Office of Secretary of State
Department of Archives and History
The records of Georgia's state government are a vital source
of information for Georgia's public officials and its citizens. Georgia's state agencies
annually spend millions of dollars to create, transmit, and store these public records,
yet insufficient attention can be paid to the effective management of them. The increased
use of information technology to create, store, access, and disseminate information has
not necessarily resulted in increased attention to the preservation of the public record
or the increased complexity of records management in the information age. Agencies should
evaluate how they view the role of records management in their respective departments and
consider the legal consequences of failing to so.
The role of records and information management in an agency's
litigation has been viewed in the past as one of tiresome records inventorying and
burdensome records retrieval assignments. This is no longer the case.
Records and information has now become a significant component in an agency's litigation
management policy. Agencies are slowly coming to realize that proper records and records
and information management programs can be an effective mechanism in avoiding litigation
as well as a cost saving mechanism for current or pending litigation. However, failure to
maintain records and information management procedures can also result in legal
repercussions. An agency's failure to produce records or documents subpoenaed during
litigation, either by destruction when not authorized by a records retention procedure or
because of a deficient records inventory, may lead to judicial penalties and adverse
publicity.
The impact that the rapid growth of technology is having on
records and information management must be addressed. Technology is changing more quickly
than the law, and agencies must be careful in selecting and utilizing these new
technologies. Records that are created, managed, and stored electronically bring a new set
of legal questions that must be addressed by Georgia's state agencies.
The Department of Archives and History (the
"Department") has three main responsibilities in the statewide records and
information management program. First the Department is responsible for developing
procedures and issuing rules and regulations establishing standards for efficient and
economical records and information management. Second; the Department is charged with
assisting state agencies and local governments in implementing records and information
management programs through consultative services, conducting surveys, and
providing training programs for records management officers. Finally, the Department
operates the State Records Center and other centers for the economic storage of public
records.
The Departments role in records storage may need to be
clarified. Georgia law states that title to records transferred to the Georgia
Archives is vested in the Georgia Archives not in the transferring agency. However,
when agency records are transferred to the State Records Center, title remains with
the creating agency.
The State Records Committee is composed
of the Governor, the Secretary of State, an appointee of the Governor who is not the
Attorney General, and the State Auditor, or their designated representatives. The
State Records Committee's primary function is to review retention schedules submitted by
agency heads. A retention schedule shall have the force and effect of law only when it has
been approved by the State Records Committee.
The statewide records management procedure is as follows; the
Department of Archives and History develops and issues rules and regulations for the
efficient and economical management and disposition of state records. The records
management officer of each agency establishes records management programs pursuant to
these rules and regulations. The records management officer, with the assistance of the
Department and the approval of the Agency head submits a recommended retention schedule
for each record series in its1 custody to the State Records Committee through
the Department. The agency head has complete and direct supervisory control over all
actions of the agency records management officer. The agency head is responsible for
retention schedules proposed by his or her agency and submitted to the State Records
Committee. The State Records Committee reviews the retention schedules and will approve,
disapprove, amend, or modify these submitted schedules.
The Georgia Records Act, Article 5
Chapter 18 Title 50, was created by the Georgia General Assembly to establish a statewide
records management system. O.C.G.A. 50-18-94 lists an agency's legal responsibility in
maintaining their records and creating retention schedules. O.C.G.A 5O-18-94(1) states
that it is the duty of each agency to "cause to be made and preserved records
containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization" and to 'furnish the
information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the government and of
persons directly affected by the agency's activities. The statute also requires each
agency to "sign submit to the Department, in accordance with the rules and
regulations of the department, a recommended retention schedule for each record series in
its custody." It is an agency's legal responsibility to properly maintain
their records and to submit to the Department correct and timely retention schedules for
the maintenance of their records. Correct and complete retention schedules are a vital
component to a solid records management program. Agencies should submit complete and
correct schedule applications to the Department. State agencies possess the sole legal
responsibility for submitting correct record retention schedule applications. Failure to
create and submit correct records retention schedules to the Department is a violation of
the Georgia Records law.
O.C.G.A. 50-18-94(7) requires that agencies designate an
agency records management officer. The officer's primary responsibility is to establish a
records management program pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Department for the
efficient and economical management and disposition of state records. In a 1975 Attorney
General opinion, it was opinioned that the agency director has direct supervisory control
over his or her agency records management officer, and, subject to the approval of the
State Records Committee, direct control over his records management program. The
agency head is, in effect, legally responsible for all retention schedule applications
proposed by his or her agency records management officer and the agency's records
management program.
It is the agency director's duty and responsibility to set
standards for his/her department's records management program. The agency director
should make records management a part of the agency administrative program. This will
improve efficiency and productivity for the agency, as well as become an effective money
saving initiative.
The legal reasons for a strong record management
and records retention programs are statutory compliance, litigation requirements, and
information management and retrieval. First, O.C.G.A. 50-18-94 requires agencies to create
and maintain efficient records management and to submit to the Department of Archives and
History complete and correct records retention schedule applications. To ensure compliance
with this statute, the General Assembly created legal penalties to guarantee that proper
records retention schedules are maintained.
Georgia law requires that all records created or received in
the performance of public duty can only be destroyed through the operation of an approved
retention schedule. The statute further declares that if records are destroyed by any
person in a manner not authorized by an applicable retention schedule, he or she is guilty
of a misdemeanor.
Over the past few years, records management has become a
vital resource in today's document intensive litigation. With the changes in and the
relaxation of pretrial discovery rules, records are frequently subpoenaed during
litigation and used by the opposing party. In defending against litigation, often the
single largest budget item is records management. Paying state employees to sort, number,
copy, and analyze thousands of documents, day after day, eight hours a day is both
extremely costly and time consuming. A well-designed and maintained records management
program is no longer a luxury but an indispensable component of an agency's litigation
team and budget.
For many years some attorneys may have advised agencies to
maintain their legal records permanently or indefinitely. They argued that these records
may prove to be valuable in case of future litigation. However, with the recent trend in
document intensive lawsuits, these same attorneys would probably recommend destruction of
records, which no longer must be maintained for legal or other purposes. In fact a lawsuit
may be jeopardized because parties failed to lawfully purge their records of unnecessary
documents under an established records retention program. Maintaining a systematic records
retention program is a vital element in both defending against pending legal action and
shielding the agency from future litigation.
If a lawsuit is initiated against an agency, a sound records
management program can serve to reduce costs by maximizing the efficiency of the document
retrieval process. Minimizing the number of documents stored through proper records
retention schedules saves a great deal of time and money. Even under the best of
circumstances, identifying and collecting large numbers of documents for litigation will
be expensive and burdensome; any inefficiencies simply add more expense. It is intuitive
that with the current downsizing of agencies' budgets, cost saving initiatives such as a
well-maintained records management program should be a high priority.
When an agency finds itself in court, records management has
become a major factor in the agency’s litigation due to the growing trend of document
intensive litigation. A prime example of the this trend is the enactment of Federal Rule
of Civil procedure 26, approved on December 1, 1993, by the Supreme Court of the United
States. This new rule imposes fundamental requirements on litigation in the federal
courts, The Rule specifies that each party shall provide to the other, without waiting
for discovery requests, a description of all records that are relevant to disputed
facts.
Previously, the requesting party had to request information
identifying relevant records, and sometimes subpoena the opposing party to comply. Rule 26
now eliminates these procedures. Each party has an affirmative duty to identify all
relevant records and make this information available to the other party. It has been held
that the absence of a records management program is no defense for failing to
produce a requested document within 85 days. Agencies must not only create and maintain
proper records management, the agencies must also have the ability to retrieve this
information in a relatively short time. This will place a huge burden on an agency's
records inventory and retrieval capabilities. Agencies must be prepared for litigation
occurring any time and therefore must continually improve their records inventory and
retrieval proficiency.
An agency's ability to access and retrieve its own
information is a major indicator in determining the efficiency of that agency. Moreover,
the public views its ability to have access to public records as one of its most
fundamental rights. It is now recognized that with the arrival of computer-generated
records and the ever-growing process of putting public records on-line, there will be more
requests for information. The rapid emergence of computer and communications technologies
during the past two decades has dramatically enhanced the ability to create, manipulate,
and disseminate information. Ironically, these same technologies also threaten to diminish
public access to government information.
If an agency has problems accessing and retrieving
information now, it will become more difficult to handle an increased public demand for
access to public records. Agencies must designate improving their records inventory and
records retrieval capabilities as a high priority. Advancements in this area will not only
enhance their work productivity but it will also improve their service to the public.
Georgia's Open Records Act affords
any person the right to inspect and copy any nonexempt public record. This undisputed
right to the public can often place a burden on an agency's record management system. An
agency must be physically able to provide records requested by the in a timely fashion.
Service to the public should be an agency's highest priority. Records management can be
utilized to better serve the public, thus improving an agencies' public image. With the
explosion of computer and communications technologies, there is likely to be even greater
demand for access to agency records. In Florida, the Legislature has authorized state and
local agencies to provide access to public records by remote electronic means. The Georgia
Net Authority was established to allow state agencies to make public records and data
available in an electronic format. It is imperative that agencies be prepared for this
heightened demand for access to governmental records. If an agency is having trouble with
records management program now, it will be difficult to convert to new technologies.
Agencies must have in place a strong records management system so they will be equipped
for the future surge of Georgia's citizens demanding immediate access to public records.
In addressing the potential legal consequences of an
inadequate records retention program, it must be first stated that no court has
specifically rejected a records retention period properly established by a state agency,
company or organization. However, courts have imposed penalties to parties who destroyed
records when no records retention program actually existed, when records were destroyed
while litigation was in progress or when records were clearly destroyed as a part of a
systematic scheme to obstruct justice.
Courts will generally not impose their view on what
constitutes an appropriate record retention period. Instead, courts generally focus on the
reasonableness of the records destruction decision, based-upon the particular facts of the
case. Courts will direct their attention on the records retention periods chosen, the
motives to destroy these particular records, and the existence of legitimate records
retention programs. Parties that create reasonable records management programs and
establish reasonable records retention periods demonstrate good faith. On the other hand1
parties that destroy records outside this context may face a series of judicial penalties.
The first potential consequence of an improper records
retention program is obstruction of justice. In general, obstruction of justice occurs
when a person or organization deliberately destroys documents when litigation is pending,
imminent or foreseeable. The major issue related to obstruction of justice is whether the
particular proceeding was foreseeable or not. The wise action for an agency is to stop the
destruction of records at the slightest hint of litigation. Moreover, even if the
destruction of documents does not, in fact, obstruct the proceeding, an agency may still
be held liable for obstruction of justice by merely performing the acts of destruction
alone.
A court can also hold an individual or organization in
contempt for disobeying a court order, including a subpoena to produce records. Contempt
of court is committed whenever a court or administrative tribunal orders documents
produced and the party defies that order by failing to produce them or deliberately
destroys the requested documents. If an adverse party subpoena's agency records, and the
records are not furnished for whatever reason, the agency may be held in contempt of
court.
An other consequence of a poor records management program is
that certain adverse presumptions or inferences may arise in litigation against the agency
when relevant records have been destroyed or cannot be found. This adverse inference
toward the non-complying party can allow the court to find that the destroyed or missing
records were unfavorable evidence to the spoliator even if the evidence is not harmful to
the party. When evidence is willfully destroyed, the court may view the evidence presented
unfavorably to the wrongdoer. This adverse inference can then be rebutted by demonstrating
that the destruction of records was performed under a retention program without any intent
to destroy potential evidence. For example in Vick v. Texas Employment Commission,
the
plaintiff argued that this state agency improperly destroyed relevant records and
requested the court to apply the adverse inference rule against the defendant. The court
denied this claim, stating that "the records were destroyed pursuant to Commission
regulations governing disposal of inactive records... There was indication here that the
records were destroyed under routine procedures without bad faith and well in advance of
Vick's service of interrogatories."
If an organization fails to produce documents under a
discovery order without a satisfactory explanation, the court an subject it to sanctions
and/or contempt of court. Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure lists sanctions
that can be issued against the offending party. See also O.C.G.A. 9-11-37. This list
includes the paying of reasonable legal expenses incurred by the other party, which
includes their attorney's fees. In Caducci vs. Piper Aircraft Corporation, the
court penalized Piper Aircraft because it selectively destroyed relevant documents prior
to and during pending litigation. The judge prohibited Piper from introducing any evidence
in support of their defense, issued a directed verdict in favor of Caducci, and imposed a
judgment of ten million dollars against Piper.
Up to now each negative consequence connected with improper
records management programs has focused upon agency. However, agency personnel who either
improperly destroy documentation or fail to implement reasonable records retention
schedules may face legal consequences as well. All state employees who create and process
public records should be aware of the legal responsibilities associated with their
employment.
Legal liability recognizes an obligation of an individual
under the law and the failure of the individual to meet that obligation. However, in
discussing a state employee's legal liabilities, the doctrines of respondent superior and
governmental immunity must first be addressed. Under the doctrine of respondent superior,
the employer may also be responsible for the negligent acts of the employees performed
within the scope of their employment. Actions performed by the employees within the scope
of employment are considered acts of the employer.
However, there are exceptions to this doctrine which allow
individuals to be subject to legal liability. For instance, if a subpoena is received
covering certain records, and an employee destroys these records, the employee may be held
personally liable for violating the court order because the employee acted outside the
scope of employment in a manner not authorized by the approved records retention program.
Arguably, since the employee's actions were deemed to be outside the scope of the employer
the actions cannot be considered acts of the employer, therefore potentially making the
employee liable for those actions.
The doctrine of governmental immunity can also protect state
employees from personal liability. In 1901, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that where
public officials "acting within the scope of their duties and exercising a
discretionary power, the courts are not warranted in interfering, unless fraud or
corruption is shown, or the power of discretion is being manifestly abused to the
oppression of the citizens. The Georgia Tort Claims Act gives a state employee immunity
from suit and tort liability for conduct performed within the scope of the employee’s
official duties. O.C.G.A. 50-21-25. Further, the General Assembly has expressed its intent
that persons complying with the State Records Management Act not be held personally liable
for their actions. O.C.G.A. 50-1R-102(d).
Archival and records management programs were initially
developed to handle paper records. Although microfilm has become a legal and accepted
storage medium, the use of electronic, magnetic, and optical storage media creates
significant new problems for records management programs. These new developments in
information technology pose unprecedented opportunities and challenges. The creation,
transmission, retrieval, and storage of information in electronic media is altering the
nature of records management, and will bring even more significant changes in the future.
The use of new technology requires careful scrutiny by state agencies so that Georgia can
preserve its documentary records.
The first step in the technological evolution of records
management was the legal community's acceptance of microfilm in the courtroom. Most
states, including Georgia, have adopted he Uniform Photographic Copies of Business and
Public Records as Evidence Act ("UPA"). The UPA essentially provides that where
any business or governmental entity, in the regular course of business has kept or
recorded any document of any act, transaction, or event,and in the regular course of
business has recorded, copied, or reproduced by any photographic or microfilm process that
accurately reproduces a durable medium so to produce the original, the original may be
destroyed in the regular course of business unless its preservation is required by law.
Besides allowing the destruction of original documents after
microfilming, the UPA further permits the reproduction of micrographic images to be
introduced as evidence in lieu of the original in any court. To ensure that proper
microfilming standards would be used in copying original documents, O.C.G.A. 50-16-120
authorizes the State Records Committee to establish microform standards applicable to
state agencies and local governments. The State Records Committee adopted the Micrographic
Standards, which states that all microfilm copies produced in accordance with these
standards are faithful and accurate reproductions of the original writing or document. A
resolution was introduced and adopted by the State Records Committee that restates the
policy that all state agencies, local governments and courts may destroy all paper records
which have been microfilmed in accordance with the Micrographic Standards.
The acceptance of microfilm as a legally acceptable
replacement for an original document is a building block for the acceptance of electronic
records. Electronic records or "electronic imaging systems" scan an image,
convert the image into electronic form, store the image on optical disc, and rapidly
retrieve the image. Many people have expressed concern related to the legality of records
maintained using this technology, specifically the admissibility of electronic records as
evidence.
The legal system has yet to confront the issue of electronic
records as evidence and may not for several years. However, the UPA may be applicable to
electronic imaging technology. Though the UPA does not specifically mention electronic
imaging, the UPA does state that a copy must "accurately reproduce the original
document. Therefore, since electronic images can, in fact, accurately reproduce the
original document, they may qualify as an "other process" recognized by the
existing UPA.
Georgia was one of the first states to modify its laws of
evidence to specifically address electronic images and optical disk. In 1993, the General
Assembly amended O.C.G.A 24-5-26 to read that "any photostatic, microphotographic,
photographic, or optical image reproduction of any original writing. ." shall
be admissible as evidence. Electronic images stored on optical disk will be treated as a
duplicate record, just like any microfilm record, in court and will have the same force
and effect as the original.
One of the most intriguing questions connected with the
increased use of electronic media in records management is its future storage capability.
Electronic media, such as magnetic tape and Compact Disk Read Only Memory (CD-ROM), is not
permanent and has a limited shelf life. Agencies which use these systems must be aware
that future retrieval of this information may be difficult. For example, under controlled
environmental conditions1magnetic tape has an average shelf life of seven (7)
years before the loss of data. Since many governmental records must be kept for long
periods of time or permanently, the Archives may not be able accept any form of electronic
record for permanent retention, including computer disks, tapes, and optical disks.
The rapid obsolescence of software creates problems in only a
matter of a few years. Due to the continuing evolution of hardware and software, no
current electronic storage media or format is expected to be sufficient to ensure
permanent record retrieval. Since computer hardware and software are constantly becoming
obsolete in a very short period of time, electronic records retrieval may be an impossible
task after a period of ten years or less. The rapidity of changes in hardware and software
would require two possible solutions. One is to continue copying archival records onto new
formats capable of being processed by future hardware and software. The second would be to
retain and keep up the maintenance of each type of machine used in records management.
Both solutions would be a difficult if not impossible task. Therefore, agencies can still
use electronic records to manage information more effectively, but agencies should not yet
use the technology to replace paper or microfilm records for storage purposes.
The widespread use of information technology in records
management, including electronic mail, electronic data interchange1 and
electronic imaging systems, is making it more difficult to determine exactly what is a
"record." Agencies must realize that when they are creating their records
management programs, all records, not just paper and microfilm records, should be
included. Agencies must develop sound records retention policies for computer generated
materials to ensure systematic implementation and to preclude a judicial finding of
improper destruction of records.
The traditional definition of what constitutes a
"record" focuses merely on the fact that the information has been recorded.
Since all electronic mail and computer based information is electronically recorded, these
communications may be deemed to be a "record1tunder this traditional
definition. This result creates problems when applied to modern information technology
systems because some agencies may be treating computer generated data as non-records while
the law and the courts may treat them as records.
Some courts in other jurisdictions have established a
distinction in defining types of records. These courts have distinguished
"official" records and "unofficial records." The judiciary may give
greater credibility to "official records" as opposed to "unofficial
records." Official records reflect the intent of the party to establish the official
position of the agency and to record agency business. Unofficial records merely represent
recorded information without any particular intent on the part of the author. The
judiciary has allowed for the destruction of unofficial records even though not done under
a records retention policy. It is up to the legislature and the courts however, and not
agencies determine what is an official or an unofficial record. Therefore, agencies should
treat all records created in an electronic format as if they are "official"
records.
The Federal Records Act, governing the "creation1 management
and disposal of federal records, defines "public record" as:
"all books, papers, maps, photographs, machine readable
materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or
characteristics, made or received by an agency Of the United States under Federal law
or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for
preservation by that agency."
Georgia has followed the Federal statute and revised its open
records statute. The General Assembly amended the definition of public record to include
"all documents, papers, letters, maps, photographs computer based or generated
information, or similar material prepared and maintained or received in the course of
the operation of a public office or agency. These inclusive definitions of a public record
demand agencies to treat their computer generated records as public records even though
they may be only machine-readable.
Electronic mail and electronic data interchange (EDI) are the
two most discussed and litigated applications in discussing when a communication is deemed
a public record. Understanding how to manage these two applications will give agencies
guidance in managing all of their electronically formatted information.
In discussing electronic mail, it must be first stated that
there is no universally agreed upon definition. In 1988, a definition was adopted by the
Electronic Mail Association which states that: electronic mail is the generic name for
non-interactive communication of text, data, image or voice messages between a sender and
designated recipients by systems utilizing telecommunications links. The phenomenal growth
of this communication technology is unprecedented, and along with the growth has come
litigation.
To date, the seminal case in defining whether electronic mail
is or is not a public record under federal law is Armstrong V. Executive Office of the
President. This case centered on whether the Executive Office of the President's
electronic communications system and backup tapes were federal or presidential records. On
January 19,1989, the day before President Reagan relinquished the presidency to George
Bush, the National Security Archive filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the
materials stored in the electronic mail system from the time of inception to the date of
the request. Within the Executive Office, individual employees were empowered to decide
whether the materials they created were federal records or not. There were no written
guidelines to assist these employees in making their decisions. Employees were using their
own discretion in destroying records.
The court concluded that since the Executive Office of the
President did not prepare a written procedure related to the destruction of records in the
electronic mail system1 these records must initially be considered federal
records because they were prepared in the conduct of federal business. The court further
decided that since no approved retention procedure existed to distinguish which records
were federal records and which were not, none of the electronic mail records could be
destroyed under the prevailing procedure. Therefore, following this decision, federal
courts will likely view electronic mail records as records under the Federal Records Act
and apply the same standards of preservation, including a records retention policy.
Even though the Federal Records Act does not apply to state
government this decision may affect state agencies. Most states including Georgia have
enacted comparable state laws that include electronic records within the definition of
public records. Formal records management policies should be established for electronic
mail records, and, when necessary, records retention procedures approved by the Georgia Archives.
The emergence of electronic records in Georgia's government
pose a critical challenge to state agencies' records management programs. To meet this
challenge, state agencies should cooperate with the Department of Archives and History to
develop a state electronic information policy that includes provisions for the retention
of electronic records. Meeting these challenges will allow agencies to be more efficient
and productive, thus providing better service to Georgia’s citizens.
State agencies can capitalize on the benefits
that sound records management programs can offer to their respective departments. With
reductions in budgets and department personnel, state agencies must utilize every resource
at their disposal to operate at optimum efficiency and productivity levels. Records
management programs can assist state agencies in achieving its purpose of creating better
government service at less cost to Georgia’s taxpayers.
Moreover, agencies must also understand that they have a
legal responsibility to create and maintain proper records management programs. Besides
the statutory responsibility maintaining suitable records management programs will
facilitate agencies in avoiding or conducting litigation. Furthermore, agencies cannot
risk the legal repercussions that may result from the inability to locate subpoenaed
documents due to poor records management programs.
Finally, Georgia's government is undergoing a radical
transformation with the escalating use of electronic media in its information management.
This increased use of electronic media in state agencies’ records management programs
should be exercised with caution. Agencies should address the legal implications that are
associated with the use of electronic records before any new technology is initiated. If
an agency fails to address these issues, they may be jeopardizing the future development
of Georgia's information Systems.
- Bearman, Electronic Evidence
(3rd Ed. 1994)
- Bearman, Electronic Records are Records, 6 Archives and
Museum Informatics 1 (No.4 Winter 1992)
- Berman, The Right to know: Public Access to
Electronic Public Information, 3 Software L.J. 491(1989)
- Betts, Ruling Forces Government to Save Electronic Messages,
27 ComputerWorld 1 (No.2 Jan. 11,1993)
- Bianchi, Document Retention in the Twilight Zone:
The Perils of Policies Unpoliced 27 Records Management Quarterly 31 (Jan.1993)
- Brown, Robek, Stephens Information and Records Management
(4th Ed. 1995)
- Dahi, What’s In Your Data Attic? CIO 12 (No.1 February
1996)
- Du Rea, Electronic Mail and Electronic Data Interchange:
Challenges to Records Management 28 Records Management Quarterly 3 (No.3 Oct. 1994)
- Fedders, Guttenpian1 Document Retention and
Destruction: Practical, Legal, and Ethical Considerations, "56 The Notre Dame
Lawyer 1 (Oct. 1980)
- Jt. Legis. Info. Tech. Resource Comm., A Critical Analysis
of Proposed Amendments to Florida's Public Records Law (February 1992)
- Jt. Legis. Info. Tech. Resource Comm., Electronic Records
Access: Problems and Issues (January 1994)
- Jt. Legis. Info. Tech. Resource Comm., Florida's
Information Policy: Problems and Issues in the Information Age (Apr 1989)
- Jt. Legis. Info. Tech. Resource Comm., Agency-Created Data
Processing Software As A Public Record: A Legal Malysis of ~ 119.053. F.S.
Florida's Software Copyright Provision (February i993)
- Mercier, Archives: Laws Lag Records Technology,
5 Federal Computer Week 22 (No. 15 June 3, 1991)
- National Archives and Records
Administration, A National Archives Strategy for
the
- Development and implementation of Standards for the
Creation, Transfer.
- Access, and Long-Term
Storage of Electronic Records of the Federal Government(June
1990)
- National Association of Government Archives and Records
Administration, Interim Report: Government Archives in the Electronic
Information Age (1990)
- Montana, It Can Make or Break You The Importance of Records
Management in Litigation, 29 Records Management
Quarterly 34 (Jan 1995)
- Sampson, Records Management: The Legal Aspects, 31 The
Office 41 (April 1990)
- Skupsky, Judicial Review of Records Retention
Programs, 28 Records Management Quarterly 40 (No.3 October 1994)
- Skupsky, Legal Liability of the Records
and Information Management Professionals, Legal Requirements For Business Records
5020-1 (September 1987)
- Skupsky, Legal Status of Optical Disc and Electronic
imaging. Legal Requirements for Business Records 3040-1 (September 1987)
- Skupsky, The Law of Electronic Mail-The Impact of
the White House Case on You! 28 Records Management Quarterly 36 (No.1 January 1994)
- Skupsky, The New Legal Reason for a Records
Management Program 28 Records Management Quarterly 38 (No.2 April 1994)
- Skupsky, Records Retention Procedures (2nd Ed. 1993)
- Tartar, Information Liability: New Interpretations
for the Electronic Age, 11 Computer L.J. 481 (No.4 Dec.1992)
- Van Slyke, Records Management and the Law,
23 Records Management Quarterly 22 (Oct.1989)
- Williams, Legality of Microfilm:
Admissibility in Evidence of Microfilm Records 4-SR (February 1995)
|
