1998 2 June 1998 16 June 1998 30 June 1998	1999 5 May 1999 14 Sept. 1999
2000 15 Feb. 2000 5 Oct. 2000	2001 12 June 2001 13 Nov 2001
2002 27 June 2002	2003 9 January 2003 26 June 2003
2004 14 January 2004 20 May 2004 15 September 2004 6 December 2004	2005 30 March 2005 22 June 2005 09 November 2005
2006 08 March 2006 13 July 2006 26 October 2006	2007 15 February 2007 20 September 2007

---

Minutes
2 June 1998

Electronic Records Committee
Ohio Historical Center

In attendance: Deborah Archie, Charlie Arp (chair), Charlie Corbato, Mary Ellen Forrester, Laurie Gemmill, Julie Klema, Betsey Lane, David Larson, Andrea Lentz, Jim Mendel, Jan Neiger, Elizabeth Nelson, Donna Oxenrider, George Parkinson, Greg Schneller, Jill Tatem, Margaret Theibert, Judy Walker, Daryl Weir, Jane Wildermuth, Melissa Winesburg, Becky Wright

I. Welcome, introduction and background (State Archivist George Parkinson and Assistant State Archivist Charlie Arp)

II. Discussion of purpose and overview (Arp)

III. Discussion of electronic records as records.

Consensus: electronic records are records as defined by Ohio law.

IV. Small group discussions. Consensus reached on the following issues:

1. The purpose of the electronic records policy should be (a) to ensure compliance with the law and (b) to support the creation and maintenance of electronic records to ensure integrity, usability and survivability.

2. The policy should be general with specific guidelines that account for classes of information and technologies. It should also encourage or require agencies to file implementation plans by a specific deadline.

3. The Functional Requirements for Evidence in Recordkeeping developed by the University of Pittsburgh: (a) are valid, (b) do have practical application, but only if they are restated in clear, understandable language, and (c) should be promoted as guidelines for system acquisition and development because they represent the attributes of ideal recordkeeping systems

V. Things to do for the 16 June 1998 meeting:

1. Read draft guidelines for electronic mail and optical disks.
2. Make a list of other potential topics for guidelines.
3. Send comments on draft policy to carp@ohiohistory.org by 8 June 1998.

VI. Meeting adjourned

---

Minutes
16 June 1998

Electronic Records Committee
Ohio Historical Center

In attendance: Deborah Archie, Charlie Arp (chair), Charlie Corbato, Mary Ellen Forrester, Laurie Gemmill, Rai Goerler, Betsey Lane, David Landsbergen, David Larson, Andrea Lentz, Jim Mendel, Elizabeth Nelson, Donna Oxenrider, Greg Schneller, Jill Tatem, Margaret Theibert, Judy Walker, Daryl Weir, Jane Wildermuth, Becky Wright.

I. Minutes from 2 June 1998 meeting accepted without comment.

II. A listserv for the committee has been established.
To subscribe, email lgemmill@ohiohistory.org. Messages for the committee may be posted to ERC@mail.state.oh.us

III. General discussion

• Consensus: the Ohio Revised Code has adequately defined "record." There is no need to create a narrower definition for electronic records.

IV. Small group discussions: draft policy amended to include changes suggested by groups.

V. Things to do for the 30 June 1998 meeting:

• Read the revised policy draft that follows. This revised draft reflects the comments, concerns and changes from the second meeting of the Electronic Records Committee. Please look them over. We need to agree to this portion of the draft policy quickly (within 15 minutes or so) at the next meeting of the Committee, so please let discussion and debate of these policy items take place on the listserv.

VI. Meeting adjourned

---

Minutes
30 June 1998

Electronic Records Committee
Ohio Historical Center

In attendance: Deborah Archie, Charlie Arp (chair), Rae Cogar, Charlie Corbato, Mary Ellen Forrester, Laurie Gemmill, Rai Goerler, Betsey Lane, Andrea Lentz, Jan Neiger, Jim Orbin, Donna Oxenrider, Greg Schneller, Jill Tatem, Judy Walker, Daryl Weir, Jane Wildermuth, Becky Wright.

I. Minutes from 16 June 1998 meeting accepted without comment.

II. Small Group Discussions: discussed draft policy points 6 & 7 discussed definitions of electronic records.

III. General Discussion

It was agreed that a definition/explanation of electronic records should focus on transactional records. Group 3 submitted the following definition of electronic records: "In the electronic environment, records are evidence of communications that document organizational functions and provide accountability." It was decided that further discussion/revision of this definition would take place on the listserv.

All committee members present agreed to the 7 major points of the Electronic Records Policy. The sub-points will be reviewed and discussed via the Electronic Records Committee listserv. Each group of sub-points will be taken in sequence until all points are discussed and consensus is reached. Since all discussion will be via the listserv, everyone is encouraged to voice all concerns. This will begin immediately and will probably last through mid-August.

There are two focus groups for technical issues scheduled for July 16, 1:30-3:30 &; July 22, 9:30-11:30. They will be held at the Ohio Historical Center, 3rd Floor, Archives/Library Conference Room. These focus groups will only deal with the 7 major policy points, not the sub-points. An invitation to the focus groups will be announced on the ERC and Internet Advisory Committee (IAC) listservs. They will be open meetings to which anyone is welcome to attend. Everyone is encouraged to invite anyone they wish, particularly persons with technical backgrounds, persons dealing with legacy systems, mainframes, etc. If you are planning to attend, please let Judy Walker know at 297-2585, jwalker@ohiohistory.org.

By August, all points should be agreed upon and focus groups concluded. The Electronic Records Policy will then be revised if necessary before being submitted to the Inter-Agency Information Management Group (IMG) at their August 19th meeting. Charlie Arp will be hosting a party upon the conclusion of the committee's work.

It was agreed that Guidelines Subcommittees will be formed to deal with specific issues. At this point two subcommittees are forming: Email Guidelines and Imaging Guidelines. All concerns expressed during the ERC meetings and listserv messages will be considered. Other subcommittees will be formed as issues arise. Everyone from the Electronic Records Committee is encouraged to volunteer for committees and to suggest the names of others who would be interested. The subcommittees will have an administrative meeting in person, then meet virtually.

IV. Judy Walker (OHS) presented the Government Information Locator Service (GILS).

It is available for viewing at http://test.avv.com/gilstest/gils/html. Although the major system elements are in place, the system is still being designed and has not yet entered Beta Testing. Much of the text has not been edited and the overall design isn't complete.

Some of the GILS applications may be password protected. A general username and password have been established for members of the Committee:

[Note: This URL is no longer valid.]

If any comments, please contact jwalker@ohiohistory.org or (614)297-2585.

V. Meeting Adjourned.

---

Minutes
5 May 1999

Electronic Records Committee (ERC)
Ohio Historical Center

Members in attendance: Charlie Arp (chair), Rae Cogar, Charlie Corbato, Laurie Gemmill, Betsey Lane, David Larson, Andrea Lentz, Elizabeth Nelson, Donna Oxenrider, Jill Tatem, Margaret Theibert, Judy Walker, Daryl Weir, Jane Wildermuth

Absent: Deborah Archie, Mary Ellen Forrester, Raimund Goerler, David Landsbergen, Jim Mendel, Jan Neiger, James Orbin, Greg Schneller, Melissa Winesburg, Becky Wright

Also Present: Pete Bates, Tamar Galed, Mark Schmidbauer

I. Welcome, introductions, and general remarks.

II. Report from General Schedule for Electronic Records Subcommittee.
The recommendations were approved; the General Schedule for Electronic Records will be submitted to Dr. David Larson, State Records Administrator for his approval and inclusion in the current General Schedule for the State of Ohio.

III. Report from the Electronic Publications Subcommittee.
Following some discussion, the Recommendation Report was approved. The report will be forwarded to the Office of Information Systems Policy &; Planning (OPP) for further implementation. OPP will make any further necessary revisions with assistance of members of the Electronic Records Committee and the Electronic Publications subcommittee.

IV. Report from the E-mail Subcommittee.
A draft of e-mail guidelines was submitted but the appendix, which will include models for managing e-mail, is not yet complete. The appendix will include various models for managing e-mail. Once this appendix is complete, it will be posted to the e-mail listserv for further discussion and editing. It will then be posted to the ERC listserv for discussion.

• Some editing suggestions were made.
• Encryption of e-mail should be addressed in the policy.
• The Committee encouraged very active solicitation of comment on these guidelines. Focus groups will be set up to discuss draft guidelines.
• A final report and guidelines will be submitted at the next meeting of the ERC.

V. Interim report from the Digital Document Imaging Subcommittee.
A final report and draft guidelines will be submitted at the next meeting of the ERC.

VI. The ERC meets twice a year.
The next meeting of the ERC will be Tuesday, 14 September at 1:30 in the Archives/Library Conference Room at the Ohio Historical Center. At that meeting, the E-mail Subcommittee and Digital Document Imaging Subcommittee will report. Suggestions for further subcommittees will be discussed.

VII. The Electronic Records Policy has been issued by the Office of Policy and Planning as OPP-030, effective May 1, 1999.

VIII. Meeting adjourned.

---

Minutes
14 September 1999

Electronic Records Committee (ERC)
Ohio Historical Center

Members in attendance: Charlie Arp (chair), Maggie Buckholtz, Laurie Gemmill, Raimund Goerler, Betsey Lane, David Larson, Andrea Lentz, Elizabeth Nelson, James Orbin, Greg Schneller, Margaret Theibert, Judy Walker, Daryl Weir, Jane Wildermuth

Absent: Deborah Archie, Rae Cogar, Mary Ellen Forrester, Tamar Chute (formerly Tamar Galed), David Landsbergen, Jim Mendel, Jan Neiger, Donna Oxenrider, Jill Tatem, Melissa Winesburg, Becky Wright

Also Present: Pete Bates, Daisy Crockron, Mark Schmidbauer

I. Introductions; Charlie Arp made some general announcements:

• Jane Wildermuth has taken a new position as Archivist at Wright State University but will continue with the committee.
• Charlie Corbato is resigning from the Board of Regents and has declined to stay on the committee.
• State Archives is working with the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services to accession executive level e-mail.

II. Membership Issues

When the Electronic Records Committee was originally convened, it was for the purpose of drafting policy for the creation, management and long term preservation of electronic records. The ERC has since evolved into a standing committee with long-term goals. The following Membership Guidelines were proposed:

• The membership is limited to 25-30 people who are committed to working towards solutions to electronic records issues. The committee is best served by a diverse membership of policy makers, records managers, IT personnel, archivists, and librarians, representing the various state agencies, universities, libraries and historical societies of Ohio.

• Any member of the ERC can nominate new members, however the Membership Committee votes whether to approve the nomination or not. The Membership Committee consists of three people: 1 from the Office of Information Systems Policy &; Planning (OPP), 1 from the Ohio Historical Society, and one other ERC member.

• The ERC meets twice a year. If members, or their proxy, do not attend at least one meeting per year, it is presumed that they no longer want to maintain ERC membership.

The Membership Committee was approved. Charlie Arp as Chair will represent OHS and Margaret Theibert will represent OPP. A third member from the ERC is still needed. People can volunteer themselves or someone else via the listserv.

III. Laurie Gemmill reported on the ERC website

Statistics included:
Electronic Records Policy - 945 hits (May 1- August 2, 1999)
ERC home page - 707 hits (May 1-August 31, 1999)

IV. Pete Bates reported on the State Library on Electronic Publications initiatives

Pete Bates discussed the State Library's efforts to revise the Ohio Revised Code 149.11. They are working to reword the code to be broader, thus enabling them to write administrative rules concerning the number of copies of publications the State Library receives and to include electronic publications. He also talked about the efforts of the State Library, State Archives and Ohio SuperComputer Center to work on long-term storage, retrieval and use of electronic publications. They hope to work towards a solution of a joint repository of data with long term retention value.

These two projects are addressing five of the nine recommendations given to the ERC by the Subcommittee on the Electronic Publications.

V. Dr. David Larson reported on the implementation of the General Schedules

The General Schedules for Administrative Electronic Records were adopted and incorporated into the general schedules. The first large effort to introduce them will begin next week at a workshop given jointly by the State Archives and DAS information Management to agency records managers.

VI. Judy Walker reported on the Government Information Locator Service (GILS)

GILS went live last month. Both the search and records management forms are available from the State front page. GILS was presented to NAGARA (National Association of Government Archives and Records Administrators) at this year's meeting in Columbus. Kentucky, Canada, New York and the National Archives all expressed interest in it. Minnesota has expressed interest in using the application and funding further development.

VI. Mark Schmidbauer presented the Draft Guidelines for Digital Imaging Subcommittee.

The guidelines were voted on and approved. They will be posted for comment for 90 days on the ERC website. Notices will be posted to various archival, IT, and records management listservs. Further revisions will be made if necessary after comment period.

VII. Charlie Arp reported on the E-mail Guidelines

The E-mail subcommittee submitted draft guidelines, State Archives further edited and revised these. The newest draft is too lengthy to review during the meeting. The draft will be discussed via the ERC listserv section by section, then voted upon online.

IX. Discussion on the future of subcommittees

There was a suggestion to use working groups on specific topics needing guidelines. Working groups would consist of a smaller number of people who meet actively for a brief time to accomplish concise goals; for example a group of 3-5 people who meet once a week for 4-6 weeks. It was decided to use either subcommittees or working groups, depending upon the needs of each topic.

New topics for subcommittees/working groups include:
Privacy & Log Files - Daryl Weir will create the charge to the group
Naming Conventions/File Management - Laurie Gemmill will draft the charge to the group.

These charges will be submitted to the ERC listserv. People can then volunteer to participate.

X. Next meeting will be planned for mid February 2000, the exact date will be announced via the ERC listserv.

---

Minutes
15 February 2000

Electronic Records Committee (ERC)
Ohio Historical Center

Members in attendance: Deborah Archie, Charlie Arp (chair), Galen Bock, Tamar Chute, Carol Crofut, Barbara Floyd, Mary Ellen Forrester, Laurie Gemmill, Chuck Hess, Robert Keyes, David Landsbergen, Betsey Lane, David Larson, Andrea Lentz, Jim Mendel, Elizabeth Nelson, Donna Oxenrider, Mark Schmidbauer, Greg Schneller, Jill Tatem, Margaret Theibert, Judy Walker, Daryl Weir, Richard Whitehouse, Jane Wildermuth, Judith Wise, Becky Wright and Tony Yankus

Members Absent: Sol Bermann, Maggie Buckholtz, Daisy Crockron, Raimund Goerler, Jan Neiger

Also Present: Pete Bates

I. Introductions & Membership Issues

Charlie Arp made some general announcements:

Rae Cogar, Jim Orbin, and Melissa Winesburg have taken new positions and no longer serve on the committee.

The ERC welcomed new members: Sol Berman, Galen Bock, Daisy Crockron, Carol Crofut, Barbara Floyd, Chuck Hess, Robert Keyes, Mark Schmidbauer, Richard Whitehouse, Judy Wise, and Tony Yankus. Charlie Arp reviewed the mission of the ERC for new members.

The committee's membership procedures have been finalized and are available on the membership page. Charlie Arp, Raimund Goerler, and Margaret Theibert presently serve on the Membership Committee.

II. Electronic Records News

Charlie Arp reported that Gregory Jackson has been appointed the Chief Information Officer (CIO) for the State of Ohio. He is the Assistant Director of DAS; OPP now reports to him.

Mr. Arp also reported on the Joint Electronic Records Repository - a project to develop methods and systems for a state electronic storage repository to give Ohio citizens broad, systematic public access to electronic public records and electronic publications.

Judy Walker reported on the GILS application that went live August 1999. Eight agencies are currently using the application; about 60 schedules have been submitted and approved since that time. The Minnesota State Archives is interested in implementing the application in that state and further development is being planned.

Ms. Walker also reported that many of the ERC's guidelines are of interest to local governments. The Local Government Records (LGR) Program advises 5200 local government entities facing electronic records issues. The ERC e-mail guidelines, digital imaging guidelines and General Schedules for Administrative Electronic Records will be revised to reflect local government records procedures and requirements, and then issued as suggested guidelines for local governments.

Margaret Theibert reported on the Digital Signature Legislation - House Bill 488. DAS intends to recommend several changes to substitute HB488. Charlie Arp participated in drafting the recommendations. One DAS-proposed change has to do with strengthening existing electronic records law and providing for greater security by exempting the information relating to the security of electronic commerce from public records.

Laurie Gemmill reported on the ERC website. A new section includes links to various sites devoted to electronic records related issues. There are links to electronic records policies, projects, digital imaging, electronic mail, Government Information Locator Services (GILS) and to pertinent Ohio laws.

Ms. Gemmill also distributed some website statistics. Over the past year, the main page to the ERC website had over 8100 hits. The digital imaging guidelines received 1686 hits; electronic mail guidelines received 667 hits; the electronic publications report received 136 hits and the general schedules for administrative electronic records received 321 hits.

III. General Schedules for Administrative Electronic Records

David Larson stated that the proposed additions to the General Schedules have been approved and adopted by the State Records Administrator and now are available as an addendum to the 1998 publication.

IV. State Library and the Electronic Publications Sub-Committee

Pete Bates discussed the State Library's efforts to revise the Ohio Revised Code 149.11. They are revising the code to be broader, thus enabling them to write administrative rules concerning the number of copies of publications the State Library receives and to include electronic publications. A draft is up for comment.

Mr. Bates also talked about the efforts of the State Library, State Archives and Ohio Supercomputer Center to work on long-term storage, retrieval and use of electronic publications. These projects are continuing to address several recommendations in the Electronic Publications Subcommittee Report.

V. Draft Digital Imaging Guidelines

The draft Digital Imaging Guidelines have been posted for comment for nearly six months. Requests for comment were sent to various listservs including the ones for Archives & Archivists, IT Managers, NAGARA Forum, Records Management, and Society of Ohio Archivists. Requests for comment were also sent to: the Civil Rights Commission, Department of Aging, Department of Taxation and Secretary of State. As there were no significant revisions, the guidelines were approved and will be sent to OPP for review and possible implementation.

VI. Draft Electronic Mail Guidelines

The draft Electronic Mail Guidelines have been discussed, section by section, via the ERC listserv. The guidelines have been up for comment informally for the past six months. Now notices will be sent to various listservs requesting comment on the guidelines. There was discussion as to the next step. There is concern about ensuring that the guidelines are implementable before issuance. A volunteer agency or portion of an agency is being sought for a pilot project. It was agreed that some action needs to be taken at the next meeting.

VII. Log File Retention Working Group

Daryl Weir submitted the report from the Log File Retention Working Group, which proposed several changes to the General Schedules for Administrative Electronic Records. These were approved and will be sent to the State Records Administrator for implementation.

The Group also submitted several other recommendations that will be forwarded to OPP for consideration.

VIII. File Management Working Group

Laurie Gemmill submitted the report from the File Management Working Group. The group made several recommendations regarding effective file management. The guidelines are in draft form. The next step is to have an agency conduct a test or pilot project implement these guidelines.

IX. New Subcommittees/Working Groups

Dave Larson will chair a working group to review the current DAS Directive concerning Certificates of Disposal.

Margaret Theibert will chair a subcommittee to evaluate electronic records management software in compliance with the DoD 5015.2 Standard. This group will report back at the next ERC meeting.

Within the next year, a subcommittee will be formed to develop a set of questions and criteria to determine whether information systems are trustworthy and reliable. This group will begin by reviewing the Minnesota State Archives' "Trustworthy Information Systems Handbook"

X. Next Meeting

The next ERC meeting is tentatively scheduled for August 31, 2000. Further meeting information will be announced via the ERC listserv.

---

Minutes
5 October 2000

Members in attendance: Deborah Archie, Charles Arp (chair), Sol Bermann, Galen Bock, Carol Crofut, Barbara Floyd, Raimund Goerler, David Larson, Andrea Lentz, Mark Schmidbauer, Greg Schneller, Martin Susec, Pari Swift, Jill Tatem, Judy Walker, Jane Wildermuth, Judith Wise, Becky Wright

Members absent: Maggie Buckholz, Tamar Chute, Daisy Crockron, Cynthia Dougherty, Mary Ellen Forrester, Laurie Gemmill, Chuch Hess, Robert Keyes, David Landsbergen, Betsey Lane, Jim Mendel, Elizabeth Nelson, Daryl Weir, Richard Whitehouse, Tony Yankus

Also present: Yvonne Harris, Rich Hite

I. Introductions and Membership Issues

Charlie Arp announced that Margaret Theibert has retired from the DAS Office of Policy and Planning (OPP) and will be replaced on the ERC by Cynthia Dougherty. Donna Oxenrider, also from the DAS Office of Policy and Planning, will no longer be serving as a member of the ERC.

Martin Susec is replacing Jan Neiger on the ERC representing the Office of the Attorney General.

As Margaret Theibert was one of the members of the Membership Committee Mr. Arp asked for a volunteer to replace her.

II. Reports

Judy Walker discussed the ongoing Joint Electronic Records Repository Initiative (JERRI) project. JERRI is a cooperative effort among the Department of Administrative Services (DAS), the Ohio Supercomputer Center (OSC), the Ohio Historical Society (OHS), and the State Library of Ohio (SLO). Ms. Walker reported that OHS submitted a grant proposal to the National Historic Publications and Records Advisory Board (NHPRC) to fund the bringing together of experts and stakeholders in the project in order to study the technical, archival and legal/policy issues of the semi-custodial repository. Each of the project partners has submitted funding requests for JERRI in their FY 02-03 budgets. In addition, SLO has received $58,000 in funding to develop tools for the identification, selection and preservation of state web based publications.

Charlie Arp reported that the Draft Electronic Mail Guidelines were re-worked after the last meeting of the ERC. The Guidelines were posted for comment to a variety of listservs in July 2000. Mr. Arp also mentioned that State Archives is working with the Ohio Department of Insurance and the OhioTuition Trust Authority to implement the Guidelines. The Committee voted unanimously to remove the "Draft" from the Electronic Mail Guidelines.

Judy Walker reported on the ongoing work of the File Management Group. The draft File Management Guidelines have been implemented at the Kansas Historical Society. Committee members were given a copy of the draft File Management Guidelines and asked to send comments to Ms. Walker. The File Management Working Group will continue its work based on the comments from the ERC and from the implementation reports from Kansas.

Charlie Arp reported on the work of the Trustworthy Information Systems (TIS) Working Group. The TIS is a tool that provides criteria with which to judge the reliability and authenticity of records within information systems. The Working Group has completed eight of twelve sections of the TIS. Mr. Arp noted that members of the Kansas Electronic Records Committee are participating in this working group so that Kansas can also use the TIS. Mr. Arp thanked Richard Whitehouse for his work researching the legal components of the TIS. When complete, the TIS Handbook will be reviewed by the Office of the Attorney General.

Charlie Arp reported that H.B. 488 has been passed. H.B. 488 requires that DAS, in conjunction with the State Archivist, provide certificates of authenticity for migrated electronic records and provide regulations for electronic records.

III. Kansas Electronic Records Management Guidelines

Charlie Arp stated that State Archives has modified the Kansas Electronic Records Management Guidelines for use in Ohio. Professor Margaret Hedstrom originally created the Guidelines through funding from the NHPRC. The Guidelines explain the role of archives and records management in an electronic environment. The Committee will comment on the revised Guidelines for two weeks then vote via the listserv to forward the Guidelines to David Larson, State Records Administrator, and to recommend implementation of the Guidelines by the OHS Local Government Records Program.

IV. New Working Groups

Charlie Arp asked for volunteers to examine and recommend Records Management Applications based on the DoD 5015.2 standard. Charlie Arp, Galen Bock, Mark Schmidbauer, Greg Schneller, and Judy Walker volunteered for the working group. Work will begin in January 2001.

The next meeting of the Ohio ERC will be held in the Spring 2001.

Addendum to Minutes of the 5 October 2000 Ohio ERC Meeting
The members of the Ohio ERC voted via electronic mail during October 2000 on the following:

To adopt the Ohio Electronic Records Guidelines and forward them for consideration to the State Records Administrator (state records) and to the Ohio Historical Society (Local Government Records Program).

Vote:
20 Yes
  0 No
15 Abstentions

---

Minutes
12 June 2001

Members in attendance: Doug Alt (for Cynthia Dougherty), Deborah Archie, Charlie Arp (chair), Sol Bermann, John Blair, Tamar Chute, Carol Crofut, Raimund Goerler, Yvonne Harris, David Landsbergen, David Larson, Andy Lentz, Marlane Nibert (for Jim Mendel), Seetha Ravisarvkar (for Galen Bock), John Runion, Pari Swift, Jill Tatem, Carol Volle, Judy Walker, Daryl Weir, Jane Wildermuth, and Tony Yankus

Members absent: Galen Bock, Kevin Callaghan, Mary Ellen Forrester, Robert Keyes, Betsey Lane, Mark Schmidbauer, Greg Schneller, Carol Thomas, Richard Whitehouse, and Judith Wise

Also present: Jennifer Behrendt, Pete Bates, Jim Buchman, Rich Hite, Ann Jenks, Christi Liddle, and Karen Shaffer

I. Introductions and membership issues
Arp reported on the work of the membership subcommittee. The membership subcommittee is made up of Charlie Arp, Raimund Goerler, and David Larson.

Recent new members to the ERC are Sol Bermann, John Blair, Kevin Callaghan, Cynthia Dougherty, Yvonne Harris, John Runion, Martin Susec, Pari Swift, Carol Thomas, and Carol Volle.

OHS staff members Elizabeth Nelson and Laurie Gemmill were asked to resign from the ERC in order to accommodate new members. The ERC especially thanks Laurie Gemmill, the former OHS Electronic Records Archivist, for her diligence and hard work in creating the ERC web site and providing support for the work of the ERC.

II. Working Group Reports
Arp reported that the TIS working group is reviewing the working draft of the TIS Handbook. The Handbook will be sent to the Department of Administrative Services Office of Information Systems Policy and Planning and the Ohio Attorney's General Office for comment. The ERC will vote on the TIS Handbook in August 2001.

Judy Walker reported on the work of the file management working group. The group recommended that the file management group be combined with the Records Management Application working group. The ERC accepted the recommendation and the new working group will begin meeting in summer 2001.

III. Additional Reports

Arp reported that funding requests for the Joint Electronic Records Repository Initiative have been denied because of the state's budgetary problems. Consequently, OHS will not receive the $100,000 NHPRC grant award for the JERRI project. JERRI partners are currently considering submitting a grant application to the National Science Foundation.

Jim Buchman, State Library of Ohio, reported on the Electronic Publications Pilot Project (EP3). EP3 was an LSTA funded project that studied the issues and evaluated products for the identifying, capturing, providing access to, and preserving web based publications create by state agencies. The Project results showed that there are currently no products available on the market with the necessary functionality. The project team has recommended that work continue as a partner in OCLC's digital vault project.

Judy Walker reported that, per the recommendation of the ERC, the OHS Local Government Records Program revised the Electronic Records Management Guidelines and has made them available to local governments via the web.

Judy Walker reported on the last six months of ERC web site statistics.

ERC Main Page	7274
Email Guidelines	1642
General Schedule for E-Records	297
Imaging Guidelines	1705
Links Page	583
Records Management Guidelines	843
TIS Main Page	484

Dr. David Larson reported that state agencies will be able to file retention schedules online beginning this summer using Records Management and Information System (RIMS). This project is based on the GILS prototype developed by OHS, but does not include the metadata attributes included in that system.

Christi Liddle reported that the Ohio Department of Insurance has investigated purchasing ForeMost, a DoD 5015.2 standard compliant Records Management Application. The Department has had several records management issues raised during discovery requests for electronic mail. The agency is hoping to purchase and implement the software in the next few months.

Arp reported that Ohio State Archives is a partner with the Minnesota State Archives in a NHPRC funded project to create workshops about XML. The project will address a critical responsibility that archives have discovered in their work with electronic records: the persistent need to educate a variety of constituencies about the principles, products and resources necessary to implement archival considerations in the application of information technology to governmental functions. Other project partners are: Delaware Public Archives, Indiana University Archives, State of Kentucky, San Diego Supercomputer Center, and the Smithsonian Institution Archives.

More information about the project is available at http://www.mnhs.org/preserve/records/edarchivists.html

IV. Updating of Existing ERC Guidelines
Walker reported that the Imaging and Email Guidelines need to be updated. Small groups of two to four people will work to make recommended revisions, then submit the revisions to the ERC. The Imaging Guidelines will be updated first. The Email Guidelines will be updated after the next meeting of the ERC.

V. New Working Group
Arp reported that the ERC has been asked to convene a sub-committee to examine the issues surrounding public records requests made for state government databases. As it is currently worded, Ohio's public records laws may make it necessary for state agencies to make copies of entire databases in electronic form to respond to public records requests. This sub-committee will make recommendations regarding appropriate protocol in interpreting and responding to such requests.

VI. Closing
Arp thanked Pari Swift for her work preparing for this meeting of the ERC.

The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for 13 November 2001 at 1:30pm at the Ohio Historical Center.

 

---

Minutes
13 November 2001

Ohio Electronic Records Committee (ERC)
Ohio Historical Center

Members in attendance: Doug Alt (for Cynthia Dougherty), Deborah Archie, Charles Arp (chair), John Blair, Kevin Callaghan, Carol Crofut, Barbara Floyd, Mary Ellen Forrester, Raimund Goerler, Andrea Lentz, John Runion, Karen Shaffer, Mark Schmidbauer, Pari Swift, Carol Thomas, Judy Walker, Richard Whitehouse, and Jane Wildermuth

Members absent: Sol Bermann, Galen Bock, Tamar Chute, Yvonne Harris, David Landsbergen, David Larson, Jim Mendel, Greg Schneller, Martin Susec, Carol Volle, Daryl Weir, Judith Wise, and Tony Yankus

Also present: Maggie Buckholz, Rich Hite, Mark Myers, Kelly Young, and Eugene Wise

I. Introduction

II. Membership Committee Report

Arp reported on membership changes to the ERC. Betsey Lane and Robert Keyes are no longer members of the ERC. Jill Tatem has resigned from the ERC. Doug Alt will be replacing Cynthia Dougherty on the committee.

Arp asked that ERC members contact him if they would like to nominate anyone for membership.

III. TIS Working Group Report

Andrea Lentz made a motion to accept the TIS Handbook that was seconded by Barbara Floyd. The ERC voted to accept the TIS Handbook. 17 members voted yes, 0 members voted no.

Arp noted that he will be sending some additions to the TIS Handbook to the ERC for review in the upcoming weeks.

IV. Database Subcommittee Report

Arp thanked Dennis Berg, the Ohio Lottery Commission, for his work creating a draft of the Database guidelines for the subcommittee to consider.

The ERC reviewed the draft Guidelines. As there were several comments and changes to be made, the Guidelines will be revised and distributed via email to the ERC members. A vote will be taken on whether to accept or reject the Guidelines via the ERC listserv.

V. JERRI/OCLC partnership

Walker reported on the ongoing JERRI project and the resulting partnership with OCLC that will result in an OCLC product that will capture and archival web based documents.

VI. Electronic records workshops

Walker reported on electronic records workshops that have been held recently for both state and local government.

VII. Educating Archivists and Their Constituencies

Walker reported on the ongoing State Archives partnership with the Minnesota State Archives to create metadata and XML workshops for archivists and their constituencies. The ERC members are invited to attend these workshops when they are presented in Ohio next year.

VIII. Subcommittees

Arp stated that subcommittees will be meeting to discuss website management, RMA/file management guidelines, and to revise the existing imaging and the email guidelines.

The website management working group will begin working in January 2002 and should have its work completed by March 2002. When that working group is finished, another one will start work.

The next meeting of the Ohio ERC will be held on 23 May 2002 at 1:30pm in the 3rd floor Archives Library Conference Room at the Ohio Historical Center.

ADDENDUM

The ERC voted on the draft Databases as Public Records Guidelines via the ERC listserv between 10 January 2002 and 22 January 2002. Members voted on the following options:

1. Vote to accept the Guidelines as is (The draft guidelines can be viewed at http://www.ohiojunction.net/erc/databases/databasesguidelines.html)

2. Vote to accept the Guidelines revised to include recommendation #6 that reads as follows:

3. Vote to reject the Guidelines

The final vote tally was:

---

Minutes
January 9, 2003

Ohio Electronic Records Committee
Ohio Historical Center

Members in attendance:
Doug Alt, Deborah Archie, Charles Arp (chair), Sol Bermann, John Blair, Kevin Callaghan, Judy Cobb, Carol Crofut, Barbara Floyd, Raimund Goerler, Yvonne Harris, David Landsbergen, David Larson, Andrea Lentz, Jim Mendel (for Mary Beth Parisi), Mark Schmidbauer, Pari Swift, Carol Thomas, Dino Tsibouris, Daryl Weir, Richard Whitehouse, Jane Wildermuth

Members absent:
Galen Bock, Tamar Chute, John Runion, Karen Shaffer, Martin Susec, Carol Volle, Judith Wise, Tony Yankus

Also present:
Rich Hite

I. Introductions

The meeting was called to order at 1:30 by Charlie Arp, State Archivist. Committee members introduced themselves to the group.

II. ERC Mission Statement

After some discussion, the current mission statement was changed in the following manner:

"The goal of the Electronic Records Committee (ERC) is to draft model policies, recommendations, and guidelines for the creation, maintenance, long term preservation of and access to electronic records created by Ohio's state and local governments."

It was suggested that the more members may need to be added to the ERC to reflect the addition of local governments.

III. Membership

Arp recently received an ERC membership application from a vendor prompting him to ask the Committee to consider whether opening membership up to vendors would be beneficial or detrimental to the Committee. A majority of the Committee agreed that while vendor input and expertise could be important at times, vendors as committee members was not favored for the following reasons including:

The membership committee was assigned the task of devising a "non-voting" member status for vendors.

Arp also agreed to research whether ERC meetings fall under the Open Meetings Act of the Ohio Revised Code.

IV. Report on Web-site Statistics

Swift reported on ERC website statistics for the 2002 calendar year. Included in the report were statistics for the ERC Homepage, all guidelines/final documents, and any subcommittee that was active during 2002. The statistics remained similar to those of 2001. The ERC Homepage is estimated to have had over 10,000 hits in 2002.

V. Survey on Effectiveness of ERC Publications

In an attempt to determine how effective the ERC and its guidelines have been in Ohio, David Larson proposed surveying 25 Executive Branch agencies about their electronic records management practices. A draft of the survey was passed out at the meeting and members were ask to email Arp with their comments on the proposed questions. Issues brought up during the meeting included:

VI. Report on the National Science Foundation Grant

The Ohio Historical Society, along with the Ohio Supercomputer Center and the Technology Policy Group at the Fisher College of Business submitted a grant proposal titled "A Systematic Approach to Defining Public electronic Records of Enduring Historical Value" to the National Science Foundation in November 2002. The grant asks for $758,000 over two years to create a dataset to estimate the costs of archiving electronic records. The project would do this by:
1. Surveying and appraising electronic records from Ohio government agencies
2. Create a decision-making matrix to determine which electronic records must be maintained in electronic formats
3. Develop guidelines on how to create and maintain electronic records
4. Forecast the aggregate costs of preserving and maintaining electronic records

VII. Report on the Imaging Sub-committee

Schmidbauer reported that the Digital Imaging Guidelines needed to be updated to reflect changes in technology. The Imaging Revision Sub-committee will be making more procedural changes to the Digital Imaging Guidelines, rather than technical changes. The original recommendations were divided up among the sub-committee members to make the initial changes. The goal for those drafts was 9 January 2003. Once the draft is compiled, it will be emailed to committee members to review and comment on until 15 February 2003. At the 11 March 2003 meeting, the draft will be finalized and voted on by the sub-committee. The document should be ready for ERC approval for the 26 June 2003 meeting.

VIII. Report on State IT Security Policy Development

Alt reported that on 5 December 2002, the Department of Administrative Services, pursuant to §125.021 of the Ohio Revised Code, issued six new Information Technology Security Policies. A working group of twelve agencies along with security experts are currently working on a second set of policies to be published later in 2003.

IX. Modification of the Ohio Trustworthy Information Systems Handbook

Arp proposed six areas of modification to the Ohio TIS. The first area of modification is to Section 7 "How Important is you Information?" A risk analysis will be added. At the end of each of the five criteria sections, the TIS will list criteria for low, medium, and high threat records or systems based on the afore mentioned risk analysis.

A vote was taken with all in favor of the modifications. Arp will send the changes to the ERC listserv when it is complete.

X. Report on Michigan/San Diego Super Computer Center NHPRC Grant and the Minnesota/NHPRC Electronic Records Grant Agenda Meeting

The Michigan Department of History, Arts and Libraries is collaborating on a project with the San Diego Super Computer Center to develop and test a model for preserving the records in Michigan's Records Management Application (RMA). The groups are working to isolate the functionality required in the communication between the RMA and the preservation model in order to ensure that records stored in the RMA are accessible as long as they are needed, even as software becomes obsolete.

The Minnesota Historical Society is working with NHPRC to improve the electronic records grant program by putting an emphasis on educating archivists and records managers so the electronic records programs can prosper. They are looking into modifying NHPRC's grant questions as well as requiring institutions to report on grant activities.

XI. Closing

Suggestions were taken for future sub-committee projects. The two suggestions were revising the Email Guidelines and looking at issues involving public records created using XML.

Arp will send committee members a list of possible dates for the June 2003 ERC meeting

---

Minutes
June 26, 2003

Ohio Electronic Records Committee
Ohio Historical Center

Members in attendance:
Deborah Archie, Charles Arp (Chair), John Blair, Galen Bock, Judy Cobb, Carol Crofut, Andrea Lentz, Mary Beth Parisi, Karen Shaffer, Mark Schmidbauer, Pari Swift, Carol Thomas, Daryl Weir, Richard Whitehouse

Members absent:
Douglas Alt, Sol Bermann, Kevin Callaghan, Tamar Chute, Barbara Floyd, Raimund Goerler, Yvonne Harris, David Landsbergen, David Larson, John Runion, Martin Susec, Dino Tsibouris, Carol Volle, Jane Wildermuth, Judith Wise, Tony Yankus

Also present:
Rich Hite, Eric Silver, Brooke Speert (for Christian Selch)

I. Introductions and Announcements

The meeting was called to order at 1:30 by Charles Arp, State Archivist. Committee members introduced themselves to the group.

Eric Silver, representing County Boards of Mental Retardation/Developmental Disabilities (MR/DD), talked about how the county Boards of MR/DD are hesitant to accept e-signatures. He is seeking documentation that would authorize the county Boards of MR/DD to use e-signatures.

Arp announced that Dr. David Larson will be resigning from the ERC and also the ERC Membership Committee as a result of H.B. 95 abolishing is position within the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) and reassigning him to another branch of state government. In late July, Arp will ask another ERC member from DAS to take Larson's position on the Membership Committee. The selection will be finalized by an ERC vote via listserv.

II. Report on Web-Site Statistics

Pari Swift reported on ERC web-site statistics for January through May 2003 in comparison to the same months in 2002. Overall hits to the ERC web-pages are up over 2000 hits from the same time in 2002. The homepage has been hit almost 750 more times. The Imaging and Database Guidelines as well as the General Schedule remained steady, while the Email Guidelines were down slightly. The Electronic Records Guidelines are up approximately 100 hits per month and the TIS is showing increased hits as well. These statistics are the first time the Web Content Guidelines have been available in final form. Swift reminded the group that several of the Guidelines exist in another form on the Local Government Records Program website. Hits to those guidelines were not taken into account in these statistics.

III. Report of the Imaging Sub-committee

Mark Schmidbauer began by thanking the committee for their hard work. Schmidbauer reported that the committee had updated some of the technical procedures contained within the original Imaging Guidelines. As well, the committee reorganized the guidelines into four central sections, including a new section for Archiving and Long-term Maintenance. The glossary, links, and bibliography were expanded on. Joe Dickman was credited for creating the two spreadsheets to assist in the cost-analysis section.

Arp thanked Swift and Carol Thomas for their editing efforts. Arp commented that the Ohio ERC's Digital Imaging Guidelines are impressive compared to similar documents. After no response to a call for comments on the document, Arp called for a vote to approve the Revised Digital Imaging Guidelines, which were unanimously approved.

IV. Report on the Survey of Executive Branch Agencies

Arp reported that, until recently, the ERC only had web-site statistics and anecdotal evidence of the use of products created by the ERC. David Larson and Raimund Goerler wanted more proof, so Arp and Larson created a plan to survey 20 executive branch agencies. Only 7 agencies were completed before Larson's reassignment. Arp hopes to interview more agencies in the future.

The results indicate that although most agencies are aware that the public record laws apply to electronic records, most electronic records are not scheduled. Six out of the seven agencies knew of the ERC and use its products. The ERC and its publications are held in high regard by the agencies because of the breadth of membership composition. The ERC was shown a video that the Ohio Bureau of Worker's Compensation had made to train its employees on how to schedule email, based on the ERC's Guidelines for Managing Electronic Mail.

V. Report on the Electronic Records Activities of the Court

Mary Beth Parisi talked about the Courts Technology Polic and Planning Committee, which is broken down into three subcommittees. The first subcommittee is researching national standards for courts, including a uniform case numbering system. The second is the Policy Committee, which makes decisions on what is appropriate, in court records, for public access. They would like to create one policy that includes both paper and electronic records. The last subcommittee is charged with making the courts interoperable. Currently, there is no infrastructure in place connecting Ohio's courts and local law enforcement agencies. 99% of Ohio's courts are automated. The subcommittee would like to create a centralized data center for information to feed into. The proposed funding would come from a $3.00 per case filing fee increase.

VI. Report on the San Diego Super Computer Center NHPRC Grant

The San Diego Super Computer Center (SDSC) submitted a NHPRC grant in June 2003 for $251, 830 with a cost share of $214,035. The goal is to demonstrate the generality of the data grid approach to the implementation of a preservation environment and the automation of archival processes, through application to electronic records collections. The Ohio Historical Society (OHS) is one of five institutions that would team with SDSC based on a large email collection held by OHS.

VII. Report on the NHPRC Grant Submitted by OHS and the Ohio Super
Computer Center

The grant, titled "A Systematic Approach to Defining Public electronic records of Enduring Historical Value," asks for approximately $350,000 to create an appraisal survey, a decision-making matrix, and a cost model so that archivists can better quantify and build the business case for their efforts to preserve electronic records of enduring historical value.

VIII. Closing

Arp announced that the formation of new subcommittees was being put on hold until at least August 2003 because of the uncertainty caused by the Society-wide reduction in force.

Ideas for future subcommittees include guidelines for instant messaging, guidelines for the digitization of audio/video tape, technology and the Open Meetings Act, revision of the Email Guidelines, and a comparison of various DoD 5015.2 software programs.

The next ERC meeting is scheduled for 4 December 2003 at 1:30.

---

Minutes
14 January 2004

Ohio Electronic Records Committee
Rhodes Office Tower

Members in attendance: Deborah Archie, John Blair, Judy Cobb, Carol Crofut, Barbara Floyd, Rai Goerler, Yvonne Harris, David Landsbergen, Andy Lentz, Mark Schmidbauer, Christian Selch, Karen Shaffer, Eric Silver, Pari Swift, Dino Tsibouris, Daryl Weir, Richard Whitehouse (Interim Chair), Jane Wildermuth

Members Absent: Douglas Alt, Sol Bermann, Galen Bock, Kevin Callaghan, Tamar Chute, John Runion, Carol Thomas, Judith Wise, Tony Yankus

Also Present: Pattie Doyle (for Martin Susec), Rodger Whaley, Mike Dressel (for Mary Beth Parisi), Jim Mendel (for Mary Beth Parisi)

I. Welcome and Introductions

Interim-Chair Richard Whitehouse welcomed members to the special meeting of the ERC. The purpose of the meeting was to determine if the ERC should continue and if so, in what direction and capacity.

Immediately there were concerns over the role of the Ohio Historical Society with the ERC given the vacant State Archivist position and the meeting being held outside of the Ohio Historical Center. Pari Swift reported that the Ohio Historical Society (OHS) sees the ERC as an independent committee of which OHS has members. OHS acknowledges the benefits of a relationship with the ERC. The search for a new State Archivist is ongoing.

Members were divided into three groups to discuss the issues. The groups then presented their thoughts on the topic to the committee as a whole. Following a lunch break, the committee reconvened to for open discussion and debate on the issues.

What follows includes items discussed in the small groups and further discussed with the committee as a whole.

II. Who is the ERC?

There is concern over the current lack of leadership from OHS, the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) and the Office of Policy and Planning (OPP). OPP, an original co-founder of the ERC, no longer has representation on the ERC. DAS did sent their attorney to the meeting, although they are no longer a centralized group that can provide leadership.

a. Relationship with the Ohio Historical Society

b. Other sponsorship(s)

Consensus was that the ERC should remain an independent committee at this point and should not seek sponsorship from other agencies. Although having a sponsoring agency might allow the committee the ability to have an internal effect on an agency by actually working with staff and applying some best practices, it could also be limiting when it comes to other agencies and local governments. An independent committee would speak to a broader audience. The field of records management, especially where electronic records are concerned, is fluid, so the ERC too should be fluid.

The chair and possibly co-chair positions should not represent sponsorship by particular agencies and affiliations.

c. "Public" meetings

At this point in time, the ERC meetings do not fall under the public meetings statutes. The ERC is not a group of policy and decision makers.

d. Organization structure

Before any decisions on structure can be decided, the ERC must determine or clarify its mission.

The idea of adding a co-chair to the ERC was suggested and met with the approval of many committee members. A chair and co-chair would allow for continuity of the ERC and its institutional knowledge in the event that one of the leaders would leave the group. Two leaders would also help to spread the workload out.

Suggestions for chair and co-chair:

The roles of the chair and co-chair were not discussed in great detail except to say that they would help to develop a healthy agenda for the committee.

Consensus was that there is not currently a need for a Steering Committee, though that may change if the size of the ERC as a whole would grow.

Currently, the Membership Committee is the only standing committee. The Membership Committee, though down a few members, should remain, although there need to be guidelines for them to follow concerning what types of representation the ERC would like and what types of procedures to follow as far as applying for membership or retraction of membership to the ERC.

One suggested additional standing committee was an Education Committee charged with developing ways to promote the ERC and its products.

Another additional committee that was suggested was a Research Committee. The Research Committee would help to determine what types of projects the ERC should take on based on the needs expressed by the constituents of the ERC. The Research Committee would be charged with determining these needs. Two potential areas of need already suggested are security issues involving electronic records and the impact of recent legislative changes that affect electronic records.

A committee on structure and by-laws was also suggested.

There was discussion about whether limits or composition goals should be set for the ERC. Several felt that those goals should not be codified, but that there should be a balance. The groups said that the ERC needs to analyze its current membership and identify possible stakeholders who should be members of the committee. The committee should include members who have roles pertaining to electronic records and who can provide added value to the committee. It was reiterated that vendors can attend meetings but not vote due to potential conflict of interest.

Possible stakeholders:

III. Where is the ERC going?
a. Mandate

Some felt that there is an even greater mandate for the ERC now that DAS is not actively involved. The ERC needs to assist with coordination among agencies. Electronic Records have a "connectivity" that needs to be harnessed. The ERC needs to help people use electronic records as resources.

The ERC's mandate is to be a clearinghouse for best practices and standards for managing electronic records.

b. Mission

Most groups agreed that the mission of the ERC was to create and make available best practices concerning the creation, maintenance, preservation and access to electronic records. Individual agencies and local governments should develop their own policies and implement them based on the best practices produced by the ERC. The ERC does not have the authority to become involved in enforcement and compliance. The ERC and the best practices that it produces should provide a dialog between records managers and information technology staff. Through this dialog, the ERC needs to determine if implementation of the guidelines is feasible. It should also be impressed that agencies have a direct responsibility to Ohio's citizens to manage and care for records of all formats.

The ERC's current mission statement is as follows:

"The goal of the Electronic Records Committee (ERC) is to draft model policies, recommendations, and guidelines for the creation, maintenance, long term preservation of and access to electronic records created by Ohio's state and local governments."

Suggested changes to the mission statement included:

c. Issues: What is the next "new thing"?

Ideas for the ERC's next "new thing:

Priorities:

IV. What does the ERC do when were get there?
a. Implementation

The committee agreed that the ERC does not have the authority to implement the guidelines that it produces.

It was suggested that the ERC might co-produce a case study with a state agency or local government that has implemented any of the guidelines. This would help the ERC to judge if the guidelines are being implemented, how they are being implemented, what kind of success the implementation has had and serve as an additional resource for other agencies or local governments looking for implementation guidance.

b. Authority

The ERC does not have the authority to ensure compliance or enforce policy. The products of the ERC are best practices for those seeking information. If agencies or local governments have questions they will seek out the ERC.

c. Compliance

One group felt that it should be up to the agencies that sign off on retention schedules (Auditor, DAS, OHS, local records commissions) to enforce compliance to the guidelines produced by the ERC.

d. Education

The groups agreed that education should be a part of the ERC's mission. The ERC needs to get the message out that issues with electronic records exist and that the ERC offers resources to assist with those issues. Getting out in the field and providing education is the only outlet to see that the goals of the ERC are met since the ERC has no implementation authority. This would provide the ERC with feedback opportunities.

It was suggested that a standing committee on education be formed to look into how to proceed.

Other education ideas included:

V. Closing

Swift and Whitehouse will compile detailed minutes of the meeting and forward them to the listserv for discussion. The discussion should identify key issues that need to be addressed as well as establish goals and priorities for the ERC. 30 days will be allowed for discussion.

The next ERC meeting will take place in March 2004 (TBA).

 

---

Minutes
20 May 2004

Ohio Electronic Records Committee
Ohio Historical Center

Members in attendance: John Blair, Judy Cobb, Barbara Floyd, Rai Goerler, Mary Beth Parisi, John Runion, Mark Schmidbauer, Christian Selch, Pari Swift, Carol Thomas, Richard Whitehouse (Interim Chair), Jane Wildermuth

Members Absent: Douglas Alt, Deborah Archie, Sol Bermann, Galen Bock, Kevin Callaghan, Tamar Chute, Carol Crofut, Yvonne Harris, David Landsbergen, Andy Lentz, Karen Shaffer, Eric Silver, Martin Susec, Dino Tsibouris, Daryl Weir, Tony Yankus

Also Present: Laurie Gemmill, George Parkinson, Rodger Whaley

I. Welcome and Introductions

Interim-Chair Richard Whitehouse welcomed the members of the ERC to the meeting. Members present introduced themselves and stated the agency or local government they represent.

II. ERC Relationship to the Ohio Historical Society

Whitehouse welcomed George Parkinson, Archives/Library Division Chief, to the meeting to discuss the continuing relationship between the ERC and the Ohio Historical Society (OHS). Dr. Parkinson expressed his interest in continuing to partner with the ERC in its work and to provide free meeting and parking space. The work of the ERC is valuable to OHS, the State of Ohio, and the citizens of Ohio.

Dr. Parkinson introduced Laurie Gemmill as the new State Archivist and Pari Swift as the new Assistant State Archivist, both effective June 1, 2004. Gemmill and Swift will be active participants representing OHS on the ERC.

The Draft Ohio 2010 Strategic Plan, produced by the Ohio Historical Records Advisory Board (OHRAB), states that OHRAB should collaborate with the ERC to address the challenges of electronic records. One action to meet that objective is to establish an official OHRAB representative to the ERC. Barbara Floyd, currently a member of both OHRAB and the ERC, may be formally appointed by OHRAB as the liaison between the groups.

III. Discussion of Potential By-laws

Whitehouse distributed minutes from the January 2004 meeting and draft by-laws, to be used as a starting point from which to build. He then called for comments on the draft by-laws. The following comments were discussed:

IV. Changing the ERC's Mission and Purpose

Mary Beth Parisi, Manager of Technology Policy and Planning for the Supreme Court of Ohio, suggested that the ERC should be making policy recommendations because it is not effective to have each agency make its own policy. That was countered with the fact that the ERC does not have the authority to enforce policy. Therefore, the ERC tries to produce general products/guidelines which agencies can adapt to meet their specific needs. The ERC does, however, need to work on communicating to and working with various entities about ERC products. Other members suggested that the enforcement of policy is the responsibility of the IT Policy Committee, within the Department of Administrative Services (DAS).

Does the ERC need to reconsider its goals to be more than just education, or to instead address standards and compliance in the field of electronic records? The guidelines produced by the ERC should be something various entities should be able to implement. Barbara Floyd noted that it would not be possible to create one product able to be implemented in all of Ohio's state agencies and local governments because of the vast differences in computer systems.

Rai Goerler suggested that the ERC needs to survey and evaluate which ERC documents are and are not used, who they are used by, what computer systems are used, what resources are available, and what is the IT environment throughout the state. Goerler offered to speak with ERC member David Landsbergen about giving a presentation at the next ERC meeting about creating a survey task force.

Questions were brought up as to whether the ERC is a leader? Is the ERC primarily concerned with education? If the ERC's products were policy, that would fulfill the education component of the mission. The ERC needs to view itself as a resource for state agencies.

Interim-Chair Whitehouse called for a motion to establish a By-Laws Committee. Parisi made the motion. It was seconded by John Runion. All were in favor of establishing a By-Laws Committee.

V. Education Committee

The ERC should have an understanding of the electronic records environment. It needs to survey those entities that use the ERC products and identify the risks. The direction that the ERC takes and the products that it produces should be based on the results of the survey. However, the ERC does not have the funding to take on this level of assessment. The Committee would need executive sponsorship and would have to seek local volunteers. Perhaps members could begin gathering information from within their own organizations.

One suggested goal of the Education Committee would be to disseminate information. Further discussion was tabled until the ERC develops a clear mission statement or business plan.

Other suggestions were to instead refer to the Education Committee as the Communication Committee or the Strategic Planning Committee. There was also a suggestion that a Steering Committee could be formed and charged with figuring out what in what direction the ERC should move.

It was agreed that although the ERC should not become static, the formation of committees should wait until the ERC establishes its mission.

VI. Discussion of ERC Mission

Questions were raised about how the ERC can be more effective in its mission and with working as partners. The Committee needs to have an understanding of what other statewide activities are going on. Working with other groups helps the ERC build its knowledge base and both partners gain additional visibility. The two members of the ERC who are policy builders, Parisi and Christian Selch, could offer insight into how policy development works within their agencies.

When asked if their agencies made use of any of the ERC guidelines, Parisi and Selch replied that they were not to that point yet. It is not that the ERC guidelines are not good, but that their agencies are looking for guidelines that fit the purposes of their agencies. ERC policies are too specific and require another step. For a statewide policy to be in place, all the local levels have to be in the same place technically. Therefore, basic standards need to be in place stating what technical levels are needed to meet the guidelines. In other words, standards are needed that allow technology to meet the policies. Selch would be willing to put together a phone conference or presentation at the next meeting concerning policy planning and implementation.

Although the ERC does not have an official mandate to implement and enforce policy, the Committee seems resistant to making official recommendations and passing those recommendations on to those persons who can push for policy and implementation.

The basic issue to be decided between Committee members concerned whether the ERC should continue along the same lines from which it was originally formed, but step it up a level or whether the ERC should go in a different direction by taking more of a leadership role in creating policy and legislative recommendations instead of guidelines.

The basic mission of the ERC, along with its basic needs and membership components need to be addressed before the Committee can begin to discuss By-Laws. The ERC needs to decide the need for its services, the expertise of its members (records management, preservation, passing legislation, etc.), and whether the ERC can fulfill the expressed needs. The ERC needs to get a core group of members together to brainstorm. Executive level persons who should be a part of these discussion include representatives from DAS, the State Auditor's Office and the State Library. This core group of members should schedule one-on-one meetings with those members that do not regularly attend meetings in order to get their input as well.

VII. Closing

The By-Laws Committee established early in the meeting was temporarily tabled pending further discussion via the ERC listserv as to how the ERC wishes to proceed. Whitehouse urged members to use the listserv to discuss the matters that were brought up in the meeting and to think about them in terms of by-laws. Members were also urged to draft alternate missions and goals.

A date for the next meeting has not be established. Whitehouse will send proposed dates to the listserv.

 

 

---

Minutes
15 September 2004

Ohio Electronic Records Committee
Ohio Historical Center

Members in attendance: Deborah Archie, John Blair, Judy Cobb, Laurie Gemmill (Chair), Rai Goerler, David Landsbergen, Andy Lentz, Mary Beth Parisi, John Runion, Mark Schmidbauer, Karen Sorrell, Pari Swift, Carol Thomas, Richard Whitehouse, Jane Wildermuth

Members Absent: Douglas Alt, Sol Bermann, Galen Bock, Kevin Callaghan, Tamar Chute, Carol Crofut, Barbara Floyd, Yvonne Harris, Karen Shaffer, Eric Silver, Martin Susec, Dino Tsibouris, Daryl Weir, Tony Yankus

Also Present: Brooke Speert (for Christian Selch), Jim Strider

I. Welcome and Introductions

Interim Chair Richard Whitehouse welcomed the members of the ERC to the meeting. Members present introduced themselves and stated the agency or local government they represent.

Whitehouse officially turned duties of ERC Chair over to State Archivist Laurie Gemmill of the Ohio Historical Society (OHS).

Gemmill introduced Jim Strider as the new leader of the restructured division of OHS to which the Archives/Library is a part. Gemmill clarified the memo that was sent out to the ERC list in June 2004 that announced the OHS restructuring efforts and the elimination of George Parkinson's position as Archives/Library Division Chief. Strider emphasized to the committee OHS's commitment to maintaining and supporting the Archives/Library and its partnerships, including the one that will be discussed during the ERC meeting.

II. Proposed Partnership between the Ohio State University and the ERC

Gemmill introduced David Landsbergen of the Ohio State University's John Glenn School of Public Affairs. Landsbergen, in conjunction with Raimund Goerler, University Archivist, and Robert Kalal, Director of Information Technology Policy and Services, created a proposal for a partnership. The partnership would provide a part-time student for administrative support and would provide resources for comprehensive surveys on how the ERC's products are or are not being used in state and local government agencies.

Proposal
PowerPoint Presentation

III. Discussion on Proposal

One topic of discussion was how and when to identify the ERC's stakeholders. Should the ERC seek out members or should the committee wait for interested persons to find it? Should desired membership be identified before the survey subcommittee begins its work or should this be part of the survey subcommittee's research? Some argued that surveys to professional organizations at the county and municipal levels would help to identify potential stakeholders, whether they be members of the ERC or consumers of the ERC products. Other members argued that it is easier to approach these groups if the ERC already has a sense of its target membership.

The proposal seeks to bring in more representation from local governments. A member mentioned that at the creation of the ERC, local governments were intentionally left out because the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) could not enforce policies on local governments. Public universities would also resist efforts to force them to follow any particular policy. To add more local governments to the mix would reduce the possibility of ERC products one day being adopted as official state policies. Another member noted that even if DAS made issued a policy at the state level based on ERC recommendations, local governments could still use the product as a best practice.

It is generally agreed that the ERC should remain a best practice resource for the time being. This would allow the ERC time to regain momentum and begin working on producing guidelines and best practices again. The ERC currently does not have the resources to pursue policy-making authority. Eventually the legislature might look to the ERC as a resource. When they do, the surveys will provide evidence of why the work of the ERC is needed. The initial purpose of the ERC was to find the best way to approach electronic records issues, not to mandate procedures for addressing them. Even with a perfect document, some state agencies and local governments simply could not afford to implement the guidelines.

The definition of "best practice" versus "model policy" was discussed. There was some disagreement as to the definition of "best practice." One thing that was agreed upon is that economic and political considerations need to be taken into account as the ERC designs its products. Adding more local government representation to the ERC would provide additional insight into the economic and political feasibilities of relating to implementing the guidelines.

A member asked if the surveys would cover only digital environments or whether paper records would be included since the line between records management in paper and electronic formats is getting blurry. Landsbergen replied that the surveys would take general records management into account. It was suggested that a subcommittee be formed to look at records retention issues. The ERC should also examine how much content and context must be preserved to continue to have viable records.

Mark Schmidbauer made a motion to form the partnership between the ERC and the Ohio State University's John Glenn School of Public Affairs. Mary Beth Parisi seconded the motion. Gemmill called for a vote. The motion for the partnership passed unanimously.

IV. New Subcommittees

Gemmill called for subcommittee suggestions and received the following suggestions:

Gemmill suggested that only two subcommittees be active at this time. She suggested that the Survey Advisory Subcommittee was necessary and the Bylaws Subcommittee could move quickly to accomplish its mission. Then we can move on to a subcommittee that creates a work-product. Members of the two subcommittees are as follows:

Survey Advisory Subcommittee

Bylaws Subcommittee

V. Closing

The committee members discussed the idea of meeting quarterly since the partnership currently only has one year of funding. Discussion topics at the next meeting will include reports from the Bylaws Subcommittee and review of surveys from the Survey Advisory Subcommittee. The next meeting is scheduled for December 6, 2004 at 1:30 in the 3rd floor conference room at the Ohio Historical Center in Columbus.

ERC members were asked to begin a discussion of potential stakeholders via the listserv.

Gemmill thanked Richard Whitehouse for his year of service to the ERC as Interim Chair. The ERC is grateful for his hard work during this year of transition.

Meeting adjourned.

---

Minutes
December 6, 2004

Ohio Electronic Records Committee
Ohio Historical Center

Members in attendance: Douglas Alt, Deborah Archie, Barbara Floyd, Laurie Gemmill (Chair), Rai Goerler, David Landsbergen, Andy Lentz, John Runion, Eric Silver, Karen Sorrell, Pari Swift, Carol Thomas, Daryl Weir, Richard Whitehouse

Members Absent: Sol Bermann, John Blair, Galen Bock, Kevin Callaghan, Tamar Chute, Judy Cobb, Carol Crofut, Yvonne Harris, Mary Beth Parisi, Karen Shaffer, Mark Schmidbauer, Martin Susec, Dino Tsibouris, Jane Wildermuth, Tony Yankus

Also Present: Venus Breinich, Christian Selch, Jim Strider

I. Welcome and Introductions

Laurie Gemmill, ERC Chair, welcomed members and began introductions. Each member present was asked to introduce themselves and what agency they represent and share an electronic records issue currently being dealt with in their agency.

II. Office of Statewide Policy Presentation

Christian Selch, Administrator for Statewide IT Policy, State of Ohio gave a brief introduction to the Ohio Office of Information Technology (OIT). Doug Alt gave a presentation on how a policy becomes a policy in the State of Ohio. The process generally takes several months, but can range in time due to the number of review cycles and people involved.

Questions and discussion followed Alt's presentation. Selch noted that although the policies issued by the state do not apply to local governments, local governments have used state policies as models for their own local policies. Eric Silver and John Runion suggested that although local governments might not willingly accept policies from the state, they might be more willing to follow ERC guidelines concerning electronic records issues. Perhaps the ERC could be a conduit between local and state information technology professionals. Although the state cannot offer suggested records retention periods, the OIT could offer suggestions on systems and system infrastructure.

Rai Goerler asked what the OIT was looking for from the ERC. Alt responded that the ERC helps the OIT to learn what the current electronic records issues are that state agencies are facing. There is also overlap in key persons, although there are challenges in knowing who has authority on various issues. Therefore the partnership is helpful.

III. Minutes

Gemmill asked if any changes needed to be made to the minutes from the 15 September 2004 meeting. With none offered, Gemmill called for a motion to approve. David Landsbergen motioned to approve the minutes. Andy Lentz seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion to approved the 15 September 2004 meeting minutes passed.

IV. Bylaws Subcommittee Report

Bylaws subcommittee chair Mary Beth Parisi was not able to attend the meeting. Rai Goerler gave the subcommittee update in her place. Goerler noted that the goals of the subcommittee were to creat bylaws to govern the ERC and to create a membership process. Goerler then walked the ERC through each article of the Bylaws step-by-step taking comments for improvement. Pari Swift read the changes back to the group, which agreed to vote on the bylaws as presented with changes.

Gemmill called for a motion to approve the ERC Bylaws. Andy Lentz motioned and Eric Silver seconded the motion. With all in favor, none opposing and one abstention, the Bylaws governing the ERC were officially adopted.

V. OSU Partnership Update

David Landsbergen reported on difficulties with funding from the OSU CIO's office . However, the partnership will receive funding from the OSU Archives and Libraries. The lack of funding did not delay the Survey Subcommittee from creating and distributing the first round of surveys.

VI. Survey Subcommittee Report

Landsbergen thanked the subcommittee for their efforts in creating and providing feedback on the survey questions and how to distribute the survey. The survey went out to the initial target groups on 20 November 2004. Landsbergen then gave a presentation on the focus of the survey, the methods behind it, preliminary results, and what follow-up steps will be taken.

A question was raised as to whether the electronic survey hindered responses in anyway. Lentz suggested the Ohio chapters of ARMA be contacted for state and county representation. Swift will also provide a list of professional organizations for Ohio school districts. Landsbergen will report additional results at the next ERC meeting.

VII. Closing

Gemmill asked the ERC if they wanted to begin a new subcommittee and read a list of topics that had been suggested at past meetings. The committee decided to hold off until the next meeting before forming the next subcommittee. It was also decided that elections for Chair, Vice-chair, Secretary and Membership Committee members would occur at the next meeting.

The next meeting of the ERC is scheduled for 30 March 2005 from 1:30 to 4:00 in the Archives/Library Conference Room of the Ohio Historical Center in Columbus.

Meeting adjourned.

---

Minutes
March 30, 2005

Ohio Electronic Records Committee
Ohio Historical Center

Members in attendance: Kevin Callaghan, Judy Cobb, Barbara Floyd, Laurie Gemmill, Raimund Goerler (Interim-Chair), David Landsbergen, Andrea Lentz, Mary Beth Parisi, John Runion, Mark Schmidbauer, Karen Shaffer, Eric Silver, Karen Sorrell, Martin Susec, Pari Swift, Daryl Weir, Richard Whitehouse, Chris Wydman

Members Absent: Deborah Archie, Sol Bermann, John Blair, Galen Bock, Tamar Chute, Yvonne Harris, Carol Thomas, Tony Yankus

Also Present: Angie Crandall, Peter McLaughlin (for Dino Tsibouris)

I. Introductions

Raimund Goerler, Interim Chair, called the meeting of the OERC to order. Each member present was asked to introduce themselves and what agency they represent.

Goerler then noted that at the 6 December 2004 meeting, the committee passed Bylaws and that one of the purposes of today's meeting was to elect a leadership structure as set forth in the bylaws. Once that is accomplished the committee can work on its future direction.

Goerler called for comments and corrections for the minutes from 6 December 2004. After a few typos were noted, Goerler called for a motion to approve the minutes. John Runion motioned and Andy Lentz seconded the motion. Upon a vote, the minutes were unanimously approved.

II. Election of Officers

Candidates for Chair, Vice-chair and Secretary were each given an opportunity to make statements as to why they wanted the position and what direction they would like the ERC to take. Following the statements, Goerler reviewed the duties assigned to each position in the bylaws. Ballots for voting were distributed. Barbara Floyd agreed to collect and count the votes. The results of the election were as follows:

Chair - Mark Schmidbauer, Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation
Vice-Chair - John Runion, Stark County Records Center
Secretary - Pari Swift, Ohio Historical Society

Goerler thanked all those that had volunteered to serve in elected positions.

III. Formation of Membership Committee

Goerler explained that the bylaws also call for a membership committee to review applications for membership and generate interest in membership. The vice-chair serves as the chair of the membership committee. In addition to the vice-chair, which is a non-voting role, the OERC needed to select volunteers representing various segments of OERC members. The membership committee, as unanimously approved by the OERC is as follows:

John Runion (Chair) - Stark County Records Center
Andy Lentz - Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services
Kevin Callaghan - Lucas County Clerk of Courts
Judy Cobb - Online Computer Library Center

IV. Survey Committee Report

David Landsbergen reported results of the on-line survey "Electronic Records in the State of Ohio" [links to presentation and report]. State agencies were contacted directly to take the survey. To get local governments to respond, email messages were sent to various professional organizations asking them to forward the email, which included the link to the survey, on to their listservs. Landsbergen stressed that the results of the survey are benchmarks and can be used to make others aware of the successes of the OERC. It is also important to note that institutional barriers such as funding, staff and training were more important than awareness and knowledge of electronic records issues.

Angela Crandall noted that the results of her study on electronic records initiatives from other states would be posted to the website.

Following the report, discussion ensued over how the OERC should respond to and apply the results. Mary Beth Parisi noted that the OERC has come full circle and seems to be back to the same point it was at over a year ago in deciding whether the committee should seek more authority and make policy recommendations. Mark Schmidbauer and Martin Susec suggested that the OERC could find middle ground in compiling information and producing resources that could influence legislators. Perhaps the legislature is another customer that the OERC needs to educate. It was agreed that the results showed that local and state governments have electronic records needs that need to be addressed. Parisi stressed that we need to have clear lines to know how far to take "communication and education." Schmidbauer suggested that the OERC needs to aggressively market its products, but ultimately let governments come to the committee for additional help. Barbara Floyd noted that although the State Archives has some authority over records management, the OERC does not have any authority. It was determined that the OERC cannot interpret the law. Instead legal council for each government has that responsibility. Kevin Callaghan stated that from his experience, local government officials do not appreciate being told what to do. Since several members of the OERC work for elected officials, those members may not want to be a part of lobbying and policy-making in order to protect their personal interests. Susec noted that the OERC's tools tend to be used once a government has gotten itself into trouble. He also noted that the media and public might be interested in the OERC's products because it would ultimately lead to better access to records. These groups could persuade governments to take proper care of their electronic records. Silver and Parisi disagreed with Susec on this issue.

V. Action Steps

The OERC agreed to the following three action steps:

Marketing
The OERC agreed that the committee's products needed to be marketed more aggressively. Suggested ideas include taking a presentation around to various professional associations, assign a communications representative to distribute the OERC's message to Gongwer and other communication outlets, and put a new survey on the website asking new customers' needs. It was decided that a subcommittee was needed to come up with short-term and long-term solutions for making people more aware of the OERC and its products. The following persons volunteered for the subcommittee:

Laurie Gemmill
Raimund Goerler
David Landsbergen
Martin Susec
Pari Swift
Daryl Weir

Case Studies
As a follow-up to the survey, the OERC wishes to gather case studies on the use of OERC guidelines. Landsbergen and Crandall volunteered to work on this based on the results of the survey. Swift will contact County Archivists and Records Managers Association (CARMA) for possible case studies. The OERC would like to see the case studies touch on lessons learned through the implementation of an OERC product, barriers to implementation, institutional backing, costs, what problems were being addressed through implementation, and how long it took to implement. Landsbergen will send a template via the listserv. The volunteers will collect what information already exists. Agencies will not be asked to do additional research for the purpose of composing a case study. The OERC is looking for case studies where challenges were successfully overcome. The committee is also interested in whether or not the outcome is what the committee expected from the guidelines. Case studies will be posted to the OERC website.

Membership
The membership committee will begin work on bringing in members from municipalities, townships and other local governments. One suggestion was to invite officers from various professional organizations to apply. The officers should be active in their respective associations, interested in the OERC, have a knowledge of electronic records issues and be close to Columbus. As chair of the membership committee, John Runion will work with Landsbergen and Crandall on this since they already have working relationships with professional organizations. Judy Cobb also encouraged the membership committee to seek representation from the State Library of Ohio.

IV. Closing

Cobb informed the group that the Library of Congress received grant money to work with state and local governments to develop strategies for the preservation of significant government information in digital format. States are being called on to identify their preservation needs and priorities using a toolkit developed for the project. Ohio will be sending Angela O'Neal, Digital Projects Manager, and Pari Swift, Assistant State Archivist, from the Ohio Historical Society and one representative from the State Library.

Goerler asked the survey subcommittee to do some follow-up work with educational institutions, accessibility and privacy of electronic records, and training.

The next meeting of the OERC is set for June 22, 2005 from 1:30 to 4:00 at the Ohio Historical Center in Columbus.

---

Minutes
June 22, 2005

Ohio Electronic Records Committee
Ohio Historical Center

Members in attendance: Deborah Archie, Judy Cobb, Barbara Floyd, Raimund Goerler, David Landsbergen, Andrea Lentz, Kevin Loving, Nicole Merriman, Mary Beth Parisi, John Runion, Mark Schmidbauer (Chair), Karen Sorrell, Pari Swift, Carol Thomas, Dino Tsibouris, Daryl Weir, Chris Wydman

Members Absent: Sol Bermann, John Blair, Galen Bock, Kevin Callaghan, Tamar Chute, Laurie Gemmill, Yvonne Harris, Jon Patterson, Karen Shaffer, Eric Silver, Martin Susec, Richard Whitehouse, Tony Yankus

Also Present: Angie Crandall

I. Welcome and Introductions

Mark Schmidbauer welcomed members to the meeting and thanked Rai Goerler for serving as interim-chair at the last meeting.

Schmidbauer asked if there were any comments or corrections on the minutes from the 30 March 2005 meeting. Hearing none, Andrea Lentz motioned for approval and John Runion seconded the motion. With all in favor, the minutes were approved.

II. Case Studies

David Landsbergen and Angie Crandall presented a summary of their finding from five completed case studies. Governments selected for the case studies included large and small, state and local governments. Landsbergen felt that the results of the case studies would be helpful to the marketing committee in spreading the word about the work of the OERC.

It was suggested during the case studies that the OERC's products may be too technical for those in government trying to use them. The OERC should assume that those in governments that are implementing records management programs have no knowledge of electronic records. One suggestion was to have two versions of our products: a simple version and a more technical version.

As a result of the case studies, a working group was formed to do a feasibility study on having a listserv for its constituents to make comments on the products and do anonymous vendor ratings on variables such as service, cost, functionality, and experience.

Carol Thomas is going to look into using ARMA as a resource and linking to ARMA's website from the OERC website. It was also suggested that we make contact with local and regional chapters of ARMA.

The case studies showed that OERC constituents want guidance on privacy and disaster recovery. Although these seem out of the scope of the OERC, Judy Cobb suggested that instead of guidelines, the OERC could create "points to consider."

III. Marketing Committee

Rai Goerler, as co-chair of the Marketing Committee, reported that the committee has not yet met. Their initial ideas are to contact the various education associations, such as the Ohio College Association, to make them aware of the OERC and see about linking to the OERC website.

Schmidbauer reported that he is waiting to hear from the Ohio Digital
Government Summit, sponsored by Government Technology Magazine, to find out if the OERC will be able to give a presentation at the Summit in
October. As a fallback position, The OERC may consider a booth at the
Summit.

John Runion stated that the Membership Committee would like to work with the Marketing Committee to come up with ideas to promote and encourage committee membership.

IV. Membership Report

Runion reported that there were three vacancies for members as of the last meeting and three applications had been received. The three applicants approved for membership on the OERC were

Kevin Loving, Butler County
Nicole Merriman, State Library of Ohio
Jon Patterson, Hamilton County

The three additions fulfill OERC goals of more local representation and representation from the State Library of Ohio.

Runion then summarized the application and termination process. There was concern expressed over the termination of membership if a proxy is not available. Runion explained that extenuating circumstances would be taken into account. Goerler noted that the bylaws allow for teleconferencing.

V. Discussion of New Topics to Pursue

Schmidbauer stated that now that the OERC has established bylaws and reflected on its mission, it was time to get back to the business of the committee by beginning work on new guidelines. Pari Swift ran down a list of topics, some of which had been discussed at past meetings and others that had come up through her work with state and local government agencies.

Many of the topics seemed beyond the scope of the committee, however, several showed promise. The following subcommittees were formed:

Instant Messaging

Purpose - Create a document and bibliography discussing issues to consider in managing instant messages as public records.

Guidelines Review

Purpose - New members will work with veteran OERC members to review existing OERC documents for currency. The subcommittee will make recommendations for updates and offer simplified versions of the documents.

VI. National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program

Swift, Merriman and Cobb gave a brief overview of the history of NDIIPP. The goals of NDIIPP are to develop national partnerships, explore protocols and standards, and support the development of tools, models and methods for digital preservation. At the States Consultation Workshop, states were asked to prioritize at-risk digital government information, suggest potential partnerships, and define the roles of the states versus the roles of the Library of Congress. Attending from Ohio were two representatives from the Ohio Historical Society, including Swift, and two representatives from the State Library, including Nicole Merriman. A toolkit for Capability Assessment and Planning, designed by the Center for Technology in Government, was given to each attendee. The representatives from the Ohio Historical Society are currently working with the State Library representatives to use the toolkit in evaluating were Ohio stands.

VII. Wrap-Up

The next meeting of the OERC will take place on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 at the Ohio Historical Center from 1:30 to 4:00. At the meeting, subcommittees will report on the work that they have been doing.

Minutes
09 November, 2005

Electronic Records Committee
Ohio Historical Center

In attendance: Jerrie Amos (for Karen Sorrell), Craig Brown, Kevin Callaghan, Barbara Floyd, Raimund Goerler, Andrea Lentz, Kevin Loving, Nicole Merriman, Sharon Montgomery, Mary Beth Parisi, Jon Patterson, John Runion, Mark Schmidbauer (Chair), Karen Shaffer, Martin Susec, Pari Swift, Carol Thomas, Dino Tsibouris, Chris Wydman

Members Absent: Deborah Archie, Judy Cobb, Laurie Gemmill, David Landsbergen, Mark Morris, Eric Silver, Richard Whitehouse, Tony Yankus

I. Welcome and Introductions

Chairman Mark Schmidbauer welcomed everyone to the meeting. Members present introduced themselves and stated the agency or local government that they represented.

Schmidbauer asked if there were any comments or corrections on the minutes from the 22 June 2005 meeting. Hearing none, John Runion motioned for approval and Mary Beth Parisi seconded the motion. With all in favor, the minutes were approved.

II. ERC Website Statistics

Pari Swift gave a brief report on statistics for the ERC website. The hits on various pages and documents during the first half of the year seemed to be in line with previous years. There did not appear to be a dramatic increase during the time that the ERC surveys were being conducted. There has been a drop-off in the number of hits received during the second part of 2005. Schmidbauer and Swift hope to see these numbers go up based on the Ohio Digital Government Summit presentation and a number of electronic records presentations given to local governments in October and November.
III. Membership Report

John Runion reported that six OERC memberships were terminated based on the guidelines set forth in Article III Section 4 of the Bylaws. One member resigned due to changes in her employment situation.

The following new members were added, by approval of the membership committee and executive committee:

Craig Brown, Columbiana County Recorder
Sharon Montgomery, City of Gahanna Records Administrator
Mark H. Morris, Senior Project Manager, Miami University

IV. Communications Subcommittee Report

Rai Goerler reported on the Marketing Subcommittee’s teleconference on August 2, 2005. During that meeting, the subcommittee chose to change its name to Communications Committee since “marketing” seemed to imply commercial gain and communications fits more with the goals of the subcommittee.

Carol Thomas reported that ARMA chapters from Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Toledo and ARMA International agreed to allow the OERC to link to their websites or provide their contact information. Once the OERC website is updated, she will then contact them about including a link to the OERC from their websites.

Marty Susec offered to include an additional appendix in the Ohio Sunshine Laws Update specifically covering electronic records and the resources that the OERC has to offer. Kevin Callaghan offered to work on the document building on the general information already written about the OERC in the Digital Government Summit brochure and various Ohio Historical Society informational handouts and publications.

Discussion then turned to the Vendor Registry Proposal, which was envisioned to be an “Angie’s List” of state government. Several members expressed concerns over potentials for litigation and other risks associated with the proposal. Members of the OERC were more in favor of gathering procurement guidelines and making them available to state and local governments. It was suggested that there is more of a need for this type of service rather than vendor information. The proposal was tabled. Ideas will be further discussed within the Communications subcommittee.

V. Instant Messaging Subcommittee Report

The Instant Messaging Subcommittee met via phone conference on October 25, 2005. Dino Tsibouris, chair, reported on various laws and regulations that apply to OERC constituents such as state and local governments, public universities and libraries. Currently most laws covering instant messaging is targeted to specific businesses, but those laws were included in the report because they could affect our constituents at some point in the future. Regulation of instant messaging currently seems to be set more in policy than in law.

Tsibouris also passed out several articles dealing with instant messaging as well mentioned Nancy Flynn’s book “Instant Messaging Rules: A Business Guide to Managing Policies, Security, and Legal Issues for Safe IM Communication.”

The subcommittee felt that instant messaging should be treated in much the same way as email is treated. Instant messaging technology was not originally designed with records keeping in mind. There is technology available to facilitate records keeping, however. Simply put, instant messaging discussions have to be retained and disposed of in accordance with the public records law and should be retained according to the content of the messages. State and local governments could be found liable for destruction of evidence if instant messaging discussion are mismanaged or inappropriately destroyed. Management will most likely be user driven and tools are needed to guide appropriate use and maintenance of instant message discussions.

The OERC agreed that instant messaging could be addressed within the Guidelines for Managing Electronic Mail. A footnote could be provided that details the risks and benefits of instant messaging. The Instant Messaging Subcommittee agreed to draft language for these updates to the Guidelines for Managing Electronic Mail.

VI. Guideline Review Subcommittee Report

Barbara Floyd reported on the findings of the Guideline Review Subcommittee, charged with reviewing current OERC guidelines for content, user-friendliness and needed updates and revisions. Individual subcommittee members were asked to review the guidelines and offer their general comments and guideline-specific comments. Some general observations were that the guidelines should be more uniform, printer-friendly, additional resources should be emphasized, contact information needs to be updated, and some information is not accessible. Floyd felt that the general consensus of the subcommittee was that the actual content of the guidelines was good.

Mary Beth Parisi suggested that the OERC look into writing a grant to seek funding to support a webmaster and necessary software and hardware to get the website and guidelines revamped since the State Archives has limited resources to dedicate to such a large task. Schmidbauer asked the subcommittee to look at alternatives for our current website set-up, such as checking with the Department of Administrative Services for possible resource ideas. Goerler suggested that the subcommittee develop a concise needs statement to use in getting funding. In the past, the OERC has received financial support from the Ohio State University Libraries and Archives and the John Glenn Institute.

Schmidbauer also suggested calling on former guidelines subcommittee chairs to revisit their documents by acting on the suggestions of the subcommittee. If the chair is no longer on the OERC, other members of the former subcommittees will be called on. Nicole Merriman volunteered to assist with the revisions to the Guidelines for Managing Web Content.

VII. Forensic Discovery of Data Presentation

The OERC welcomed Donald Wochna from Vestige Ltd. Wochna gave a 25-minute presentation of Electronic Records and Discovery of Forensic Data. Wochna talked about the difference between the duty of attorneys to produce relevant data versus the duty of records professionals to preserve and produce records. He cited growing case-law surrounding data discovery, including the opinions of Judge Scheindlin.

VIII. Wrap-Up

The next meeting of the OERC will take place on Wednesday, March 8, 2006 at the Ohio Historical Center from 1:30 to 4:00.

Minutes
08 March, 2006

Electronic Records Committee
Ohio Historical Center

In attendance: Jerrie Amos (for Karen Sorrell), Deborah Archie, Craig Brown, Kevin Callaghan, Barbara Floyd, Raimund Goerler, David Landsbergen, Andrea Lentz (also proxy for Judy Cobb), Kevin Loving, Nicole Merriman, Sharon Montgomery, Mark Morris, Jon Patterson, John Runion, Mark Schmidbauer (Chair), Karen Shaffer, Martin Susec, Pari Swift

Members Absent: Mary Beth Parisi, Eric Silver, Carol Thomas, Dino Tsibouris, Richard Whitehouse, Chris Wydman

Also Present: Jim Strider (OHS)

I. Welcome and Introductions

Chairman Mark Schmidbauer welcomed everyone and called the OERC meeting to order.

Schmidbauer asked if there were any comments or corrections on the minutes from the 9 November 2005 meeting. Pari Swift noted that a few minor corrections offered by Carol Thomas had been incorporated. John Runion motioned for approval and Kevin Callaghan seconded the motion. With all in favor, the minutes were approved.

II. State Archivist/State Archives Update

Jim Strider, Director of Collections, Historic Preservation & Statewide Outreach Services, gave the OERC an update on the search for a State Archivist as well as the direction that the Ohio Historical Society (OHS) would like to see the State Archives go. Strider began by acknowledging the concern over how long it has taken to fill the position and noted that the salary had been increased and a search consultant was currently working to identify candidates. OHS is hoping to have someone named to the position sometime in May.

Strider also discussed some of the internal changes being made to add resources to the State Archives, including moving Fred Previts from the Youngstown location to Columbus. In addition, OHS will present the State Archives as one of its top priorities during budget negations with the State.

Finally, Strider emphasized that OHS wants to work more effectively in terms of providing State Archives resources for the OERC and other archives and records management constituency groups.
III. Membership Report

John Runion reported that since the last meeting, we have received no new membership applications. He noted that Laurie Gemmill resigned from the committee due to changes in her job responsibilities. Mark Morris was introduced to the committee since he was unable to attend the previous meeting.

IV. Communications Subcommittee Report

Martin Susec reported that an overview of the OERC and its products, drafted by Kevin Callaghan, has been accepted for inclusion in the Attorney General’s 2006 Ohio Sunshine Laws Update (Yellowbook). The Yellowbook is distributed to over 10,000 government officials annually. Susec motioned to approve the summary for publication. The motion was seconded by John Runion and approved by the OERC. Susec will notify the committee of other opportunities to promote the work of the OERC, including potentially including the summary in the Auditor of State’s Open Government Laws.

Susec brought up the idea of creating a central repository for minutes of Ohio’s local governments. It would be on a voluntary basis and would promote unity and access. Some OERC members felt that local governments need to be better educated on public records and it is not safe to assume that they necessarily want to provide access and uniformity. Although most agreed that this would be a massive undertaking, it was suggested that this would make a good NHPRC grant proposal for a digital repository. It was also brought up that OhioLink already has the software and funding for such a project but no mission proposal of this nature. Rai Goerler offered to contact Peter Murray at OhioLink with the idea. Susec envisions the OERC’s roll in the project as formulating the idea and arranging partnerships. Susec mentioned that the Ohio Newspaper Association would most likely support the idea of a centralized repository. Goerler motioned to contact Peter Murray about a pilot project of this nature. Nicole Merriman seconded the motion. The motion carried.

V. Instant Messaging Subcommittee Report

The Instant Messaging Subcommittee report was tabled until the next meeting.

VI. Guideline Review Subcommittee Report

Barb Floyd distributed a Statement of Need for Updating Website Guidelines. The subcommittee recommends seeking a volunteer webmaster to maintain the OERC website and increase the utilization of the site. After discussion as to how a volunteer would gain access to the server and whether there was enough work to keep a graduate student busy, Floyd suggested tabling the idea until a State Archivist was hired since the OERC website should be a function of the State Archives.

Schmidbauer reported that he had begun reviewing the Imaging Guidelines. He is working on updating a small amount of content as well as the links and bibliography.

Merriman noted that the Guidelines for Managing Web Content would require some minor edits such as updating links and name changes. Although the section on the State Library’s involvement may change a bit due to their use of the Digital Archive, the State Library continues to look for a way to make agencies more inclusive in its effort to preserve state publications.

Schmidbauer announced that the updated guidelines would be approved by the OERC at the next meeting. Thirty days prior to the next meeting, the files should be sent to Swift, who will post the files in the OERC Yahoogroup for review. The OERC will be sent notice when there are files posted for review.

VII. House Bill 9 Update

Swift reported that House Bill 9, which seeks to update and clarify Ohio’s public records law, is on the fast track to be voted out of committee. Highlights of House Bill 9 include:

• Training for public officials or designees
• Posted public records policies
• Penalties for non-compliance
• Clarification on reasons to extend 10 day response
• Creation of Public Access Counselor
• Required records retention policies
• Changes and additions to local records commissions
• Copies of records to be transmitted by any means of delivery

VIII. Wrap-Up

Swift’s report on the Persistent Archives Testbed project was tabled until the next OERC meeting.

The next meeting of the OERC will take place on Thursday, July 13, 2006 at the Ohio Historical Center from 1:30 to 4:00.