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.