BOOK LAUNCH – Australian Society of Archivists
Inc
Selected Essays
in
Electronic Record Keeping in Australia
Editor
– Judith A Ellis
I am mindful that the audience here
today consists of record keeping professionals. However, I think it would be fair to say that record keeping is
an obscure subject and to the average person it probably conjures up a picture
of dusty shelves in a basement piled high with boxes of files that are the
province an equally obscure archivist.
Looking around the room, I can see that nothing could be further from
the truth!
To the average public sector
employee, record keeping is something that someone else does. Thinking back to my early days as a police
officer, I seem to recall that files appeared when I had to do something and to
record what I had done and they disappeared when I returned my work to my
supervisor. What happened to them after
that, I neither knew nor cared.
Fortunately, with experience and
maturity, I acquired an appreciation of the value of records, especially if I
was called to account to my supervisors for an arrest that I had made.
More recently, I have developed an
interest in genealogy and in researching my husband’s Scottish ancestors. I’ve spent many hours tramping around
graveyards in Scotland trying to find that elusive gravestone that is another
part of a never-finished puzzle. It is
a source of elation to find that a record created over 300 years ago still
exists in good order; finding that such a record can be accessed via the
Internet is even better.
I would like to briefly mention some
issues associated with the creation, control and accessing of electronic
records because it seems to me that those activities create their own set of
problems that must be addressed in the design and implementation of an
electronic record keeping system.
There is no doubt that the impact of
technology and the Internet as a means of communication has changed forever the
way that information is accessed and exchanged around the world. Could any one of us have imagined a few
years ago that, without leaving the comfort of our homes, we could examine the
inscriptions on the Ruthwell Cross, a sculptured monumental stone cross of the
late 7th century in Dumfriesshire, Scotland[1];
or read the original account in the London Gazette of the great fire of London
in 1666[2];
or the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320[3]?
The contexts in which these changes
have occurred and their implications are explained in Chapters 2 and 3 of the
book. Perhaps more than anything else,
it is the silicon chip that has been the catalyst for accelerating the pace of
technological change in every area of our lives.
Technology has not only changed the
management of organizations, it has also changed the management of
organizational records. For example,
the recording of corporate information has moved from paper memoranda and
letters to email messages; databases have replaced paper forms and case files;
and the central record repository in an organization has been replaced with a
multitude of computerised systems that each manage a part of the whole.
Within such a system, every day
employees are making decisions about the value to the organization of the
documents they create, and they decide whether or not to enter those documents
into the agency’s official database.
The growing number of personal computers and local area networks mean
that, as well as creating documents employees can also file, change, delete and
store vital information that forms part of the corporate history of an organization.
More importantly, perhaps, is the
growing number of mobile computers and miniaturized PDA’s, which allow vital
records to be created and essential business communications to be conducted out
of the office environment and for those records to be stored on devices over
which organizations have little control.
In the past, the processes of
classifying, storing, securing, retrieving and destroying documents have
largely been left to the professional record keepers. However, technology has shifted the responsibility for record
management from the professional to the end user. In effect, technology has made record managers of each of
us.
Technology has also created a
relationship between the professional record manager and the end user that did
not previously exist. The professional
has had to leave his file room and enter the world of real-time record
keeping.
To deal with these changes
and to fulfil the public expectation that technology will provide instant
access to information, the management of electronic records has, in my view,
become a major policy issue for chief executives.
From an FOI viewpoint, a
good records management system must facilitate the search and retrieval of
documents. I am aware that the words
“record” and “document” convey different concepts to professional records
managers. That is not the case under
the FOI Act.
The word “document” is defined under the FOI Act
to mean any record or part of a record, and the word “record” means any record
of information however recorded and includes, among other things, any article
on which information has been stored or recorded, either mechanically,
magnetically or electronically. It is
clear that the definition of document in the FOI Act includes computer tapes or
disks, CD-Roms, DVD’s and all forms of current storage of down-loadable
information in hard disks and file servers.
In my
experience, electronic records are usually overlooked in favour of paper-based
records and, when dealing with an FOI application, few agencies even
acknowledge the existence of the electronic version of a document that has been
requested by an applicant. Recently, I
dealt with a complaint where access was sought to the meta-data associated with
a particular document. The agency
concerned refused to acknowledge that the meta-data constituted a document for
the purposes of the FOI Act.
When access is sought to electronic
information, the FOI Act provides that access is to be given by providing an
applicant with a written expression of the information in the form in which it
is commonly available in the agency.
That is, the agency must create a paper record to satisfy the request.
But electronic information may only
be accessible if some additional programming is applied to extract the
information and to produce it in a comprehensible form. That is, the electronic document to which
access is sought may be a part of a computer database, or indeed, the hard disc
itself! This raises the issue of how to
provide access to electronic information – a topic explored by David Roberts in
Chapter 8 of the book.
Whilst it is arguable that
information that must be retrieved from a computer by the application of some
additional programming or manipulation does not constitute a document that is
in existence for the purpose of the FOI Act, it is also arguable that the
application of programming procedures to extract information is nothing more
than searching electronic records and retrieving information using different
tools.
For example, to search paper records,
a methodology must be developed and the relevant files or file drawers searched
manually for the requested record. When
a computer is instructed to search for records, similar methodologies must be
developed and the computer is instructed to search according to the criteria
specified. The search is electronic
using a different tool, namely a computer.
Documents are retrieved for the
purpose of making a decision about granting or refusing access. However, agencies frequently hold the same
information in different formats, each of which may be a separate document for
the purposes of the FOI Act. So it may
be that not only documents from hard discs and floppies should be retrieved,
but also those on back-up tapes and servers.
Just in case anyone thinks that these are not live
issues, it is worth remembering that electronic messages retained on US
National Security Council’s back-up tapes ultimately informed the public about
US arms sales to Iran and the diversion of funds to the Nicaraguan Contras.
Some of the questions that have been
occupying my mind recently are:
Q. What exactly does an
applicant ask for when he or she wants access under FOI to electronic
records?
Q. How should a request be
framed so that the document is identified with some degree of precision?
Q. As we move closer towards a
“paper-less” office, if paper records are not routinely created but only in
response to an FOI request, how is an earlier electronic version of a document
to be authenticated?
I don’t pretend to have the answers
to those questions, although Justine Hazelwood explores some possibilities in
Chapter 7. My main areas of concern
with FOI requests and electronic records are:
1. Whilst technology
should reduce search times, technology also widens the search area because of
information sharing arrangements between agencies and with outside
organizations. How far a search should
extend to be considered reasonable
under the FOI Act?
2. The rapid advances in technology and the
pace of change means that documents may be retrieved that can no longer be read
or translated because an agency lacks the necessary hardware or software to do
so.
3. The relative ease with which agencies can
bring together and manipulate large quantities or information suggests that it
may be appropriate for an agency to be able to choose the manner in which
access can be given – i.e. on-line.
4. The ease of retrieval of information
raises privacy issues that need to be addressed in a coordinated way across the
public sector.
In my view, the increasing
use of electronic records in the public sector creates special problems for FOI
legislation in its present form, particularly with respect to:
·
Custody of electronic records –
whose information is it?
·
Authentication of documents – which
is the correct version?
·
Systems management – what
information should be retained?
We are fortunate in Western
Australia to have a new State Records Act 2000 that is awaiting
proclamation. Among other things, this
Act requires government organizations to have in place approved record keeping
plans.
It also establishes the State
Records Commission, of which I am a member.
The role of the State Records Commission is to establish principles and
standards governing record keeping by the organizations to which the Act
applies, monitor compliance with its provisions and inquire into breaches of
the legislation. To my knowledge, the
legislation breaks new ground and should establish Western Australia as a
leader in dealing with record keeping issues in an online environment.
I am looking forward to the
challenges of serving as a member of the State Records Commission and I am
pleased to be here to launch a book on electronic record keeping in
Australia. The publication of this book
is timely. Reading it has crystallized
in mind at least, some of the practical problems facing public sector agencies
that the State Records Commission will be required to take into account. Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the book deal with
the planning, design and implementation of electronic record keeping systems
and contain practical solutions and advice.
The French philosopher Paul Valery said “The future
is not what it used to be”. In the
area of electronic record keeping - How true! I
congratulate all of the contributors to the book and the editor for the
production of an excellent guide. Using
the wisdom and experience of its contributors, at least we have the tools to
allow us to shape our own future as keepers of the public records.
B. KEIGHLEY-GERARDY
INFORMATION
COMMISSIONER (WA)
22 February 2001