A previous post this week contained an open letter from Todd McGreevy, editor of The River Cities Reader, which explained concerns and urged tabling of a proposed change to the e-mail retention policy regulating Scott County personnel. This is the text of his update at River Cities Reader.
UPDATE: Dec 19, 2013, the Scott County Board voted unanimously* to add the following language to the IT policy for county staff: “C. Record Retention The IT Department will maintain a copy of all emails sent or received for a period of three (3) years from the date in which they are sent or received, Records may be retained for a longer time period if it is subject to a litigation hold.”
Below is the audio file of the board meeting, where this issue was discussed. Speaking (in order of appearance) are Todd McGreevy, Larry Minard (Board Chair), and Dee Bruemmer (County Administrator).
Audio File: http://www.rcreader.com/commentary/email-destruction-needs-discussion/
We have listened to the audio and reviewed the official, albeit unapproved minutes of the meeting (see below and audio link above).
McGreevy in his address to the Supervisors calmly stated that he was simply asking the County Board to table the motion for more study as to its implications and time to address any developing concerns. In what developed into a back and forth between the two, Supervisor Minard sought to justify the trashing of e-mails as part of the need to organize the Scott County data retention procedures. The matter was further addressed by County Administrator Dee Bruemmer who explained to some extent current procedures which already trash e-mails regularly after review. Items management thought necessary are retained perhaps indefinitely or even in perpetuity.
Board member Minard read from a text of recommendations probably from (he was not sure) a league of counties manual, something that it is important to understand is by no means law. We would suggest as well that such institutions and documents are written in service to bureaucracies, not necessarily to facilitate citizens legitimate demands for transparency in government.
The raising of the issue by Minard of “liability” concerns we find a bit convoluted for a Board concerned about transparent government. Liability for who or what? One facet of the gem of reducing liability unexplained is “cover-up” (with reference to transparent government best practices, not as an accusation). As regards privacy matters regarding personnel records, (if that is what Minard was thinking) those are already protected by legal doctrine.
The portion Minard read set forth a number of points about organization of e-mails and procedures. Without seeing them in writing, or possessed of time to think about or walk through the implications, they sounded reasonable. But they had little to do with what was at issue from the citizen input offered by McGreevy.
McGreevy pointed out that the policy reference was not part of the motion and asked (words to the effect) if that was what was being voted on and if the motion would achieve that. Minard (listen yourself) seemed to respond that yes it would do all those things. The matter proceeded to a vote. The minutes are set forth below. You will note that the relevant motion is plain (see bold typeface). It only provides for the destruction of e-mails after three years. No qualification or explanation is part of the motion.
From minutes of December 19, 2013 Scott County Supervisors meeting.
Moved by Hancock, seconded by Cusack a motion to amend the following resolution approving various Human Resources and General Policies to include General Policy 38 . All Ayes.
Moved by Hancock , seconded by Earnhardt that the following resolution, as amended, be approved. All Ayes.
BE IT RESOLVED:
1) That Human Resources Policy H “Personnel Records” updates the policy by adding language to reflect the current practices, permit electronic storage and clarifies record retention. 2) That Human Resources Policy Y “Family Medical Leave” updates the policy by adding language to comply with the EEOC policy requirements as it related to individuals with disabilities. 3) That General Policy 34 “Technology Use” updates the policy to address email retention. It sets a record retention period of 3 years for the retention of email records. 4) That General Policy 38 “Privacy Notice” updates the policy to permit electronic delivery of records if requested and address the requirement to provide notice if there was a breach of the records. 5) This resolution shall take effect
January 2, 2014
It is important to understand that the continued organization of e-mails was not affected by McGreevy’s simple proposal, or any concerns raised about transparency and access. The bristling of voting members, in tone and body language, in opposition to citizen input as regards anything they have already made up their minds to do, is often palpable, at county and municipal levels. The same effect seemed to come through in the audio recording. Too bad if one or more of that small cohesive band felt umbrage over entirely appropriate citizen concerns.
Minard’s and Bruemmer’s responses seemed intended to retard the discussion of why electronically trashing of even presumably trash e-mails was necessary at three years. Simply put, there is no legitimate liability or cost concern that we can imagine instigating such a procedure. Any up-to date e-mail or other document software provides for organization, prioritization and archiving. Terabytes of electronic storage are available for a pittance. It isn’t even about organizing the alleged trash which can be sent to such a nominal cost holding place with no more key strokes than it takes to destroy them. They remain searchable even without any effort at file organization.
The rush to trash we find disconcerting. Who knows that what happened three years ago isn’t potentially important but inadvertently put in the “trash? Small things could be relevant to creating testimony, acquiring information on patterns of past practice or information, challenging, condemning, exonerating or facilitating financial or human resources performance and other matters for study. Three years is just not that long ago. We recommend FOIA procedures to insure availability for longer than three years.
Keep informed of other developments regarding this matter by referring to this link to River Cities Reader.
R Mall
* There are four Republicans and one Democrat (Hancock) on the Scott County Supervisor Board.
Ed. Note: This article has been revised from the original for purposes of clarity.
