|
|
| ITAB Home |
Attendees: Scott Leonard, Letha Johnson, Matt Veatch, Justin Dragosani-Brantingham,
Pat Michaelis, KSHS; Steve Johnson, Dept. on Aging; Jenny Mehmedovic,
KU; Cathy Nicholetti, KITO; Mike Stewart, Secretary of State's Office.
Guests: Trevor Swarm, Mariah Perrin, KSHS; Glen Yancey, Dept.
of Revenue; Jim Rousseau, Jeff Coer, Health and Environment; Mark Thurman,
Highway Patrol; Robert Knapp, DiAnna Adams, INK; Steve Finch, and Cathy
Clayton, Department of Corrections.
Announcements and Introductions: Scott welcomed attendees and guests, and went over the handouts for the meeting. He stated that the prime agenda item for this meeting is to discuss the Web Records Management Guidelines and that there was many concerns raised when he presented them to ITAB on June 17. At that meeting he invited concerned ITAB members to attend this meeting for a further discussion of the Guidelines.
Discussion of Managing Web-Based Records: Pat led the discussion. Reminded people that the issue is difficult, and that records laws exist. Seeking practical and effective strategies. Language in document should reflect that we seek web content preservation, not every aspect of the website. Again, seek practicality. Glen asked whether feasibility was discussed when this document was created. Pat replied that the task force was concerned with risk management. That can be approached even if feasibility for every aspect is very difficult. Glen again commented on difficulty of data streams, transient data. Jenny commented that section 1.5, Purpose, points out that the guidelines refer to electronic web records not handled in some other system. Glen wants clear definition of "recordkeeping system" vs. "system of record". Matt reiterated that the document is not intended to duplicate efforts. Glen also commented that sections 3.2-3.4 of the Guidelines appear to be directing I.T. to capture style as well as content, which may be problematic. Matt suggested ERC should re-phrase the section. Pat commented on the Guidelines attempting to be more universal. Jenny brought up the KDOT litigation example. Matt said it didn't have to look and feel just like the web site but evidence has to be discoverable in some way. Jim R. commented on the cost and dynamic nature of keeping data/docs. Matt asked what is the cost of NOT keeping track of data/docs. Robert commented on Instant Messaging-what do you do? Scott said we don't know, but it has to be addressed. Matt said to follow the agency schedule for disposition. Everything doesn't have to be kept.
Scott brought up the example of the new KSHS Museum Web Store, how KSHS captures the data from purchase transactions, and shared the draft policy for retaining those records. Steve said that metadata/appearance/style could still have relevance. Glen wants the Guidelines to reflect that when these items have relevance, then capture it. If irrelevant, then don't capture. Example, drop down menus or small, poorly-written disclaimers.
Scott reiterated that record laws are NOT new laws. Jenny said, if it's web only, then look at the Guidelines. Steve Finch said that we cannot afford to do a snapshot of every moment. Pat asked for an example. Cathy Clayton said that when a court orders an expungment of criminal record/mention, they have to track when changes occurred to the site, including when the record was downloaded, when the order was effective, when the user viewed the record. Robert Knapp mentioned the trouble with tracking the user session, and asked if that is in violation of privacy laws. How much is involved in going back to that point in time? DiAnna Adams said that even if you can't prove user session, a department could still prove when changes were made.
Matt and Scott reiterated that intra-office cooperation to set up a schedule and abide by it. Steve Finch again mentioned costs, including the idea of cost of storage paper and electronic, which are comparable and many don't understand. Glen said data migration/conversion is inevitable, but content/metadata re-creation can be scary. Pat mentioned that ERC struggled with whom the audience for the document was. Glen said a case study/example would be very helpful. Steve Finch asked why do we have a new regulation. Steve Johnson answered that addresses the question on how to deal with pre-existing regulations in the web environment. It is a guideline, not a new regulation. Steve Finch again mentioned the difficulties. Matt said that we are aware of the difficulties and that we have to share this information, regardless. Mark Thurman said he struggles with process problems of web capture and retention. Pat mentioned that there is no distinction between inter- and intranets in guidelines. Mike commented on web capture and how the guidelines can be scary. DiAnna suggested that some dates/phases for agencies to shoot for may make it easier to implement. Jenny countered that in her environment (KU) that would make it sound more like a mandate. Jenny asked for ideas on how best to present these as guidelines, not regulation. Robert said tie this into the retention schedule.
Glen wants to know the mechanics for proceeding. Scott collected names of volunteers willing to help make this document better.
Other Business: None
Next meeting: 2:00pm, August 6, 2003, Center for Historical Research, KSHS.
DA Home | Services | Divisions | Contact Us | Disclaimer | What's New | State of Kansas Home Page