1. Welcome, Introductions
2. Background & History
3. Special Concerns
4. Principles For Records Retention
5. Retention Schedules & Policy Revisions
6. Tasks & Assignments
7. Time Line, Future Meetings
8. Process & Logistics
9. Focus Areas

The Committee has not met since 1993. The Records Disposition Schedules are out of date and not useful to campus offices. In order to accommodate changes in the Schedules and procedures for updating them, the Records Management policies themselves need to be updated.

In response to the loss of cash receipts records at a campus, VP Anne Broome sent a letter to Vice Chancellors-Administration concerning compliance with existing records retention policies. Campus responses are being gathered for presentation at the next Regents meeting. Some of the Records Coordinators had not been asked to work on this by their Vice Chancellors.

Most campuses are unable to assure full compliance with existing policy. There was consensus that for vital records the department of record usually complies with the Schedules but secondary users are less familiar with them and the tendency is to store records too long rather than dispose of them too quickly.

Two suggestions were made to increase campus awareness of records retention policies:

1. outreach to multi-campus functional area committees;
2. participation of functional area committees in revision of the Schedules.

The Committee responded to the Recommendation Highlights in the document on UC Disposition Schedules that was presented to Vice Chancellors-Administration in April 1999, as follows:

1. Endorse the recommendation to group like-documents together under broad record groups.
2. Add operational and vital records criteria to legal requirements for developing a minimum retention requirement for each group.
3. Ask Archivists to recommend minimum requirements for core historical records.
4. Allow campuses to extend minimum retention requirements to meet operational needs, remembering that the Universitywide requirement includes requirements other than legal.
5. Test the use of retention schedule software before selecting this as the method for development of the Schedules.
6. Apply to new items the criteria used in developing the Schedules before applying the 3-year default.

Legal Minimum - Should the University adopt legal retention requirements as the Universitywide minimum, allowing campuses to establish a longer retention period to meet campus needs? The notion of flexibility was generally agreed upon. The objection to the legal minimum approach was that some records are important even though there is no legal requirement that they be retained. Since institutional needs must also be considered, both the Archivists and Universitywide functional committees should be consulted in establishing minimum. However, primary and secondary uses of records create conflicts in determining operational needs.

Campus-Optional Add-Ons - Should there be a minimum retention requirement instead of range? While ranges are sometimes confusing to secondary holders of records, they offer flexibility to meet campus needs and they discourage units from holding records forever. In the last Schedule, compromises between two minimums, legal and operational, resulted in ranges no one could understand. One option is to offer a minimum and require documented reason for keeping records beyond that period.

Default - Should there be a default retention period? A common business standard is that if the retention period is not included on the Schedules the record must be kept forever. The federal government uses a 3-year rule, i.e. if there is no legal requirement for a different retention period the record is kept 3 years. The latter approach is preferable but we need to verify the practice.

Process v. Documents - Should the Schedules itemize documents one by one? The best approach is to deal with processes instead of documents or forms, i.e. all records that are part of a single process have the same retention requirement. However, the Skupsky software identifies general and legal needs but not operational needs and needs of secondary users.

Office of Record - Which is the office of record in light of electronic storage of records? The concepts of "proprietor" and "custodian" of the data found in IS-3, Electronic Information Security, should be considered for its applicability tothe revised records policies. In the proprietor/custodian model, the office of record would have to be determined by the campus instead of Universitywide.

Cost/Value of Processing Item - What is the cost of storing records relative to their value? The "process" model may be too broad: for example, there is a difference between recording of the purchase of a box of pencils and the purchase of expensive machinery. The value of the transactions documented in records is not a good criterion for building the Schedules because it makes no sense in terms of the legal or archival needs and is relative to the wealth of the campus.

Vital Records - How does the concept of vital records relate to establishment of the Schedules? The process of determining vital records is not critical to establishing the Schedules because secondary records are sometimes needed to support primary records. Once legal needs are met, provision must be made for longer retention if necessary.

Long Term Storage - Should the disposition of records be specified? The current Schedules is a disposition schedule; a retention schedule is insufficient because it does not require offices to discard. The cost of retaining records is not just storage space but staff time to search records in response to requests. Moreover, the cost of the backup and migration of data in changing electronic formats is a new issue that must be addressed. The revised policy should address disposition in relation to retention. It must include the concept of discovery, i.e. being at fault for not discarding records and being liable for the availability records. A distinction must be made between disposition and destruction since it is difficult to destroy electronic records.

General Comments - There needs to be an easier mechanism for revising the Schedules in light of changing needs and forms. The Schedules must stand alone, not as part of a BFB, so they can be updated without a high-level review process. Campus policies may be more detailed or restrictive than Universitywide ones, so perhaps the campus Schedules should only be referred to from the BFB

The priorities for review in the near term are:

1. Records Disposition Schedules
2. RMP-1, Records Management Program
3. RMP-2, Records Disposition Program & Procedures
4. RMP-4, Vital Records

Early interaction with UCOP Coordination & Review is recommended. In addition, the Committee must identify policies other than BFBs that apply to records.

Revision of the Schedules should focus on processes rather than documents (forms).

These are three possible approaches to defining processes:

1. The "Functional" schedule method, in which processes emerge from aggregation of record details
2. Revision of the existing UC Schedules
3. An organization chart approach that would aggregate processes by functional area.

The Committee will begin by applying the Functional method to one or more categories of records on the existing Schedules to determine if that approach is successful in the University setting.

Using the Cash Receipts and Receivables section of the Schedules as the test category would complement the Regents current review of record keeping for cash receipts.

1. Update committee listserv Connie Williams
2. Send URL for IS-3 Connie Williams
3. Pilot "Skupsky" approach Connie Williams & Patricia Johnson
4. Draft revision of one policy Martha Winnacker & Barbara Cortese

The next meeting will be held the last week in October.

1. Concept of Office of Record
2. Application of Skupsky software to one category
3. Draft revision of one policy

1. A demonstration of the Skupsky software

Our thanks to ARMA International and the Information Management Journal for allowing use by the Committee of the October 1989 article, "The Functional Records Retention Schedule...an Alternative that Works!" which was distributed at the meeting.