<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Records retention - Local Open Government Blog</title>
<link>http://www.localopengovernment.com/articles/in-the-courts/</link>
<description></description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2011</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Nov 2010 10:19:56 -0800</lastBuildDate>
<pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 07:33:07 -0800</pubDate>
<generator>http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34</generator>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

<item>
<title>Missouri Court Rejects Claim Against City For &quot;Lost&quot; Documents</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In a departure from other court decisions pertaining to electronic public records, the Missouri Court of Appeals declined to sanction city government officials for failing to produce certain email messages requested by a citizens group.</p>
<p>In <i><a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15468837378041062669&amp;q=concerned+citizens+for+crystal+city+v.+city+of+crystal+city&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=100000000000002">Concerned Citizens for Crystal City v. City of Crystal City<span style="font-style: normal">, ---S.W.3d---, 2010 WL 4195827 (Mo. App. E.D.)</span></a></i>, the Concerned Citizens for Crystal City (&ldquo;CCCC&rdquo;) opposed the City&rsquo;s approval of a redevelopment plan that would turn an abandoned glass factory into an iron smelter.&nbsp;During a protracted discovery battle, CCCC pointed to several instances of discovery violations that it alleged were prejudicial.&nbsp; The group was particularly incensed by the Mayor&rsquo;s and the City Clerk&rsquo;s failure to produce certain emails.&nbsp; The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court&rsquo;s decision to deny CCCC&rsquo;s request for sanctions against the City, noting that &ldquo;the emails at issue were few in number.&rdquo;&nbsp; The Court acknowledged that the documents had not been retained either electronically or in hard copy.&nbsp; The Court accepted the City&rsquo;s explanation of the missing emails: &ldquo;[T]hey cannot find them, they do not have them, and nothing was done intentionally, or in an effort to hide them.&rdquo;</p>
<p>This decision can be contrasted with <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17270775972374702888&amp;q=O%27Neill+v.+City+of+shoreline&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=100000000000002http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17270775972374702888&amp;q=O%27Neill+v.+City+of+shoreline&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=100000000000002">O&rsquo;Neill v. City of Shoreline, ---Wn.2d---, ---P.3d---, 2010 WL 3911347</a>, a recent case decided by the Washington Supreme Court.&nbsp; In <i>O&rsquo;Neill</i>, the Court found that metadata can be a public record and is subject to disclosure under Washington&rsquo;s Public Records Act.&nbsp; The <i>O&rsquo;Neill</i> decision essentially requires that emails and other electronic documents need to be preserved in their original electronic forms, as paper copies will no longer be sufficient. &nbsp;Even if only a small number of records is at issue (a single email was central to the <i>O&rsquo;Neill</i> case), proper preservation is essential. &nbsp;The Missouri Court of Appeals appears to condone a &ldquo;best efforts&rdquo; approach to preservation of electronic records, while the Washington Supreme Court has imposed strict penalties and even proposed searching the hard drive of a government official&rsquo;s personal computer to locate and obtain an electronic public record in its native form.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.localopengovernment.com/2010/11/articles/missouri-court-rejects-claim-against-city-for-lost-documents/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.localopengovernment.com/2010/11/articles/missouri-court-rejects-claim-against-city-for-lost-documents/</guid>
<category>Articles</category><category>E-records</category><category>Electronic Discovery</category><category>Electronic Records</category><category>In the courts</category><category>Metadata</category><category>Missouri</category><category>Records retention</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 2010 10:19:56 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Alicia Feichtmeir</dc:creator>

</item>
<item>
<title>Digital Photocopiers May Contain Public Records</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>On Wednesday April 23 the State Archivist circulated a reminder that digital photocopiers contain hard drives with images of scanned records. These must be treated as public records, and all applicable federal, state and local rules must be followed, including those rules mandating the protection of confidential information. The archivist suggested that the hard drives on photocopiers should be erased before the copiers are traded in. A link to a CBS news story regarding records on digital copiers owned by public entities that was circulated by the archivist can be found <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/19/eveningnews/main6412439.shtml?tag=mncol;lst;1">here</a>.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.localopengovernment.com/2010/04/articles/electronic-records/digital-photocopiers-may-contain-public-records/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.localopengovernment.com/2010/04/articles/electronic-records/digital-photocopiers-may-contain-public-records/</guid>
<category>Electronic Records</category><category>Public Records</category><category>Records retention</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:46:05 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Foster Pepper Municipal Group</dc:creator>

</item>
<item>
<title>Public Records can only be Destroyed in Accordance with Appropriate Records Retention and Destruction Policies</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><span class="837021617-19022010"><font face="Arial" size="2">The preservation and destruction of public records is governed by <a href="http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=40.14">Chapter 40.14 RCW</a>.</font><font face="Arial" size="2">&nbsp;&nbsp;Local Governments are responsible for adopting appropriate records retention policies and procedures.&nbsp; The local records committee establishes retention schedules for different types of local governments that specify retention periods applicable to different categorizes of public records.&nbsp; These schedules are available on the <a href="http://www.sos.wa.gov/archives/RecordsRetentionSchedules.aspx">Washington State Archives website</a>.</font><font face="Arial" size="2">&nbsp; Local governments should also consider other applicable retention schedules.&nbsp; For example, public hospital districts should consider the Medicare conditions of participation and the Joint Commission requirements, among others.&nbsp; Failure to adopt and implement appropriate records retention and destruction policies and procedures may result in financial penalties and even in possible criminal sanctions because the destruction or mutilation of a public record is a felony&nbsp;under certain circumstances.&nbsp; See <a href="http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=40.16&amp;full=true">Chapter 40.16 RCW</a>.</font><font face="Arial"><font size="2">&nbsp;&nbsp;Individual officers and employees should make sure that they adhere to the retention schedule with respect to documents that they maintain, such as any email that constitutes a public record (whether or not the email is on a government, personal or business computer).</font></font></span></p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.localopengovernment.com/2010/02/articles/public-records/public-records-can-only-be-destroyed-in-accordance-with-appropriate-records-retention-and-destruction-policies/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.localopengovernment.com/2010/02/articles/public-records/public-records-can-only-be-destroyed-in-accordance-with-appropriate-records-retention-and-destruction-policies/</guid>
<category>Penalties</category><category>Public Records</category><category>Public Records Act</category><category>Records retention</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:53:47 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Foster Pepper Municipal Group</dc:creator>

</item>
<item>
<title>Washington State Archives Publishes Records Management Advice Regarding Blogs, Wikis, Facebook and Twitter</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The Washington State Archives recently published a records management advice sheet entitled &ldquo;<a href="http://www.secstate.wa.gov/_assets/archives/RecordsManagement/RMAdviceSheetBlogsTwitter.pdf">Electronic Records Management: Blogs, Wikis, Facebook, Twitter &amp; Managing Public Records</a>&rdquo; that provides guidance to state and local government agencies regarding the retention of public records of posts to social networking websites such as blogs, wikis, Facebook, and Twitter.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The advice sheet provides five (5) factors for agencies to consider when managing the retention of public records created or received through social networking sites.&nbsp;These factors include determining whether the posts are public records (yes, if the posts are made or received in connection with the transaction of the agency&rsquo;s public business).&nbsp;Determining whether the posts are simply copies of records that the agency is already retaining or whether the posts are primary records.&nbsp;Determining how long the posts will be retained and how the agency will retain the posts (especially if the posts are maintained by a third-party vendor).&nbsp;Finally, determining which business activities are appropriate for social networking, particularly if the agency is unable to manage the creation, receipt, and retention of the posts as public records.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.localopengovernment.com/2009/11/articles/web-20/washington-state-archives-publishes-records-management-advice-regarding-blogs-wikis-facebook-and-twitter/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.localopengovernment.com/2009/11/articles/web-20/washington-state-archives-publishes-records-management-advice-regarding-blogs-wikis-facebook-and-twitter/</guid>
<category>Blog</category><category>Electronic Records</category><category>Facebook</category><category>Public Records</category><category>Public Records Act</category><category>Public record</category><category>Records retention</category><category>Social media</category><category>Social networking</category><category>State laws</category><category>Twitter</category><category>Web 2.0</category><category>Web2.0</category><category>Wiki</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:12:56 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Foster Pepper Municipal Group</dc:creator>

</item>
<item>
<title>Supreme Court of Arizona Holds Metadata is a Public Record</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Arizona held, in a unanimous decision, that under the state&rsquo;s public records laws any entity that maintains electronic records must disclose those records along with embedded metadata.&nbsp;<i><a title="http://www.supreme.state.az.us/opin/pdf2009/CV090036PR.pdf" href="http://www.supreme.state.az.us/opin/pdf2009/CV090036PR.pdf"><span>Lake v. City of Phoenix et al,</span><span> No. CV-09-0036.&nbsp;</span></a></i></p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.localopengovernment.com/2009/10/articles/in-the-courts/supreme-court-of-arizona-holds-metadata-is-a-public-record/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.localopengovernment.com/2009/10/articles/in-the-courts/supreme-court-of-arizona-holds-metadata-is-a-public-record/</guid>
<category>In the courts</category><category>In the news</category><category>Metadata</category><category>Public Records</category><category>Public disclosure</category><category>Public record</category><category>Records retention</category><category>State laws</category><category>Supreme court of Arizona</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:43:27 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Foster Pepper Municipal Group</dc:creator>

</item>
<item>
<title>Guidance from Down Under on Government Use of Web 2.0 Sites</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Australia has some of the most sophisticated and advanced laws on document retention and access.&nbsp;Therefore, it was not surprising&nbsp;to find this guidance on records retentions issues for government web 2.0 sites coming from the Australian government:&nbsp; <a href="http://www.records.nsw.gov.au/recordkeeping/government-recordkeeping-manual/guidance/guidelines/Guideline-24-Records-management-and-web-2.0">Records Management and Web 2.0</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.localopengovernment.com/2009/07/articles/web-20/guidance-from-down-under-on-government-use-of-web-20-sites/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.localopengovernment.com/2009/07/articles/web-20/guidance-from-down-under-on-government-use-of-web-20-sites/</guid>
<category>Electronic Records</category><category>Facebook</category><category>Public Records</category><category>Records retention</category><category>Social media</category><category>Twitter</category><category>Web 2.0</category>
<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:27:49 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Foster Pepper Municipal Group</dc:creator>

</item>


</channel>
</rss>
