The Purge, Part Three
It sounds like we must have touched a nerve with the Purge project, which examines our state officials/agencies and what they're doing to your public records. The open-government crusader, John Washburn, has now been interviewed by the Star-Telegram and an Austin radio station wants to talk to him, too.
Meanwhile, we shall soldier on in our learning.
As I mentioned in earlier Purge entries, each state agency/governmental office establishes its own retention schedule for all of its records, and creates a time frame to archive or delete depending on subject of the record. This is the retention schedule of the Texas Governor's Office, which I've uploaded to a divshare account because it was too big for google docs.
It's lengthy, but take a look at schedules are 1.1.007 and 1.1.008. (Pages 14 and 15 on the pdf):
1.1.007 Correspondence - AdministrativeThe Governor's established retention period for correspondence (in any media and format) is for the term of his office plus one day -- not seven days. The term ends in early 2011. So, is the Governor's office violating its own retention policy by deleting its emails every week? It says no. Here's spokeswoman Krista Moody:
Incoming/outgoing and internal correspondence, in any format, pertaining to the formulation, planning, implementation, interpretation, modification, or redefinition of the programs, services, or projects of an agency and the administrative regulations, policies, and procedures that govern them.1.1.008 Correspondence - General
Non-administrative incoming/outgoing and internal correspondence, in any media, pertaining to or arising from the routine operations of the policies, programs, services, or projects of an agency.
Official correspondence, such as constituent inquiries and contracts, are saved in some format until the end-of-term. Transitory correspondence, according to the Texas State Library, is communication that is only useful for a limited amount of time and then is no longer needed. This correspondence is exempt from the end-of-term retention policy.An example of this would be back and forth emails between multiple people trying to set up a meeting time. Once the meeting is set, the emails are no longer needed or useful.
This seems to open up some new questions. The office is creating a distinction within their own public records, between "Official Correspondence" and "Transitory Correspondence". Who deems whether something is "official" versus "transitory"? Each individual employee.
So Perry's office says that it is letting individuals within a public office decide whether something "is needed" for the public record or not. The example about setting a meeting could very well be important public information -- what if the emails "setting up a meeting time" actually discussed having lunch with a powerful lobbyist with interests related to a measure the Governor was pushing?
What is "transitory" and therefore "not needed" to one person, may be something "official" in the eyes of another. What's the danger in saving it all, for a longer period of time?
Anyone want to weigh in on this? The journey continues...
Comments
"The office is creating a distinction within their own public records, between "Official Correspondence" and "Transitory Correspondence". Who deems whether something is "official" versus "transitory"? Each individual employee."
this is a conundrum that all records managers run into all the time. Determining what is a record is not as cut and dry as a lot of folks think. here is something that the EPA has published to help their employees to determine what is a record
http://www.epa.gov/records/whatis/what.pdf
You might want to visit with the local chapter of ARMA International to learn more about records management
http://www.arma-austin.org/
Posted by: PeterK | November 13, 2007 9:56 PM
Thanks for your stories on the Governor’s efforts to purge emails! While I’m not politically active, I’m a Director on the ARMA International Board of Directors (http://www.arma.org). I’ve always taken exception to those who conduct business and who generate records in email form and who also believe that setting arbitrary timelines for destruction might actually be acceptable. I've not ever heard of "transitory correspondence" as a category, and unless it is narrowly defined as something dealing with "lets go to lunch" email notes, etc., I believe that it might well tempt an official to incorrectly classify a record as something not worthy of retention.
In the private sector, many firms have learned the hard way that if you generate records in email form (or in any electronic form), you must appropriately classify those records and must abide by whatever your governing regulatory bodies state as appropriate retention periods. Setting an arbitrary destruction date is rather foolhardy and only leads to problems in the courtroom (there are plenty of cases where the term spoliation of evidence costs companies millions of dollars).
In the public sector, we do have retention requirements…..issued by the Texas State Library regarding the retention of records in all forms (paper, microfilm, electronic, etc.). I appreciate the fact that you pointed to those requirements.
Following the State Library's retention requirements is more than a good idea…… It serves to protect the public interest and serves to protect the organization in its obligation to provide full disclosure of public business and to fulfill potential “Public Records Act” requirements.
Posted by: Douglas P. Allen, CRM, CDIA+ | November 13, 2007 11:27 PM