Message

1. The definition of a public record - The intent here is to simplify the definition of a public records while still retaining the original intent. The primary change is to remove the laundry list of possible mediums the record could be recorded upon. By making clear that the determination of a record is independent of the medium the record is recorded upon we remove the need to modify the VPRA in the future should there be an unanticipated technological change. The change also places the definition closer to the definition in the ISO Standard 15489-1 Information and Documentation - Records Management Standard. The definition in the standard states that a record is "information created, received and maintained as evidence and information by an organization or person, in pursuance of legal obligations or in the transaction of business".

2. The removal of the first paragraph in section 42.1-83 will put the security microfilm storage vault in jeopardy. The first paragraph deals with the obligation of the Library of Virginia to have a microfilm program for counties, cities and towns. This program was a victim of the budget cuts several years ago and unless the Library is the beneficiary of a substantial budget increase one we are unable to resurrect in the future. The last sentence of the next paragraph states that "Microfilm shall be stored in the Library of Virginia...". Further in section 42.1-86 states in the second to last section that "Security copies shall be preserved in the place and manner prescribed by the State Library Board..." The deletion of the first paragraph in no way diminishes the place of the Microfilm Security Vault nor does it diminish the commitment of the Library of Virginia to the preservation of security copies of permanent microfilm. In fact we are looking at ways in which we can extend the security vault concept to permanent electronic records.

3. The change in section 42.1-86-1 appears to imply that the records can’t be destroyed until the Certificate of Records Destruction has been sent to the Library of Virginia. This section was rewritten to reflect the process that any public record must follow for legal disposition. Prior to this the process was not spelled out in the Act. There is no intent in this legislation to suggest that the Certificate of Records Destruction must have prior approval before destruction can take place. It does clarify and codify that the designated records officer must approve of said destruction. I would be happy to rewrite of part (ii) of 42.1-86.1 to clarify that the completed, signed, original form merely has to be filed with the Library of Virginia upon destruction of the records.

4. 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. In no way is this meant to imply that there is only one determinant, archival value, for the retention periods set for general or specific schedules. The Library of Virginia is responsible for the development and implementation of records retention and disposition schedules. These schedules have been and will continue to be developed and approved along records management principles. The administrative, fiscal and legal values are always considered in the development of a records retention and disposition schedule. The Library of Virginia has no objection if the terms administrative, legal and fiscal are retained in 42.1-82 (3). We always have and always will follow those basic principles in the development of records retention and disposition schedules.

The Library of Virginia has worked very hard to make sure that there is significant input from the records users in the general records retention schedules that we develop. We invite public comment and encourage focus groups to advise us on users concerns. The Public School Records Consortium is one such group and we encourage the formation of others. I encourage all of you to participate in or lead such a group.

I hope this answers the major questions that have been presented. Certainly the work of updating the Virginia Public Records Act and the impact of electronic records upon it will go on. I invite those who are interested in joining a to be formed working group to develop these changes to let me know that you would be willing to do so.

Bob,
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you yesterday. I have two employees, both out with the flu, so needless to say, the one-man band was hustling yesterday in the VT Records Office.

I am assuming from Mark's e-mail, that you were attempting to notify me of the meeting today. I really appreciate that. Unfortunately, I can't make it, but I have heard from nearly a dozen RMs around the state on this matter, so I am sure someone will get over there to discuss the HB 1791.

I really hope you encourage it's withdrawal at this time for two reasons: first, it needs refined before it is subject to legislative action and I know once enacted, it would be even harder to change, and second, as you so aptly pointed out the, " real work will be in the second year of our study, when the focus groups will help us flesh out the changes to the VPRA.", I see no reason to NOT wait until then to use the expertise amongst state records professionals to produce a meaningful, adequately revised VPRA.

Looking forward to hearing the results of today's meeting from you and hopefully an opportunity, along with other state RMs, to make formal input to changes which are definitely needed in the VRPA.

Jerry Palmer
University Records Manager
Virginia Tech (0522)
600 Country Club Blvd.
Blacksburg, VA 24061
(540) 231-8320 ; Fax 1-6991
Common sense is instinct, and enough of it is genius.