1. Information Items - Connie Williams

1. Student Records Policy
2. Y2K Compliance Records
3. Employee Discipline Records
4. Web Site for Records Management Committee

2. Records Management Policies - Martha Winnacker

1. RMP-1
2. RMP-2

3. Records Disposition Schedules

1. Top & Secondary Level Categories - Connie Williams
2. Sample Category Descriptors - Penny White

4. Records Management Committee Tasks - Martha Winnacker

1. Time Frames for Disposition Schedules
2. Sequence for RMP Series Review

5. Parking Lot Issues - Martha Winnacker

6. Next Meeting - Martha Winnacker

Student Records Policy

Student Academic Services is conducting a revision of the University of California Policies Applying to Campus Activities, Organizations, and Students, which contains a section on student records. During the 1994 review of the Policies there was debate over the definition of "student." There are many stakeholders in the review process: in addition to registrars, financial aid, and student housing managers, information practices and records management have an interest in the Policies. Revision of RMP series bulletins should adopt the same definition of "student" and "student record" that will be used in the Policies.

Y2K Compliance Records

Questions have been raised concerning how long to keep Y2K remediation records. They are not identified in the current Records Disposition Schedules and campuses need guidance on how long to retain them. The Archivists also are interested in Y2K compliance records.

Research indicates that: the Department of Education does not have guidelines for Y2K records retention; the normal retention period for possible breach of contract records is 4 years; the University of Texas has established a 10-year retention period to cover the possibility of future litigation.

The Committee noted that some records actually date back to the earliest Y2K remediation efforts at UC in 1996. Aa fixed end date for retention of all Y2K records is recommended, regardless of the actual date of the record, in order to be able to document due diligence. The Committee will seek the advice of General Counsel and draft a proposal for review by units such as Risk Management, and Information Resources, and the Archivists. It is envisioned that, rather than a new "schedule," the retention recommendation take the form of a follow-on to Associate Vice President Kennedy's 3/24/99 letter on Year 2000 remediation.

Employee Discipline Records

Pending legislation calls for the removal from personnel files of disciplinary items that have not been acted on after two years. The bill has certain complications concerning official vs. unofficial records and, for UC, conflict with policies and labor contracts and differences in the treatment of faculty and staff records. The committee noted that such circumstances demonstrate the need to document the basis for retention when creating Records Disposition Schedules.

Web Site for Records Management Committee

The Committee adopted a proposal to have a Records Management Committee web site for:

• Operational needs,
• Draft policy documents,
• Draft records disposition schedules.

The web site should be limited to members of the Committee by being unlinked and non-indexed. Draft policies will have pointers to policies currently in effect as a caution in case persons other than the Committee members stumble upon them.

It was also suggested the web site could be used for training purposes.

RMP-1

The Committee reviewed the February 28^th draft of RMP-1. Comments will be incorporated into the next draft of the document and distributed to members electronically (either by email or through our web site).

RMP-2

Discussion of the new draft of RMP-2 was deferred to the next meeting.

Top Level Categories

The current Records Disposition Schedules have about sixty top level records categories; the goal is to reduce it to about 20 categories by focusing on administrative functions. A draft list of sixteen categories was distributed for comment by the Committee members. In addition to reviewing names used for the categories, other categories may be added.

Descriptions need to be written for the top level records categories, but modified versions of the Oregon descriptions will be able to be used for the secondary level categories

Secondary Level Categories

A multi-stepped process with be required to construct new UC Records Disposition Schedules on the Oregon model:

• Have UC functional area managers map UC items into Oregon categories instead of changing the Oregon categories to match current UC categories.
• Use the Oregon categories to identify records categories that may be missing from current UC schedule.
• Delete obsolete UC items.

The process must be flexible enough to alter the Oregon system to meet UC needs but not so loose that UC categories proliferate and replace the Oregon functional structure.

The working method for the Schedules Subcommittee will be:

• Parallel mapping and draft descriptions for three categories on the list,
• Review of those three categories by functional area managers,
• Bring completed categories back to the Committee for review,

If the process works, submit subsequent categories through the same steps.

Other Items

Some criteria for the Records Disposition Schedules have been established:

• The format of the Records Disposition Schedules must allow for online searches;
• The search method will include a glossary as well as drill-down menus.

Time Frames for Schedules

It will probably take at least two years to complete revision of the Records Disposition Schedules. The only way to speed up the process is to omit operational managers' review, but that is not advisable because of the value of their input.

Sequence for RMP Series Review

The following are preliminary comments on Meta Clow's chart grouping the RMP bulletins:

• RMP-3,4,5, and 6 are most suitable to be reviewed early.
• RMP-7,8,9,10, and 12 should probably be reviewed last.
• RMP-11 should not be reviewed until revision of the University of California Policies Applying to Campus Activities, Organizations, and Students has been completed.

Revisions of RMP-8 and 9 were drafted two years ago but review and approval was not completed.

Discussion of the grouping and sequence of RMP series bulletin review was deferred to the next meeting of the Committee.

Electronic Records Management Workshop

The Committee was informed about a proposal from Professor Anne Gilliland-Swetland to give a two-day workshop on Electronic Records Management on the UCLA campus for members of the Committee and other records staff. The Committee endorsed the proposal and suggested room for 100 people be requested.

• Send editorial comments on RMP-2 to Barbara Cortese.
• Send comments on issues in RMP-2 to the listserv.
• Send comments on list of primary categories for Schedules to listserv.
• Send comments on grouping and sequence of RMP series revisions to listserv.

• Prepare next drafts of RMP-1 and RMP-2.

• Start developing category descriptions.

• Schedule Electronic Records Management Workshop for July.

The meeting will be scheduled for the end of May, 2000.

• Review draft of RMP-2
• Group and sequence of RMP series for review