Email and Policy: Like Oil and Water

Current Rating:
(0 ratings)

Here we go again, another state agency, this time in New Hampshire, has raised the challenge of email management and was highlighted in the May 9, 2010 post on the UnionLeader.com. In this article, we are shown that there is what appears to be a major discrepancy and inconsistency in the records management policies of New Hampshire government agencies in relation to email and in some cases other records when an employee leaves their position with the state.

RSA 5:37, which governs "archives and records management," mandates that "all records" made or received by public officials, or that come under their authority or possession, "are the property of the state and shall not be mutilated, destroyed, transferred, removed or otherwise damaged or disposed of, in whole or in part, except as provided by law." It is that “except as provided by law” term that presents the challenge.  One interpretation is that upon termination of employment, notice is sent by the department head to IT and all records and emails can be destroyed along with the email account being disabled. This leads us to RSA 5:38, which says that "records not having a permanent or historical value may be destroyed at the end of 4 years." But that law also allows the archives director to designate that records may be destroyed sooner or later than four years. So, where is the clarity?

RSA 5:40, requires the state archivist to publish a "manual of uniform procedures" for the handling of paper and non-paper records across state government. Here we see the guideline, "As a general rule, all transitory communications to a state entity shall be retained as necessary for reference as determined by the state entity in possession of the communication." So this leaves the decision up to the department or department head which now leads us to the point of questioning, how does one determine the value of information to be retained as a record and what are the associated policies in relation to retention and disposition based on legality rather than employment status of the person in possession of said emails and records. Oh, one more point of interest in this story, the focus was on the Attorney General’s office which of course should be a primary source of reference for the legal aspect of records keeping regardless of format.

In my view, just like oil and water don't mix, this is just another example of how organizations miss the mark in relation to managing electronic information and records. While there are guidelines, there is not enough clarity on what constitutes a record and how it should be managed and maintained properly. If information held within an email is essential to the business or in this case state agency, it should be brought into and maintained the same as any other record. There are no exceptions and certainly should not be based on employment status of an individual. This article also shows that even when information is slated to be deleted, it may also fully exist on back-up media for months or even years depending on the agency practices and by merely declaring that back-up is not considered active and therefore not eligible for disclosure, may not be strong enough to withstand trial proceedings as we have seen in cases involving eDiscovery inquests and proceedings.

Regardless of the organization and information format, there must be governance over all information and processes. There must be a consistent methodology used in the capture, management and disposal of this information and not left to the interpretation of individuals. There must be a process in place to assist the organization in making the proper assessments as to what should be maintained and what can be destroyed when employment ends, not just a blanket policy with a warehouse mentality that everything must go and when it does go, make it go for good.

What say you? Do you have an experience like this to share? What are your thoughts on this topic?

Email: Bob Larrivee – AIIM blarrivee@aiim.org

Follow me on twitter – BobLarrivee

Report

Rate Post

You need to log in to rate blog posts. Click here to login.

Add a Comment

You need to log in to post messages. Click here to login.

Comments

Juerg Hagmann

Bob, you are right. There is not enough clarity how to qualify an e-mail as a business record. Basically e-mail is a media and not a record per se. People should be trained in applying a simple method to identifiy the business value (& purpose) of an e-mail. A lot of organizations have introduced a simple Q&A loop to go through in order to end up with a decision whether an e-mail is a record or not. However there are several methods in this field and there is no generic answer. Apply the defined methodology within your business scope and you will be fairly compliant. But remind: in an e-discovery case, potentially all e-mails become a record.
In general, some research findings have shown that the percentage of compliance relevant e-mails is higher than expected (20-30% on an average).
The current NARA regulation might not be sufficient, but the related decision tree will do the job:
http://static.twoday.net/jhagmann/files/E-Mail-Mgmt-NARA.pdf (page 17)
- Agencies must inform staff that e-mail messages are potential records.
- Staff must be capable of identifying federal records.
- E-mail transmission data and distribution lists must be preserved.
- Agencies must state that draft documents circulated on e-mail systems are potential federal records.
- E-mail must be stored in an appropriate record-keeping system and staff must be
informed of how these records, regardless of format, are maintained in that system.
- Agencies must provide instruction on how to copy e-mail identified as federal records from an e-mail system to an official record-keeping system.
- E-mail systems must not be used to store record-keeping copies of e-mail messages identified as federal records.
- Agencies must not use e-mail backup tapes for record-keeping purposes.
- Staff must be educated on the management and preservation of e-mail records sent or received from nongovernmental e-mail systems.
Report
Was this helpful? Yes No
Reply

This post and comment(s) reflect the personal perspectives of community members, and not necessarily those of their employers or of AIIM International