A day in the life of an unemployed programming self-learner

Right, so I'm working through some great programming "prep"/intro courses (see below!) provided by a number of bootcamps, and one thing I just found and enjoyed was a handful of articles of the type "a day in the life of....", to give you an idea of what you do as a developer.

For samples, here are ones for software developer and front-end developer (both at larger and established companies). And I love this one, that focuses on the improvisational nature of work in really any field. I am delighted with how he talks about "other tasks" that "add value in a more general way," which I think is something that is often overlooked in nearly all workspaces.

But for fun, here's a day in the life of a self-directed-software-programming-student-who-is-also-unemployed:

I am already qualified to be a programmer, based on coffee consumption.
Tasty Sisterhood Solidarity coffee from Santa, err, I mean SERVV Fair Trade.

Official day starts at 7: Spouse heads to work, I go supervise bunny rabbit play time, so the untrustworthy little tyrants don't eat all the carpets. Also good for a first email-check and cup of coffee (1 of 2-4)

Spend around 3-4 hours on (pick one or more):

• Coursera: Currently doing the Python for Everyone series through University of Michigan; have also done chunks of the intro to programming the OIT series from UC-Irvine, the Web Design for Everybody series from University of Michigan, the software product management series from University of Alberta, and the business analytics series ("Excel to MySQL....") from Duke. I plan to continue working on the courses in these series, and I have stacks more in the queue (John Hopkins' Ruby on Rails and data science specializations are in the crosshairs). I will never get caught up; this is why I never get bored.) I'll admit, I am doing the "free" versions of all of these, so no certificates, and in the Duke one, I don't even get to do the quizzes. I am just not sure that the certificates will hold much weight with future potential employers; I am in it for the learning and for being exposed to new ideas.
• Viking Code School Prep
• Ada Development Academy Jump Start
• CodeAcademy (very little of this, to date, honestly)
• StudioCode (yes, it's for kids, but I was starting from pretty much ground zero, so it was and is a good tool. I cannot tell you how much I love the happy little bee they use for teaching sequences, for loops, etc.)

(Additional learning resources that are also in the queue: CodeWars, anything else I can find through Made with Code and TED's 10 Places Where Anyone Can Learn to Code, possibly something from Udacity, and W3Schools, which I used when learning HTML the first time around, in ca2001.)

Maybe also do a little professional-oriented reading: Code Complete, HeadFirst SQL, or Learning Python. Or one of the open-source books referenced by one of my Coursera courses.

Then spend another 2-3 hours on "around the house" chores, because, let's face it, when you're the unemployed one, you are the one who does the grocery shopping, yard work, fence-fixing, grout-sealing, shrub-trimming, dinner-cooking, bathroom-cleaning, peephole-installing, bike-fixing, etc. (Here's Judy Brady on why we all would like a wife, please.)

And also exercise, because I figure (a) it's good for me (duh), and (b) since I'm kind of a trophy wife right now, I better start, ahem, trying to develop some of the qualifications? Not my forte.

Time permitting, other side projects include blogging (!!), reading ALL THE THINGS, and doing some advocacy for...good causes. Like public records. And trying to get a small business off the ground (instant vegan hot cocoa, everybody! But we have hit a snag and that's on hold.). And doing some contract writing for a neighbor, and hopefully also through Upwork.

And sometimes I still break down and apply for librarian/archivist/museum jobs, because moving on is hard. But I'm trying to stay committed to my new path and not let myself get side-tracked.

And some tunes from my learn-to-program playlist?

Racial "care gap" in healthcare

PBS Newshour ran a great piece April 5, entitled "Is there a racial 'care gap' in medical treatment?" I especially love when Dr. Satin, one of the interviewees, summed it up: "I teach the medical students, look, it’s not your — it’s not your fault that you have these implicit biases. You grew up in society. We all have these. But now that you know, it’s your responsibility. And we have some interventions to try to reverse [these implicit biases]."

This segment was of particular interest to me because I've just been reading Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present (Harriet A. Washington), and there were a lot of resonances. For instance, that whole "people of color feel pain less than white people" is apparently long-standing: it's referenced in both the book and the PBS segment.

The book was super interesting, and I would certainly recommend it--although I'd recommend it "with a grain of salt." I think it's one of those books, sort of like Gloria Anzaldúa's Borderlands/La Frontera, which are groundbreaking and true-in-sum, although less true in detail. What now? Well, the overarching narrative is broadly true; some of the specific examples are suspect, not fully elaborated, and/or undocumented and bordering on conspiracy theories.

I hate that, because it just makes the books less convincing to--and this sounds damning--"people who are sticklers for the facts" and people who just plain aren't inclined to believe you and will take any excuse not to. Anzaldúa way-the-heck overstates the length of American occupation; that doesn't mean that Hispanics/Latin@s/Chican@s should be marginalized as second-class-citizens, but it does mean that her SPECIFIC statements are not exactly literally true, although the big-picture she presents is valid.

Similarly, Washington makes some SPECIFIC claims that are a little squishy--for instance, page 235, wherein she claims that people of color, specifically people of African descent, cannot generally be treated with total-body irradiation for widespread cancer, because it is harder to find a matching bone-marrow transplant donor for them, and the TBI kills the patient's bone marrow and will kill them without a bone marrow transplant. Based on my recent reading of The Emperor of All Maladies, however, though, it sounds like this doesn't entirely hold water because one can self-donate bone marrow (e.g., it's extracted prior to your chemo or irradiation and then transplanted back into you post-treatment). My inclination is, if it's appearing in a a book written for a lay audience, she should probably also be aware of it, given her academic credentials and affiliations. Obviously I'm not a doctor, but again, if I can learn about it through a book for a lay audience and she acts like it's totally not even a reality, I am unsure if there is some reason that I'm missing that she is just not explaining, or if she's ignoring this possibility in order to hammer on her point--that black folks don't often reap the benefits of their participation in medical research/experimentation--more.

I also found her documentation to be uneven, which was a real shame. Again, I accept her premise, but it would be a much more compelling argument if I could refer to the same sources she's working from. She does footnote a lot, but often, not the things that I really needed to see cited.

And then, of course, there are gaps--intentional and otherwise--in the archival record. When the author questions the veracity of the archival record in the case of secret testing of biological or chemical agents on predominantly black communities, it is entirely possible that she is correct and that the records were not kept, were falsified, or were intentionally destroyed. I mean, I've been an archivist and I've been a (student) anthropologist, and yes, it's entirely reasonable that things that weren't considered "important," like informed consent from people of color, would not have been recorded or retained or even asked for--and the latter is her contention. But when you admit that the documentation just isn't there, it is really hard not to step into conspiracy theorizing. And I'm not saying she does, but I just wish she had more rigorously cited documents for issues for which records had not been--from her representation--intentionally destroyed; it would make the overall argument better able to bear the parts that cannot reasonably be documented due to the destruction of records.

(For more on the "squishiness" of the archival record, I would totally recommend Ann Laura Stoler's Along the Archival Grain: Epistemic Anxieties and Colonial Common Sense. And obligatory shout-out to Foucault on varieties of knowledge, including that which is discredited.)

One final wish: The book repeatedly refers to its partner website. I tried to go there, hoping I'd find more...anything. More resources, a "suggested reading" list, etc. But it looks like the website is no longer maintained--I couldn't find it, at all. (Based on what I found from Wayback Machine/Internet Archive, the site was only harvested between 2007 and 2012, so I think it's probably really and truly gone: here's one of two times the site was crawled in 2011).

So, in summary and in conclusion, high marks for drawing attention to a very serious social issue, historically and through the present day. But less enthusiasm for less-than-rigorous citing, which I guess is fair game for a book for general (rather than academic) audiences, but which I personally felt detracted from the power of the work as a whole.

Vegan Stouts from Colorado Microbreweries

So the only beer worth drinking, or making cupcakes with, is stout. (OK, that is a SLIGHT exaggeration, but stouts are far and away the best beers. Fairly certain that that has been demonstrated through science.)

But it's hard getting easier to find a vegan stout! The best stouts are, sadly, milk stouts, which are disqualified from the get-go because of the milk sugar. Many non-milk stouts are filtered using animal membranes or derivatives (isinglass), making it hard to know which ones are vegan and which ones not--although my inquiries with area brewers have suggested that folks are tending away from these methods, and that seems to be borne out by how very many Colorado microbrewed stouts I have been finding!

As a selfish AND public service, then, I've taken it upon myself to contact Colorado microbreweries--because hooray for buying local!--to see which of them offer vegan stouts.

I just started on this today, April 12, and haven't even gotten through my entire list of microbreweries yet. However, some of our local brewmasters are on top of their emails, so I already have some results to report! I will continue updating this page as I get more responses.

Vegan Stouts from Colorado Microbreweries

• Alpine Dog Brewery's Nitro! Blind Sherpa American Stout
• Aspen Brewing Company's 10th Mountain Imperial Stout (seasonal)
• Avery Brewing Co. Out of Bounds Stout, Mephistopeles Stout (seasonal), The Czar Imperial Stout (seasonal), Uncle Jacob's Stout (Bourbon-Barrel Aged Stout, seasonal)
• Baere Brewing Company's A Winter Stout
• Beer by Design (no stout specifically listed, but looks like there's one on their sampler, and their representative indicated that all their beers are vegan)
• Big Beaver Brew's Whiskey Dick Stout and Stubble Stout
• Black Bottle Brewery's Liquid Metal (Imperial Rye Stout)
• Black Shirt Brewing Black Beacon Sound Nitro
• Bootstrap Brewing Worthog Stout
• Breckenridge Brewery's Oatmeal Stout
• BREW Pub & Kitchen: all stouts crafted to date have been vegan; they are seasonal and the style has varied
• Bristol Brewing Company's Winter Warlock Oatmeal Stout (seasonal)
• Broken Compass Brewery's Chocolate Coffee Stout
• BRU Boulder's Osito Stout and Snow Angel Imperial Stout
• Buckhorn Brewers' Storm Mountain Stout (link is to FB page; their website is under development)
• Bull & Bush Brewery's Stonehenge Stout, Genessee Mountain Rainbow Espresso Oatmeal Stout, and Legend of the Liquid Brain Imperial Stout (the last is seasonal)
• Call to Arms' Breeze's Mom (seasonal: the person I spoke to recommended their Oats and Hose Porter as a year-round close-to-stout)
• Cannonball Creek Brewing Company's Battlecat American Stout (seasonal/rotating)
• Carver Brewing Company's Iron Horse Oatmeal Stout, Imperial Stout, and Irish Stout
• Cerebral Brewing's Here Be Monsters Russian Imperial Stout
• City Star Brewing's Night Watchman Stout
• CooperSmith's Pub & Brewing's Local Mocha Stout, A Horse Named Brett, Welcome to the Dark Side Stout, Wild Horse Bourbon Barrel Stout, Tequila Barrel Chili Stout, Tequila Barrel Stout, Blue Corn Bourbon Stout, Cognac Stout, Stout avec chicory, Bourbon Barrel Stout, Irish Stout, Imperial Destroyer Stout, and Horsetooth Stout
• Copper Club Brewing Company's El Guapo Stout
• Copper Kettle Brewing Company's Mexican Chocolate Stout
• Crazy Mountain Brewery's Snowcat Coffee Stout (seasonal)
• Crow Hop Brewing's Sleeping Owl Stout
• Dead Hippie Brewing Company's Dead Sexy Sweet Stout
• Declaration Brewing Company's Bus Stout (not on their website as of 5/6/2016, but when I contacted them, they told me about it)

Pining for the Fjords

Unlike the majestic Norwegian Blue Parrot in this deservedly-famous sketch, I am, in fact, pining for the fjords.

Well, these fjords.

Evening coming on, over the Chilkat River

I worked in Southeast Alaska for several summers, and loved it. Tried to stay longer; was still at the point in my career where I thought I would get back there long-term by, you know, getting my qualifications and some experience and then taking a job at, say, the State Museum in Jueanu. But the only hire folks who are already residents, which I've always thought is a terrible policy: the most qualified person presumably IS one who is not there already (given how few institutions there are), and it always struck me as crazy to expect someone (e.g., me) to just MOVE UP there with no job and work wherever I could get a job and just hang out and hope for something relevant to open up. But that was the procedure, I guess.

But anyway, summer is coming on in Colorado, and I'm fighting snakes and yellowjackets and European paper wasps and bunnies who fall in window wells, and soon it will be hot. People laugh at me, but I'm that guy who is all, "Man, spring is the worst! I hate it almost as much as I hate rainbows and puppies!" (For the record, I do not hate rainbows or puppies.)

Anyway, as I try to prepare myself for...6 months of heat, I thought I'd put together a post of things I like that are, you know, related to the fjords and the Great Land and cool weather and days-of-rain. Maybe someone else out there in internet-land will also enjoy them.

The Shipping News: I want to live in this place. Even though it's on the "wrong" coast. And Quoyle, bless his heart. "Stupid man does wrong thing again." I feel ya, buddy.

Studio Tuesday: for all your notecard and matted print needs. Also on the "wrong" coast.


Stan Rogers: also ALSO from/about the "wrong" coast

So I'm making maple cupcakes and missing winter already. And I guess we'll be trying this recipe for vegan faux-smoked salmon soon!

Someone smart is going to point this out: maybe I should try Newfoundland and/or the Maritime Provinces, since that is actually more where these things are from. Way ahead of you! It is on the list. But in the meantime, it's still an aesthetic I love, and reminds me of how I felt about my time up north. Now if I could just find a perfume/cologne that smells a little more like cedar....and yes, I've tried.

Colorado Revised Statutes & Government E-Records (Part 3 of 3)

The last post tried to address the email question while also explaining the way archives in general work, and why preserving and providing access to emails is not as cheap and easy as you might expect, and as we might all want.

This post addresses e-records that are NOT emails and that are not non-text formats (e.g, video or audio recordings). Maybe I'll do a part 4 of 3 (hah) on audio and visual recordings, because there are a lot of those from legislative sessions, but those are actually good-to-moderate news, because there is some funding for the audio recordings' preservation, so things are not as bleak on that front. They are, however, HUGE files by comparison with emails and other little textual files, so they add up even faster. We're talking hundreds of terabytes of space, and counting.

But "anywhoozle" (as the State Archivist says), the point here is textual digital records other than emails. Maybe they were filed digitally ("efiled"), or maybe they were filed in hard copy but the originating agency decided to digitize them and store them that way, maybe retaining the paper originals or maybe not.

"You're throwing WHAT away???"
The reason I'm addressing them in this series is because they are touched upon in the article linked to with all the email (justified) hubbub: "Records Manager Paul Levit said the office has accumulated so many, he is now trying to return some to the agencies that sent them."

So that sounds pretty weird without any context, am-I-right?

Prior to me leaving my post at the State Archives in November 2015, I was working on the e-records submitted by originating agencies, including state-level agencies, the court systems, county government, local/municipal government, public school districts, and special districts (mostly fire protection districts, some conservation districts, etc.) These are the records that Paul is now continuing to return to originating agencies.

Wait, what? If e-records are already in trouble due to their inherently fragile nature, why are you just throwing up your hands??

Well, that's not quite it.

See, here's the issue: those records are not REALLY being preserved in the old system, because the records are not being submitted in any useful order, with any relevant metadata, in acceptable formats or on durable media. Something saved in a proprietary format without retaining the system in legacy format is the same, basically, as not retaining the document in the first place. Burning it to a CD and then sending that to the State Archives, who puts it in a box (because they have no funding for a server), is not a viable strategy for preservation. So that is the old system that we were shutting down. And believe you me, it was POPULAR.

Security Copies
And let me be very clear here: these records are being sent as "security copies," meaning they're supposed to be a back up in case something happens to the main version, still held at the originating agency. That's problematic, because nonstandardized files with no metadata sitting on CDs and other nonpermanent media are not going to make good backups, so it gives a false sense of security.

It gets even more problematic when, in fact, originating agencies are not treating them like security copies: in some instances, they're treating them like the ONLY version. So they scan some documents, burn it on a CD, mail it in, and then trash the original documents. That is problematic because (a) it's not adequate preservation, (b) it doesn't provide for access, and (c) as the post on statutes illustrated, it is POSSIBLE that digitized versions of documents may not be considered official in some contexts (e.g.,C.R.S. 24-80-107 ). Of course, this last issue needs to be addressed in statute because so many records today are "born digital"--they are digital from creation, rather than created in hard copy and later migrated to digital.

So the reason e-records are getting sent back is because the submitted e-records cannot be adequately stewarded in their submitted state. Without a server and a lot of staff time, there is no way to keep these records safe, secure, and accessible. The State Archives implemented a "security copies MUST be on microfilm" policy (PDF here) as an attempt to find a middle ground. Depositing security copies with the State Archives is not mandatory; agencies may choose to steward their records in any format, on their own responsibility, but if they choose to submit security copies, they must be on microfilm, which at least can sit in a box for 200 years and still be readable when you pull it out. So e-records are being sent back to originating agencies because it's a waste of space and an untruth to call a CD in a box an "archival preservation copy."

Is that good enough?
Not at all. Permanent records of the state, regardless of format, are important and should be preserved for their stated retention period. (See previous post for explanation.) But you obviously cannot preserve a digital record if you don't have a server to put it on; you can't ensure its authenticity if you don't have the staff to do the maintenance and security; you can't provide access if you don't have "intellectual control" through cataloging and the creation of appropriate metadata.

State Archives has the expertise to provide these services, especially as they begin to hire more people with qualifications in Library & Information Science and Archives Science. They do not, however, have the budget or the political clout to get these ducks in a row. The sad thing is, it's the citizens of Colorado who will lose out if this situation isn't rectified. It's already happening: while I worked at the State Archives, people would contact us for records, and we would be unable to provide them.

And you feel like a monster when you tell someone, "Sorry, I can't give you a copy of your vocational school transcript so that you can get your business licensed in another state. It's just not here." "Sorry, I can't help you get your retirement money, because the separation agreement that explains how that's divided is just not here." This will be an increasingly-common problem unless something is done soon. (And in case you think I'm being hysterical: Google agrees that this is an issue.)

So what now????
Archives everywhere are working on figuring out strategies to ensure the preservation of records. Technical best standards are firming up. There are contingency plans. But again, the number one thing that concerned citizens can do is to let your legislators know that this is important to you: that archives aren't just a "nice thing" to have; they are critical for government's functioning and transparency and for and citizen oversight. And in the meantime, I would try to keep copies of your relevant official documents yourself, just in case.

If you want to read more
If you care to read more, you are welcome to peruse a report that Audio Archivist Aly Jabrocki and I wrote, back when I was still with the State Archives. This was part of the Society of American Archivists' Jump In  initiative, encouraging repositories of all sizes to start dealing with e-records. 'Cause the first step is knowing what you have, and what you need to deal with.

Colorado Revised Statutes & Government E-Mails (Part 2 of 3)

Right, so, in the previous post, I tried to clarify the statutory mandates held by various offices with  reference to e-records, including emails. The take away was that it's complicated, inconsistent, and that in some parts of statute, emails are EXPLICITLY excluded from the definition of state records.

Where we pick up
On March 14, as part of "Sunshine Week" on radio program Colorado Matters, the station produced a segment entitled Are State Agency E-Mails Too Easily Deleted? The Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition also picked up the story (Retention of government emails in Colorado ‘an honor system thing’).

So what's the deal?

Record or not?
Basically,C.R.S. 24-72-202 explicitly identifies emails as state records, subject to CORA requests.C.R.S. 24-80-101 specifically excludes emails as state records, as items to be retained and subject to the jurisdiction of the State Archives.

Obviously, that's bad. The State needs to decide, one way or the other, if emails are or are not records. My opinion, and the opinion of other archivists, and the opinion of people who want more transparency in government, is that OF COURSE emails are records. Honestly, I think most people would agree with this. The State Archives keeps the official correspondence of previous governors; it is silly to argue that because the official correspondence is digital rather than analog, that it's no longer "official correspondence." So here we have a case of the letter of the law ("no emails") not accurately reflecting the spirit of the law (citizen oversight and transparency of official government open records).

How did we get to this?
I only worked at the State Archives for a little over a year, so I don't have a great depth of institutional memory. And honestly, I doubt anyone could answer this explicitly. Carelessness? Luddite approach to technology? Everyone forgot the Archives existed to begin with? (Don't laugh; it happens all the time.) No one wanted to spend the money? I don't know, but I do feel that none of these is really an acceptable reason. I would like to see our legislature educate themselves about the services of an archive and the prevalence of and issues surrounding digital records (more on both of these in a minute), so that the citizens of Colorado can get what they want: more transparency and better access to government records.

Follow the money
The 500 lb. gorilla in the room, of course, is the money. Everyone talks about how cheap digital storage is. That's true, to a point. You sure can store a lot of stuff in Google Drive (or Google Vault, which is the specific implementation mentioned in the audio piece linked above). But that is really not adequate for archival access. Sure, that email from last week? Fine. Do your keyword searching and hopefully find the right thing.

But for the scale of records we're talking, and for the time frames we're talking ("permanent retention," which I discuss below), that is not going to provide adequate recall, document preservation, or document security.

• Recall: Can you find what you want? Archives (and libraries--more people are probably familiar with how they work) use a lot of additional descriptive information and "metadata" to improve recall, or find-ability. You need more than just keyword searching if you're going to be able to find specific items in massive collections. For instance, if you search for a bill by name and the email only references it by number, without additional descriptive information, you will never find it. So that's one thing Archives are really excellent at.


• Preservation: Everyone has an image of the white-gloved archivist, shushing and looking through old ledgers. While that is sometimes partially true, that's totally irrelevant for e-records. Digital preservation is way more involved than you probably think. It involves things like maintaining all the appropriate metadata, as described above, but also things like maintaining "checksums" to ensure document stability, refreshing media (if backed up on physical media--if it's on a 5.5" floppy and you don't have the drive, you might as well not have the record), potentially migrating formats (or maintaining legacy software and hardware to ensure access to that Lotus-1-2-3 document you need), etc. These services are NECESSARY if you want to ensure that these records are available for more than, say, 3-5 years. Unfortunately, they come at a price. Unlike paper records, you can't just toss them in storage and assume they'll be readable 30 years later. They need routine maintenance.


• Security: There are several issues here. One is privacy: a lot of government records include personally-identifying information or are otherwise private. This will come up more in the next post (about e-records in general). Another is document authenticity: if storage got hacked and documents altered, that would be VERY BAD--and possibly the only way you could tell would be by maintaining your checksums and noticing a difference there. Thirdly, there is a risk inherent in using systems that mirror the stored information internationally, if, for instance, that information is of geopolitical significance. That's not a huge deal for most of what we're talking about, but honestly, do you think the Department of Defence lets their information get backed up on servers in China? Probably not, and realistically, big commercial vendors like Google are going to do that, because it does reduce risk (by being in a geographically-disparate location) while also helping their bottom line. That's not inherently bad, but we need to be cognizant of where our stuff in the cloud actually "lives."

All of these services cost money. If you don't want to spend that money, your records will probably not be preserved, and if you get lucky and they somehow are, you probably won't be able to find them. And remember, these are documents that make civic life possible. It's your house deed. It's your high school diploma. It's your marriage license or divorce decree or probate establishing your possession of subsurface rights.

And this feeds back into the statutes: if emails are NOT considered records for the purposes of the State Archives (even though the staff there thinks they should be), that means that the State is NOT budgeting money for their preservation there. State Archives may want to maintain emails and other digital government records, but if they don't even have the money for servers, it simply can't be done. And that is the situation.

So what does an archive do, anyway?
OK, so here's how this is SUPPOSED to work.

1. Originating agency (Governor's Office, CDOT, a school district, a county clerk, the District Court, whatever) creates records: correspondence, reports, registered birth certificates, marriage licenses, business licenses, court cases, adoption files, recorded property lines, etc.
2. Independently, the originating agency, the State Archivist, and the Attorney General (more on this later, too) work together to create a "retention schedule." A what? A retention schedule. This is the official document that basically translates statute to practice, and that also makes judgment calls on any document retention not specifically guided by statute. Still "what??" Statute will tell some agencies some things that they absolutely have to keep forever ("permanent retention"). Some things are judgment calls: how long does the DMV keep the receipts from your most recent license plate renewal? Not forever, don't worry. But the retention schedule fills out how long that is. (Note: This part of the process changes under the bill currently being considered.)
3. When records become "inactive"--that is, they aren't currently being used on a daily basis, added to, revised--they are transferred to appropriate storage. If it's a non-permanent record, that will usually be somewhere in the originating agency's own storage. If it's permanent storage, they go to State Archives.
4. At the end of a non-permanent record's retention period, it will be securely destroyed.
1. Why not just keep everything?? 
1. Cost
2. Overwhelming bulk would impeded access
3. Liability: You hate to say it, but folks with legal education will tell you that destruction of documents beyond their period of retention will protect you, legally. That is definitely a concern for government agencies (and businesses). Think of it as a statute of limitations: you keep your documents for their retention period. You destroy them at that point, because your legal liability has "expired," as long as you destroy the documents legally.
5. Permanent records, at Archives, are cataloged so that they are findable and housed in such a way as to promote their long-term preservation. Maybe access copies are made, so that originals are not damaged through frequent use. Maybe they are put in an online catalog, for off-site access. Archives adds a lot of value and promotes access, and through that access, government transparency and accountability. Archives ALSO provides a layer of security: processes are in place to ensure that private information remains private. Sometimes it's permanently private (like mental health records from state hospitals); sometimes it's private only for a set period of time. 

OK, but what about the emails?

As is (I hope!) abundantly clear by now, preservation of and appropriate access to government records is the reason State Archives exist. This is what they're for. It is in all of our interest that government records be treated appropriately, so that they are preserved and we, the citizens of the state, can access them if and when we need or want to.

Emails are specifically not being sent to Colorado State Archives. That is based in statute. That means that State Archives is not able to provide the access mandated in CORA--although arguably the originating agency would still be accountable for that access. However, most agencies do not have specialized staff charged with providing access to these records, and if the official or employee had deleted an email that was later wanted, it would most likely not be recoverable, as to the best of my knowledge, there is no procedure in place for identifying or requesting such a document--and if technologically feasible, it would probably be expensive.

What can we do???

Does State Archives want the emails? Keep in mind that, at this point, their budget and staffing is not adequate to the task. Considering emails a government record, even if just using the capstone approach discussed in the audio, would still generate a LOT of records. If they were permanent records, as I would expect them to be (as most official correspondence in analog format is designated "permanent retention"), they would add up FAST. Stewarding this many records, even with small individual file size, would add up quickly, both for redundant and secure storage and for staff time ingesting (e.g., receiving and getting all the initial metadata) and doing maintenance.

To make email storage and access feasible at State Archives would take a significant cash infusion, both for hardware and for a number of new staff members. State Archives is understaffed at this point, with professional staff spending most of their time providing customer service, rather than undertaking the professional duties necessary to ensure easy access to government records. It is, unfortunately, impossible to discuss moving emails to State Archives without making appropriate increases to their budget to support infrastructure and staff to ensure these records' storage, preservation, and access.

What YOU can do

If you care about this issue--government transparency and accountability through access to government records--please contact your state legislature representatives. It's March 2016 as I'm writing this; Legislature is in session, and the budgetary process is in full swing. 

In fact, State Archives has a bill under consideration to begin addressing some of these issues. You'll notice it doesn't actually take on the email issue yet: that's because it is assumed that the budget will not follow. To make the State Archives responsible for emails-as-government-records without providing the funding necessary for hardware and staff would be pointless. I encourage you to communicate to your representatives that you support emails as records, you support increased government accountability through increased access to government records, you support the State Archives' current bill, and you support increasing funding to them so that they can do this job on the behalf of the wider public.

Other states have done this successfully: Utah, our neighbor to the west, is one of the shining examples of state archives nationally. The citizens of Colorado deserve just as much government accountability as anyone else.

Colorado Revised Statutes & State Records (Part 1 of 3)

As you know from my sidebar-bio, I'm a former Colorado State Archives employee, so this is an issue near and dear to my heart. I'm not trying to provide an anti-government screed, but I do want to advocate for why this issue matters and why citizens in all states should be concerned about where public records are going and how they're being stewarded. I just happen to know about Colorado, or at least some of what's going on, or not going on, here. Truthfully, there's a lot of room for improvement and citizens should be concerned; however, I also know that the archives staff is making an effort, and needs legislative support and allocation of adequate resources to make substantive progress. So if you are a Colorado resident, I encourage you to contact your elected officials, particularly your state legislators, and tell them that this matters to you.

I feel like I need to preface this with the caveat that I'm not a lawyer, nor do I have a J.D. What I'm saying is based on a non-lawyer's reading of the Statutes, and on how I've seen this play out while I was working in the state government as an archivist specifically working with microfilm and digital records that were sent to archives as security copies.

Why this matters now
It's mattered for a long time, but it came up recently, on March 14, as part of "Sunshine Week" on Colorado Matters. The station produced a segment entitled Are State Agency E-Mails Too Easily Deleted?, which began to shed some light on these issues. The Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition also picked up the story (Retention of government emails in Colorado ‘an honor system thing’). I hope to provide some context on statutory requirements and archival best practice, in case these articles left you with some questions.

What is actually in statute?
The next two posts will deal more concretely with emails and with other textual records, but those posts were getting out of hand when I tried to include CRS background there. So in this post, I just want to lay out some relevant parts of the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.), which is the code overseeing the preservation of government and public records as part of state law.

Frankly, it's pretty confusing to track down the relevant statutes; here are the ones I could find and am aware of. There may be others. You can get access to the Colorado Revised Statutes for free through LexisNexis. I had a few problems with the site: works best in IE, and you may have to disable popup blockers and/or allow “non-secure” scripts for the text to load.

I should also note that the legislature is currently in session. There is a bill under consideration that will adjust some aspects of how the State Archives functions. It does NOT, however, clarify the emails/e-records issues.

Key statutes for e-records
C.R.S. 13-26-102: TITLE 13. COURTS AND COURT PROCEDURE,  EVIDENCE; ARTICLE 26. UNIFORM PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORDS ACT; Business and public records as evidence
Why is this important for this issue?: For our purposes, this is of interest because it identifies digital surrogates (e.g., scans or other digitized copies) in non-editable form acceptable evidence. From a technical standpoint, that is harder and more costly to do than it sounds: a regular PDF won't cut it.

C.R.S. 24-72-202: TITLE 24. GOVERNMENT - STATE ; PUBLIC (OPEN) RECORDS; ARTICLE 72.PUBLIC RECORDS; PART 2. INSPECTION, COPYING, OR PHOTOGRAPHING: Definitions Why is this important for this issue?: This explicitly states that emails are public records.

C.R.S. 24-72-203: TITLE 24. GOVERNMENT - STATE ; PUBLIC (OPEN) RECORDS; ARTICLE 72.PUBLIC RECORDS; PART 2. INSPECTION, COPYING, OR PHOTOGRAPHING: Public records open to inspection Why is this important for this issue? This is a bit ancillary for what I'm planning to write up, but if you're interested in appropriate preservation of e-records, you should know about this statute, as it establishes rights of inspection of public records for private citizens.

C.R.S. 24-80-101: TITLE 24. GOVERNMENT - STATE, STATE HISTORY, ARCHIVES, AND EMBLEMS; ARTICLE 80.STATE HISTORY, ARCHIVES, AND EMBLEMS; PART 1. STATE ARCHIVES AND PUBLIC RECORDS; Definitions
Why is this important for this issue? This is important because emails are specifically excluded from the category of government records (except in some vague circumstances)

C.R.S. 24-80-102.7: TITLE 24. GOVERNMENT - STATE, STATE HISTORY, ARCHIVES, AND EMBLEMS; ARTICLE 80.STATE HISTORY, ARCHIVES, AND EMBLEMS; PART 1. STATE ARCHIVES AND PUBLIC RECORDS; Records management programs - records liaison officers Why is this important for this issue? One thing I'll need to touch on is the distinction between statute (e.g., the law) and records retention schedules. This statute, combined with 24-80-103 (below) is key to the relationships between the two.

C.R.S. 24-80-103: TITLE 24. GOVERNMENT - STATE, STATE HISTORY, ARCHIVES, AND EMBLEMS; ARTICLE 80.STATE HISTORY, ARCHIVES, AND EMBLEMS; PART 1. STATE ARCHIVES AND PUBLIC RECORDS; Determination of value - disposition
Why is this important for this issue? One thing I'll need to touch on is the distinction between statute (e.g., the law) and records retention schedules. This statute, combined with 24-80-102.7 (above) is key to the relationships between the two.

C.R.S. 24-80-106: TITLE 24. GOVERNMENT - STATE, STATE HISTORY, ARCHIVES, AND EMBLEMS; ARTICLE 80.STATE HISTORY, ARCHIVES, AND EMBLEMS; PART 1. STATE ARCHIVES AND PUBLIC RECORDS; Protection of records
Why is this important for this issue? It provides statutory guidance for necessary levels of protection for permanent government documents. When we talk about e-records, what is "durable" enough?

C.R.S. 24-80-107: TITLE 24. GOVERNMENT - STATE, STATE HISTORY, ARCHIVES, AND EMBLEMS; ARTICLE 80.STATE HISTORY, ARCHIVES, AND EMBLEMS; PART 1. STATE ARCHIVES AND PUBLIC RECORDS; Reproduction on film - evidence
Why is this important for this issue? This statute establishes the originals or copies on microfilm as admissible evidence; digital formats are not mentioned, and one could interpret this to mean that they are not admissible as evidence.

C.R.S. 30-10-407: TITLE 30. GOVERNMENT - COUNTY: COUNTY OFFICERS: ARTICLE 10. COUNTY OFFICERS: PART 4. COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER:  Microfilm and optical imaging records - when - standards for optical imaging systems
Why is this important for this issue? This statute provides guidance for county clerks, but it's not consistent with statute governing the state archives. Per this statute, county clerks are permitted to e-file documents or scan paper documents and steward digitally, but then archives can't steward them, provide access, or, potentially, consider them official copies or evidence.

A couple of important distinctions
Government Records vs. Public Records: Government records are just what they sound like: records created by the government as a part of its function. Many, but not all, government records are also public records, which is to say, open for examination by the general public. The federal census is a public record, for instance: created by the government, it is also publicly available (up to a certain date cut-off, at least). Elected officials’ official papers are another example of public records that are usually public, although sometimes with temporal limits. Some records, such as medical records for individuals institutionalized in mental health facilities run by the state, are government records but NOT public records, because they are not available for public examination (without a court order).

Security/Preservation copy vs. Access Copy: Your security or preservation copy is NOT used for access. It’s the original, or a high-res and non-compressed (if digital) version of the original. Why NOT use this for access, since it’s the “real deal” or the best copy? Because use would degrade it and undermine its long-term preservation and integrity. Instead, you use your access copy, which is still totally and completely legible and accurate (although it may have personally-identifying information, such as Social Security numbers, redacted to protect individual privacy). If something terrible were to happen to your access copy--it gets jammed in the copier and torn, someone accidentally alters or deletes the file, etc.--the information is not lost: it’s still sitting in the original or security/preservation copy, from which a new access copy can be made.

Correction: Not yellowjackets

Caught over 20 in 3 hours. So that worked better.

So I guess they are European Paper Wasps? The just look so....yellow-jacket-y. And I grew up with plain brown wasps.

That's the "Rescue TSW-BB6 Visilure TrapStik for Wasps," which I got at Ace Hardware, bless them.  I think I'm going to be buying these by the case.

Truthfully, it....well, obviously it caught a lot, but I saw an unusual number of wasps that appeared to be trying to find somewhere new to live. (Which is why I think I need more traps.) Hopefully I can convince them to go build their house somewhere NOT attached to our house.

A great example of why I'm trying to change fields

I'm still in the thick of trying to move toward a different, more programming-oriented, field, but it's so personally challenging for me to be unemployed that I can't help but keep an eye on area openings. I sure would like to be able to stay involved in the museum field, like maybe through a part-time position. Have a little steady income, stay involved, you know, that sort of thing.

So hooray, when yesterday I got an automated notification of a posting for a museum position in Golden, about a 15-minute drive from my house. Rad! Part-time and nearby. Maybe I'll apply, I thought. Would still give me plenty of time to work on my programming, so that I could keep working toward that goal, too.

And then I saw:
Salary: $9.50 - $13.00 Hourly
Education and/or Experience: BA/BS in Museum Studies, Library Science, History, or related field. M.A. preferred. Minimum two years museum experience with prior collections management preferred.
(Full position description here, until April 22, 2016 when the position closes.)

And then, gentle reader: I GOT PISSED.

Because, you know, I am really good at what I do. I am a hard worker and a team player and I take great pride in my work. I have two Master's degrees (one technical, one subject-based) and about ten years of experience--such as it is, because museum work is contract and part time and temp work and internships and volunteer-based. And I've done all of it. The narrative was that, "Oh, if you get the qualifications and put in your time, eventually someone will notice and you'll get a REAL job."

But the economy has changed--it seems--and MAYBE I can get a job paying $9.50/hr.

The point, I guess, is that maybe I'm not crazy for changing fields. And also that people should be ashamed of telling idealistic and hardworking students that if they spend 7 years in school, post-K-12, they will get a job that pays more than your average fast-food job. Heck, factor in benefits and your local barista is making more than this--and I bet they get some coffee on the side! (Not that there is any shame in food service, just they don't ask you to get an, or multiple, Master's degrees for the honor of doing it.) And City of Golden in particular should be ashamed of themselves for asking someone who has pursued a Master's degree and chalked up at least SOME experience in the field to work for $9.50/hr.

And hey, maybe I'm crazy, right? Maybe my expectations are way the heck out of line. So I checked the official statistics:

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, people with Master's degrees earn an average of around $28/hr; those with high school diplomas only, it's an average of $14/hr. (both from 2013 numbers). So you want someone with a Master's degree for less than what, on average, you would pay someone with no post-K-12 education.

I wish people would laugh at this job posting, and not apply, because the pay is just too low, and you can't seriously expect to get a skilled professional if you're offering that level of compensation. But that won't happen. People are desperate. We were told that there would be a lot of openings in the cultural heritage fields as people retired; that hasn't happened, as people have retired and their positions not re-filled. There are lotsa folks with relevant graduate degrees; many of them also have student debt, and some of them even still have hope that this might lead to a "real" job.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the USA, curator-type positions (for want of a better grouping) are projected as having a mean hourly wage of $27.40, and a median hourly wage of $24.77. Specifically for local government institutions (which the above-referenced position is), the hourly mean wage is $26.58.

And honestly, for me, it's not even so much about the money as what it says about how my work is valued.

I, for one, will not be applying.

I got April Fooled by a RABBIT.

Rabbits, for those who don't know, get this thing called "GI Stasis." It happens when their gut slows down, they aren't eating or drinking or passing stools, and they get hypothermic and can die.

How can you tell they have GI Stasis? They are lethargic, they aren't eating...even treats.

Why do they get it? Disputed. But anything that makes them go off their feed--sore teeth, stress, run out of hay, etc.--can trigger it.

How do you fix it? Usually requires a trip to the vet. The first time Marshall had it was on EASTER MORNING (so that was a cheap vet visit...), and he had to have IV fluids and special syringe feeding and two types of medicine (something for the pain and something to sort of move his tummy along). The key to going to the vet is their temperature; by the time it's dropping, you need professional assistance. Until then, you can rub their tummy (which they HATE unless they are just miserable, at which point they'll tolerate it), making them move/hop, keeping them warm, and--this sounds dumb--making them feel....loved, for want of a better word. Apparently they, um, "give up" easily and if they're in pain and you aren't comforting them, they kind of just go into themselves and don't try to feel better. SUPER SAD.

With that background, I went into our bunny room this morning to let the little guys out for "big room run-around," aka when we open up the puppy play pen and they get to run around in the whole entire room, rather than just their "normal" area. Usually this is cause for lots of excitement.

This morning, Lily Bunn (solid brown) came barreling out of their cage, leaping and hopping and running and just really enjoying herself. Marshall (brown and white) did not. Instead, he just kind of sat there, all hunched up. Sometimes he is a little slow to wake up, so though I was a little concerned, I just patted him really good (he is such a love-bug), gave them both a tiny piece of blueberry-flavored bunny treat (which they both ate--a good sign) and sat around, keeping an eye on Lily. He did eventually get up and do a few little hops and then sat, hunched up again, outside his cage.

So I scooted over by him, coffee cup in hand (of course), and loved on him some more. He is such a snuggle-bunn. Then Lily, being herself, came over and started nipping him to make him move. She doesn't want to be loved on; she just wants to be the boss and push him around. Sometimes I scold her for being mean to him, but when he's feeling bad and needs to hop, well, I let her be the one to push him around. So she did, and he promptly went to his litter box and hid, and she followed him into their cage.

I figured I'd go ahead and feed them, since Lily seemed to be ready for food and Marshall wasn't playing. Plus, maybe I was wrong: he'd eaten his bit of treat, just no hay, and was acting a little funny. So I gave them their "appetizer"--usually a papaya tab (for tummy health), but today I went for the big guns of an Oxbow disgestive supplement, which is pretty much Marshall's favorite thing in the world. I figured, if he'd eat that, then I was just overreacting and he was fine.

He didn't want it.

BAD SIGN.

Lily wolfed hers down, so I went ahead and gave her some pellets, which he promptly ignored, and rubbed Mr. Marshall's tummy a bit. I am not very good at it, so I am never sure if it helps, but he did not resist. ANOTHER BAD SIGN. So I closed their cage and puppy pen and went and got their space heater, for when one of them is sick and needs to be kept toasty. I set that up and turned it on, and started rubbing Marshall's tummy again. This time, he decided that that was UNCOOL. He wanted to run away; since running can get his tummy going again, I let him "escape" from his cage and into the puppy pen, where he promptly went to his favorite box and hid. Lily then got all excited--"MORE playtime????"

Since I don't like to torture "my" bunny (Marshall--Lily is Dave's bunny!), I figured I'd give him a little time to recover himself before I worked on his tummy and made him hop more. So Lily's running around, Marshall's hiding, and I'm doing that thing where I crawl around the room and pick up the hay and cardboard bits and hair that they leave EVERYWHERE. This was sneaky of me: they like to "help," aka jump into the litter box I use to hold the stuff I pick up, and if I'm not careful, kick it all back out. Very helpful (hah), but they find it entertaining.

Lily is periodically popping into the box to check on Marshall and, I hope, push him around a little. (Based on the noises from the box, sounded like all was going according to plan.) Then I heard the sounds of chewing. GOOD SIGN. But which bunn was it? Both were in the box; opening the box would scare them and certainly make whoever was chewing stop, so would not be helpful anyway.

But then Lily came running out. So I carefully reached to the opening of the box and offered the digestive supplement. CHOMP.

So you can guess where this is going. I locked Lily in her cage for a minute to keep her from stealing his treat. When the nomming noises fro the box had stopped, I let her back out, and kept doing my sneaky picking-up routine. And they both started running and hopping. Marshall tried to steal the litter pan from me: ANOTHER good sign.

Right, so you get the idea. They played a bit more, and the next time they both went in their cage, I closed the door, topped off their breakfast ration (since I had not given them the full amount, as I didn't want Lily to eat Marshall's ration in addition to her own!), turned off their heater (don't want to COOK the bunnies), and kept an eye on them. He had some pellets; within a half-hour, he had some water and hay.

Pretty sure I got "had" by a rabbit. On April Fool's. Wicked bunny.

Older picture of Marshall, being his usual happy and inquisitive self.