Records Quarterly
|
 |
Contents
- Backups: Use and Misuse
- Electronic Records Policies and Procedures
- Appraising Records: Assessing the Administrative Value of Information
- Program News
- Training Opportunities
- Records in the News
- Leg & Reg
- University Archives News
- About Records Quarterly
- UC Records Management
Backups: Use and Misuse
The scenario: You are diligently working on a project that has taken months of your time and has produced scores of electronic files. The project is nearing completion and as you are working on the finishing touches—CRASH—a lightening bolt takes out the power and fries the server on which your files reside.
Before giving up all hope and committing the rest of your life to that of a hermit, remember the one thing that can rescue you from this scenario - a backup. Provided a backup has been regularly performed and properly stored for retrieval and use it can save your life in this type of situation. Backups can be life savers, but they can also be misused. This article outlines the proper use and misuse of electronic backups as well as tips for protecting your valuable data.
The Purpose of Backups
The purpose of performing backups is to provide business continuity in the face of equipment failure, disaster or similar emergencies. While information technology departments generally perform backups, it is your responsibility to make sure that your data is in fact being backed up or that you are placing your data on a machine that is regularly scheduled for backups. “Assuming” that your data was being backed up after a loss has occurred is no excuse—be proactive with your data protection.
Find out what type of backup is being performed and when. There are several compressed backup methods including full, incremental and differential. A compressed backup reduces the space needed to store the data, but also requires special procedures, software and possible equipment for retrieval. A full backup is just as the name implies, a backup of all of the data on a machine at a point in time. A differential backup targets files that have changed or been added since the last full backup An incremental backup targets only the files that have changed or been added since any backup (full, incremental, or differential) has been performed. Servers can also be mirrored, creating an exact copy of the data uncompressed on another machine, providing for quick, easier retrieval of data, but requiring more storage space. It is important to know how the data is being protected and the backup schedule so that you can determine what will be available for recovery when the time comes and how it can be recovered.
Where you store your data is important to its protection. Unless you diligently backup your individual PC personally, it is best to put data on servers rather than keep it on an individual hard drive as servers are generally backed up by an IT department. Similarly, keeping email messages on the UCit email server rather than downloading it to your personal folders will guarantee that it will be backed up as UCit Email Services performs regular backups of those servers. The tapes are retained and available for recovery for 30 days then overwritten and reused. (Note that there is a charge for recovery and Email Services will not retrieve individual messages or folders. See http://www.uc.edu/ucit/email/backups.html.) While UCit provides backup services for the University’s core administrative systems, such as UCMail, UCFlex and UniverSIS, individual units are responsible for backing up their own data, so check with your unit’s IT department to determine their procedures and schedule.
Backups and Records Retention
Backups can protect university records from being lost, but they are NOT a substitute for proper records retention and storage procedures. Backup media (tapes, disks, drives) are typically reused and overwritten according to an established schedule; they are designed to be short-term and will not survive for the entire retention period that most records need to be maintained. Like all electronic media and equipment, over time advances can render backup technology unusable, while records need to be accessible through their entire lifetime. An additional barrier to records accessibility on backup media is the special procedures it can take to retrieve the data. Often an entire drive has to be restored to retrieve a single file. Rarely can individual files be retrieved alone from backup media. Considering all of these points, it is highly undesirable to rely on backups for records retention purposes.
Backup media should be retained only as long as the accepted backup schedule states and then reused or destroyed according to retention policy.
Backups and the Law
Despite not being used for records retention and storage purposes, existing backups ARE discoverable by a court of law. If records have been legally disposed of according to approved records retention schedules but old backup tapes exist that might contain the records, a court might compel an organization to retrieve the records, resulting in a great deal of time and money expended by the organization. Even though the point of backups is to have recoverable data in the event of information loss, the court can repurpose them for discovery purposes if they exist.
Backups can be considered public records according to Ohio Public Records Laws, although case law defining them as such is limited at this time. Recently, the Court of Appeals of Ohio, in the case Rhodes v. New Philadelphia, stated that a backup tape constitutes one public record, rather than separate records based upon the files and data existing on the tape. The City of New Philadelphia did not have a retention policy covering backup tapes but disposed of them regardless, a violation of state code. Their failure to provide a retention policy for backup tapes could cost them $1000 per tape that could not be produced in this case.
Conclusion
Backups play a vital role in protecting the information of the University, but it is important to understand their limitations and to use them correctly. Make sure you understand the backup procedures in place in your office so that you can ensure the safety of your information and use the services properly. Keep in mind that backups are not a substitute or solution for records retention policies, but rather a recovery tool to be used in emergencies.
Electronic Records Policies and Procedures
Today we take for granted the ability to create, share, store, and even discard records electronically; oftentimes the process is entirely virtual, with no paper ever being handled. But in the grander scheme of records management, electronic capabilities are relatively new, beginning around the mid-1960s at UC. (See the Spring 2010 issue of Records Quarterly for a history of electronic records at UC.)
Don’t be discouraged if you have difficulties getting a handle on electronic records. We have had nearly 2000 years to figure out how to manage paper, but only about 50 to figure out electronic records. Advances in technology make it difficult to come to a standard for management and we find ourselves almost starting over again. Even though retention rules are media neutral, electronic records have certain characteristics that make managing them a challenge. The motivation to manage physical records that take up space and get in the way is not there with electronic records and we often need to make an extra effort to address them.
The Records Management Program is in the process of completing and releasing policies and procedures for the management of electronic records. Here are some highlights of the procedures.
Metadata
One of the major differences between electronic records and those on traditional media is that electronic records lack familiar physical and visual clues about their origins, such as official letterhead, or their authenticity, such as written signatures. Thus their physical appearance alone does not provide sufficient information to determine their origin, authenticity, purpose, uses or other aspects of the context in which they were created and maintained. Maintaining content, structure and context of electronic records is, therefore, both more vital and difficult than with traditional records. Regardless of the technology, the objective remains the same: capture records so that they can be easily retrieved at a later date, understood, and interpreted as evidence of what transpired in an agency.
Metadata simplistically defined as “data about data,” can provide a key to understanding the origins, authenticity, purposes, and uses of electronic records. Some metadata is generated by the program used to create the record without intervention from the creator, such as a date and time stamp or author identification, but it is also the responsibility of the creator to provide any other necessary metadata to properly describe the record. In addition to providing the metadata needed to describe the record, adding this information about an electronic document also helps to locate the record and similar ones based on keywords, title, author, and any other existing information.
Recordkeeping Systems
The successful organization and management of electronic records requires a standard system of filing to aid in the classification, access, and retrieval of documents. When considering what type of system to use, study the business function, systems environment, legal requirements and corporate culture within which the system will be used. Recordkeeping systems for electronic records can be accomplished is several ways, including implementing specialized records/document management software, customizing existing software, and even printing documents for inclusion in paper-based systems.
Departments can develop records management software that meets their particular needs or they can purchase existing products known as electronic records management systems (ERMS) or document management systems (DMS). Either solution can and should be integrated with existing department applications to facilitate the management of records created within those applications.
The operating systems and applications used by departments already create a great deal of metadata related to the data they process, e.g. file and folder names, created and modified dates, creator names, application-specific file name extensions, usage history, formatting templates.
Individual PC and network server file systems can be configured to replicate the same recordkeeping system used for paper files, making a transition to electronic records management easier and quicker and shortening the learning curve.
Transferring Electronic Records to the Archives
While the Archives does not hold many electronic records at present, we are starting to see more come in. The ideal transfer method is to convert documents to PDF format and to put them on a compact disc. Please label the disc and send a Certificate of Disposal along with the records. If PDF is not an option, the Archives can accept these other formats:
- Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, or Publisher
- Image Files (Tiff, jpg, gif, png, bmp)
- Text files (txt, rtf)
- Comma Separated Value (csv)
- Compressed files (zip) as long as they contain the file formats above
Please contact the University Archives for advice on other file formats. We can also accept records sent as email attachments if the file volume is not too large. We cannot accept floppies, zip disks, or tape as we have no devices to read them or make them available.
Appraising Records: Assessing the Administrative Value of Information
I am often asked if offices are “legally” allowed to keep records beyond the retention period specified on records retention schedules. While the short answer is “yes,” I will always qualify that response with an explanation of the risks involved in retaining records past an established lifetime that has been based on the legal, administrative, and historic value of the information. The ideal situation is to come up with a timeframe in which to keep records that will satisfy all of these needs.
The legal and historic values assigned to a series of records can be determined using fairly concrete rules—you keep something as long as the law says you have to, or you keep something permanently in an archive based on the repository’s collection policies. Where the waters tend to muddy is during the appraisal of a record’s administrative value to the department and the organization. This becomes even more important when a record does not have a legal or historic value.
Rather than appraising administrative needs on a definite set of rules, these decisions need to be made considering a unit’s procedures, policies, and workflow as well as the organization’s corporate culture. The decision to apply a specific administrative retention period to a records series can be determined by looking at three factors: purpose, reference, and risk. This article is intended to help departments apply administrative retention limits based on these three factors with confidence.
Purpose
Inevitably, people think that they just might need the records beyond the initial intended purpose and, excluding mere packrat tendencies, there is some truth in this. While we create records for a specific reason, the information contained in the records can be used in other business matters, or repurposed, which can extend the life of the records.
There should always be a purpose for creating a record. Among other reasons, records are created to convey information, document decisions and activities, provide legal evidence of ownership and transactions, and provide instruction. Determining the original purpose of a record is pretty straightforward as they are created according to a procedure or within a workflow. Some records can be created for dual original purposes. For example instructors can create attendance records to measure classroom requirements, but they are also used to determine eligibility for financial aid.
Records can be repurposed to be used in ways not originally intended at the time of creation. The trick here is to determine the ways in which records have, could have and should reasonably be reused without falling into the “well, just maybe” trap that tricks people into thinking records should be kept forever. A common reason to repurpose records is to provide documentation and evidence for an audit. Records can also be repurposed to put together status reports, compile statistics, or to provide evidence.
Consider organizational and workflow requirements when determining how long you need to keep records according to their purposes.
Reference
Knowing how often and for how long a record is referenced can help determine its value and the amount of time it should be retained to satisfy access needs. Using actual data from current and past use, a retention range representing the average and longest need can be assigned to the records. Reference needs can be calculated by asking the following:
- How often are the records accessed in both active and inactive phases of the lifecycle on a weekly, monthly or yearly basis?
- What is the longest number of years back that the records have been accessed?
- What is the average number of years back that the records have been accessed?
Risk
Of the three factors, risk assessment is the most abstract and consequently the most difficult to determine. Risk is not used to determine a specific retention period, but can help to make the decision to go with a shorter or longer period in the range that you determine based on purpose and reference. Keeping records just for the sake of convenience is not a good use of resources, but if keeping them adds value or significantly reduces loss this should be considered. There may be some outstanding cases when a record has been requested far past the average number of years, but it doesn’t represent the actual needs of the organization. The potential loss should outweigh the time, money, and effort expended to keep the records. When determining risk, consider the following:
- How important is it to be able to access inactive records? Could the records serve as evidence or protect the university in a legal matter?
- How difficult would it be to recreate the record if required (not just desired)? How much time and cost would be involved?
- Is the information contained in the record available elsewhere? If content is more important than form, the specific records might be able to be disposed of if the information can be found in another source.
- What is the yearly accumulation of the records? Would keeping the records for the longest referenced time put a strain on resources?
Final Determination
Using the purpose and reference you should be able to come up with a range of the least amount of time you need the records up to the longest possible amount of time. Using that range, apply the risk factors to determine the final retention period. Below is a sample appraisal using the factors we have discussed.
Program News
Schedule Development
New Schedules:
- Utilities and Facilities Management Business Affairs
Updated Schedules:
- Office of the Provost
- General Counsel
Records Transfers
The following University records have been transferred to the University Archives:
Office of the President, Monica Rimai
Accession No. UA-10-04, 1 box
Speeches and appearances made during Rimai’s term as Interim President, 2009.
Administrative Memoranda
Accession No. UA-10-05, 1 Compact Disc
Administrative memoranda issued 1978-2004.
College of Business Administration Publications and Photographs
Accession No. UA-10-07, 2 boxes
Publications, 2008, and photographs, 1999-2000.
The Cincinnati General Hospital Architectural Specifications
Accession No. UA-10-08, 1 box
Specification books for buildings, expansions, and alterations, 1935-1957.
College of Applied Science, Office of the Dean
Accession No. UA-10-09, 15 boxes
Dean’s subject files, including CAS programs, events, department personnel and budget, policies, reports, student organizations, meeting minutes, correspondence, and planning, 1955-2008 (bulk 1972-2008).
General Records Retention Schedule to be Issued
The Records Management Program will be issuing a general records retention schedule that will cover records common to offices across the university; the schedule is expected to be available in the second part of the current fiscal year. The general schedule will be complemented by department-specific schedules covering records unique to organizational units. Units that already have a records retention schedule will not have to go through the scheduling process again, but can use their current schedule in combination with the new general schedule, although most current department schedules can be streamlined.
These new scheduling procedures will benefit university departments in several ways, as well as promote a sound, compliant records management program.
As part of the development process for the general schedule, we will specify which office at the university is responsible for retaining the official record copy and apply different retention periods for the official copy and reference copies. While reference copies often need to be retained for audit purposes, both internal and external, the retention periods are generally shorter than for the official copy, so departments may be able to reduce the volume they are currently storing.
As the general schedule will apply to all departments across the university, any departments that do not currently have an approved records retention schedule will now be able dispose of records on the schedule in compliance with federal, state, and university regulations. Additionally, having one schedule that applies to all departments will make it easier and faster to disseminate changes to retention rules throughout the university and will ensure that policies are being applied consistently.
More information about the new schedule and related procedures will be announced in future issues of Records Quarterly and Records Update.
OERC Proposes Social Networking Guideline
The Ohio Electronic Records Committee has formed a team to study records issues resulting from the use of social networking tools by state entities and to discuss the production of a guideline. Tools like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and blogs are being used increasingly by public organizations to convey information. The University of Cincinnati has made wide use of these tools, as reflected by University Communications’ “UC on Social Media” page found at http://www.uc.edu/ucomm/web/socialmedia_pages.html. The issues arise when determining if these communications represent records and, if so, what policies should be instituted to manage them as records. The new IUC team’s charge is to initially come out with a list of considerations that need to be addressed when using social networking tools and then develop a full guideline.
Preparing for an Internal Audit
As part of standard procedure, Internal Audit will ask to see your approved records retention schedule and possibly certificates of records destruction when conducting an audit of your department. They will also be checking for compliance with records policies. If you need to supply an approved copy of your records retention schedule or certificates of disposal, you can contact Records Management for the most recent copies.
RIM Resources Across the University
UCit Now:
Did you know that UCit has published their newsletter continuously since 1970 when they were known as the UC Computing Center? Now a quarterly publication titled UCit Now, offers valuable information and advice on the systems that you use to create and store university records. The current edition, as well as an archive and indices dating back to 2003, can be found on their website at http://www.uc.edu/ucit/ucitnow/default.html.
FERPA Guidance:
The Registrar’s Office offers guidance on FERPA compliance, including reference sheets for faculty and office personnel, at http://www.uc.edu/registrar/Records_Privacy_and_FERPA.html.
Space Management System:
Planning + Design + Construction’s Space Management Department offers an online system that delivers institutional space data to the UC community. Information about the system and access can be found at http://www.uc.edu/af/pdc/space_management_record_management.html
Training Opportunities
Workshops
The next scheduled workshops will be offered in the fall. These workshops can also be brought to your department. To set up your own presentation, contact Janice. If you have interest in a more advanced records topic, please let us know and we may be able to design a workshop for you.
During the Introduction to Records Management workshop we will discuss what benefits you will receive from managing your records, UC’s records program and role as a keeper of public records, the definition of a "record," how to perform records inventories, the development of records retention schedules and proper means of records disposal.
Two new workshop offerings are now available.
Electronic Records:
During this workshop we will discuss the unique characteristics of electronic records that require attention, retention of electronic records, recordkeeping systems, special considerations for websites, databases, and business applications, and disposal of electronic records including transfer to the University Archives.
Managing Email:
During this workshop we will discuss how to determine if an email message is a university record, retention of email, the characteristics of UC's email system, managing the inbox, and storage methods.
ARMA Meetings
The Cincinnati, Dayton, and Columbus chapters of ARMA International, the professional organization for records and information management, offer monthly presentations covering a wide range of topics. Meetings are currently being planned for the 2010-2011 operational year. For more information about topics and membership, visit the chapter websites:
Cincinnati: http://www.cincyarma.com/
Dayton: http://www.greaterdaytonarma.org/2home.html
Columbus: http://www.armacolumbus.org/
Records in the News
The links to stories provided here were active at the time of publication. News links tend to expire quickly due to Associated Press regulations. Apologies for any dead links.
State of Ohio and Local
County Clerk to digitize records
McCreary County Record, June 15, 2010
McCreary County Clerk Eric Haynes has received a $27,845 grant from the Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives (KDLA) to preserve and manage local government records.
City auditor denies committee's request for records of fraud allegations
Lexington Herald-Leader, June 18, 2010
The city's director of internal audits has denied a request by a city council investigative committee to see documents of fraud allegations.
Records for retirees off-limits in Ohio
Ohio.com, June 21, 2010
State law prevents Ohio's five public pension systems from disclosing many details about individual retirees.
Landfill firm to pay $180K for violations
Toledo Blade, June 23, 2010
The Ohio EPA yesterday outlined multiple ways in which its inspectors believed waste was managed improperly and records were incomplete at the company’s landfill along Otter Creek Road.
Counties taking in thousands of dollars for non-compliant documents
The News-Herald (Cleveland), June 24, 2010
Not everybody is complying with an almost year-old state law requiring official documents to be filed in new standard formats with Lake and Geauga counties’ recorders as well as all their counterparts in Ohio’s 86 other such offices.
Ohio Democratic Party unsuccessfully tries to get gun records
Cleveland Plain Dealer, June 26, 2010
The Ohio Democratic Party tried unsuccessfully this week to get information on all people licensed to carry concealed weapons in the Buckeye State.
Hoosiers Can Claim Dumped Medical Records
WRTV Indianapolis, July 1, 2010
Patients in Indiana now have a new way to retrieve sensitive information in medical records that have been dumped illegally.
Mine Safety Analyst Indicted On Tampering Charges
LEX18.com, Lexington, July 1, 2010
A former Kentucky mine safety analyst from Perry County was indicted Thursday on charges she tampered with public records.
Agreement could mean quicker access to Ohio court records
Cleveland.com, July 3, 2010
Ohio law enforcement officers dealing with criminal suspects will now have the potential to immediately access court files from the field under an agreement reached with the Ohio Supreme Court.
Jacksonville official charged with records tampering
The Columbus Dispatch, July 6, 2010
The fiscal officer of the tiny Athens County village of Jacksonville is charged with tampering with records after allegedly admitting in a letter to stealing thousands of dollars from the village and doctoring its books.
Higher Education
AU officials continue efforts to restore education database, records processes
U.S. Air Force, June 10, 2010
Air University officials here are reporting some progress in the rebuilding of a computer system that processes a large piece of Air Force education after it crashed in mid-May.
Stanford helps to digitally preserve mountains of documents
Stanford University News, June 15, 2010
A Stanford-based consortium of libraries will keep electronic backups of government documents, according to a new agreement – and that will add "a layer of trust in access to government information."
Errors Found In MTSU Foundation's Records
WSMV-TV Nashville, June 22, 2010
Numerous bookkeeping errors were uncovered in the records of the MTSU University Foundation.
UVA Going Paperless, Destroying Records
WVIR-TV, June 21, 2010
The University of Virginia is hoping to lose weight, one ream of paper at a time. There is a lot to lose in the school's effort to get very nearly, paperless and lots of work to get them to that goal.
U. of Virginia Brief Expands on Refusal to Give Cuccinelli Documents He Seeks
Chronicle of Higher Education, June 29, 2010
In a new brief challenging the Virginia attorney general's sweeping request for documents concerning a prominent climate scientist, Michael E. Mann, the University of Virginia told a state court today that the attorney general, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, had no legal authority under a Virginia fraud statute to seek the documents, The Washington Post reported.
ZDNet.com, June 30, 2010-07-01
Joining the ranks of schools who have had to choose between Microsoft’s Live@Edu and Google Apps for Education as they deploy a hosted email solution, Brown University announced Monday that it had “Gone Google.”
Hackers break into university records
Kennebec Journal, June 30, 2010
Hackers breached a pair of file servers containing personal information belonging to more than 4,000 University of Maine students who have sought mental health services from the campus counseling center, school officials said Tuesday.
Judge orders police records released in killing of U-Va. student Yeardley Love
Washington Post, July 2, 2010
A Virginia Circuit Court judge on Thursday ordered the release of sealed police records in the murder case against former University of Virginia lacrosse player George Huguely V of Chevy Chase.
Sen. Yee clashes with UC, CSU over privacy
San Francisco Chronicle, July 2, 2010
California's public universities want to extend a law letting them share the identities of alumni with vendors, even as they oppose another law on grounds it might reveal the identities of wealthy donors to the universities.
Leg & Reg
Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Affecting Records and Information Management
Federal
Proposed Modifications to HIPAA Rules
On July 14, 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to modify several rules found under the Health Information Portability and Accessibility Act (HIPAA). According to the notice, the proposed changes are designed “to implement recent statutory amendments under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“the HITECH Act” or “the Act”), to strengthen the privacy and security protection of health information, and to improve the workability and effectiveness of these HIPAA Rules.” At the heart of these proposals is The HITECH Act, which concerns the standardization of health related information technology. Comments must be submitted by September 13, 2010. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking can be found in the Federal Register at http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=QIlSh3/1/2/0&WAISaction=retrieve
State of Ohio
Rohm v. Fremont City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2010-Ohio-2751
In this public records case, the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth Appellate District, Sandusky County, ordered the Fremont City School District Board of Education to pay a requester of public records attorney fees related to his filing of a mandamus action.
Decided June 14, 2010
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/6/2010/2010-ohio-2751.pdf
SER Striker v. Cline, 2010-Ohio-2861
This public records case, argued in front of the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth Appellate District, Richland County, poses three issues related to public records. Raleigh M. Striker requested a writ of mandamus to compel the Shelby Municipal Clerk of Courts to provide public records and to post their public records policy and claimed that the clerk failed to properly time stamp documents. The court stated that both the writ to provide public records and the writ to post the public records policy had become moot because each had already been done.
Decided June 21, 2010
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/.5/2010/2010-ohio-2861.pdf
State ex rel. Dehler v. Spatney, 2010-Ohio-3052
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh Appellate District, Trumbull County found that the Trumbull Correctional Institution was not obligated to allow Lambert Dehler to inspect or copy public records held by the institution’s quartermaster and that Lambert was not entitled to a writ because his public records request was too broad in scope.
Decided June 30, 2010
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/11/2010/2010-ohio-3052.pdf
State ex rel. Dehler v. Kelly, 2010-Ohio-3053
In another public records case involving Lambert Dehler and the Trumbull Correctional Insitution, The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh Appellate District, Trumbull County, found that Mr. Dehler was entitled to public records regarding the prison library and issued a writ of mandamus. In this case, the Trumbell Correctional Institution again claimed that Dehler’s request was too broad in scope, but the court decided that this request was specific enough to constitute a valid public records request.
Decided June 30, 2010
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/11/2010/2010-ohio-3053.pdf
State ex rel. Holloman v. Collins, 2010-Ohio-3034
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth Appellate District, Franklin County, returned this public records case involving an Ohio prison inmate and the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections back to a magistrate to determine if the ODRC violated Ohio’s public records laws. The magistrate found that as Martin Holloman filed his action 14 business days from the time ODRC received his public records request there had not been reasonable time to respond and therefore no violation had yet been made. However, the court found that there are still questions as to whether ODRC ever properly responded to the request and, if so, if it was in a reasonable time considering the circumstances.
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/10/2010/2010-ohio-3034.pdf
State ex rel. Braxton v. Nichols, 2010-Ohio-3193
In this public records case, the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, County of Cuyahoga, ordered the City of Cleveland to pay $13,083.50, which included mandatory attorney fees and filing fees, to three plaintiffs who filed a public records request following the elimination of their jobs. Each plaintiff was also awarded $1000.00 in statutory damages, and the City of Cleveland was issues a writ of mandamus to comply with the public records request.
Decided July 7, 2010
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2010/2010-ohio-3193.pdf
Missing Case Files at Hamilton County Department of Job & Family Services Noted in 2009 State Audit
In the State of Ohio Single Audit for the year ending June 30, 2009, released by State Auditor Mary Taylor on June 29, 2010, auditors reported that 3 of 30 case files and documentation requested for testing federal program eligibility could not be produced by HCDJF staff. The audit report stressed that “Missing case files and documentation increases the risk that amounts and other information reported to the federal grantor agencies may not reflect actual program activities.” The Auditor recommended that policies and procedures be put in place to ensure proper documentation supporting benefit payments and eligibility.
Other findings for the Department of Job and Family Services in the report included a missing case file at the Franklin County , blamed on a recent relocation of files, inadequate documentation on information obtained through the Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS), used to support eligibility, ineligibility, and benefit level determinations, and missing records documenting disbursements to counties and programs.
The full state audit can be found at http://www.auditor.state.oh.us/auditsearch/Reports/2010/State_of_Ohio_Single_Audit_09_Franklin.pdf
Ohio's new criminal court rules kick in
Cincinnati Enquirer, June 30, 2010
On July 1 , Ohio becomes an "open-discovery" state. That means prosecutors and defense lawyers must share more information up front than in the past, including police reports, witness statements and expert witness reports.
University Archives News
Barbara Ramusack Papers in the University Archives
Professor Emerita of History Barbara Ramusack has donated her papers covering the years 1958-2009 to the University Archives. In addition to professional papers, the new collection includes Department of History records, committee work, and records of the Women’s Studies and Asian Studies academic programs. The collection offers insight to the development of the Department of History and the programs with which Ramusack was involved during the 42 years of her service. The 16-box collection is accessioned as UA-10-03.
Nancy Zimpher is Back!
Well, not the real thing, but a near life-size cutout of Nancy Zimpher is in the University Archives waiting to greet you as you come in the door. The cutout was given to the Archives by the Office of the President and was used at graduation ceremonies by individuals wishing to capture a unique photographic moment with the former president.
How Does the University Archives Acquire Collections?
The Archives and Rare Books Library collects in several different areas including Rare Books, Urban Studies, German-Americana and Ohio Government Records. But our initial collecting area and the largest, is the University Archives, the historic records of the University of Cincinnati.
The University Archives acquires collections in two ways: through the Records Management Program, and through donations. The majority of collections are acquired through the Records Management Program. When records retention schedules are written, historically valuable records are identified and a designation of “Archives” is entered in the disposition column. Upon disposition, records are sent to the Archives along with a Certificate of Records Disposal. The Archives collects records that tell the history of the University, such as publications, Board of Trustees records, meeting minutes, reports, executive subject files, and academic program development records. Records acquired through this means are reported in Records Quarterly under ‘Program News.’
Collections are also acquired through personal or organizational donations. While some records created at the University are not subject to UC records management policies, they still hold valuable historic information and they are welcome additions to the Archives. Such records include faculty papers and student and independent faculty/staff organization records. Donations require a signed Instrument of Gift from the provider. Recent acquisitions through this means are the Barbara Ramusack Papers and Iota Sigma Pi Records. Anyone with University of Cincinnati-related collections to donate, or with any questions about ARB collections, can contact Kevin Grace, University Archivist, at 556-1959 or kevin.grace@uc.edu.
All collections received in the Archives are processed using preservation methods where necessary and inventoried. Inventories can be found on our website at http://www.libraries.uc.edu/libraries/arb/archives/collections/UACollectionRecords.html. For more information about the University Archives see http://www.libraries.uc.edu/libraries/arb/archives/collections/universityarchives.html.
Gifts to the University Archives
Barbara Ramusack Papers
Accession No. UA-10-03, 16 boxes
Professional papers, Department of History records, academic program records, 1967-2009.
U.C. Woman’s Club
Accession No. UA-10-12, 2 boxes
Minutes, rosters, by-laws, newsletters, reports, and miscellaneous program records, 1967-2005 (bulk 1987-2005).
About Records Quarterly
Records Quarterly is the newsletter of University of Cincinnati Records Management and is distributed electronically via the Records Management website. Subscribers to the Records Management Listserv will receive notification of new issues automatically. If you are not a member of the listserv and you would like to receive these notifications, please email Janice Schulz at Janice.Schulz@uc.edu with your name and email address and you will be included on a separate distribution list.
All content is written by Janice Schulz unless indicated. Permission to use any content must be obtained by contacting UC Records Management via the methods above. Contributions to Records Quarterly can be made by emailing content to Janice.Schulz@uc.edu.
URLs included in this issue were current at the time of publication.
UC Records Management
University of Cincinnati Records Management is administered by the University Archives in compliance with UC Rule 10-43-10.
Janice M. Schulz, CRM
University Records Manager and Archives Specialist
Office Location: 806 Blegen Library
Mail Location: 113
Email: Janice.Schulz@uc.edu
Phone: 556-1958
Fax: 556-2113
Website: http://www.libraries.uc.edu/libraries/arb/records_management/