> VA Records Managers, 
> I have received  a personal invitation to a meeting to discuss HB 1791 in the office of Delegate Cox, at 10:00AM Wednesday. Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend, as my tasks at Virginia Tech preclude travel on such short notice.  I want to make every effort to have someone there to represent the position to defer changes to this Bill until 2006.. If any of you feel as I do on this matter after reading my first message to you, as well as the additional concerns stated herein, I would appreciate hearing from you ASAP. Three additional reasons, which I will address in an e-mail to Delegate Cox follow:
>  My presence, or lack of it, in no way lessens my concerns about HB1791 and I ask that it be withdrawn. Some of the proposed changes constitute potentially significant changes to the Virginia Public Records Act (VPRA) and none are necessary prior to the 2006 session of the General Assembly. Virginia boasts a large number of records management professionals, some internationally recognized. Few, if any of these professionals were consulted about this proposed legislation and I suggest most of them remain unaware of the bill's existence. In addition to concerns I previously stated, I am commenting briefly on 3 other concerns which I, as well as other Records Managers, believe supports our position that  HB 1791 not be considered at this time
>       The proposed definition in §42.1-77 of > "> public record> "> does not reflect the federal definition. Since the definition of> "> public record> ">  is the foundation of the VPRA and records management in Virginia, it should not be redefined without an exhaustive review of other references to records in the Code of Virginia,  a review of  other states, the federal government, national standards, and in the context of the revisions proposed for the VPRA for the 2006 General Assembly. I also have concerns with the proposed definition of > "> original record> ">  which states that the first generation of the information is the > "> superior version> "> . I believe the second generation of a record could be the > "> superior version> ">  as it could be more reliable and trustworthy than the "original." I have concerns about other definitions, but all of these could be addressed in the legislation that I had understood would be proposed for the 2006 General Assembly.  
>       The removal of the first paragraph in §42.1-83 is potentially significant. I spoke to not allowing this change in my e-mail of 1/14/05 to you. The Library has one of the finest microfilm vaults in the country and has stored permanently valuable microfilm for state and local agencies for years. Will removing this paragraph mean the Library will no longer provide storage? 
>       The changes in §42.1-86.1 appear to imply that records can> '> t be destroyed until the Certificate of Records Destruction has been sent to the Library of Virginia. If this is the case, this change in legislation would result in several months delay in destroying records and does not not certify that the records were destroyed. What matters is documenting the destruction, not whether the Library or the agency destroying the records retains that documentation.
>       If you cannot attend the Wednesday meeting, but know someone who can, and who share my concerns, please have them contact me at [log in to unmask] This outcome of this meeting will impact on all of us.
>       Jerry Palmer
>       University Records Manager
>       Virginia Tech
>       540-231-8320
> 
> 

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)