MINUTES

RECORDS MANAGEMENT MEETING ~ APRIL 2, 2001

Introductions/Announcements

It was announced that Dayoan Rivera is retiring effective June 1. A certificate was presented to her in appreciation for her work with this committee. Julianne Bentley will be the interim representative from the Santa Cruz campus.

Retention Schedule

Connie Williams reiterated the plan to move the existing schedule to a "functional" format, utilizing the Oregon State University system's schedule as a guide. She updated the progress thus far of the subgroup consisting of herself and Penny White, Pat Johnson, and Bill Roberts. Bill and Connie have met with University Materiel Manager David Haskins and stepped through the draft of the Purchasing section with him. The next step will be for Dave to show it to campus materiel managers for their feedback. Prospective users of the schedules will also be consulted. The Equipment section is next in line.

The suggestion was raised as to whether it would be best to implement the new schedules by group or use the current schedule and point to new schedules as ready. Discussion involved how to roll out faster without neglecting campus operational reviews.

Discussion followed on the authority to issue the new schedules. It was pointed out that the schedules are attachments to policy, and concluded that the Committee has the authority to make and issue changes to the retention schedules. However, since the Vice Chancellors--Administration approved the concept of streamlining and updating the schedules, it might be prudent to report back to their group (COVC) on the project by sending them a progress report and example section(s) that have been through operational review.

The August 1^st target date for completion of Group 1 (Purchasing, Equipment, Payroll, Accounting & Employees sections) has not yet been ruled out as unrealistic. The timing of Payroll and Accounting, given the approach of fiscal close may prove to be a problem, however.

Electronic Records Problem Statement

Robert Zornado gave a presentation from the Problem Statement sub-group. He presented a draft statement along with recommendation for the formation of a task force made up of archivists, IT staff and records managers that would develop a UC model for approaching management of electronic records. The Committee decided that the task force idea went beyond the charge of the Problem Statement sub-group as well as the scope of the Records Management Committee. Feedback on the problem statement included suggestions for an appropriate sponsor for such a task force - campus (VC-level) sponsorship, and Archivist leadership - and a suggestion to quantify the problem by adding more hard data to the document.

Introduction of Associate VP/CIO Campbell

Associate Vice President Bill Campbell was introduced to the Committee. He stated his support of the group as well as fostering support of issues we would like introduced to Vice Chancellors and UCOP Administration.

Report on Electronic Communication Policy

Barbara Cortese gave a report on the Electronic Communication Policy. This policy extends the principles of electronic mail policy to other forms of electronic communications. Of particular interest to the Records Management Committee are the sections on ownership and security. The next step will be implementation of the policy, which is being coordinated by two groups: ECP Coordinators are responsible for UCOP and campus guidelines; and the UCITPS members (UC Information Technology Policy & Systems) provide guidelines for systems personnel.

Barbara will send a list of ECP and UCITPS coordinators to the listserv so each records coordinator is aware of his or her local systems and policy coordinators.

Order of Bulletin Revisions & other Work of the Committee

The current approach of moving sequentially through the RMP series, revising each Bulletin and maintaining the current organization, was discussed. Records Coordinators did not cite any one of the "current" but outdated Bulletins for which campus users are clamoring for revision. On the other hand, the Retention Schedules are widely known to be outdated and revisions to the Schedules are keenly anticipated.

RMP-8, which in large part consists of restatement of the Information Practices and California Public Records Acts, is perhaps the most out-of-date. The possibility of jumping ahead to RMP-7 and RMP-8 was discussed. To speed up the work on them, it was suggested that the sections that are strictly restatement of the law could be separated from the University policy aspects

It was pointed out that for all but three campuses, the Records Coordinator has some Information Practices responsibilities. The question was posed whether Records Coordinators on those three campuses could act as liaison to their campus Information Practices organizations, on privacy/access-to-information matters discussed in this Committee. It should be remembered that DANR and the DOE Labs do not participate in the Records Committee, but have separate Information Practices functions and would also need to be included in some fashion. .

Mike O'Neill stated it would be acceptable to change the names of individual bulletins, but that changing the name of the series would be much more problematic due to all the existing links and references that would need to be changed.

Discussion about medical centers' records ensued. Some believed medical records to be outside this Committee's purview. Although the RMP's do not apply to medical records, patient records are included in Section IV Medical of the current Schedules. Connie Williams will attempt to clear up some of the jurisdictional issues surrounding the medical centers and the DOE Labs through contacts in the Clinical Services and Laboratory Administration areas at UCOP.

Review of Drafts of RMP-4

This draft updated wording of vital record definitions. Two key components of a vital record include it being 1) not replaceable and 2) essential to function. NARA does not have replaceability as a factor in its definition. The question of what should be in RMP-4 included the definition of essential/vital (noting IS3 handling of electronic records); how to handle if a paper record; and guidance for local, not central systems. Comments on the definitions should be sent to Meta by email for incorporation.

The question of whether to merge RMP-4 with RMP-6 (microfilm) or keep it separate was discussed. If the preserve and storage issues were removed, then they could be merged.

Housekeeping

The next meeting will be scheduled for the week of July 9 or 15. Hopefully another meeting can be squeezed in this calendar year, in late October.

Issues Deferred Until Next Meeting

Definitions