Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government
Local Government General Records Retention Schedule
Public School District Retention Schedule
The State Archives and Records Commission met at 10:00 a.m., Thursday, December 9, 2004, in the Board Room, Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives (KDLA), 300 Coffee Tree Road, Frankfort, Kentucky.
Members present: James A. Nelson, Chairman; Dr. Thomas D. Clark, representing the University of Kentucky; Sandra L. McAninch, representing the Kentucky Library Association; Dr. Jack D. Ellis, representing Citizens-at-Large; James E. Horner, representing Citizens-at-Large; and Lynne Hollingsworth representing Citizens-at-Large.
Representatives present: Amye Bensenhaver, representing Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; Cindy James, representing Crit Luallen, Auditor of Public Accounts; Brandon Haynes, representing Joseph E. Lambert, Chief Justice, Supreme Court; Geoff Pinkerton, representing Brad Cowgill, State Budget Director, Governor’s Office of Policy and Management; Leslie Smith, representing Robert Sherman, Director, Legislative Research Commission; and Charles Robb, representing Michael Inman, Commissioner of Technology, Commonwealth Office of Technology.
Members not present or represented: Virginia G. Fox, Secretary, Education Cabinet; James F. Kastner, representing the Kentucky Historical Society.
Public Records Division staff present: Richard N. Belding, Director, Public Records Division; Diana Moses, Manager, State Records Branch; Barbara Teague, Manager, Archival Services Branch; Glen McAninch, Manager, Technology Analysis and Support Branch; Jim Cundy, State Records Branch; Mark Myers, Resource Management Analyst; and Larry Barnett, Regional Administrator.
Guests present: Ryan Halloran, outgoing attorney for the Commission, Attorney General’s Office; Scott Porter, incoming attorney for the Commission, Attorney General’s Office.
Nelson called for introductions by those present.
Dr. Ellis made a motion to accept the minutes of the previous Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Horner. The vote by members and representatives present was unanimous.
NEW OR REVISED RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULES
Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government – Animal Services
Jim Cundy was the records
analyst working on this new schedule. The series being added are L5777 to L5794.
Metro Louisville Animal Services was established by Metro Government in accordance
with the Kentucky Revised Statutes. Its mission is to provide services that
safeguard the public health and safety, to humanely house and care for animals
in its charge, to protect the animals of the community from abuse and neglect
and to provide its citizens with information concerning responsible ownership.
The organization provides care and control of animals within Louisville Metro,
including all cities and municipalities, enforces animal control laws, maintains
a kennel facility for stray, unwanted or abandoned animals, operates a quarantine
facility, and sells licenses for cats and dogs.
Cundy noted that while the records on the presented schedule have short-term retention periods, permanent records such as the agency’s annual report are scheduled on the Louisville/Jefferson County Checklist, approved by Commission on September 9, 2004. He said that the agency’s audits and budgets are available through its parent agency, Public Works and Services. He said that there had been a question raised at the Advisory Committee meeting regarding L5794, Rabies Vaccination Certificates. The disposition instructions allow for a one-year or a three-year vaccine. The veterinarian decides which vaccine is administered. Factors in the decision include availability of the vaccine, cost of the vaccine and age or condition of the animal.
Ms. Bensenhaver asked about the three year retention for L5783, Animal Bite Report and L5787, Quarantine Card/Log. She noted that she could find no law relating to animal destruction after a bite incident., and wondered if the retention period was related to any legal requirement. Cundy responded that three years was consistent with other law enforcement-related incident reports on the Local Government General Records Retention Schedule. He also noted that any pattern regarding animal bites would emerge within the three-year period. Bensenhaver noted the publicity received by bite incidents especially concerning children; she wondered if three years was sufficient. Myers said that the quarantine card exists to document whether an animal has rabies; once the animal has been determined to have or not have rabies, the animal can be put down. Cundy noted that Animal Services does not hold animals in its custody very long before putting them down if no one claims them or adopts them. Bensenhaver expressed concern that the record would exist to establish a pattern should an animal be terminated. Cundy noted that when animals maul people, particularly children, they are generally put down fairly quickly.
Mr. Haynes made a motion to adopt the schedule, seconded by Ms. McAninch. The vote by members and representatives present was unanimous.
County Sheriff Retention Schedule – Tax Collection
In the absence of Jerry Carlton, Larry Barnett was the regional administrator presenting the schedule changes. The series being added to the schedule are L5799, Paid Tax Bills; and L5773, Delinquent Tax Records.
Barnett said that, while the county clerk is responsible for the collection of delinquent taxes, some sheriffs maintain delinquent tax records in their respective offices. Therefore, the records are being added to the sheriff’s retention schedule.
Horner asked how frequently sheriffs’ offices are audited, given the “destroy after audit” disposition instructions of L5799, Paid Tax Bills. Barnett responded that the offices are audited annually. This helps to account for the discrepancy between paid tax bills, which will have been audited, and delinquent tax records, which have not.
Dr. Ellis made a motion to adopt the changes, seconded by Ms. McAninch. The vote by members and representatives present was unanimous.
Local Government General Records Retention Schedule – Common Records – Payroll
In the absence of Jerry Carlton, Larry Barnett was the regional administrator presenting the schedule changes. The series being added to the schedule are L5803, Family and Medical Leave Record File; and L5804, Disability Leave Files; L5805, New Hire Report; L5797, Payroll Register – Year End; and L5798, Payroll Register – Pay Period. The series being deleted from the schedule are L5018, Individual Mater Earning Record; L5019, Yearly Payroll Register; and L5021, Payroll Register for Each Pay Period.
Barnett said that L5803, Family and Medical Leave Records File, L5804, Disability Leave Files, and L5805, New Hire Report had been adopted as part of the Lexington/Fayette Urban-County Government Records Retention Schedule. Changes to the schedule occurred because deletions are made as redundant series are consolidated.
Bensenhaver asked about the phrase directory information as found in the Records Title and Description for L5797, Payroll Register, Year End. Barnett responded that it constituted name, address and other common contact information.
Mr. Horner made a motion to adopt the changes, seconded by Ms. McAninch. The vote by members and representatives present was unanimous.
Public School District Retention Schedule – Payroll
In the absence of Jerry Carlton, Larry Barnett was the regional administrator presenting these schedule changes. The series being added to the schedule are L5800, Family and Medical Leave Record File; L5801, New Hire Report; L5802, Disability Leave Files; L5806, Payroll Register – Pay Period; and L5257, Payroll Register – Year End. The series being changed is L2755, Leave Requests. The series being deleted from the schedule are L5256, Individual Master Earning Record; L5280, Payroll Journal; and L5259, Payroll Register for Each Pay Period.
Barnett said these changes matched the above changes to the Local Government General Records Retention Schedule except for L2755, Leave Requests, which changed to three years from five years, in keeping with other time and attendance records. He said that a question regarding L5802, Disability Leave Files arose in the Advisory meeting. He noted that these are short-term files, only needed for payroll and that for purposes of permanent disability pay, employees would have pertinent information in their personnel files rather than in their payroll files.
Belding noted and Barnett confirmed that, even though these records have been approved as part of the Local Government General Records Retention Schedule, these records are placed on the Public School District Records Retention Schedule as school district personnel use their retention schedule without reference to the Local Records General Schedule.
Mr. Horner asked if L5802, Disability Leave Files was a confidential record, given that it is described as possibly containing doctor’s statements. Barnett confirmed that it would be a confidential record. Cundy noted that it was listed as such on in the retention schedule entry before the Commission.
Mr. Haynes made a motion to adopt the changes, seconded by Ms. McAninch. The vote by members and representatives present was unanimous.
Public School District Retention Schedule – Student Records
Jim Cundy was the regional administrator presenting these changes. The series being added to the schedule are L5774, Non-Traditional Services and Programs Student Folder; L5775, English-as-a-Second Language Program Student Folder; L5776, Vision, Hearing and/or Scoliosis Screening Records; L5795, Home School Participation Report; and L5796, Home School Application and Follow-Up.
Cundy noted that L5774-L5775 encompassed non-traditional student programs offered by a school district. Examples of these include mentoring programs or programs allowing individuals already in the workforce to complete high school at a pace conducive to their schedules. He said that L5775, English as a Second Language Student Folder had been singled-out because of federal requirements contained in the No-Child-Left-Behind Act. He noted that L5776, Vision, Hearing and/or Scoliosis Screening Records documented screening done periodically throughout K-5. He said that series L5795-L5796 are records related to home schooling. These records allow school superintendents to fulfill requirements that they keep track of home schools in their districts, and allow schools to notify home school institutions of school district programs in which, at the discretion of the school district superintendent, the home-schooled student may participate.
Dr. Clark asked about direct supervision of home-schooled students. Cundy responded that there was no direct supervision, though standards for home schools exist and that they had to reapply annually for certification. Belding asked if the certification process was managed through individual school districts or through the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE). Cundy responded that it was through KDE.
Dr. Ellis made a motion to adopt the changes, seconded by Ms. McAninch. The vote by members and representatives present was unanimous.
The next item was Other Business.
Belding moved to a discussion of the “Guidelines for Managing Web-Based Records,” which each member had received in a mailing before the September 9, 2004 Commission meeting. Belding said that the document, which is still in draft form, was part of an ongoing effort by staff to develop procedural guidelines for agencies to assist them in the management of records that are created and disseminated through their web sites. This is of increasing interest because agencies are utilizing websites to transact agency business and to disseminate publications formerly distributed in letterpress editions. Justifications include reduced cost and less complicated modification procedures. The Department issues its annual report as an electronic document and keeps members on its mailing list apprised regarding the existence and location of the report. The emergence of electronic media does not affect the requirement that state agencies submit copies of publications to the Department, and these guidelines are intended to assist agencies in that task.
Myers said that the guidelines are designed to assist agencies in managing their web-based records. He noted that agencies have moved from hard copies placed on websites to exclusively web-specific records and web-based business. While the Department is not requiring agencies to archive their websites, these guidelines facilitate management of specific records located on agency websites.
Dr. Clark asked how these developments affect the issuance of essential state publications such as Acts of the General Assembly or Court Reports. Myers said he thought the record copies of those publications were still in paper, though one could utilize an electronic access copy. He noted that the Commonwealth may reach a point when those publications will be published electronically, but has not to date.
Mr. Haynes noted that the Legislative Acts are available in electronic format on CD-ROM. Ms. Smith added that the Legislative Research Commission (LRC) is still legally required to publish the Acts in hardbound paper format. Belding asked how widely the Acts are disseminated. Smith responded that each public library receives a copy, that some state agencies receive copies, and that some copies are available for general purchase. She also noted that, because of space concerns, some agencies request the Acts in electronic format. Dr. Clark noted the vital nature of these publications and the importance of paper editions. Smith responded that hardbound paper publication would continue because of their historical importance. Haynes noted that official Court Reports are being published in both electronic and paper formats, though he was not sure how long the latter would continue. He noted that the Commonwealth was not the official publisher of the Court Reports. Smith noted that was also true for the Legislative Acts.
In response to a question by Hollingsworth, Myers said the guidelines would be available on the Department’s website once various groups had reviewed and approved the guidelines. These groups are the Web Standards Committee, the Commonwealth Office of Technology, the Electronic Records Working Group and University Records Officers.
Myers noted that essential publications such as the Legislative Acts lent themselves to easy preservation through printing or microfilming. The guidelines also address documents that may not easily lend themselves to a paper or microfilm preservation format.
Belding moved on to note the development of a revision of the Department’s Administrative Regulation (AR) that describes the procedures by which agencies need to manage state publications. The revision is designed to update the language of the AR to include the creation of electronic publications and their dissemination by electronic means. The department submitted the proposed revision on November 15, 2004 for printing in the LRC’s Register on December 1, 2004. The department has a tentative public hearing scheduled, if interested parties request one, for December 22, 2004. If there are no substantive written comments or requests for changes, the proposal will go to the Administrative Regulations Review Committee for consideration in January and should go into effect in February 2005. If there are comments or requests for changes, the process might be delayed approximately one month.
Belding directed the members to the Executive Branch Ethics Commission communication to Chair Nelson from the Ethics Commision’s Executive Director, Jill LeMaster. Similar letters have been sent to other boards and commissions that ask members of the respective board or commission to adopt a model Code of Ethics. The letter directed to the State Archives and Records Commission specifically urges it take the initiative in implementing ethical standards for its members by adopting, at a minimum, this Code of Ethics. The following is a direct statement from the letter: “As you are well aware public service on the State Archives and Records Commission is a public trust, and this is an opportunity to ratify the standards of good judgment, independence and ethical behavior that your members typically exercise.” The letter further states “Although the employees of the State Archives and Records Commission are subject to the Executive Branch Code of Ethics in KRS Chapter 11A, the members are not. Thus, the adoption of a code of ethics will strengthen and promote public confidence in the administration of your agency and will serve as an example for other board and commission members within state government in applying the high ideals embodied by the Executive Branch Code of Ethics.”
Nelson asked who should
sign the proposed code: Should this be representatives of officials, or the
seated officers? Mr. Porter responded that the seated official would have to
sign the statement.
Mr. Haynes noted that he was already subject to a code of ethics under the judicial
branch, as issued by the Chief Justice, Director of Personnel for that branch.
The substance of the code before the commission is contained in the code adhered
to by judicial branch officials and employees. Nelson noted that members of
the legislative branch would run into similar problems. In response to a question
by Nelson, Mr. Halloran noted that, rather than having individuals sign the
document, the Board should adopt the code by a motion or a vote. What he had
been recommending is that Board and Commission review the document, and adapt
it to their needs. The code may not always be conducive to the conduct of Boards
and Commissions as it is based on KRD Chapter 11A and geared toward executive
branch agencies. It may limit membership or creates conflicts for people who
are or should be Board members.
The proposed code was tabled until the March 10, 2005 Commission meeting, pending advice from counsel.
Belding noted that the next Commission meeting would be held March 10, 2005, at which time Commission members would receive the meeting schedule for the coming year.
Dr Ellis said “Mr. Chairman, in recognition of the many years of service that Diana Moses has given to the Department and to the work of this Commission, I would like to make a motion requesting that the Department draft a resolution of appreciation on behalf of this Commission, expressing its appreciation to her for her good work and its best wishes to her on the occasion of her retirement and that it present this resolution to her prior to her retirement,” seconded by Dr. Clark. The vote by members and representatives present was unanimous. Nelson noted that Cundy had been detailed to the position until it could be filled on a full-time basis.
There being no further business, Nelson adjourned the meeting at 11:00 a.m.
Return to State Archives and Records Commission page