Records Commission

City of Gahanna 200 South Hamilton Road Gahanna, Ohio 43230 Meeting Minutes - Final Wednesday, July 29, 2009 City Hall Records Commission Records Commission Meeting Minutes - Final July 29, 2009 A. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 8:55a.m. by Sherwood. The agenda distributed July 23, 2009. PRESENT: Brandi Braun, Assistant City Administrator (only until Mayor arrived) Rebecca W. Stinchcomb, Mayor Isobel L. Sherwood, Clerk of Council W. Jerome Isler, Finance Director Laura Dachenbach, Citizen Member Sharon Montgomery, Records Administrator Grant Reveal, Information Technology Director Visitors: Ken Fultz, Chief Building Official B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Isler moved to approve the minutes of the May 7, 2009 meeting. Sherwood seconded and the motion carried. C. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1. E-Mail Management Reveal reported that the $45,000 proposed for the 2010 budget for the system originally planned had to be taken out of the budget but the project is still under discussion. An in-house project is being planned as a temporary measure. It will be less reliable and accurate than the original plan but will be better than what we are doing now, which is inadequate. 2. Data Mapping Reveal said there is nothing new to report. He reminded members that he predicted this would be a two-year process. There will be costs for documenting the process and for consultant fees. It will be very labor-intensive so he suggests we hire a consultant who would meet with department directors. He said he is continuing to gather information. The mapping will show us where our data resides and will then let us reduce storage of duplicate e-records. City of Gahanna Page 1 Records Commission Meeting Minutes - Final July 29, 2009 3. Social Media Reveal reported that he and Public Information Manager Brian Hoyt met recently with Braun, Sherwood, and Montgomery about the City’s official stance on the use of Twitter and Facebook. He and Hoyt and Braun are working closely together on this. Using these new social media for communication is crucial for public perception. It was confirmed at the meeting that no unique public records will be involved. Messages will simply make the public aware of information about events. This information will exist other places. A written policy is being worked on then will be distributed by Human Resources so employees will understand who can and cannot use these media. Currently, only Braun and Hoyt can access the City’s Twitter and Facebook sites to put information on them. Parks and Recreation might be added in the future. 4. Data Security Neither Reveal nor Montgomery had anythign new on this item to monitor. City of Gahanna Page 2 Records Commission Meeting Minutes - Final July 29, 2009 D. AUTHORIZATIONS PARKS & RECREATION: Pool membership cards - PROPOSED Application for One-Time Disposal for 2003 - 2008 cards. Montgomery showed samples and explained these are cards that members never picked up. They have the name and a bar code. Recreation Supervisor Mike Musser said the bar code would reveal no data to anyone who has no access to the City’s server, even if someone also had RecTrac software. Montgomery said the City no longer issues these cards; they use an electronic scan of thumb prints. So, the two issues with these cards is getting permission for disposal and then whether that disposal will be by shredding. Consensus was that the cards should be shredded to be safest. Dachenbach moved to approve the One-Time Application. Isler seconded and the motion carried. RECORDS REQUEST POSTER: Montgomery reported that our HB 9-required poster says public records “are available for inspection or copying 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays (excluding legal holidays).” She said a recent late-afternoon request for police records revealed that police records staff only work until 3 p.m. Montgomery said she asked the three people who are involved with police records management whether they preferred to make records available until 5 p.m. or change the poster. They chose to change the poster to “8 a.m. to 3 p.m.” for police records, and then changed the poster by the dispatcher window in their building. Montgomery said her HB 9 training instructed us to adopt any revisions to our adopted policy on records requests. She said the poster summarizes our policy so we should adopt any revisions to it. There was discussion about the fact that records could be prepared 8-5 or 8-3 but then picked up after 3:00 or 5:00 and whether the “available for inspection or copying” was the best wording. Consensus was that “available for inspection or copying” refers to City staff finding and preparing the records for a request and that is only done from 8 to 3 or 8 to 5. We can continue to provide good public service by accommodating people who can’t come pick up the prepared records until after 3 or after 5 but that the preparation was still limited to the hours on the poster and the poster communicates that clearly enough. City of Gahanna Page 3 Records Commission Meeting Minutes - Final July 29, 2009 Stinchcomb moved to adopt the two recommended revisions to the poster dated 9/07. “Police records 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.” will be added underneath “Are available for inspection or copying 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays (excluding legal holidays).” And “revised 7/09” will be added right above “9/07.” City of Gahanna Page 4 Records Commission Meeting Minutes - Final July 29, 2009 E. FENCE PERMTIS Montgomery explained that during the most recent authorized disposal, she noticed some permits have conditional approvals. Some are conditioned on “minor” fence code issues such as maintaining the grass between a fence and property line. Others are conditioned on the property owner understanding that the fence is in an easement or drainage area and could possibly have to be removed at the owner’s expense. Zoning and Engineering approve the permit applications so she talked to those offices and consensus was that the ones with easement and drainage issues should be kept longer than the currently-approved five-year retention period for all fence permits. Montgomery said, based on that, she noted the conditions on the log sheets then disposed of all but the ones with easement or drainage issues. She refilled those alphabetically by address and started to draft a revision to the retention schedule. Further discussion with Zoning and Engineering about the draft raised more questions so she decided this needed more thorough discussion among Records Commission members and among Records, Zoning, and Engineering. Members discussed just keeping all fence permits for some long period of time because fences can become an emotional issue that can lead to disputes among neighbor. Resolving the disputes sometimes requires looking at permits. Montgomery said she was also concerned about all property owners knowing the conditions on which the fence was approved. Sometimes the permit application is submitted by a fence erecting contractor. The application requires a signature that the applicant is aware of the impact of the listed fence code provisions but that signature isn’t always the property owner’s. Also, it is apparently permissible to replace a worn out fence with one of the same kind and size in the same place without a permit. And, the owner who had the permitted fence erected might not be the owner at the time the fence needs to be replaced. Consensus was that at least the retention of permits, if not also the permitting process, needs more thought. City of Gahanna Page 5 Records Commission Meeting Minutes - Final July 29, 2009 F. NON-RECORDS IN PERSONNEL FILES Montgomery reminded members that we had discussed this at the May 7 meeting. The discussion included home addresses of city employees, filing some personnel records separately from the main file referred to as the “personnel file” as case law permits, and HR consulting Montgomery when they get records requests. Montgomery said she followed up with Robin Rupp-Mondak in Human Resources. Rupp-Mondak said they currently segregate worker’s comp., Family & Medical Leave Act, and medical records. After that conversation, another HR employee pointed out that federal I-9 forms are also filed separately. Montgomery said she and Rupp-Mondak are meeting this afternoon to work on HR records and they will review the list of segregated records to be sure we haven’t overlooked any others. Montgomery reminded members that the certified Attorney General records training advises local governments to set their own policy about disclosing employee home addresses, based on the Ohio Supreme Court decision that said the state agency in that case could withhold addresses. Our HR Dept. agrees with the Records Commission that home addresses should not be released for public records requests. Montgomery gave her opinion that the intent of sunshine laws is to give citizens access to their government and allow them to participate but that we are not restricting those rights in any way by not providing home addresses, because employees can be reached at City Hall and via e-mail. Members agreed with are not restricting access to employees if we withhold home addresses. Stinchcomb pointed out that election laws govern elected officials and those officials’ home addresses are public under that law. Agreeing with arguments made elsewhere that addresses would fit the ORC definition of a public record if we had a residency rule (which the Ohio Supreme Court has just ruled to be illegal), members discussed the fact that our appointed boards and commission members have to be Gahanna residents. Consensus was that those members are not actually city employees and can easily be reached via City Hall, that their addresses can and should also be withheld. Members agreed that the City of Gahanna’s policy will be to redact or withhold from records provided for a public records request the home addresses of appointed employees and of citizens appointed to serve on boards and commissions. Home addresses of elected officials will City of Gahanna Page 6 Records Commission Meeting Minutes - Final July 29, 2009 be disclosed on request. Montgomery said she and Rupp-Mondak decided that because the HR staff is well-enough versed on public records law, and tracks requests in essentially the same way Montgomery does, it would be inefficient and is not necessary for that department to involve Montgomery in every records request. HR staff will make some sort of notation to track requests that won’t leave a “trail” in the file itself. G. EMPLOYEE CALENDARS Montgomery said as offices schedule records days and identify records for disposal, the question arises about calendars and appointment books. She said there is no statute law, very little case law, and little guidance on the public records status of these kinds of records. Montgomery said the ones she is seeing are wall and desk calendars, and appointment date books. She said entries can be any or all of reminders, “to-do” lists, meetings, and events. She said they can reflect either what is planned, or what actually happened. Montgomery said factors to consider in determining their public status would be if it documents what actually happened or just what was scheduled to happen, and whether the information exists elsewhere. Members discussed various aspects of the use of calendars and the significance of entries on them. Discussion included the fact that informal, personal notes or formal minutes with an attendance list are made for meetings. It was also pointed out that some meetings are only for discussion or sharing information; no decisions are made. And, calendars may not be complete; sometimes tasks are done or meetings are attended without having been noted on a calendar. There was discussion about calendars as evidence that a city official or employee was using work time for non-City business, as was the case with at least one state official recently. Consensus was that there are few enough City employees that a situation like that would be detected before it escalated to the point of needing evidence later, in addition to the fact that calendars are not always a complete and accurate record of how an employee uses his work time. Consensus was that a calendar is a plan, not a record, and that the Records Commission does not need to make a formal policy to that effect; capturing this discussion and decision in these minutes is sufficient. City of Gahanna Page 7 Records Commission Meeting Minutes - Final July 29, 2009 H. RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PLANS Montgomery reminded members that she had provided additional information in May that she thought should be considered before the final decision about the propriety of offering construction drawings of new single-family residences to the current home owners at the end of the approved three-year retention period. At that time, members were still confident it was permissible but agreed that it was prudent to consider all factors. It was suggested that Chief Building Official Ken Fultz talk to the Building Industry Association about this. Fultz reported to Montgomery that the BIA did not have a problem with our plan to do this. Montgomery said we are now ready to move forward with this and that the procedures and letter of notification to owners were written. She reminded members that a building division employee had noticed our retention period didn’t specifically state our intention to dispose of any drawings not picked up by owners but the Records Commission wasn’t ready to revise the schedule until we were ready to proceed with this plan. Montgomery distributed a retention schedule revision for approval as - City of Gahanna Page 8 Records Commission Meeting Minutes - Final July 29, 2009 1. Residential Construction Documents PROPOSED: Amend retention period approved 4-21-08 to read “Retain three full calendar years after year approved. Provide drawings for new single-family dwellings to current owner. Dispose of unclaimed drawings per time frame stated in notice to owner.” Stinchcomb moved to approve the amendment. Isler seconded and the motion carried. Fultz reported that the notice letter will be sent to the current owner (as listed on the county auditor’s Web site) for the plans we have stored, and state a three-month time period in which to pick up the drawings, with an additional three-month grace period before disposal for residents who may be out of Gahanna for an extended time period during the pick-up time frame. Montgomery said giving the drawings to the owners is one method of disposal so we have to submit a certificate of disposal. She offered three ways to complete that disposal form. She said we could file it based on the April, 2008, approval because today’s amendment merely clarifies intent but does not change the time period approved in 2008. Or, we could file it based on the amended schedule. If we file based on the amended schedule, we could state that disposal would not be done until the amended schedule was returned with state approvals, or we could go ahead a dispose in the time frame required for that form, because our amendment has not changed the approved time period. Consensus was to be on the safe side, we should file the certificate of disposal listing the amendment approval date and stating that drawings would not be given to owners until we received state approval for the amendment. City of Gahanna Page 9 Records Commission Meeting Minutes - Final July 29, 2009 I. COURT DECISIONS Montgomery said there are always decisions on e-discovery. She said about one-third of these now involve sanctions on one of the parties for not handling the e-discovery process correctly. She said the courts are losing patience with improper e-records management and discovery. She reminded members that a June Ohio Supreme Court ruling said that a 2006 state law overrides home rule powers and cities cannot have residency requirements for employees. She reported there is a very confusing combination of cases in which the Ohio Concrete Construction Assoc. is suing ODOT. The Association claims ODOT would not release bids after they were opened and became public records, and will now not release the settlement agreement in that case before it is filed with the court even though there is some case law saying agreements not yet finalized are subject to disclosure. City of Gahanna Page 10 Records Commission Meeting Minutes - Final July 29, 2009 J. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Montgomery said she has examined the long budget bill for provisions affecting sunshine laws. Gahanna’s Ohio House Representative Nancy Garland said her aide could ask the Legislative Services Commission to do a search for those kinds of provisions. Garland’s aide, Jennifer Dillard, has made that request and reports that it will probably take about four weeks. Montgomery reported she found provisions about deferred comp. program records, (which she has given to HR), adding BCII investigators to the existing exemptions for peace officers, and allowing an increase in police accident report copy charges. Stinchcomb asked Montgomery if she had given the copy charges provision to our police department. Montgomery said she had not yet; she was waiting to find out if she should do so now, or wait until our regular review of copy charges which will be done again next year. Stinchcomb said in light of the City’s financial constraints , she felt strongly that this matter should not wait. If we are allowed to recoup more of our expenses, we should do so as soon as possible. Montgomery said the enacted version also amended ORC 7.12 about legal notices but the Governor vetoed that provision. Montgomery said there had been a stand-alone bill, HB 220, about legal notices, incorporating several recommendations of the Public Notice Task Force . To find out if that bill will proceed, in light of the budget bill provision, she has talked to the bill sponsor, who is also chair of the committee the bill was assigned to. Rep. Chandler said she is proceeding, to address concerns that some local governments are focused more on the cost of notices than the responsibility to keep the public informed. The bill is intended to make sufficient notice in the most cost -effective manner. She is very interested in feedback on the bill. Montgomery reported that the bills to allow employee labor costs for large records requests, and to require General Assembly committee minutes to include more information have not had any action since her last update. Bills to have a separate vehicle registration to be kept in the vehicle that omits the owner’s address , and to allow public employees and citizens to remain anonymous when reporting suspected fraud or misuse of funds have passed one chamber and been assigned to committees in the other chamber. She said a bill from the previous session was re-introduced to prohibit broadcasting a 9-1-1 tape that was received by means of a public records request. Montgomery said she notified our police department when that was introduced previously and our department did not express an opinion. K. COMMENTS, ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. L. NEXT MEETING Subject to Dachenbach's work schedule, the next meeting is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, October 28, at 8:45a.m. City of Gahanna Page 11 Records Commission Meeting Minutes - Final July 29, 2009 M. ADJOURNMENT Adjournment at 10:10a.m. by consensus. Reported by Sharon Montgomery, Records Adminsitrator City of Gahanna Page 12