 |
 |
Peter, Thanks for the link. The article presents an interesting and useful story for understanding the issue. I can see the need to routinely delete emails after a set period. Such an approach makes sense for routine emails such as confirming a lunch or saying thank you for a report. None of these emails contains a decision or sets out a position on an issue of note. What becomes problematic, as hinted by the discussion, is that the system reduces even replaces judgement. The author can let the system remove everything and they lose all agency or moral responsibility. They can, if interested, exercise agency to save selected emails. Yet, they would not appear to follow any system. As we will be well aware, bureaucrats seem to always save their CYA emails. Invariably someone saves the email that shows their line manager ordered a decision so that they can avoid blame. Although this works for the individual, it fails the organisation and historical accountability. Therein we see the deeper problem. What seems to be the case, unless the email emerges, is that no one challenged the deletion programme and argued for greater effort to ensure historical accountability. I am surprised the National Archives have not raised this issue either in the past or even in the intervening years to ensure that correspondence was retained. To be sure, someone will argue that the general principle of routine deletion was abused in a way that was not expected nor intended by those providing the advice. Yet, it seems strange to consider that trained, professional bureaucrats, records managers, and archivists never (it would appear) raised this potential issue. They never asked “What is the consequence of this system on records management and historical accountability?” To understand this issue, we would need to know what the records management policy and the retention guidelines said for correspondence. If we look at the local government retention guidelines correspondence seems to be require to held for a long period depending on the issue to which it relates. http://www.esd.org.uk/foi/records%20management%20retention%20guidlines%20for%20LG.pdf (Note how many times correspondence is the type of record that needs to be retained (35 references) Perhaps we can forgive them and suggest that they were focused on the important records like policies and decisions by ministers. However, even that begs the question. The bureaucrat, the records manager, and the archivists, work within a public records system that should have shaped their approach before emails existed. What is even more surprising, given the kerfuffle with a minister who failed to understand the Ministerial Code and the Public Records Act indicated that *anything* he created as a minister was a public record, is that this process still continues.*** Either someone did not tell him or he chose to ignore that point. Neither solution is excusable, but then perhaps they both thought the system would explain and assign moral responsibility to ensure historical accountability and obedience to the law. The next question to ask, though, is the important one. Will the government change its approach to emails to ensure historical accountability? Best, Lawrence ***See the public records act 1958. The National Archives 1999 guidance note on the issue is instructive. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/whatisapublicrecord.pdf 4 Definition of public records 4.1 Public Records are defined in section 10 (1) of the Public Records Act, 1958, and the First Schedule of that Act. ‘Records’ in general are defined as carriers of information in any format (e.g. paper, photographic, film, sound, electronic, three dimensional models) (section 10(1)). ‘Public Records’ are specifically defined in the First Schedule; these definitions are summarised overleaf. [emphasis added]. Here is section 10 (1) 10 (1)In this Act “public records” has the meaning assigned to it by the First Schedule to this Act and “records” includes not only written records but records conveying information by any other means whatsoever. From: The Information and Records Management Society mailing list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of PeterK Sent: 19 June 2015 15:18 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Thoughts on the UK Cabinet Office’s 90 day auto-deletion of emails Experience has taught us that asking users to declare important emails as records into any sort of record system does not result in the capture of an adequate correspondence record The experience we have had in the UK, in continental Europe, in Australia and in the US is that asking colleagues to choose which of their e-mails are significant, declare them as a record, and move them to some sort of electronic file (or paper file, or SharePoint document library) does not capture an even vaguely adequate record of correspondence. http://bit.ly/1LjE3VN http://bit.ly/1LjE3VN+ -- Peterk Dallas, Tx [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org "The problems of our economy have occurred not as an outgrowth of laissez-faire, unbridled competition. They have occurred under the guidance of federal agencies, and under the umbrella of federal regulations." Senator Ted Kennedy, in defending trucking deregulation in 1978. To view the list archives go to: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=RECORDS-MANAGEMENT-UK To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> with the words UNSUBSCRIBE RECORDS-MANAGEMENT-UK For any technical queries re JISC please email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> For any content based queries, please email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> ________________________________ Help protect our environment by only printing this email if absolutely necessary. The information it contains and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are only intended for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may be unlawful for you to use, share or copy the information, if you are not authorised to do so. If you receive this email by mistake, please inform the person who sent it at the above address and then delete the email from your system. Durham County Council takes reasonable precautions to ensure that its emails are virus free. However, we do not accept responsibility for any losses incurred as a result of viruses we might transmit and recommend that you should use your own virus checking procedures. To view the list archives go to: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=RECORDS-MANAGEMENT-UK To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the words UNSUBSCRIBE RECORDS-MANAGEMENT-UK For any technical queries re JISC please email [log in to unmask] For any content based queries, please email [log in to unmask]