison made a motion to adopt the schedule, seconded by Mr. Haynes. The vote by members and representatives present was unanimous.
Local Government General Records Retention Schedule – Law Enforcement
Cundy updated the Commission members on the status of series L4682, Juvenile Investigation Case File, and series L4683, Juvenile Arrest File/Juvenile Arrest Form. The series were brought before the Commission in March to have the retention changed from “indefinite, destroy when subject reaches 23 years of age,” to “indefinite, destroy when subject reaches 18 years of age, unless litigation is pending.” As result of discussion of the series at the March meeting, the decision was made to table any action till the June meeting. Cundy said that, upon further discussion with the Oldham County Police Department, which had brought the matter to the attention of staff, it would not pursue a change in retention. Both series would remain as previously scheduled. Since no action was required, a motion and vote were not necessary.
Department of State Police – Criminal Identification and Records
Moses was the records analyst working on the schedule change. The series being changed is 00042, Mug Shot File, from 80 years to a retention period of 20.
The Department of State Police was formed on July 1, 1948, when legislation was signed giving its officers full police powers, both traffic and criminal. All offices, facilities, equipment, duties, powers and funds of the State Highway Patrol were transferred to the Department. In 1956, the Department was abolished and it became the Division of Kentucky State Police, in the Department of Public Safety. Since 1973, it has been a part of the Justice Cabinet. It is the duty of the Commissioner and each officer of the Department to detect and prevent crime, apprehend criminals, maintain law and order throughout the state, collect, classify and maintain information useful for the detection of crime and the identification, apprehension and conviction of criminals, and to enforce the criminal as well as the motor vehicle and traffic laws of the Commonwealth. It must also provide security of state facilities located in Frankfort, as well as highway and water safety enforcement.
Moses explained that the change in retention was requested by the agency, as it does not need to maintain mug shots that are several years old and that would no longer be an accurate representation of the individual. It wants only to maintain the most relevant photographs for the twenty-year period. All others would be destroyed.
The Department’s Micrographics Branch has begun a project to digitize the photographs and to create CDs for internal use by the State Police, Moses said.
Dr. Ellis made a motion to adopt the schedule, seconded by Mr. Robb. The vote by members and representatives present was unanimous.
The next item was Other Business.
--Approval of Enterprise Standard 4060 – Recordkeeping – Electronic Mail, and the Guidelines for Managing E-Mail; Next Steps
Belding informed the Commission members that Enterprise Standard 4060 was formally adopted by the Standards and Architecture Committee, Governor’s Office for Technology, at its May 2003 meeting. The “Guidelines for Managing E-Mail in Kentucky Government” is a companion document and was created by KDLA staff as a practical tool agencies can use in the implementation of the standard. There has been a substantial increase in the volume of e-mail in state government over recent months. E-mail is used in the conduct of state business and, to an increasing degree, is now sought and used by the media, by individuals, and by the courts. The increased volume has put significant pressure on state agencies and GOT, as the manager of the state’s e-mail system. Belding said that the adoption of the standard is a very timely event and has helped the Department to move forward with its plans to help agencies to deal with the management of e-mail, through implementation of the guidelines. The guidelines were developed by Department staff, with the advice and assistance of the Electronic Records Working Group (ERWG).
Robb said that there had been an e-mail standard of a kind since 2001, but
that the current standard is much more directive. Upon its adoption, it becomes
a rule that agencies are supposed to follow, under the authority of the Chief
Information Officer. It puts agencies in a position to be able to destroy a
significant amount of e-mail that has been cluttering up their systems. It also
asks that agencies relate all of their e-mail to documentation of their business
activities.
--Electronic records management training and workshop activities
Mark Myers informed the Commission members that a more generalized version of the e-mail guidelines had been put on KDLA’s web site. A more generalized document was necessary, as local government agencies and some state agencies whose e-mail environment is not Microsoft Exchange/Outlook-based are not required to follow Enterprise Standard 4060. The records management aspect of the guidelines would pertain, regardless of the e-mail environment, Myers said.
Staff has been working on developing training initiatives, Power Point presentations and web-based training for state and local agencies in the area of electronic records management.
Myers has been working closely with the Local Records Branch, in particular, over the last nine to ten months to provide workshops and briefing sessions related to implementation of the e-mail guidelines, as well as other areas of electronic records management. Staff has also been working to develop more focused kinds of training and briefing sessions that would be available to agencies here at the Department.
Belding said that Myers had given presentations on basic electronic records
management to various groups and local officials, such as county clerks, municipal
clerks and, just recently, to Daviess County school system employees, in Western
Kentucky. Myers has also provided a briefing to staff within the Department
on managing electronic mail. Belding said that training is an area where the
Department would be investing as much of its limited resources as possible.
In addition to on-site sessions, the intent is to look at means of delivering
training through better designed web tools that will assist agencies in
the implementation of the e-mail guidelines, as well the management of electronic
records generally.
Belding informed the Commission members that Jerry Carlton worked with the
Department of Education to secure in-service credit for school personnel who
attend records management workshops, which is a significant development. Staff
is also looking into the possibility of a partnership with the Public Official
Essential Skills Leadership Institute of the Kentucky League of Cities, which
has a format of training modules that it provides to municipal officials that
could include sessions on electronic records management.
--A revised KDLA web page on Recordkeeping and New Technologies
Belding updated the members on the revision of the web page that contains information on recordkeeping and new technologies, and policies and guidelines. Also included is an expanded description of electronic mail recordkeeping policy and guidance documents. The intent of the revision is to assist agencies in locating information as easily as possible, including Enterprise Standard 4060, Status of E-Mail as Public Record, the e-mail guidelines document, e-mail FAQs, and the Internet Acceptable Use Policy.
--Update on activities with KDLA’s records management consultant
Belding informed the members that Dr. Greg Hunter, consultant to the Department, was working on ways that training and curricular delivery systems for electronic records management could be enhanced and improved. Hunter also is working in several other areas, including some initial planning on standards for an electronic records archives facility and on an assessment of the building’s storage environment for microfilm. Staff will continue working with Hunter over the next three to four months to bring a conclusion to plans for some of the areas. Belding said information would be provided at the September meeting of the Commission.
--Legislative Tracking – Final Report, General Assembly Session for 2003
A final report of legislative tracking activities for the 2003 Session of the
General Assembly was distributed to the members. The report identifies legislation
that may have an archives and records management impact of some sort. The legislation
was sorted by category of interest, access issues, electronic records issues,
organizational change, and publications and reports that may be generated by
agencies.
Coates asked when the Enterprise Standard 4060 had been approved. Belding said
that it was approved the early part of May and that work with agencies on the
e-mail guidelines document was deferred until that approval was secured. DeLuca
asked if any agency was managing its e-mail up to the requirements of the standard.
Myers said that the
Department had implemented some of the suggestions offered in the guidelines
document. The guidelines are broad in that two or three methods of managing
e-mail are given, rather than requiring that it be done using one specific method.
Systems vary, especially for local government agencies. There is a common understanding
that state agencies that follow the Architecture would use Microsoft Outlook/Exchange
with the same program. How e-mail is managed by the agencies can differ. Some
agencies have control of their own servers, while others rely on GOT’s
servers. The important thing is to delete/destroy e-mail that doesn’t
need to be retained as soon as possible so that it doesn’t build up and
overload the system. The next step would be to identify the record material
and either retain it in an electronic format or print copies and file them.
DeLuca asked if the information technology staff in agencies were now records managers. Robb responded that they were, probably more so than they had previously thought. Robb acknowledged that the standard was a new requirement and that changes in management of electronic information would occur as a result. Robb said that this was a very dynamic area. E-mail is a relatively new technology, though it seems it has been around for a long time. The tools to manage e-mail up to this point haven’t been very good. Some agencies have done better at managing e-mail than others. For instance, the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet connects its e-mail more directly to its business processes. The tools that Microsoft provides to manage e-mail from an archival perspective are not strong. A lot of legal liability exists, Robb said, from retaining e-mail that has ceased to have any value.
In following up DeLuca’s question regarding information technology staff now being records managers, Myers said it is part of a changing environment. With electronic records, everyone with a computer on their desk is, in a sense, a records manager. Staff need to be trained in what constitutes a record and what its disposition should be, because they have the ability to either delete the record or retain it. The General Schedule for Electronic Records is intended to help records managers and information technology staff understand the problems associated with electronic records management and to work more closely together.
Dr. Ellis asked if the e-mail guidelines were applicable to local governments.
Robb said that the standard was not, but that the guidelines were. Local governments
should be advised, Robb said, to look at the logic of the standard, but they
are not bound by it as state government agencies are. Ellis then asked if anyone
representing local governments had been involved in creating the subject headings
used to identify the informational content of e-mail suggested in the guidelines
document. Myers said that no one had been, but that the guidelines had been
reviewed by representatives from various aspects of government, including local
government. Subject headings will vary from agency to agency, Myers said. Those
noted in the document were meant to be a guide as to how a subject heading should
be created so that the informational content of the message is
properly described. Carlton said that it was a matter of educating both local
and state government agencies as to what is required. E-mail continues to be
viewed as a communication system, rather than a system that is actually used
to create records. Belding said that staff in the Local Records Branch had been
approached by any number of local officials desiring to have guidance in this
area, something specific that they can respond to, plan for, and implement.
Even though the standard is not applicable to local government, there is a desire
on the part of local officials to benefit from accepted best practice.
Dr. Morison said that both the standard and the guidelines document reflect an attempt to mirror best practices. The University of Louisville has been trying to lead its colleagues toward this environment and has published its own set of guidelines for the campus to follow. It has tried to reflect information presented by the Department and to provide links to other related documents posted on KDLA’s web site. An inevitable question, Morison said, will be whether the agencies are being told this is what they should do, or have to do, and in turn, what the law may say and whether agencies are bound by it. In terms of policy, what is the rigorous requirement? What is the university bound by and expected to do? Myers said that the same discussion has gone on in the meetings of the Electronic Records Working Group for some time, notably about the difference between policy, guidelines and procedure. For state agencies that adhere to the architecture standards, the Status of E-Mail as Public Record document is the policy, and e-mail should be managed as such. Standard 4060 provides technical guidelines for carrying that out. The guidelines document reflects best practice and provides suggested ways to manage e-mail, which should benefit all public agencies. Myers suggested that the university might want to develop its own policies and procedures, based on the standard and the guidelines, which staff would then be required to follow. Morison said that the university decided that it didn’t need a policy approved by the Board of Trustees because, in effect, it felt bound to follow the law, policy, and directives from the state. Upon second thought, Morison said that maybe the university should develop its own policies/procedures and have them approved by the Board. Myers said that he had tried to impress upon local governments the need to have policies and guidelines in place to guide how e-mail should be managed. State agencies have the architecture standards to guide them, where local governments and agencies outside the architecture do not. What is important is that e-mail is a business resource and should be managed as such, Myers said.
After a brief break, Nelson moved to consideration of Local Records grants.
Carlton said that in this grant cycle, the program was awarding a total of $97,175 to local agencies, with more than $452,000 awarded in March. Between the two cycles, there is approximately $6.00 remaining in the fund. Although the main emphasis continues to be the awarding of grants for security microfilming, local government agencies have received funds for codification projects, preservation of original records, purchase of equipment, purchase of automated indexing and imaging systems, and salaries for data entry. Carlton said that since the program has been in existence, nearly half of the $12 million plus in available funds has been spent on grants for security microfilming projects. County clerks’ offices have received more than $11 million in grants since the program’s inception. The majority of the records maintained by county clerks are permanent. In addition, Carlton said that 110 county clerk offices now have some form of automated indexing and 29 have some type of optical imaging capabilities. In response to a question from Belding, Carlton said that it is very expensive for counties that have automated indexing and imaging systems to maintain service contracts and to upgrade as software changes occur. Over the past few years, there has been an increase in the amount of work in the offices, with a decrease in fees the clerks can collect.
In response to a question from Coates, Carlton said that it is cost prohibitive for the Local Records program to get too involved in the purchase of hardware and software for imaging systems. Counties would have to find some way to fund those things locally. Assistance has been given in the form of grants for data entry, which can include backfile conversion. The Department also can provide services to local entities in the conversion of information currently in a microfilm format.
Coates asked how future funds would be spent. Carlton said that it was unlikely that the need for security microfilm would diminish, even during this time of increased use of technology. Film can be created from the digitized image, as well as from hard copy. Carlton said that he sees, for the future, more uniformity in the way automated systems are planned for and implemented. Migration issues will be a challenge to many of the offices, as there is a huge cost associated with moving information forward as technology changes. Due to constituent demands for increased availability of technology, Carlton believes that even the smaller counties that can least afford the cost of the systems will feel pressure to move in that direction. Coates asked if counties could increase fees to help pay for systems. Carlton said that they did not have that discretion, as the standard fees are legislatively set. Belding said that there is some flexibility in what counties can charge researchers for dial-in fees to use information available from the counties on the Internet.
After additional discussion, Dr. Morison made a motion to recommend the grants to Commissioner Nelson for his approval, seconded by Mr. Coates. The vote by members and representatives present was unanimous.
There being no further business, Nelson adjourned the meeting at 11:50 a.m.