STATE
ARCHIVES AND RECORDS COMMISSION
Minutes of the
Quarterly Meeting
Department for
Libraries and Archives
Local
Government General Records Retention Schedule
The
State Archives and Records Commission met at
Members present: James A. Nelson, Chairman; Dr.
Thomas D. Clark, representing the
Representatives present: Lewis DeLuca, representing
Dr. Marlene M. Helm, Secretary, Education, Arts and Humanities Cabinet; James
Ringo, 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; Stephanie Robey, representing Ed Hatchett,
Auditor of Public Accounts; Brandon Haynes, representing Joseph E. Lambert,
Chief Justice, Supreme Court; and Geoff Pinkerton, representing Mary Lassiter,
Acting State Budget Director, Governor’s Office for Policy and Management.
Members not present or represented: Paul F. Coates,
representing Citizens-at-Large; and Linda E. Johnson, representing
Citizens-at-Large.
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; Glen McAninch, Manager, Technology Analysis and
Support Branch; Mark Myers, Resource Management Analyst; and B. J. Webster, Administrative
Secretary.
Guests present:
No guests were present.
Nelson called for introductions by those present.
The new members were sworn in prior to the meeting.
Dr. Ellis made a motion to accept the minutes of the
previous Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Haynes. The vote by members and representatives
present was unanimous.
NEW OR REVISED
RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULES
Local Government
General Records Retention Schedule
Jerry Carlton was the regional administrator working
on the schedule changes. The series
being changed are L4768, Periodic Accounts Receivable Activity Report, and
L4940, Audio/Video Recordings of Official Meetings. The series being added to the schedule are
L5360, Certificate of Occupancy; L5361, Inspection Reports; L5362, Violation
File-Zoning, Building and Housing; L5363, Violation File, Weed, Rubbish, Junk
Car and Sidewalk; L5364, Surveillance Video/Audio Recordings; L5365, Service
Work Order; and L5366, Sales Tax Report.
The Local Government General Records Retention
Schedule was approved by the State Archives and Records Commission at its
September 1999 meeting, and is applicable to all local government
agencies. The records series contained
in the schedule are identified by function, rather than office of origin. The schedule is used in conjunction with
agency specific schedules.
The primary series being changed is L4940,
Audio/Video Recordings of Official Meetings.
The disposition was changed from “destroy or re-use after minutes are
officially accepted” to “destroy or re-use 30 days after minutes are officially
accepted, if no litigation is pending.” The 30-day retention period should provide
sufficient time for questions about or challenges to the transcribed minutes.
Series L5364, Surveillance Video/Audio Recordings, which
is an addition to the schedule, pertains to general access areas in public
buildings.
Morison asked, in regard to the audio/video
recordings, if it was generally understood that the use of the term
“litigation” in the disposition applied to open records requests, as an action
with legal consequences. Staff opted
not to put any reference to open records requests in the disposition, as it
could apply to virtually any record created by a public entity. Use of the term “litigation” was thought to
encompass any action that could result in a legal action, such as an appeal to
the Attorney General’s Office, under the Open Records Act.
Dr. Clark made a motion to adopt the schedule
changes, seconded by Dr. Ellis. The vote by members and representatives present
was unanimous.
The most significant change being made to the
schedule is series L1948. The change
provides for the tenth month attendance report to be retained for 20 years,
with the balance of the reports being eligible for destruction after two
years. Previously all the monthly
reports were retained for 20 years. The tenth month report is cumulative and,
therefore, the most important one. As
the remaining reports are voluminous, space savings would be realized.
Dr. Clark said that the change is an example of the
direction archives and records management will have to take. By force of circumstance, it will be
necessary to identify and retain only the most significant records, while
allowing for the destruction or disposal of the balance. Nelson said that many people don’t fully
understand that the identification of irrelevant records, or records that can
be destroyed at some point, is one of the more important tasks that the
Commission performs.
Dr. Morison made a motion to adopt the schedule changes,
seconded by Mr. Ringo. The vote by
members and representatives present was unanimous.
The next item was Other Business.
--Local
Records Program Workshops
Belding said that over the past several months and
in the months coming up, Local Records staff had been and will be conducting
workshops for local government officials.
The workshops are conducted on-site at various locations across the
state. Belding underscored the impact
the workshops have had on the local governments and that they included a segment
on electronic records management that Mark Myers, of the Technology Analysis
and Support Branch, presented. There
has been a great deal of interest on the part of local officials to learn
more about the management of electronic information and Myers’ presentations
were designed to respond to that need. The recent publication of Enterprise Standard: 4060 Recordkeeping – Electronic
Mail by the
The workshop on the management of paper and
electronic records will be conducted one more time, with Myers presenting the
electronic records segment,
As an aside, Belding said that the Lexington/Fayette
Urban County Government (LFUCG) had renewed its interest in completing a comprehensive
retention schedule with which to better manage its records. With more than 30 divisions in that government,
LFUCG’s interest in working with Local Records staff to create the schedule
was a very encouraging development.
--
The State Historical Records Advisory Board (SHRAB)
was the primary mover behind the creation of a Kentucky Archives Week, the
first of which was held in October 2002.
Belding said that
--Gubernatorial
Transition
Belding informed the Commission members of the
meeting he and Chairman Nelson had with the Governor’s Executive Cabinet
related to records management considerations during the gubernatorial
transition. A copy of the briefing
document from that meeting was distributed to the members. As a result of that meeting, Aldona
Valicenti, the state’s Chief Information Officer, invited staff to talk about
transition with the Chief Information Officers Advisory Council, which is made
up of officers from each cabinet within the Executive Branch, as well as the
constitutional offices, who have responsibility for information technology
issues. At the meeting, particular
emphasis was placed on the issues related to the management of electronic mail
and the identification of records created in that format that would have historical
value, such as official correspondence of cabinet secretaries or other senior
administrators, before they leave state government. The portion of messages that would be created
using electronic mail that would need to be retained is a very small
percentage. The majority of electronic
mail is disposable after a short period of time, as it is either junk mail or
reference and informational messages. The informational content of the
communication is what determines its retention.
Electronic mail is a communications tool, not a record type. Belding said the long term intent is to see that
the steps involved in the management of electronic mail, which help to
determine its value, are institutionalized as a part of regular business and not
just something that occurs at the end of a gubernatorial transition.
In response to a question from Dr. Clark, Myers said
that there is not much difference between written communications and
communications created using electronic mail, in that sender and receiver are
identified, the subject of the communication and the text, as well as dates and
who received copies are present. With
electronic mail, additional information is captured, such as the systems the
mail was routed through, the time it was created and whether or not the
receiver opened the message. It can’t be
determined whether the message was read, just that it was opened. Users of electronic mail may tend to be more
casual and conversational, rather than formal, when creating communications,
Myers said. This transition period
represents the first attempt for the Department to try and capture official
communications in an electronic format.
--Evolving
Relationship with the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)
The Department has worked very closely with AOC over
the past two or three decades in a very productive way to provide archival and
records management services, including micrographics services, to judicial
offices. AOC, particularly with the construction
of a number of new courthouses, has become aware of the challenge and expense
that managing records represent to the judicial offices located in each of the
120 counties. As a measure of good
management, AOC has determined that some things need to change in the way the
records have been managed in the past.
AOC has decided that it is interested in moving directly into records
management activities itself, while working closely with KDLA to provide
micrographics and repository support services, both archival and records
center. It is also interested in seeing that more records are transferred to
KDLA than has been the pattern in the past, so that work processes can be more
efficiently managed at the local level. Under
this plan, the courts would have only the records they need to meet current local
business needs. Records not needed for
that purpose would be eligible for transfer to the Department. Court records represent approximately
two-thirds of the records that are requested in the Archives Research Room, in
hard copy form, and represent more than 50% of the total holdings in the State
Archives. Belding said that the
Department was looking forward to the next stage in its relationship with the
courts.
In a related issue, Belding said that state government
may be in a fiscal downturn but there is no shortage of litigation and no
shortage in the creation of records, which applies to all state government
agencies. Holdings, particularly in
the
demonstrate the Department’s need to have an
expansion of the Coffee Tree Road facility to be able to respond to the kind of
archival growth that is anticipated over the next few years.
Belding said that a meeting of the Capital Planning
Advisory Board, which meets during the summer of odd numbered years to review
capital expansion and equipment requests occurred in July. At the meeting, Secretary Helm presented the
cabinet’s requests for expansion, with one of those being an expansion of the
After a short break, the meeting reconvened to
discuss the last item of business.
--
The issue of these records, a substantial amount of
which are stored in the State Archives, relates directly to the challenges the
Department faces in making the most efficient use of available storage space in
the Archives. Belding said that for a
couple years, staff had been following a six or seven point program trying to free
up additional space in the Archives.
Part of the program involves the regular review of schedules for changes
in retention that would have an impact on records stored in the Archives, where
the retentions have been reduced from permanent to a lesser period, based on
decisions the Commission might make. This
review has helped ensure that those records are then either destroyed or
transferred to the
Related to that continuing reassessment, one group
of records that staff has reevaluated is the
several years ago.
Belding distributed a memorandum addressed to the Commission members,
which included an appraisal reassessment of the files, for their review. The reassessment document provides background
information about the records and their transfer to the Archives, which was
approved at the time by the Commission.
The question for discussion is whether the records continue to meet
accepted criteria for archival storage.
Belding said that staff felt that these particular
records were appropriate for reappraisal at this time for several different
reasons. One is because the records
represent a unique case. The records
came into the Archives as unscheduled; that is, no retention period had been
approved by the Commission for them in advance of the transfer. The records, after the closure of the
hospital, were in danger of being destroyed, if a repository was not found for
them. At that time, the issue was
brought before the Commission, and the decision was made to accept them into
the Archives. The total volume accepted
was approximately 1,594 cubic feet, covering the years 1923-1959. In addition, the University of Louisville
accepted a large volume of the more current records (those dated 1960-1977)
into its facility. Dr. Morison echoed
Belding’s comments that the volume of records being stored is huge for both
facilities, and that a reappraisal of their archival value is much needed.
Morison said that the question the University had at
the time it accepted the records was whether they had reached their disposition
period. It was decided that they had not
and they continued to be stored in the facility. Several years later, the University broached
the subject of destruction of the records, believing that any retention of the
records had long since been met.
Approval to destroy the records, under appropriate laws and guidelines,
has not, up to this point, been given.
The interest in the records when they initially became
available was that they were records of a public general hospital and there
was some belief that at the time they were unique, in the sense that they
documented, or perhaps might document, medical services delivery to an underserved
or under documented population, during a period that spanned about 50 years.
Of the 1,594 cubic feet of records, approximately 1,408 are patient
medical records, Belding said. Another 150 cubic feet are patient folders that
are on an outdated, proprietary-style microfiche, for which microfilm readers
no longer exist. In addition, there
are patient summary cards, which are small IBM punch cards, with punch data
on them. The assessment document that
each of the members was given was prepared by Tim Tingle, who is the Department’s
chief appraisal archivist and head of the Arrangement and Description Section. It addresses some of the issues that are relevant
in terms of retaining patient case file material. It includes recommendations from professional
associations and medical records providers, such as the American Health
Given the lack of definitive information regarding
retention, the next step was to define what obstacles there were to providing
access to these kinds of records. One
clear obstacle is that the only people who have ready access to the records are
the individual patients themselves, their guardians or the executors of their
estates. Over the past few years, the
amount of entry into the nearly 1,600 cubic feet of the records at the Archives
has averaged about three to four per year.
Dr. Ellis said he imagined that the re-entry would have been greater into
the more recent records, not those were more than 50 years old. Belding said that that was correct. Belding pointed out that the run of records
that the Archives has is not complete.
There are gaps in the records for any particular year, so there is no
assurance that the Archives would have a requested record.
In response to a question from Dr. Clark, Morison
said that the records held at the University cover the period 1960-1977, which
represents the most recent portion of the records. They were retained for the purpose of
physician consultation for patient care for persons who were treated during
that period. The number of requests for
the records by either physicians or patients was very low. As the years have progressed, the requests
have been fewer and fewer, Morison said.
Another reason for retaining the records, Morison said, was their
possible historical research value, which Morison acknowledged they could
have. To date, there has been no
historical research activity in the files maintained at the University. Belding said that the same held true for the
records stored in the Archives. At the
time of the initial decision to retain the records, two medical historians and
a statistician informed the Commission members of the impact of sampling
techniques and made observations about the value of the material for potential
historical research. Their observations
have not proven to be the case. None of
those who provided the earlier assessments have ever expressed any research interest
in the files or directed anyone to use the holdings in the Archives. Partly, that can be attributed to the number
of statutory restrictions on access to medical information, Belding said. Stephanie Robey, representing the Auditor’s
Office, asked if the Archives held other medical records of the same type. Belding said that it did not. Robey then raised the issue of the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) and whether the access
restrictions imposed by that Act, which are very stringent, would have any
impact on research use of the records. Robey said there could be legal liability for
keeping that kind of information. Ellis
said that he thought the only reason the records were retained initially was
because of their possible research value, not because of their value to
clinicians.
Belding said that information had been obtained from
several sources, including the municipal archives of both the city of
Nelson said he thought there might have been a
question early on about the value of the records in determining whether
genetically-transferred illnesses or health issues were present in later
generations. Morison said that he knows
of no instance where that type of research has occurred at the University. Belding said that another way in which the
records might have been used in a kind of archival context would have been in a
clinical setting, where new doctors would be trained in diagnostic techniques. They might have been given medical
information from a much earlier period for them to use as a test case. There has never been any interest in using the
files under consideration in that way, partly because the Department is not
located near any major medical research center.
The likelihood of these records being used in that way is very slight.
Belding said that five or six factors had been identified
as being crucial to a final decision being made regarding the ultimate disposition
of the records. The factors include
the size of the collection, which is a space issue for the Archives; the significant
access restrictions on the records, which precludes use of the files to anyone
other than the individual patient, guardian or executor; the scarce use of
the materials over time; the gaps that exist in the files; and the very significant
issue of being able to preserve and read the information that is on the outdated
microfiche cards, which have steadily
Taking all the factors into consideration, as well
as the issues brought forward by Dr. Morison regarding the University’s
holdings, Belding said that staff wanted to bring the information to the
Commission, as it was involved in the original decision to retain the records
20 years ago, with a recommendation that the continued retention of the patient
files is not justified. Dr. Clark asked
how the University became the recipient of the files it now has. Morison said that the older files are housed
in the State Archives, with the University having the more recent ones. Nelson said that when Humana took over the
Dr. Clark asked Morison about his attitude toward
continuing to hold the records. Morison
said that, in a perfect world, his inclination, as a historian, would be to
retain these records, as well as other types of records forever, but in a practical
world that isn’t possible. Morison said
that he supports the recommendation of the Department that the records be
destroyed. Belding said that the
Archives continues to hold approximately 270 volumes (approximately 85 cubic
feet) of admissions and registration logs from the hospital that are not
included in the present discussion, but which may be the subject of future
discussions. The same issues regarding
privacy of medical files exist for the logs, as personal patient information is
recorded in them. Their ultimate
disposition would need to be decided at a future date.
Dr. Clark asked if there were any statutory barriers
to the destruction of the files. Belding
said that there was not. The question
was raised as to whether, under HIPPA regulations, there would be a prohibition
against destruction of the files without having first advised or notified
former patients that the records exist.
Teague asked if that aspect could be handled by placing a notice in
appropriate newspapers. Morison said
that that possibility had been discussed and that the University would go
forward with it, if the Commission approved the destruction of the
records. DeLuca asked if the University
would continue to hold its records, if the approval to destroy the ones in the
Archives was approved. Morison said the
University would be guided by the will of the Commission.
Robb made mention of a reference to the existence of
indices for the files, which were created by Humana. Teague said that the Archives has been
dependent upon those parties holding the indices to determine, when a request
was received, as to whether or not a given file was its holdings.
In response to a question from
Robb said that if the Department advertised that it
had the records, that might prompt more than one or two research queries a
year. Robb was also concerned about the
public’s reaction if word of the destruction of the records were to get
out. Teague said that records that have
ceased to have value are routinely destroyed, without antagonizing the public,
and that the records under discussion are no different than other hospital
records that are destroyed. In response
to a question from Belding, Moses said that clinic-type records, such as those
maintained by local health departments are destroyed after ten years. A new file would be created if the individual
returned for treatment after the expiration of the ten-year period. A question was asked as to whether the
patient would have any right to take possession of his record, prior to its
destruction. Nelson said he supposed
that the Department would only issue a notice of the availability of the
general hospital records if it was legally required to. Related to the issue of access restrictions,
Pinkerton said that he did not believe that HIPPA, which was recently enacted,
would pertain, given that the records span the period 1923-1977. There was no consensus among the Commission members
or staff as to whether HIPPA had retroactive application. Pinkerton said that he believed the only
reason the records would need to be retained was if someone had a legal
interest in them and that, given their age, any statute of limitations would
probably render that interest as purely academic. Morison agreed.
Morison said that the placement and type of notice
advertising the availability of the records would also need to be discussed
with University legal staff and its medical and hospital community, if the
decision was made to take that action.
Also, how the destruction of the records would be carried out would need
to be addressed, if the Commission approved their disposal. Morison said the University would try to take
prudent steps in regard to any public notices about the records, but felt, in
the final analysis, that the Commission might just have to take the action it
deemed appropriate and accept the consequences of that action, as it should
with any actions it took.
when it meets in December, to give time to consult
with the relevant communities. Belding
said, in response to a question from
There being no further business, Nelson adjourned
the meeting at approximately