I applaud Gerry's efforts to bring these concerns to the attention of
Representative Cox.  I, too, sent a letter to Rep. Cox expressing my
concerns.  Since I have not yet been able to speak with my upper
management about this issue, I have responded as a private citizen and
records management professional.  A copy of my message to Rep. Cox is
below.
 

Ginny Jones 
(Virginia A. Jones, CRM) 
Records Manager 
Information Technology Division 
Newport News Dept. of Public Utilities 
Newport News, VA 
[log in to unmask] 

Dear Delegate Cox:

 

I am a Certified Records Manager (CRM) with over 38 years experience in
the records and information management profession.  I have worked
primarily with government, both as a records management employee and as
a records and information management consultant.  My experience at the
state level includes several years with the New Mexico State Records
Center & Archives, including the position as Manager of the Records
Management Division. I am nationally and internationally recognized for
my contributions to the RIM profession.  I am currently the designated
Records Officer and Records Manager for a Virginia locality utility.  I
am deeply concerned by the changes to the Virginia Public Records Act
(VPRA) as presented in HB1791.  In my opinion, the revisions will create
an environment of confusion and inconsistency in the retention and
protection of the records and information of the Commonwealth and will
place an increased financial burden on agencies and localities at a time
of fiscal constraint.  I ask that introduction of HB1791 be reconsidered
until the VPRA can be properly and thoroughly reviewed and revised by a
coalition of concerned and experienced parties representing the
agencies, localities and compliance bodies of the Commonwealth. My
concerns are detailed as follows:

 

Specific:

1.      42.1-77 Definitions - 

        a.      Archival Quality - this definition is based on incorrect
and obsolete information.  It refers to established standards "such as
the Association for Information and Image Management, the American
Standards Association, and the National Bureau of Standards."   The
"American Standards Association" is now known as the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI), and the "National Bureau of Standards" is
now known as the National Institute of Standards and Technology.  Both
name changes took place a number of years ago.  In addition, ANSI and
ISO standards clearly state that there is no "archival quality."  The
correct terminology is now "longevity" or "life expectancy." 
        b.      Removing definitions of Administrative value, Legal
value, Fiscal value, and Historical value removes explanation of
essential components of the retention value of records and information.
The values are based on fiscal, legal and regulatory compliance and must
be considered when determining the value of records and information to
an agency or locality.  These terms and their definitions are basic
tenets of records and information management practice and are recognized
as such by the Federal government and many other state's Public Records
Acts. 
        c.      Records retention and disposition schedule - this
definition now includes reference to "required" retention periods.  How
does this correlate with abdicating responsibility for setting
retentions based on administrative, legal, and fiscal values by the
State Library.  (See #2 below regarding 42.1-82, paragraph 3).  

2.	
        42.1-82, paragraph 3 - removing administrative, legal, fiscal,
or historical considerations for retention values and replacing them
with only archival considerations implies the general schedules will be
based solely on archival or historical need or value.  Statistics show
that approximately 5% to 10% of the records and information within a
government entity have historical value.  Removing consideration of the
administrative, legal and fiscal requirements for 90% to 95% of
government records and information is irresponsible and careless.

 By removing the State Library's responsibility for considering these
values, the Public Records Act then places the responsibility on state
agencies, institutions of higher learning and localities in order for
government to remain legally and fiscally compliant with laws and
regulations.  Most agencies/localities do not have the resources with
adequate RIM expertise or knowledge to accurately research, analyze and
develop retention periods meeting the requirements for these values.
The revised Public Records Act will, therefore, place an added financial
burden on agencies and localities to establish and maintain positions
for experienced Records Managers in order to meet these needs.  

 

In addition, placing the responsibility for establishing these retention
values on individual agencies and localities will eliminate a central
experienced consensus resource for establishing standard retention
values for same or similar records throughout the Commonwealth.

 

3.      42.1-86.1  The new material in this section raises several
issues. 

        a.      section (i) requires records to appear on a retention
schedule approved pursuant to 42.1-82 before they can be destroyed or
discarded.  If the responsibility for determining value other than
archival is placed on the agencies/localities, there will be
considerable differences and gaps in records eligible for destruction
that are required to be kept by changes in laws or regulations, but the
changes are not yet reflected on a general schedule due to inexperience
or ignorance at the agency or local level. 
        b.       section (ii) establishes a procedural paradox.  As
worded, an agency/locality cannot destroy records until the properly
completed original certificate of records destruction has been sent to
LVA, but, the form cannot be completed and signed until the records have
been destroyed.

General:

1.      There is a need for an advisory/oversight body that includes
input from Commonwealth agency administrative, fiscal, legal and
historical interests - Attorney General, State Auditor, State Treasurer,
State IT, etc.  Placing all advisory/oversight in a body that is
historical/archival oriented leaves a gap in consideration of the other
shorter-term values (administrative, legal, fiscal) of the
Commonwealth's records. 
2.      The Act contains no reference to records protection guidance or
oversight, other than requiring a disaster recovery plan.  To safeguard
the records and information of the Commonwealth - including records of
short-term value - it is necessary to have some standardized policies
and requirements for protection of the records.  It is far more
efficient to prevent the loss of the records through protection methods,
than to attempt to salvage or recover the records after a disastrous
event.

 

Sincerely,

Virginia A. Jones, CRM


To UNSUBSCRIBE, change options, or subscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-rol.html
(If using Netscape, must have version 6.1 or higher to view the above page)