Records Commission

City of Gahanna 200 South Hamilton Road Gahanna, Ohio 43230 Meeting Minutes - Final Tuesday, October 23, 2012 5:00 PM City Hall Records Commission GAHANNA’S VISION is… … to be an innovative model community that values its rich heritage, pursues high standards and promotes respect among its citizens. GAHANNA’S MISSION is… … to ensure an exceptional quality of life by providing comprehensive services, financial stability, and well-planned development which preserves the natural environment, in order that city government will continue to be responsive, accessible and accountable to our diverse and growing community of citizens. Shane Ewald, City Attorney, Chair Isobel L. Sherwood, MMC Rebecca W. Stinchcomb, Mayor Jennifer Teal, Finance Director Laura Dachenbach Sharon Montgomery, Records Administrator All meetings and meeting agendas are subject to last minute changes. Please contact the Clerk’s Office at 614-342-4090 to confirm the date and time of this meeting or to request any special accommodations. Records Commission Meeting Minutes - Final October 23, 2012 A. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Additional Attendees: Brandi Braun; Sharon Montgomery. Absent: Jennifer Teal. Meeting called to order at 5:05p.m. by Ewald. Present: 4 - Isobel L. Sherwood MMC, Laura Dachenbach, Shane W. Ewald and Rebecca W. Stinchcomb B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Sherwood moved to approve the minutes of the July 31, 2012 meeting. Braun seconded and the motion carried. C. ITEMS FOR APPROVAL None. D. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION City of Gahanna Page 1 Records Commission Meeting Minutes - Final October 23, 2012 1. Public Records Policy Revisions Montgomery reminded members we are required to have a written policy for handling records requests and to have a poster about that policy. We have chosen to put our policy in an FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) format, geared toward the requester. Our poster is a very brief summary and refers citizens to an information card in the lobby tract rack. The card, which can be taken home for reference, gives more detail and refers citizens to the full policy and fee schedule which are available on request. In answer to a question, Montgomery said the state law requirements have not changed, but she is recommending revisions to make some items more clear, to update some, and to add contact information for the State Auditor's new hotline and the Attorney General's new Mediation Program, as was the consensus at the July meeting. Poster Montgomery explained that she added contact information for police records. She used Katey Powell's name and direct phone number because they are on the police Web page as the contact for records management. She said she'd been told internal numbers were not for the public so had been referring callers to the dispatchers but didn't like taking dispatchers' time with non-emergency calls. Consensus was that if this information is on the Web page , as long as Lt. Spence approves, Katey's contact information should be given. Members agreed that “assistance” was an appropriate heading for the Auditor and Attorney General contacts and discussed how to make sure the public knew about these options without driving them to these state options every time we have to deny a request. Consensus was that “for further assistance” was a more positive-sounding reason for using the state resources than “if you feel we have not met your needs.” Information card Ewald suggested it be printed by the vendor who prints our pamphlets for the tract rack; consensus was that copying it onto card stock, as in the past, was sufficient. Adding police contact is subject to Lt. Spence's approval, as on the poster. Dachenbach suggested that the third item, “Q: What can I see or get copies of? A: Anything the law does not say is confidential.” would be better as the first item and that “anything” was so broad it could sound evasive to citizens. Consensus was that this answer should be reworded along the lines of “public records are…” Members agreed with Montgomery that “…and time frame.” should be added to the answer for “Q: What do I tell you? A: The subject matter.” For the item, “Q: How fast can I get records?,” members suggested “Within a reasonable period of time based on the extent of your request.” As on the poster, members preferred “For further assistance” to “Q: What if I'm not satisfied with the City's response?” Stinchcomb requested that the full “FAQ” policy be on our Web site and that “or at www.gahanna.gov/[rest of address] be added to “Our complete fee schedule and City of Gahanna Page 2 Records Commission Meeting Minutes - Final October 23, 2012 request policy are available on request” at the bottom of the card. Montgomery recommended and members agreed that the information card on the Attorney General's Web site be printed and copied for our lobby tract rack , also. She also recommended that two slots on the tract rack be dedicated to these two information cards, to assure that they are always available. Stinchcomb said that could be arranged. FAQ policy Members discussed each item with proposed changes, and consensus was as follows: 1) “Q: Who do I ask…?”: Expand answer to give Powell and Montgomery contact information, subject to Lt. Spence's approval on Powell's information. 2) Make Montgomery's change of “delivered to you” to “sent to you.” 3) Add Montgomery's suggested “and time frame” to “we will need to know the subject matter.” 4) Dachenbach was concerned that “Q: Am I allowed to have everything in your files?” was too open-ended. Members suggested “Q: I requested records and some were missing. Why?” 5) Change “A: …If we can't give you something, we will tell you the part of the law that exempts it.” to “…If we can't give you something, we will give you a reason, as required by law.” 6) Change “content” to “subject” in “A: We have retention periods for records based on the content,” based on Mongtomery's report that a requester considered “content” to imply a different meaning. Dachenbach suggested adding an example or two after “subject.” 7) Add Montgomery's suggested “We might suggest you come in and look over the records to decide which you actually need.” to “A:…if you need a large number of records…” 8) Use Montgomery's recommended updates on copy charges. 9) Change “Q: What kinds of non-paper copies can I ask for?” to “Q: How can I get the records?” To the answer for this item, add “or on any medium” after “You can have copies in any format…” Add to this answer, “Delivery options depend on the volume of the records and could be pick up, fax, mail, courier, or e-mail attachments. Charges for courier would be the actual costs. Charges for mail would be the postage and envelope when that total is at least $1.00” 10) Revise answer to “Q: How soon will the records be ready…?” to “A: Our goal is good customer service. The law requires us to make records available for inspection 'promptly' and to prepare copies 'within a reasonable period of time.' We interpret that to mean with no unnecessary delays. Necessary delays could result from such factors as retrieving from offsite storage or reviewing for confidential information. The more specific and narrow your request, the sooner you are likely to get the records” 11) Make Montgomery's change “A:…requests for information are not considered to be 'public records requests…'” to “”A:…the Ohio Supreme Court does not consider requests for information to be 'public records requests…” 12) Add Montgomery's suggested “on a fixed medium” after “A:…the law's definition of a public record, meaning that it…” Make Montgomery's omission from that answer “Because an e-mail inbox is not a storage system, the public record messages are printed and filed with paper records of that subject.” 13) Make Montgomery's omission “Q: Can I ask for a list of e-mail messages you printed then deleted? A: Our computer system does not generate such a list and we don't create one manually.” 14) Make Montgomery's addition of a new Q & A about assistance, based on the wording on the information card. City of Gahanna Page 3 Records Commission Meeting Minutes - Final October 23, 2012 This discussion raised the question of the costs of CDs and DVDs. Montgomery answered that we charge our actual cost for blanks, 25¢ per CD and 30¢ per DVD except for some police records which were approved by the commission based on discussions at those meetings. Montgomery reminded members that by code we have to recalculate our actual costs every three years and revise our fee schedule accordingly and that 2013 would be the year to do that again. 2. Court Surveillance Camera Ewald reported that he has been learning more about the ceiling-mounted video camera that records activity at the court window and the doors to Council chambers, as well as in the court hallway and some of the seating area. He has learned that the images are captured on a server somewhere and are intended to be kept approximately 90 days although they are not yet on a retention schedule. He said the IT Dept. has given access to a police detective. Ewald said the recordings are public records and someone needs to be designated to manage those records, including following the retention schedule. He recommended a 90-day retention then overwriting. Braun volunteered to get a comprehensive look at this matter, including whether the contractor who provided the camera maintains it and how our other cameras are managed. Montgomery was directed to use the information Braun collects to draft one consistent retention schedule for in-building cameras in any City building. Ewald and Stinchcomb questioned why the police building camera is scheduled for one year. Montgomery said shewould provide the meeting minutes for that approval. 3. Social Media Workshop Montgomery reported that she and Public Information Manager Brian Hoyt are registered for this workshop on Oct. 24, presented by the Ohio Electronic Records Committee. She said it should be very comprehensive, covering definitions, ownership and control issues, management, retention, employee and citizen use and access, and security. There will be discussions on two fictional scenarios and guidance on creating a social media plan. E. OFFICIAL REPORTS: 1. From Records Administrator City of Gahanna Page 4 Records Commission Meeting Minutes - Final October 23, 2012 A. Function-Based Rentention Schedules Montgomery reported that she attended the October meeting of the local chapter of ARMA (Association of Records Managers and Administrators), which gave more information on function- or process-based retention schedules. She said there was an article on this in a recent ARMA journal, also. She reminded members she had touched on this subject at a previous commission meeting, explaining that our current schedules are primarily document-based and that one of the drawbacks to this approach is that it is very difficult to integrate electronic records into the schedule because e-records often are not a static “document.” In the interest of time, she gave only a brief summary of this meeting and article and offered to provide copies of her longer, written summary. She cautioned that to get the benefits of this kind of schedule, our schedules would need a complete overhaul. She said just updating them when documents or needs change is time-consuming and that complete revisions, from an entirely new viewpoint would be time- and labor-intensive. B. Legislative Update Montgomery said that because the state legislature's summer recess effectively extends through election day, little has happened since her July report. She gave some additional information on bills that were in previous legislative updates. She said she could ask the sponsor or committee chairman if they expected any action on SB 356 which would allow the State Auditor to collect information-apparently of his choosing-from local governments, apparently whether or not they're already compiling this data. The purpose of this collection would be to allow citizens to compare local governments. At the previous report, the commission had shared Montgomery's concern about the impact of this. Ewald said Gahanna's Sen. Bacon had not returned his call about this. Montgomery reminded members she had reported that SB 224 was enacted and reduces the period of limitations for actions on a written contract from 15 to eight years. She had said in July that this would allow us to reduce the retention period for engineering construction contracts. She said as she looked into revising the engineering schedule for this, she realized she wasn't sure why she had interpreted it originally to apply only to construction contracts so that needs to be clarified. Ewald said he would meet with Montgomery next week on this. Montgomery also cautioned that HB 102 addresses contracts for public projects in an apparent attempt to open up public contracts to non-union shops. As it stands currently, this bill does not appear to affect how we retain prevailing wage records but we know that sometimes the enacted version differs from the introduced version so she and Prevailing Wage Coordinator Jill Webb decided it would be better to wait and see what happens with HB 102 then look at whether the schedule for contracts and the schedule for prevailing wage records need to be coordinated. City of Gahanna Page 5 Records Commission Meeting Minutes - Final October 23, 2012 C. Case Law Update Montgomery reported that two recent court decisions on local cases have possible implications for us. Zidonis v. Columbus State Community College This Ohio Supreme Court case touched on both e-mail management and records request procedures. CSCC initially denied the request for e-mails between two named employees because a) it was too broad because it didn't specify a subject matter or a time frame, and b) they had no program to search e-mail by sender or recipient. There was discussion about specific techniques for searching our archive system and what kinds of results we were getting from those techniques. The court agreed that subject or time frame was a necessary part of the request. CSCC later created a program to search by sender and recipient, even though case law says a public office does not have to create a new search program for a records request. They then searched and provided the messages from that search. CSCC searched in the disaster-recovery system to get deleted e-mails. Evolving case law in e-discovery indicates that the other party in a case is likely to consider e-mail that exists only in the disaster-recovery system not to be "reasonably accessible" and a judge is likely to agree. However, when it is known that the party has already used its disaster-recovery system for more than resuming operations in the event of a system failure of some kind, then that party would very probably have to produce e-mails that exist only there. Stinchcomb said she thought the backup tapes were public record. Montgomery said when we wrote our retention schedule, we distinguished between records stored electronically for the purpose of routine retrieval and records backed up regularly solely for the purpose of being able to restore them if a system problem occurred. She said she'll look at the schedule to be sure she's remembering correctly but she thinks we designated the back ups as non-records. When CSCC considered the request for complaints and litigation files as too broad because no time frame was given, Zidonis's attorney asked if there was a way to look at only a specific time period of those files. CSCC continued to deny and the court agreed, saying that asking the question did not constitute revising the request. Montgomery questioned that in light of the public records law requirement that we assist requesters in revising their request by letting them know how we keep our records. Ewald said we should respond to requests reactively rather than proactively; the requester needs to know what he wants. Versatile Helicopters v. City of Columbus et al. Montgomery said this US District Court case involved the sale of a used Columbus police helicopter to Versatile. Columbus had contracts for both maintaining and servicing their helicopters and for selling used ones. One that Versatile bought had engine failure soon after purchase so Versatile sued the City and both contractors . The claims and counterclaims confused even the court so it's difficult to create a clear summary of the case, but we can look at the possible implications for the City of Gahanna. City of Gahanna Page 6 Records Commission Meeting Minutes - Final October 23, 2012 Those implications could include whether we sell equipment directly or through a broker; what terms we agree to in a broker's contract; how we retain and dispose of a broker's contract; and how we retain, share, and dispose of maintenance documentation and sale documentation. The maintenance records issues include whether those records go with the equipment when sold. Our current retention schedule says they are kept for three years, to cover the two-year statute of limitations for a buyer to sue us and that copies are offered to the buyer. Montgomery said she and Service Dir. Dottie Franey discussed this. Franey agreed these were the issues raised in this case, confirmed that maintenance records are offered, and asked to be informed of the commission's decisions. Montgomery asked if we should revise our schedule to say we will give copies instead of just offering, and if we should also have the buyer sign a receipt acknowledging that he got the maintenance records. Ewald agreed these issues need thought. Stinchcomb suggested some sort of limit on which sales this would apply to, such as over a stated dollar amount, or a description such as "rolling stock" to limit this procedure to major vehicles. There was agreement that if we give the buyer the maintenance records and expect him to sign a receipt, that this be included in the sales contract. F. COMMENTS, ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA None. G. NEXT MEETING Consensus was that a commission meeting to discuss e-records management, focusing on e-mail, should wait until some internal discussions had identified the issues and a decision was made about the IT Director position. Sherwood suggested Montgomery identify the easier and harder issues as preparation for the internal discussions. Montgomery distributed an outline of problems she has already identified with e-records, including e-mail management. To avoid schedule conflicts or schedule overload with early January organizational meetings for other boards and commissions, Jan. 22, 2013, was chosen for the annual Records Commission meeting as required by C.O.G. 157.03. H. ADJOURNMENT 6:25 p.m. by consensus. Reported by Sharon Montgomery, Records Administrator City of Gahanna Page 7 Records Commission Meeting Minutes - Final October 23, 2012 APPROVED by the Records Commission, this day of 2013. Isobel L. Sherwood, MMC Clerk of Council City of Gahanna Page 8