city records commission agenda friday, august 7, 2015...

CITY RECORDS COMMISSION

AGENDAFriday, August 7, 2015

3:00 p.m.City Hall Conference Room #185 S. Main Street, Oberlin, Ohio

1. Call Meeting to Order and Roll Call 2. Hear a motion to appoint Fijabi Julien-Gallam as the secretary of the Oberlin City Records Commission 3. Approval of Minutes - May 21, 2014 4. Review and Discuss the Approval of a Certificate of Records Disposal for the City Manager's Office. 5. Review and Discuss the Approval of a Certificate of Records Disposal for the City Clerk's Office 6. Review and Discuss the Approval of a Certificate of Records Disposal for the ACM/HRA Department 7. Review and Discuss the Approval of a Certificate of Records Disposal for the Finance Department 8. Review of Records Commission purview as it relates to the Electronic Records Policy 9. Adjournment

DATE: August 7, 2015 3.

TO: President and Members of City Council

FROM: Belinda Anderson, City Clerk

CC:

COMMISSION:

SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes - May 21, 2014

Report:This report is hereby respectfully submitted for your consideration.

Attachments: 5.21.2014 Minutes

City Records CommissionMay 21, 2014

1 | P a g e

DRAFT

Oberlin City Records Commission MeetingMay 21, 2014

9:00 a.m. – Conference Room 185 South Main Street Oberlin, Ohio 44074

1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL.

Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 9:03 a.m.

ROLL CALL:

Members Present: Belinda Anderson, Chair; Eric Norenberg, City Manager;Jon Clark, City Law Director; Sal Talarico, City Finance Director(9:08 a.m.)

Members Absent: Gerry Findlan, Public Member; Elizabeth J. Meadows, Council Liasion

Others Present: Marissa Toothman, City Records Commission Secretary; Rhonda Cruz, City Prosecutor Administrative Assistant; Dawn Ferro, Information Systems Manager (9:18 a.m.)

2. APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 23, 2014 MINUTES.

Clark moved to approve the minutes of the April 23, 2014 meeting as submitted. The motion was seconded by Norenberg. Motion passed unanimously.

3. HEAR AND DISCUSS THE APPROVAL OF A REQUEST TO UPDATE A RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE (RC-2) FOR THE LAW DIRECTOR.

Rhonda Cruz, Administrative Assistant to the City Prosecutor, was present for the Commission to ask questions. A copy of the amended Retention Schedule (RC-2) is attached to the minutes.

The following changes were offered:

2012-14-LEG: change the retention period to Retain for 30 days after Grand Jury has indicted on Felony Charge(s). If charges are Dismissed, No Billed or returned to the court as Misdemeanor Charge(s), follow retention schedule accordingly.

Cruze noted that currently the retention schedule requires the department to retain these documents up to four months, which is not necessary..

Clark asked for clarification on what felony charge documents were being destroyed. Just in case such documents would be helpful if it was returned by the grand jury. Cruz


2 | P a g e

provided an explanation of the types of documents that would be retained which would include …..? she reassured Mr. Clark that she has all the documents the department should need until the grand jury makes a decision.

2012-19-LEG: change the retention period to “Retain for 30 days from the return to law enforcement agency.”

It was noted that the department keeps the police reports for up to a year per the approved retention schedule. The police department keeps a copy of the original reports while the Prosecutor’s Office receives copies. If the prosecutor decides against filing charges then the report is kept for 30 days. Clark concurred with Cruz that if the prosecutor does decide to file charges after 30 days and the report is not in their office, they refer to the police department for a copy of the original.

2012-20-LEG: remove the word “no” in the Record Title and Description and have the title read: Police Reports for Review of Possible Charges and Charges Filed.

Cruz remarked that schedule item 2012-19-LEG has the statement “no charges filed” andwould be redundant to have here. Clark asked for clarification on what it means to return to law enforcement. Cruz stated when the prosecutor looks at a report for consideration and the police department is unsure of the elements of the charge, the prosecutor looks for facts. He looks for sufficient elements in the police report to be able to charge an individual. Clark asked what is destroyed after 30 days. Cruz responded the prosecutor’sresponse to the police report.

Sal Talarico entered at this time.

Talarico asked what happens to felony charges after 30 days. Cruz stated the grand jury can “no bill” the report, to indicate that the criminal charges alleged against a suspect have not been sufficiently supported by the evidence presented before it to warrant his or her criminal prosecution, meaning no charges will be filed. There would be no use for the file. If the report came back charged for a misdemeanor then they would retain the record according to the department’s retention schedule. . Talarico asked Cruz if what she receives are copies. Cruz concurred that she only receives copies and other agencies have the original on file. Talarico noted if a citizen makes a public records request the City would refer them to the agency that has the original on file. Cruz responded in the affirmative.

Following the discussion Norenberg moved to approve the retention scheduled for the Law Director/Prosecutor’s office as amended. The motion was seconded by Talarico. Motion passed unanimously.

Rhonda Cruz left the meeting.

4. REVIEW AND DISCUSS ELECTRONIC RECORDS POLICY.

Anderson recapped the discussion at the previous meeting pertaining to the Electronic Records Policy Clark stated that he called Attorney Mark Weaver and left a voice mail message and he is waiting for a return call.. He wanted clarification on what was meant by “transcribing messages”and “transactional”. Anderson asked Norenberg if he talked to Scott Evans, the City’s Verizon Wireless representative to see if they have any technology that would be able to transcribe voice


3 | P a g e

mail messages. Norenberg stated he did not receive a true answer from the mobile representative.He did discuss with Curt Reno, Head Technician for Computer Systems Unlimited Incorporated and City of Oberlin IT Consultant and Dawn Ferro, Information Systems Manager on various items concerning implementation of a system being set forth in the proposed electronic records management policy. Norenberg noted that Reno has indicated that the has enough capacity to store audio files, especially since City employees are not going to save every voicemail they receive only pertinent informational messages. The bigger concern they had is that staff is not consistently following procedures for backing up and archiving information. Some staff arecurrently saving files to their C drive versus saving files to the network which is monitored and saved daily. If the City IT department standardized a process to save files to the network they will be able to avoid losing files due to a crashed hard drive.

Anderson sought clarification on how voice mail messages would need to be retained to meet the storage requirements. Norenberg remarked that messages would need to be retained according to content and in most cases that he has experienced those messages have been transient in nature requesting return calls. In that case those messages would not need to be saved. However if a voicemail is from a resident explaining a complaint, then that message is filed in the appropriate file according to content.

Dawn Ferro entered at this time.

Talarico asked what the City will do after years of saving voicemail messages. When will it be appropriate to dispose of the voicemail and what exactly would be considered a public record. His understanding is if it is important enough, then write it down and save it according to content.

Clark and Anderson agreed that what is being described in the electronic records policy is to type up the message and save it in a document according to document. Clark felt that the amount of work it will take to implement transcribing messages will be too much. Furthermore he explained his current process for retaining electronic voice messages in the form of emails that he moves into a file tilted voicemails. Anderson noted that this would appear to be a lot of work but as indicated at the last meeting by David Ashenhurst this is how phone messages used to be filed when they didn’t have voice mail. . Important messages even before voicemails were written on pink notes and the messages were saved according to content, then it is disposed according to the retention schedule. Anderson asked Clark what happens to voicemails that are left on his City voicemail. Clark stated it is the same as his personal office the voicemail goes to his e-mail and he can listen and save it to a file.

Talarico asked if the City can leave the decision to save a voicemail at the discretion of the employee, whether the message is to be transcribed and is a public record that needs to be saved. Anderson said she is open to the idea. Clark enjoyed Talarico’s idea so he can tag a voicemail which may be what the policy is asking in regards to transcribing. Anderson asked Clark if his cell phone number is used as his main contact number. Clark replied that that the number assigned to him by the City number is his main contact number. His City number goes straight to voicemail and that voicemail is received by him immediately. Anderson sought clarification asking if most of his messages are received to him as a voicemail. Clark affirmed that what he receives from the public is typically a voicemail. Talarico explained that the City voicemail system is able to send a voicemail to an e-mail. The voicemail is sent to an e-mail as an attachment and can be listened to on a computer. There is an option to have all voicemail sent to an e-mail and to also have it in a voicemail box and an e-mail. If someone wants to delete the voicemail they have to do so manually. Secretary note: comment was moved here to ensure continuity of the discussion: Ferro clarified her position on an earlier comment of whether it


4 | P a g e

would be better to save a voicemail to the voicemail box and an e-mail or just save it to the e-mail. She felt that it would be more efficient to save to just the e-mail account otherwise the inbox for the voicemail will get full quickly. She believed it is redundant to have both it should be on or the other. It is processing the same record twice when it concerns staff time. Anderson explained that this is the same approach that is used when handling hard copies. For example, she keeps the original ordinance and staff receives a copy. Staff can destroy their copy at any time since it is a copy but she must retain her copy permanently.

Anderson asked if this process would take up a lot of space. Ferro stated it does take up space in an e-mail box and will get full as well as the voicemail box. However, over time if the City decides to keep all the information more space can be added.

Talarico suggested that instead of keeping the message in a mailbox, they could save the e-mail to a user’s hard drive or to the network in a separate file. Ferro confirmed that adding space to the server is not the issue; it is the process staff has to go through to properly save a file. Ferro agreed with Reno that the files are small enough that it would take time before the server got crowded.

Talarico suggested that instead of saving e-mails in Outlook and crowding up an e-mail box they could save the emails on a hard drive in a folder. Ferro agreed with Talarico’s idea. It makes differentiating between a voicemail and an e-mail when it is in regards to the retention schedule. Anderson remarked that both emails and voice mails were retained according to content based on the retention schedule so she wasn’t sure how differentiating between the two mediums would be of importance.

Talarico asked if an e-mail is saved if the date and time will be on the file or only on the e-mail itself. Secretary note: Norenberg’s response is moved up to ensure continuity of the discussion. Norenberg said the e-mail saves the date and time with each e-mail message including the subject. Talarico stated that a user can save an entire e-mail off of Outlook. Ferro stated that idea is fine however; she is concerned saving to the hard drive versus the City network which is backed up daily.

Ferro stated one of the goals for this year is to reach out and back up user’s hard drive and not just the City network. If the City wants to implement that policy then they must make sure the procedure is consistent in specifying where to save e-mail or voicemail. She stated half of the staff keeps their files on their C drive and the other half keeps their files on the S drive. She waswilling to set up a separate hard drive for just voicemails to be saved on. This would create consistency and the file is being properly backed up daily on the City’s network. Talarico clarified Clark’s earlier remarks surrounding his saving files in one file marked voicemails as opposed to saving the messages according to content. Ferro said a user can save either way. In the voicemail hard drive all that a user will be able to see is what is saved on their computer. No other user will be able to open their files. This is consistent and safe since all of the voicemails are in one place but only the person that saved the file will able to view it, unless settings are changed so that other users may see the file.

Talarico clarified that staff can share one folder but if he goes into that folder he is only able to see his files. Ferro confirmed that is how it is currently set up but the settings can be adjusted if necessary to allow additional viewers. A profile is set up according to the user’s discretion, allowing on certain people access to the file, but physically all the files are in one place.Norenberg asked if he searches a voicemail with a key word the only way to find that file is to tag it with that key word. Ferro concurred.


5 | P a g e

Norenberg stated in theory if a system is implemented to save a voicemail in a folder then automatically the file may be deleted when the retention schedule mandates it can be done. This will assist in keeping the network from becoming overcrowded. Ferro said she would be able to create a batch file that would be able to delete the file automatically whatever the time limit is.Clark asked if each individual file would have its own time limit or if all the files are batched. Ferro said it would be easy to have the system check for any voicemail that is two years or older and have it deleted on a monthly basis. Some employees may be weary of the uncertainty of having a voicemail deleted due to a time limit.

Anderson stated the process that Ferro addressed is not in the electronic records policy in terms of disposition of e-mails and voicemails. Ferro noted it does not need to be in the policy but just as a time limit. Anderson asked if this would need to be an internal procedure versus a policy. Ferro believes to implement the disposal process it just needs to be a memo but does not have to be in the policy.

Talarico asked if he understood correctly that if he puts a file into a shared drive, it then he does not have to create a sub-file to put the file in, and he will only be able to see the file he saved. Ferro agreed. She explained that the system is based on the individual profile and the permission of the system to view other user’s files. The permission level can be changed at any time. Talarico asked if an employee leaves the City would Ferro be able to see their files, if a public records request was made. Ferro confirmed she would be able to see any files on the user’s profile and is able to reassign the profile to whoever uses that profile. Talarico and Clark were concerned if other users would be able to see privileged information on the shared network. Ferro stated no other user would be permitted to view the file. The file created on a shared network is space for that profile user and is reserved only for that user. That is the system the City currently uses now.The system would not necessarily be shared but a common place to save files.

Clark stated that his files names may be different from other users file names with the same subject. There should be some understanding on how descriptive the names should be so that a user is able to search a file. For example if the City needs a file concerning a resident’s flooded basement the City needs to be able to pull up all files accurately concerning that subject. Talarico tested this procedure with his e-mails and a user is able to search key words with titles only, or bytitle and content. The search can go in a document and search the words in it. Ferro cautioned that although a document can be searched by key words that didn’t necessarily apply to audio files. .

Clark recalled at the last meeting the commission discussed technology used to convert audio voice mails to a transcribed message. Ferro confirmed that there is technology that is able to perform that transcription function. Norenberg talked to Reno and they were only aware of Google Voice for voicemails. Talarico stated that he used Sprints free voicemail transcription trial on his cell phone and he did not think the technology did a good job of accurately transcribing messages. He was able to understand the subject of the message, but overall the program had the same efficiency as Google Voice. Norenberg stated that the quality of the transcription relies heavily on enunciation, background noise and complexity of words stated. Clark asked if the transcription of the messages would make the files searchable. Commissioners responded in the negative. Ferro pointed out that the commission has to consider the reality of using the technology daily, how many employees will use the technology daily and the cost of the technology.

Anderson asked if Ferro is able to pull files from individual hard drives. Ferro remarked that by the end of the year IT will add this capability to the network. Talarico asked if he should manually back up his files that are on his hard drive. Ferro strongly encouraged him to do so. She


6 | P a g e

explained that hard drives will not be backed up by the IT department until everyone is using Windows 7.

Ferro noted that when she read the electronic records policy she noticed that there is no rule mandating backup for created documents in excel and word. To her, the policy did not establish any policy concerning electronic files in general.

Talarico suggested creating a subcommittee to work on the electronic records policy. The subcommittee would be able to put the correct language in the policy and the commission will meet again to review it. Norenberg went back to Ferro’s earlier statement. Whatever form a file comes from either it is public record or not. Does the City need to have a separate electronic records policy or does language need to be added addressing electronic records in the regular public records policy. The question is what is the benefit of having two separate policies, based upon the standard that a file is saved because of its content and not by its media.

Anderson recalled when she was hired the City did not have a public records policy until House Bill 9 which mandated a public records policy be put in place. Attorney Mark Weaver gave her a copy of the public records policy. She took a look at the policy and e-mails are addressed in the policy. It is up to the City if they would like to create a separate electronic records policy or include it in their current public records policy. Norenberg would like to simplify the policy so staff does not get confused. Talarico noted it is the actual procedure staff needs to know for a day to day basis not necessarily the policy. Ferro stated the electronic records policy does not state what an employee should do for any documents created and saved on the server or hard drive.

Anderson asked if the procedure should be a stand-alone separate item, an attachment to the public records policy, or should it be incorporated into the public records policy. Ferro added it should go under the manual or some other policy instead. Talarico would like the policy to be incorporated with all of the other policies in the Employee Policy Manual. Ferro concurred that is where it should be for employees that do not deal with important files every day. Talarico clarified that it would be the retention schedule that would address files that are electronic and itwill be incorporated into the records retention policy. Then there should also be a separate policy for employees on how to deal with the records. Ferro believes that following this practice would provide clarification for employees and protect the City from litigation.

Citywide there are employees at two extremes for the records management process, those that keep everything and those that delete everything. There is no time to manage electronic records. Talarico stated he foresees employee training will be needed as they do with Drug Free Safety Training, to ensure all employees are on the same page. Ferro stated they can address the issue as they did with the computing policy with a sheet that all employees signed off on stating they understand the policy and will abide by it. If not, the City is less protected because then the employees will have more discretion to delete data files that could be important. For example,creating an electronic document for the employees to sign off on for public records policy would the electronic version need to be retained or the signed hard copy kept. Most users will not know the answer to that because they do not deal with the retention schedule every day. Anderson asked for clarification on the direction of the conversation. Talarico informed there are three topics: records retention schedules, uncertainty of the necessity to incorporate records retention into the policy, and the proper procedure. Anderson stated currently electronic records are addressed in the retention schedules; it is retained according to content.

Ferro stated the issue is the procedure to handle electronic records is the problem, not the policy.Norenberg further clarified in that we have the “why” we just need the “how”. He thinks some of


7 | P a g e

the “how” has not been fully figured out. Ferro also stated that the “where” is critical too. She recommends that a policy will be added to the Employee Policy Manual that will explain what an employee needs to do with electronic records regardless of what the file is. Anderson noted that they could also refer to their departmental retention schedule in the new policy as well. Ferro believes putting it in the policy would simplify procedures and create a standard for employees when they make a file. Anderson stated the original electronic records policy that was drafted did address the issues Ferro brings up.

She asked if Norenberg would like to put a subcommittee together to address the electronic records. The subcommittee could look at the old policy and incorporate it into the new policy. Norenberg said he will put one together. Anderson noted her interest to serve on the subcommittee along with his designees. Norenberg remarked that the subcommittee could be made up of himself, Dawn Ferro, and the Records Commission Chair. . Reno will be incorporated in some of the meetings. Ferro wants to make sure that employees and department heads are on the same page so there is no room for failure. The commission decided Ferro will lead the subcommittee. The commission thanked Ferro for her time and assistance on the project.

Anderson asked if the policy would come before Council. Norenberg stated this does not need to necessarily come before Council. That way, the City will be able to adapt the policy as technology evolves.

Norenberg moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Talarico. Motion passed unanimously.

Being that there was no further business to come before the City Records Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m.

________________________ _______________________Marissa Toothman / Secretary Belinda B. Anderson / ChairOberlin Records Commission Oberlin Records Commission

Approved: ___/___/____




CC:

COMMISSION:

SUBJECT: Review and Discuss the Approval of a Certificate of Records Disposal for the City Manager's Office.

Report:This application is hereby respectfully submitted for your consideration.

Attachments: RC3-City Manager Inventory _CMCity Wide GAR

INSTRUCTIONS - FORM RC-3USE OF FORM: Serves as a notification to your local records commission and to The Ohio Historical Society/State Archives, Local Government Records Program

(OHS-LGRP), that your office intends to dispose of the records listed on the form as authorized by an approved RC-2 form. It also provides an opportunity for the OHS-LGRP to select for historical records, or to provide for other disposition under Section 149.31ORC.

WHEN TO USE: Prepare and send this RC-3 a minimum of fifteen (15) business days before the proposed disposal date.CERTIFICATION: This is a legal document representing compliance to the Ohio Revised Code and a commitment to maintain any microfilm master negatives

according to American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standards when the source document is listed for disposal on this RC-3. Therefore, the certification requires the signature of the official responsible for the records.

SUBMISSION: Send the original RC-3 to: [email protected] or The Ohio Historical SocietyState Archives of OhioLocal Government Records Program800 E. 17th AvenueColumbus, OH 43211-2497

Retain a permanent copy for your office files and send an additional copy to your records commission.

NOTE: You office or records commission will not receive a copy of the RC-3 back. Your office will be contacted if a record is selected for its historical value or if there are questions about the records listed on the form.

Page 2(1) RECORD SERIES TITLE: Record series title as shown on your retention schedule (RC-2). This information is critical for documenting the disposal; include

additional descriptive information if necessary to aid in the appraisal and selection process.(2) AUTHORIZATION FOR DISPOSAL: Schedule number marked as needing review by OHS-LGRP as shown on your approved RC-2 and the date it was approved by

your local records commission.

(3) MEDIA TYPE (DESTROYED): Medium of the record series you are disposing of, for example, paper, film, disk, magnetic tape, optical disc.

(4) OTHER MEDIA TYPE (RETAINED) If your government plans to retain the records series in another medium, list each type of medium in which it is being retained. For example: microfilm, microfiche, optical disc, electronic storage, etc.

(5) INCLUSIVE DATES OF RECORDS Enter the time period encompassed by the records being disposed of such as: Jan. 2008 to Dec. 2008, etc.

(6) PROPOSED DATE OF DISPOSAL Enter the proposed disposal date; the OHS-LGRP has fifteen business days to review the disposal form. It is recommended that a few extra days for mail delivery be included.

(7) FOR USE BY OHS-LGRP OHS-LGRP may write clarifying notes or notes about possible records transfers.

NOTICE CONCERNING MEDIA AND FORMAT CHANGES

The Local Government Records Program strongly discourages the use of electronic formats for long-term retention of records unless the records are also maintained in an eye-readable format such as paper or microfilm. It is a responsibility of the local government to ensure the preservation and accessibility of any records retained in electronic format. For guidelines on electronic records issues, visit http://www.ohiohistory.org/ohiojunction/erc/.

Never use a microfilm master negative except to create a use copy from it.

Page of _____

Form: SAO/LGRP-RC3 (part 1), Revised July 2011

Ohio Historical SocietyState Archives of OhioLocal Government Records Program

800 E. 17th AvenueColumbus, Ohio 43211-2497

CERTIFICATE OF RECORDS DISPOSAL (RC-3) – Part 1See instructions before completing this form. Must be submitted with PART 2

City of Oberlin Citywide GAR Eric Norenberg (440) 775-7206 85 South Main St., 2nd Floor

(local government entity) (unit) (contact person) (telephone number) (location of records)

85 South Main Street Oberlin 44074 Lorain

(address) (city) (zip code) (county) (date mailed to LGRP)

I hereby certify that the records listed on this RC-3 and attachments are being disposed of according to the time periods stated on the approved Records Retention Schedules (RC-2) listed below. No record will be knowingly disposed of which pertains to any pending legal case, claim, action or request. In addition, microfilm created in place of any original record listed on this RC-3 will be stored according to ANSI Standards and all microfilm master negatives will only be used to create use copies. It is a responsibility of the local government to ensure the preservation and accessibility of any records retained in electronic format.

_____________________________________________________________City Manager_____________(440) 775-7206_____________________________(signature of responsible official) (title) (telephone number)

To have this form returned to the Records Commission electronically, include an email address: _______________________________________________________________

For State Archives - LGRP Use Only

Date Received:

Date Reviewed:

Items requested for transfer: YES NO

If YES, attach copy of transfer form

Please Note: The State Archives retains RC-3 forms for seven years.It is strongly recommended that the Records Commission retain a permanent copy of this form.

Page of _____




CERTIFICATE OF RECORDS DISPOSAL (RC-3) – Part 2See instructions before completing this form. Must be submitted with PART 1.

City of Oberlin Citywide GAR (political subdivision name) (unit)

(1)Records Series

Title

(2)Authorization for Disposal

(3)Media Type

To be destroyed

(4)Media Type

To be retained (if any)

(5)Inclusive Dates of

Records

(6)Proposed date of

destruction

(15 business days from receipt by OHS-LGRP)

(7)For OHS-LGRP

useSchedule Number Date the RC-2 was

approved by the Records

Commission

From To

Audio Recordings(For Boards & Commissions)

2012-12-GAR 05/10/2012 Micro Cassettes 01/2004 – 12/2011

Page of

1) City of Oberlin_________ RECORDS INVENTORY (NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION)

(2) RECORDS OF: City-wide GAR (OFFICE \ DEPARTMENT) (UNIT)

(3) RECORDS SERIES TITLE: Audio Recordings (for Boards & Commissions)

(4) LOCATION OF RECORDS:85 South Main Street, 2nd Floor

(5) DESCRIPTION: Audio recordings from 2004-2009 Minority Business Enterprise Advisory Committee Meetings, 2010-2011 Human Relations Commission meetings, and 2010-2011 Oberlin Underground Railroad Center Implementation Team meetings

(6) DATES: From: 01/2004 To: 12/2011

(7) Are records still created? (Circle answer) (8) Quantity \ Volume: (9) Arrangement (Circle answers): Yes No Alphabetical Numerical (7a) Are these Vital Records? Yes No Chronological Subject

(10) Record media / format (Circle answers) (11) Reference to records (Circle answers):Paper Bound Volumes Mylar

Daily \ Weekly \ Monthly \ Yearly for Microform: 16mm 35mm Microfiche

Never after 1 YearElectronic Record: Tape Reel Cassette

Diskette CD-ROM Optical Disk

12) Recommended retention period for each type of record: (13) Schedule No. Assigned:Retain for 1 year. 2012-12-GAR

(14) Inventory taken by: Diane Ramos

Explanation of form parts:

(1) Write in the name of the political subdivision for which the inventory is being compiled.(2) Write in the name of the office, division or unit to which the records belong.(3) Write in the title of the records series. Use a separate form for each records series at each location.(4) Give the exact location of the records. Be sure to include all storage areas.(5) Provide a brief description of the records series, including form numbers when applicable.(6) Indicate the beginning and ending dates of the records series. E.g. May, 1976 to April, 1998.(7) & (7A) Circle if the records are still created . Circle if the records are considered “Vital” for your office to function daily.(8) Indicate the volume or quantity of the records. It may be in cubic feet, number of volumes \ microfiche, rolls of microfilm or reels of computer tape. This will help you plan your storage needs. A cubic foot is 12"x12"x12" or 1728 cubic inches.(9) Circle how the records are arranged, i.e. in numerical order, chronological order, alphabetical order, subject file etc.(10) Circle whether the record is created and stored on paper, microfilm computer tape, etc. Circle ALL formats your office uses for this record. Remember to schedule and assign a schedule number to each type of media. (11) Indicate how often the records are used. For example: daily for 1 year; never after 3 years.(12) Write in a recommended retention period. See the Ohio County Records Manual or the Ohio Municipal Records Manual for suggestedrecords retention periods or create the retention period based upon the records’ administrative, fiscal and legal value to your office. If you know of any law, rule or regulation requiring this records series to be retained for a specific period of time write in the citation.(13) Assign a unique schedule number for this records series which will clearly identify it on all paperwork in the future. If the records are included on an existing approved Schedule of Records Retention and Disposition (RC - 2), write in the schedule number for reference.(14) Sign and date the form.Additional Remarks or Notations for your use:




CC:

COMMISSION:

SUBJECT: Review and Discuss the Approval of a Certificate of Records Disposal for the City Clerk's Office

Report:This report is hereby respectfully submitted for your consideration.

Attachments: RC3- CLERK Inventory_ All BCC City Wide(GAR)

INSTRUCTIONS - FORM RC-3USE OF FORM: Serves as a notification to your local records commission and to The Ohio Historical Society/State Archives, Local Government Records Program

(OHS-LGRP), that your office intends to dispose of the records listed on the form as authorized by an approved RC-2 form. It also provides an opportunity for the OHS-LGRP to select for historical records, or to provide for other disposition under Section 149.31ORC.

WHEN TO USE: Prepare and send this RC-3 a minimum of fifteen (15) business days before the proposed disposal date.CERTIFICATION: This is a legal document representing compliance to the Ohio Revised Code and a commitment to maintain any microfilm master negatives

according to American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standards when the source document is listed for disposal on this RC-3. Therefore, the certification requires the signature of the official responsible for the records.

SUBMISSION: Send the original RC-3 to: [email protected] or The Ohio Historical SocietyState Archives of OhioLocal Government Records Program800 E. 17th AvenueColumbus, OH 43211-2497

Retain a permanent copy for your office files and send an additional copy to your records commission.

NOTE: You office or records commission will not receive a copy of the RC-3 back. Your office will be contacted if a record is selected for its historical value or if there are questions about the records listed on the form.

Page 2(1) RECORD SERIES TITLE: Record series title as shown on your retention schedule (RC-2). This information is critical for documenting the disposal; include

additional descriptive information if necessary to aid in the appraisal and selection process.(2) AUTHORIZATION FOR DISPOSAL: Schedule number marked as needing review by OHS-LGRP as shown on your approved RC-2 and the date it was approved by

your local records commission.

(3) MEDIA TYPE (DESTROYED): Medium of the record series you are disposing of, for example, paper, film, disk, magnetic tape, optical disc.

(4) OTHER MEDIA TYPE (RETAINED) If your government plans to retain the records series in another medium, list each type of medium in which it is being retained. For example: microfilm, microfiche, optical disc, electronic storage, etc.

(5) INCLUSIVE DATES OF RECORDS Enter the time period encompassed by the records being disposed of such as: Jan. 2008 to Dec. 2008, etc.

(6) PROPOSED DATE OF DISPOSAL Enter the proposed disposal date; the OHS-LGRP has fifteen business days to review the disposal form. It is recommended that a few extra days for mail delivery be included.

(7) FOR USE BY OHS-LGRP OHS-LGRP may write clarifying notes or notes about possible records transfers.

NOTICE CONCERNING MEDIA AND FORMAT CHANGES

The Local Government Records Program strongly discourages the use of electronic formats for long-term retention of records unless the records are also maintained in an eye-readable format such as paper or microfilm. It is a responsibility of the local government to ensure the preservation and accessibility of any records retained in electronic format. For guidelines on electronic records issues, visit http://www.ohiohistory.org/ohiojunction/erc/.

Never use a microfilm master negative except to create a use copy from it.

Page of _____




CERTIFICATE OF RECORDS DISPOSAL (RC-3) – Part 1See instructions before completing this form. Must be submitted with PART 2

City of Oberlin Citywide GAR Belinda Anderson (440) 775-7203 85 South Main St.

(local government entity) (unit) (contact person) (telephone number) (location of records)

85 South Main Street Oberlin 44074 Lorain

(address) (city) (zip code) (county)

I hereby certify that the records listed on this RC-3 and attachments are being disposed of according to the time periods stated on the approved Records Retention Schedules (RC-2) listed below. No record will be knowingly disposed of which pertains to any pending legal case, claim, action or request. In addition, microfilm created in place of any original record listed on this RC-3 will be stored according to ANSI Standards and all microfilm master negatives will only be used to create use copies. It is a responsibility of the local government to ensure the preservation and accessibility of any records retained in electronic format.

_____________________________________________________________City Clerk _____________(440) 775-7203_____________________________(signature of responsible official) (title) (telephone number)

To have this form returned to the Records Commission electronically, include an email address: _______________________________________________________________

For State Archives - LGRP Use Only

Date Received:

Date Reviewed:

Items requested for transfer: YES NO

If YES, attach copy of transfer form

Please Note: The State Archives retains RC-3 forms for seven years.It is strongly recommended that the Records Commission retain a permanent copy of this form.

Page of _____




CERTIFICATE OF RECORDS DISPOSAL (RC-3) – Part 2See instructions before completing this form. Must be submitted with PART 1.

City of Oberlin Citywide GAR (political subdivision name) (unit)

(1)Records Series

Title

(2)Authorization for Disposal

(3)Media Type

To be destroyed

(4)Media Type

To be retained (if any)

(5)Inclusive Dates of

Records

(6)Proposed date of

destruction

(7)For OHS-LGRP

useSchedule Number Date the RC-2 was

approved by the Records

Commission

From To

Audio Recordings(For Boards & Commissions)

2012-12-GAR 05/10/2012 Micro CassettesDisc TapeCD-ROM

None 3/02/1970 -06//31/2015

08/06/2015

Page of

1) CITY OF OBERLIN RECORDS INVENTORY (NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION)

(2) RECORDS OF: Oberlin City Clerk (OFFICE \ DEPARTMENT) (UNIT)

(3) RECORDS SERIES TITLE: Audio Recordings (For Boards and Commissions)

(4) LOCATION OF RECORDS: Clerks office -85 S. MAIN STREET, OBERLIN, OHIO 44074

(5) DESCRIPTION Includes any and all recorded boards and commissions meetings where minutes have been approved. Some recordings are no longer functional and information cannot be retrieved due to retention for extended period of time without migration or exposure to extreme changes in temperature. There does not appear to be any recordings on file prior to 1970s. PUC minutes from 2009 – 2014 still retained.

(6) DATES: From : 03/02/1970 To: 06/31/2015

(7) Are records still created? (Circle answer) (8) Quantity \ Volume: (9) Arrangement (Circle answers): Yes No Alphabetical Numerical (7a) Are these Vital Records? Yes No Chronological Subject

(10) Record media / format (Circle answers) (11) Reference to records (Circle answers):Paper Bound Volumes Mylar

Daily \ Weekly \ Monthly \ Yearly for Microform: 16mm 35mm Microfiche Electronic Record: Tape, IF ANY Reel Cassette For administrative purposes

Diskette CD-ROM, IF ANY Optical Disk

12) Recommended retention period for each type of record: (13) Schedule No. Assigned: 2012-111-CLRetain until Obsolete, superseded, or administrative value is lost

(14) Inventory taken by: Belinda Anderson City Clerk, Ian Yarber, Marissa Toothman, Sheri Runals, Saundra Phillips,Cindy Simons

Explanation of form parts:

(1) Write in the name of the political subdivision for which the inventory is being compiled.(2) Write in the name of the office, division or unit to which the records belong.(3) Write in the title of the records series. Use a separate form for each records series at each location.(4) Give the exact location of the records. Be sure to include all storage areas.(5) Provide a brief description of the records series, including form numbers when applicable.(6) Indicate the beginning and ending dates of the records series. E.g. May, 1976 to April, 1998.(7) & (7A) Circle if the records are still created . Circle if the records are considered “Vital” for your office to function daily.(8) Indicate the volume or quantity of the records. It may be in cubic feet, number of volumes \ microfiche, rolls of microfilm or reels of computer tape. This will help you plan your storage needs. A cubic foot is 12"x12"x12" or 1728 cubic inches.(9) Circle how the records are arranged, i.e. in numerical order, chronological order, alphabetical order, subject file etc.(10) Circle whether the record is created and stored on paper, microfilm computer tape, etc. Circle ALL formats your office uses for this record. Remember to schedule and assign a schedule number to each type of media. (11) Indicate how often the records are used. For example: daily for 1 year; never after 3 years.(12) Write in a recommended retention period. See the Ohio County Records Manual or the Ohio Municipal Records Manual for suggestedrecords retention periods or create the retention period based upon the records’ administrative, fiscal and legal value to your office. If you know of any law, rule or regulation requiring this records series to be retained for a specific period of time write in the citation.(13) Assign a unique schedule number for this records series which will clearly identify it on all paperwork in the future. If the records are included on an existing approved Schedule of Records Retention and Disposition (RC - 2), write in the schedule number for reference.(14) Sign and date the form.Additional Remarks or Notations for your use:




CC:

COMMISSION:

SUBJECT: Review and Discuss the Approval of a Certificate of Records Disposal for the ACM/HRA Department


Attachments: RC-3 Certificate off Disposition Human Resource Retention Schedule




CC:

COMMISSION:

SUBJECT: Review and Discuss the Approval of a Certificate of Records Disposal for the Finance Department


Attachments: RC-3 Certificate off Disposition




CC:

COMMISSION:

SUBJECT: Review of Records Commission purview as it relates to the Electronic Records Policy

Report:This request is hereby respectfully submitted for your consideration.

Attachments: Records Commission Charge

city records commission agenda friday, august 7, 2015...

Documents