|
Discussion re: developing recommendations of the document retention policy of the Board of Supervisors.
Public Comment: Mr. Crossman said he was very concerned about certain sections of the COB's records and retention policy. He said a lawsuit was being filed in North Carolina that deals with similar issues especially the destruction and deletion of emails. He offered members a copy of a "modern" record retention policy and was told to forward it to the Administrator.
Member Pilpel wanted to know the volume of documents the administrators had accumulated over the years. Mr. Rustom said a small storage next to Frank Darby's office was full and several boxes were stacked outside his office. On SOTF records retention, Mr. Rustom said he lacked the experience but the Clerk's office procedure was to review the documents and return it to storage in boxes marked "for destruction" and the person responsible was Mr. Darby as Records and Information Manager.
Member Pilpel said his concern was the retention of Task Force records and did not agree with suggestions that all records be retained forever.
Chair Knee wanted clarification as to why certain numbers were added to entries in the third column from the left on page 20 of the packet. Mr. Rustom said the reason for these numbers was in the last column.
Member Craven said the document had a significant omission because it does not distinguish between electronic and paper records. A modern policy on retention is necessary, she said.
Chair Knee volunteered to contact several major organizations for revelant source material.
Member Craven added that the committee needs to review the State code and the SF Admin Code and build on it. These documents, she suggested, be part of the packet for proper discussion.
DCA Llorente said the main focus should be on electronic records as many departments print emails for retention and erase the electronic record, which contains unseen data.
Member Pilpel said topics to be discussed should include
- Reviewing national models and best practices
- Records retention periods that exceed the minimum required
- Electronic records and issues associated with it.
- Emails associated with pending legislative files
Member Craven suggested DCA Llorente to find and add to the packet sections of the retention policy at the city and state levels and the policies mentioned in the Good Government Guide.
Public Comment: Mr Crossman said his research showed general retention periods for cities was two years unless the Board of Supervisors wanted to change it. San Jose was working toward retaining electronic documents for 10 years for a department head and five years for a lower level employee. The State of Missouri adopted seven years for all government employees based on IRS requirements
Member Craven wanted Mr Crossman's research placed in the packet.
Member Pilpel wanted to know the origins of Chapter 5: Electronic Mail Policy and if this section was in the Employee Handbook or was it specifically for the Board of Supervisors.
Member Craven wanted to know what was in Chapter 4 and if there was a Chapter 6. She requested the Clerk to always include the title page and table of content in the future.
Member Pilpel then asked DAC Llorente if there was a connection between Index of Records and Retention of Records.
Public Comment: Mr. Crossman said the Index of Records and Retention of Records are linked because the index includes periods of retention
Member Pilpel said the Committee should look at the District Attorney's record keeping policies.
Continued to August 6, 2008, meeting.
Without objection.
|