The
West Virginia Courthouse Facilities Improvement Authority (WVCFIA) and the
Records Management and Preservation Board (RMPB) contracted with the Tech Research
and Development Corporation (Tech), a non-profit affiliate of West Virginia
University Institute of Technology, to conduct a survey and to present findings
on the current conditions of records and storage methods, and then to make
recommendations that would assist the state in making decisions related to
retaining and preserving essential county records using methods that reflect
the best practices for modern county records management and preservation. The Tech Research and Development Corporation
received this work through an interagency agreement assigned after the
competitive bid process for a contract for such work was cancelled. To accomplish this survey Tech subcontracted
training and quality control work to two well established and well qualified
firms with special knowledge and experience in records management and
preservation. These firms are History
Associates Incorporated (HAI) in
Tech
survey team members were dispatched to courthouses between September 16 and
Utilizing the expertise and knowledge of the staff of the West Virginia State Archives, the Records Specialist from IMC, the HAI Certified Records Manager and the Archivist developed two data survey forms (attached as Appendix 1). The first concerned the records themselves and sought to ascertain the physical condition of the materials, including evidence of surface dirt; evidence of damage from insects, vermin, animals, light, water, or fire; the presence of mold or mildew; the presence of red rot or other binding degradation; and the presence of metal fasteners and other binders. The quantity of each type of record held by offices at the courthouse was also sought as was the records' formats, the types and composition of storage units employed, the areas of the buildings in which the records are housed, and the location and condition of off-site storage, if used. The survey team members always attempted to obtain this data through physical inspection of the records.
The second form was designed to survey information from the office holders about staffing levels, training, reformatting activity, electronic records initiatives, and the existence of disaster plans. This form was also used to survey the physical environment of the areas used to store records. Included are sections for recording data samples regarding temperature and humidity conditions, lighting sources, pollutants present, the existence of fire detection and suppression systems, and the types of security systems in place.
To aid in data collection, copies of relevant documentation, such as records' schedule policies, and procedures in use, were requested from each office surveyed. All submitted documents were reviewed and are available in the raw data collected; however, courthouse personnel submitted relatively few supporting documents. Digital photographs were taken in the survey of storage conditions. A representative sample of active and inactive filing areas, records storage areas, problematic situations such as mold and water damage, and examples of exemplar and problematic shelving and other storage conditions were photographed. Those images deemed by the authors to clarify a point or description in the narrative are included in the final report and matrices. Since areas of concern were, of necessity, the focus of the survey, the images are primarily of crowded, unsafe, or poor storage practices. The surveyors noted that many counties and offices are storing records in well organized and safe storage. These images were not needed for descriptive purpose. A sample survey of active and inactive storage images is included in the submitted information.
The goal was for survey team members to conduct interviews with a sample of office holders or a representative in order obtain answers to many of the questions. The goal was also to conduct physical inspections and to record environmental data from records storage areas wherever feasible. Two difficulties were encountered that prevented complete implementation of this goal. These were time pressures and denial of access. County office holders had time constraints; therefore, the interviewers were not always able to conduct the interviews. There were also times when courthouse personnel did not complete or return survey forms as requested or they completed these in ways resulting in incomplete, confusing, or inconsistently recorded data. For example, rather than give the number of employees, some office personnel indicated "yes" in the staffing category. A telephone survey of a small sample of courthouse personnel indicates that in nearly all instances, there are not clearly defined job responsibilities related to records management. Most often the paraphrased answer to staffing issues related to records was "no one is really assigned:whoever has the time handles records issues." The project was also reliant on the officeholders' definition of the condition of the storage areas. Twenty-four individual offices failed to return these survey forms leaving the project with challenges to fill gaps in the data, which could not always be done. Follow up calls and visits in instances of incomplete or missing survey forms generated additional survey data.
While denial of access did not happen
frequently, in at least twelve instances team members were prevented from
inspecting records storage areas. In
fact, the Kanawha County Sheriff refused admittance of the team members, even
after attempts to help by a
There were some areas not surveyed because of
concern for human safety. For instance,
some areas contained bat feces, and due to its toxicity to humans, survey team
members were instructed not to enter such areas. There were some storage areas so crowded as
to prevent access by the surveyor, as was the case, for instance for a storage
area in
Because there were some instances in which
courthouse personnel did not submit survey forms or the forms were incomplete
or misinterpreted, because some areas were unsafe for human work or too
crowded, and because twelve individual county offices would not allow
admittance to their offices, the survey data forms are not complete in some
instances. There are, therefore,
instances in which specific information from some offices or officers was not
available to be included in this survey.
It is also of interest to note that, while the engineers were almost
always allowed to enter any room requested to examine mechanical or electrical
systems, the same level of access was not afforded the records surveyors who
asked for entry into the same rooms.
This can be explained by the "host" for the entry. Most often the hosts for the engineering
survey teams were custodians or building supervisors and most often the hosts
for the records survey teams were office holders or their designees. It is of comfort to note that the records
hosts were very protective of the records in their charge. Fortunately, this is a survey project as
called for in the interagency agreement and not an inventory. While no minimum survey criteria were given
in the interagency agreement or by the client for the number or types of
offices to be surveyed, the number of records or storage areas to be surveyed,
or the minimum percentage survey criteria, the Tech team made every attempt
through initial and follow up visits, telephone calls, and letters to cover the
state to such a saturation level as to produce a statistically significant
survey sample.
The survey teams had as their goal the five
major offices of each county. Since no
specific offices are delineated in the interagency agreement, they were
established through the creation and refinement of the survey instruments
as: the offices of the
The Tech survey team inspected and collected
data from every county and from approximately 420 storage sites at these
courthouses and, therefore, believes that sufficient survey data were collected
from enough counties, county offices, and county personnel to give substance
and reliability to the overall results and recommendations herein given.
Upon completion of the site visits, the team compiled a matrix containing the survey data for each county documenting the conditions found. These matrices are attached as Appendix 2. This is an Executive Summary, therefore, a brief summary of the results by category is below and more survey detail can be found in individual county matrices.
1.1 The Physical Space Housing the Records[1]
1.1.A
Temperature and Humidity
Appropriate environmental conditions for records storage are 68 degrees Fahrenheit plus or minus 2 degrees and 45% relative humidity plus or minus 5%. Office and storage area temperatures as high as 88 degrees F and as low as 55 degrees F were recorded during the surveys. Of the 420 spaces used to store records in the courthouses for which data was obtained, only 64 fell in the 66-70 degree F range, 328 facilities failed to meet these conditions with 110 of them having temperatures of 76 degrees or higher and 33 of these above 80 degrees. A mere 22 areas recorded temperatures at or below 65 degrees. Since the same heating and/or cooling systems service both office and storage areas, then the same variance in environments was found in both office areas and storage areas.
Relative humidity levels were recorded as high as 66% and as low as 20% in the offices and storage areas. Of the 393 areas for which data was obtained, 166 fell into the acceptable range, 104 had humidity levels above 50% and 123 had levels below 40%.
It is understandable that office areas will be more likely to have temperatures of 68-72 degrees F. This is the climate most comfortable for people working in them. If these temperatures must be kept at that level, it will not harm the records as long as the humidity can be kept at the low end of the acceptable range. In the inactive storage areas, the temperature and relative humidity should be more closely controlled. If the storage areas are not used as offices, there is less need for the warmer temperatures. Adequate HVAC systems with separate controls for different areas of the building can alleviate these problems. It is also necessary to prevent temperature cycling. Many facilities, in the interest of controlling heating and cooling costs will lower the temperature in the winter and raise it during the summer during those hours when the building is unoccupied. This regular temperature change can damage paper as the cellulose molecules absorb and shed moisture.
1.1.B Windows
The high levels of ultraviolet light in sunlight can damage records. Thus archivists recommend that records not be stored in areas with windows. Not surprisingly, virtually all courthouse offices have windows and few employ coverings that could ameliorate the amount of UV light that enters the offices. Windows were found in 210 of the active storage areas and 115 of the inactive areas.
In offices, drapes, shades, blinds, and the like can be used to block sunlight, however, these are only effective if they are actively used. A passive solution is to outfit windows with UV filtering film. This material, which adheres to windowpanes, can block as much as 99% of UV rays and comes in a variety of light intensities.
Where there is adequate artificial lighting in storage areas, the windows in them can be covered over in a more permanent fashion. If drapes, shades or blinds are not feasible, and structural changes are not acceptable for aesthetic or historic reasons, boards or false walls can be used to block the windows. In those areas where sunlight is the only light available, then UV filtering film is the best solution.
1.1.C Pollutants and other hazards to
records
Airborne pollutants, including dust and mold, can damage records through abrasion and fungal growth, which will eat through paper. Insects and animals can also chew through paper destroying records. Water is a hazard in its own right because it can destroy records, but moisture is also a contributing factor in the presence of mold and insects. All of these hazards can be found to one extent or another in the courthouses in the state.
Cigarette smoking and open flames are two other
hazards that can damage records. Fire is
the most obvious peril, but the smoke itself can also damage records over
time. Evidence of smoking and candles in
the courthouses was found during the site visits. For example:
Cabell County - Lighted candles were noted in the Sheriff's office.
Kanawha County - Cigarette butts were found in the boiler room.
Mold
Mold was detected in 120 storage locations in twenty-eight counties that are affected by mold. Most likely the mold is inactive, but once spores are present, warm, moist air is all it takes to create new growth. Braxton and Kanawha counties had storage areas with active molds detected. As recommended in the facilities study, areas of active mold should be investigated by an expert in this field for identification and elimination of the mold.
Moisture,
Dampness
Thirty-six counties have some type of moisture problem. For example:
Calhoun County - Records were found lying in and beside pools of water in a hallway leading to the upstairs storage area. The ceiling in this area continually leaked.
Wood County - Circuit Clerk's storage areas have holes in the ceilings. The surveyor noted that the ceiling of the old annex (magistrate) building has holes in it. You can look up and see the sky. When it rains, water flows freely into these rooms.
Animals
Various types of animals could be found in eighty storage areas in twenty-three of the courthouses. Among the creatures noted were bats (10), birds (3), cats (2), mice (33), rats (4), and snakes (2).
Insects
Thirty-six courthouses had insects in fifty-eight storage areas. Among the insects noted were ants (13), bees (6), beetles (1), caterpillars (3), cockroaches (19), dust mites (3), flies (13), gnats (3), lady bugs (9), lice (1), silverfish (3), spiders (23), termites (6), wasps (4), and water bugs (6). While not all of these can damage paper, the presence of any kind of insect raises a flag about general housekeeping matters that can be detrimental to records.
Dust or
grime on records
As might be expected most counties have problems with dust and grime thus two hundred areas in forty-five counties are affected by this problem. With records dating back over many decades, this is inevitable.
1.1.D Fire suppression and detection systems
Fire
extinguishers
Of the 233 active records areas for which responses were received, 145 are equipped with fire extinguishers. Of the 146 inactive storage areas for which responses were received, 52 are equipped with extinguishers. In addition, the Hampshire County Clerk's office has smoke and heat detectors. The Greenbrier County Assessor stated that, if there were extinguishers anywhere, they were not being checked.
Sprinklers
While seven
counties indicated the presence of sprinklers in their facilities, most of the
individual offices within these counties responded in the negative. The exception was
Those offices that indicated the presence of a sprinkler system are:
Upshur County- Circuit and
Fire and safety issues were a part of the facilities study and a more detailed review is included in the facilities report, which is a part of the overall courthouse study and is included in its entirety on the enclosed CD.
1.1.E Type of security systems in place
Security in most courthouses is concerned with the safety of the people who work in and visit the facilities. Standards set by the West Virginia State Supreme Court were used in this survey. Records security is a different issue. The concerns here are theft and mutilation of the records. There is some overlap in how these types of concerns are met, but in many ways they are different.
Guards at
entrance to area
Only eleven offices indicated that there are guards outside individual offices, and only nine storage areas have guards stationed outside. In both of these groups, Circuit Court areas were most likely to be under guard. One of the Circuit Clerks noted that the guard is present only when court is in session.
Locked or
limited access to areas with records
Limiting access through locks or other barriers is common throughout the courthouse system. For each of the five types of offices, between 35 and 40 of the courthouses limited access to their active records areas. Inactive records are somewhat less protected, with Circuit Clerks being most likely to lock the areas (40) and Prosecuting Attorneys the least likely (17).
Alarm
system
Few offices
are protected by alarms.
Secured
doors/windows
Secured
doors and/or windows are common throughout the courthouses. For the five types of offices, the number
with secured barriers ranged between 31 and 43.
Panic
Button
The number of offices throughout the entire courthouse system protected by panic buttons ranges between four and ten depending upon the type of office. For instance:
Hardy County - Sheriff's secretary stated that the alarm sounds only in the adjacent room and expressed concern that it wouldn't alert anyone to trouble.
Key card
access
A total of only seven areas (offices and storage) are secured by key card access systems.
The
surveyors included comments on general security matters as well. For instance Harrison, Mingo, and
Fire and safety issues were a part of the facilities study and a more detailed review is included in the facilities report, which is a part of the overall courthouse study and is included in its entirety on the enclosed CD.
1.2, 1.4, 1.5 Quantity of Records Held and
Condition of Records
Each county matrix contains a survey of the records found during the site visit. Records are listed by office and record type and were to include an assessment of their condition. The goal of surveyors was to collect condition information.
The overall condition of
The problems identified by the survey range from mold, water damage, and filth, to inaccessibility due to disarray and lack of space in storage areas and dispersal of records throughout the facility. Unless and until space pressures are relieved, these conditions cannot improve.
Below is a sample of the comments made by the surveyors concerning the condition of the records surveyed. More comments are found in the individual county matrices.
Part of the basement is used for storage of useless items. Offices are in the process of converting to "electronic storing."
Jackson County- Inactive records are stored in an old ambulance garage. All offices indicated concern that their records were disintegrating in the poor environment. Fertilizer is stored alongside records. Basement storage is a filthy, unorganized mess.
Kanawha County- County Clerk stored records in an area where mold is rampant. The walls have a large hole that leads under the courthouse. Another area is described as filthy and littered with cockroach carcasses.
In the upper vault there is no space. There was not even enough room to walk around.
Although the Courthouse is on elevated ground and appears safe from flooding, the material in the basement appears to have been damaged by something other than age or improper storage. The wooden shelves on which the records are stored are in desperate need of replacement. The only light in the room came from the windows--there were no lights to be turned on.
On
the third floor, there are several banker boxes throughout the room stacked to
the ceiling in a very disorganized fashion.
There is one area of the room that shows signs the roof has been leaking
and records are stored directly beneath.
Circuit Clerk also said that they had some old Hatfield-McCoy records but they do not know where they are now.
Nicholas County - Records in the Circuit Clerk storage area are in poor condition. Mice, bats, and grime are in evidence. Boxes are stacked high enough to obscure windows. Duct tape is used to replace missing spines. Jail storage also contains exercise equipment.
1.6 Disaster
Plan
While no one
ever wants disasters to occur, they are a fact of life. It is known that planning in advance for
floods, fires, power outages, and the like can limit the extent of the
damage. The courthouse survey determined
that virtually none of the offices had developed a written plan for protecting
records in such situations either for removal of threatened records or
prioritization of records to be protected.
Forty-nine counties are without a plan for any of their offices. Eight offices (Cabell Circuit and
Furthermore, little has been done to alleviate or remove known threats to records. Such actions would include relocation of records from areas prone to flooding or similar dangers, relocation of threats to records such as water pipes, and repair of leaking roofs, windows, and walls. For a sense of the situations found, the counties below are listed. With the exception of one office in each of the four counties listed below, all the offices indicated they had done nothing to safeguard their materials.
Barbour County - Circuit Clerk moved everything out of the flood plain.
1.7 Staffing
The survey was to obtain information about the number of employees in each office who have records responsibilities. Survey team members had to rely solely on the information received from the office holders and courthouse personnel. From responses received, it appears that for many offices the entire staff was provided instead. In particular, the sheriffs' offices figures on records management seem higher than should be expected and this may be because they include all members of law enforcement rather than just those charged with records management. This may also be due to each officer being charged with retrieving and replacing records for his own use. In the larger offices there may be employees solely responsible for records matters, but we found no office that stated such. In those offices with fewer than five employees, it is likely that all are involved in working with records. Follow-up calls support the theory that no personnel are specifically designated as "Records Personnel" and that records are handled by many staff members and on a time available basis. Without written job descriptions that contain areas of responsibility specifically related to records management and without supervisors and office holders being able to distinguish which staff and their specific duties, it is not possible to determine the number of staff related to records management. This survey, therefore, found the need and recommends that written job descriptions be created where they currently do not exist and that existing written job descriptions be revised to clearly identify staff duties and responsibilities and minimum qualifications for the records duties assigned. Until these are available, it will not be possible to determine whether offices need more staff for records or to better utilize the staff they have. Provided below are the numbers given to the Tech survey team.
1.7.A Number of Employees by Type of Office
|
Assessor |
Circuit Clerk |
|
Sheriff |
Prosecuting Attorney |
Full-time |
|
|
|
|
|
# of responses |
44 |
40 |
37 |
38 |
34 |
High |
76 |
33 |
34 |
52 |
49 |
Low |
1 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
Bulk |
4-12 |
1-8 |
2-13 |
3-10 |
1-6 |
Part-time |
|
|
|
|
|
# of responses |
31 |
16 |
20 |
19 |
11 |
High |
10 |
3 |
9 |
9 |
3 |
Low |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Bulk |
1-4 |
1-3 |
1-3 |
1-2 |
1-3 |
Volunteers |
|
|
|
|
|
# of responses |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Total |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1.7.B Records Training
Training
received
The amount
of records training received by employees varied by office, but in general was
very low. No offices were identified as
having a Certified Records Manager on staff.
Staff members in
Training
Received
|
Responses |
In House |
61 |
On the Job |
11 |
Workshops |
9 |
Basic Assessment Training |
7 |
State Sponsored |
6 |
Tax Department |
6 |
Classes |
6 |
Association Meetings |
4 |
Clerk's Meetings |
3 |
Supreme Court Training |
3 |
|
|
Annual In-service |
1 |
Attorney Seminar |
1 |
Auditor's Meeting |
1 |
Conferences |
1 |
|
1 |
Family Law Master |
1 |
Records management |
1 |
Weekly Classes |
1 |
Opportunities
available
A large
number (145 offices) indicated that no opportunities for training existed. Prosecuting Attorneys were most likely (35)
to report this and
Training
Opportunities |
Responses |
Association Meetings |
52 |
On the Job |
6 |
Tax Dept. |
5 |
State Auditor's |
5 |
Workshops |
4 |
Seminars |
4 |
Supreme Court |
2 |
Key Personnel Meetings |
2 |
|
2 |
|
|
Basic Assessment Training |
1 |
College |
1 |
Computer Training |
1 |
|
1 |
In House |
1 |
Library |
1 |
Safety Meetings |
1 |
Weekly Classes |
1 |
1.1.D.b Average Daily Retrievals of Current Records
and Stored Records
As expected in the current environment of no personnel being specifically assigned and no records of retrieval activity being kept, the answers varied widely. Some offices spent all day providing retrieval service while others indicated that none of their time was spent on this task. This variation is seen across all offices, regardless of type. Service was more likely to be for internal staff use than public use and most often in current records rather than in stored material.
1.8 Reformatting/Duplication
5A-8-15 of the WV State Code specifies that "a preservation duplicate of a county government entity record may be stored in any format, approved by the board as hereinafter established, where the image of the original record is preserved in a form, including CD-ROM and optical image storage media in which the image thereof is incapable of erasure or alteration, and from which a reproduction of the stored record may be retrieved which truly and accurately depicts the image of the original county government record." Older forms of duplication and preservation, such as photocopying and microfilming have been used for many years and are still acceptable forms of preservation duplicates.
The intent of this section of the survey was to determine how much reformatting activity had occurred during the past five years. The site visits found that few counties are involved in active reformatting projects, whether they are photocopying, microfilming, or imaging. There seemed to be a certain amount of confusion about what the question was asking as making photocopies for filed material was considered by some to fall under reformatting. This confusion is indicative of the deficiency of and need for training in modern methods of records management. Many counties mentioned old filming projects that they have lost track of data on. "Old LDS film," "unknown project in county clerk's office," "some microfilming a long time ago," and "a lot" are indicative of the responses. A sample of offices that gave clear indications of reformatting activities is listed below.
Photocopying
Lewis County -
Microfilming
Imaging/Digitizing
Jefferson County - Circuit Court conducted a retrospective scanning project to reformat its pre-1998 records. Since that date, records are scanned as they are filed. The County Clerk has embarked upon a one million page retrospective imaging project. Both of these offices are retaining the original records on site. The master copies are also stored in the courthouse.
Nicholas County - County Clerk's office indicates that it digitized 35,000 pages per year and stored the originals after scanning. The master copy is stored onsite.
Pocahontas County - County Clerk installed an imaging system in 2001. They have not created a written plan for data migration of these items to prevent loss.
Ritchie County - Assessor is planning to scan the tax maps and daily forms.
1.9 Electronic Records
The surveys indicate that a certain amount of confusion exists about electronic records. While some were quite clear that tax records or criminal investigations are created in electronic format, others did not seem to understand the question, thus indicating additional need for records management training.
1.9.A. Record groups and/or series created and maintained in electronic format
Assessor
Record Type |
Number |
Appraisals |
1 |
assessment returns |
1 |
CAMA |
3 |
CAPPA |
2 |
Correspondence |
1 |
dog tags |
1 |
Exonerations |
1 |
Forms |
1 |
land, oil, gas |
1 |
map cards |
1 |
Maps |
2 |
mobile homes |
1 |
personal property |
4 |
real estate appraisals |
1 |
real property |
2 |
state tax dept. |
1 |
structures on land |
1 |
supplemental assessment |
2 |
tax records |
1 |
Other responses: "all records to Charleston"
"all from state"
Circuit Clerk
Record Type |
Number |
Accounting |
1 |
adoption |
2 |
case works |
1 |
civil |
4 |
criminal |
4 |
dockets |
8 |
domestic |
2 |
financial |
2 |
Guardianship |
1 |
indexes |
2 |
jury master |
1 |
juvenile |
3 |
mental hygiene |
3 |
Payroll |
1 |
Petitions |
1 |
Voting |
1 |
Other responses: "records of every case since 1991" (Randolph)
County Clerk
Record Type |
Number |
deaths |
1 |
deeds |
3 |
election information |
1 |
indexes |
7 |
liens |
1 |
marriages |
1 |
minutes |
1 |
probate |
1 |
record of deeds |
1 |
voter registration |
4 |
wills |
1 |
Other responses: "all records since July 2002" (Harrison)
"all records since 1995" (Logan)
Sheriff
Record Type |
Number |
accounting |
2 |
bank accounts |
1 |
committee accounts |
1 |
conservancy |
1 |
criminal investigation |
2 |
criminal process |
1 |
daily reports |
1 |
disbursements |
1 |
DMV |
8 |
financial |
1 |
lien holding |
1 |
personal property |
3 |
real property |
3 |
receipts |
3 |
redemptions |
1 |
reports |
1 |
state auditor's program |
1 |
tax collection records |
3 |
tax information |
3 |
tax receipts |
1 |
taxes |
3 |
taxes collected |
3 |
Prosecuting Attorney
Record Type |
Number |
civil criminal |
1 |
court documents |
1 |
past cases |
1 |
Other responses: "all files since 1991" (Harrison)
1.9.B. Software and Systems Support
The types of software used to create these electronic records ranged from Microsoft products to custom programs. In all, the respondents named thirty-eight separate programs. Complete System Support Inc. was most frequently named after the combined Microsoft products. Below is a summary of the most frequently named programs
Software |
Number |
Microsoft Products |
25 |
CSSI |
19 |
Software Systems of Morgantown |
14 |
CCMS |
13 |
AS 400 |
10 |
ACS |
3 |
Supreme Court |
3 |
Tax Department |
3 |
USSI |
2 |
IAS |
2 |
WVISC |
2 |
Respondents indicated that twenty-six separate organizations provided system support to the offices. Software Systems of Morgantown was the company most often named. Below is a summary of the most frequent responses.
Software |
Number |
Software Systems of Morgantown |
16 |
CSSI |
5 |
AS 400 |
5 |
Microsoft Products |
4 |
CCMS |
3 |
TMC Technologies |
3 |
ACS |
2 |
State Tax Department |
2 |
None |
2 |
1.9.C. System Security
Passwords are the most common security mechanism for the electronic storage systems. Office storage, sometimes in an office other than the creating office, was a distant second choice. Below is a summary of the most frequent responses.
Security System |
Number |
password |
46 |
office |
16 |
vault/safe |
6 |
daily back up |
4 |
none |
3 |
firewall |
2 |
Passwords are also most often used to provide security for the back-up systems. Again, the office was a distant second choice. Below is a summary of the most frequent responses.
Security system |
Number |
password |
25 |
office |
9 |
vault/safe |
8 |
at state |
8 |
weekly back up |
5 |
none |
4 |
county back up |
2 |
daily backup |
2 |
offsite |
2 |
Procedural rules used for creation, storage, reformatting, and retirement of electronic records are nearly non-existent. Twenty-four offices responded in the negative to this question. Three offices replied yes, but gave no examples. Of those who did provide their procedures, the respondents indicated a lack of understanding of what was being sought. Once again, staff training issues are evident.
Response |
Number |
back up system |
3 |
per statute |
1 |
state rules |
1 |
copy software onto disk and store in vault |
1 |
ACS contract |
1 |
1.10 Records
Retention/Disposition (Retention Schedules, Destruction Process, Electronic
Records Guidelines Used)
Twelve counties appear to be completely lacking in any type of retention schedule. In the other counties, more than half of the offices are without schedules. Circuit Clerks (20) were most likely to state they had a retention schedule and Prosecuting Attorneys (7) least likely. Few actually were able to give the name of the schedule they used. Those who could name their schedule gave either the 1977 County Records Manual or the 1995 Circuit Court Records Retention Schedule, although as many as six Circuit Clerks indicated that they used a 1977 schedule.
In Braxton County, the Prosecuting Attorney
stated that all records prior to 2000 were destroyed. The Prosecuting Attorney in Greenbrier County
noted that felony cases are kept for three years and then purged leaving only
those cases he considers important.
Magistrate files in that county are kept one year and disposed. In fact, several Magistrate and Prosecuting
Attorney offices gave similar answers, as this is an acceptable and established
retention period for this record.
Thirty-four offices indicated that they document disposition of records. The majority of these offices (19) were Circuit Clerks. Electronic Records Guidelines were even less common than destruction documentation. Only seventeen offices indicated that they had electronic records guidelines. However, given the confusion about what constituted an electronic record, this information may not be particularly relevant.
1.11 Material
being stored outside the office's jurisdiction
While many counties indicated that some records are stored somewhere, including "the historical society," only three offices indicated that some of their very old records are housed in the West Virginia and Regional History Collection (WVRH) at West Virginia University, however, Mr. Fred Armstrong, State Archivist, stated that eighteen counties' have original records stored there.
Despite these limited reports, records from thirty-nine counties, dating to as early as 1754, are housed in Morgantown. Only 18 are original records, whether filmed or not. The WVRH Collection website contains two listings with county records. One is the Guide to Manuscripts and Archives at the West Virginia and Regional History Collection and the other is the West Virginia Court Record Index. The Court Record Index is a listing of microfilmed material, while the Guide contains both paper and filmed material. Material in the Guide appears to have been donated between 1934 and 1983 with the bulk of the donations made pre-1959. It is not possible to tell from these listings if there is overlap between them. One composite list should be compiled for each county. The counties should then be given the listing of their records. The Guide is available at http://www.libraries.wvu.edu/wvcollection/manuscripts/wvcguide.pdf The Court Record Index is available at www.libraries.wvu.edu/wvcollection/countycourt/index/htm .
Microfilm copies of County Court Records from 1754-1992 (later records are indexes only) for all fifty-five counties are available at the state archives. These records both duplicate and supplement those in Morgantown. These listings should be provided to the counties as well. This list is available electronically at www.wvculture.org/history/countyrec.html
For Berkeley, Brooke, Clay, Lewis, Putnam and Greenbrier Counties, an investigation needs to be made as to what records are held by the historical societies in those counties. Inventories should be made and then given to the counties for their files.
"The state that neglects to preserve its Public Documents loses much to future generations - to the whole world indeed." These words sounded an alarm when West Virginia State Archivist and Historian Virgil A. Lewis first stated them in 1908 and the concern expressed then remains true today, nearly 100 years later. The state archives uses them as talisman and the State Historical Records Advisory Board (SHRAB) harkened back to them in 1996 when preparing its "Appeal for Future Generations." However, words alone cannot save these important records and action needs to be taken to preserve for the state's future all records that are deemed important.
In its 1996 strategic plan the SHRAB noted six issues requiring immediate attention.
1. The public lacks understanding of historical records issues.
2. There is need for a coordinated archives and records management program for publicly funded agencies at the state and local government level.
3. Adequate training and education for archival and records management is not available.
4. The absence of adequate storage facilities and preservation measures places records at risk.
5. Revenue sources are insufficient to protect and manage the historical record.
6. Many West Virginia records of continuing value are inaccessible for research use.
Since 1996 these six issues
have persisted and have become more severe in nature. A comprehensive solution will require:
Development and implementation of a uniform records management plan
Cost effective training programs for personnel involved in records management
Investment in both facilities and systems to provide sufficient, secure storage and access to physical and electronic records
Development of funding alternatives for ongoing record management requirements including investigation of fee for service alternative
In the six years since the strategic plan was released, little has changed for the state's local government records. However, on July 1, 2002, the state took a step toward remedying the problem addressed in Issue 2 above when it established a County Records Management and Preservation Grant Program. Section 100-1-4 of Title 100 creates a grant program for records projects. The Records Management and Preservation Board (RMPB) is to compile and publish a Records Management Manual with retention schedules, and provide information on records storage requirements both on and offsite, filing systems, reformatting and electronic records guidelines, destruction procedures, disaster preparedness procedures, and other records issues.
The RMPB workload is already significant. In order to implement this mandate, therefore, the state should create an office, such as the Local Government Records Office, whose sole responsibility would be to deal with county level records management issues. This office is found in many other states and is located within the state archives organization in those states.
While the State can name such an office and officer any appropriate title, the titles for the office and officer used in other states is used here for discussion purposes. One of the first tasks of the Local Government Records Office would be to update the current records schedules. Because the current general schedule is 25 years old, its revision will be a large undertaking. To update these schedules will require researching state and federal code for each record title, determining all new records titles not found in the existing schedule and creating schedules for them, and developing a system for the regular review and maintenance of the schedules.
The best use of resources is to contract with those with records experience to work with local government records officers to update these schedules. Upon completion of the new records schedules, the contractor would then train the Local Government Records Officer and turn maintenance and implementation responsibility over to the Local Government Records Office. To accomplish the implementation, it will also be necessary for the Local Government Records Manager or Archivist to conduct regular site visits to the counties to ensure compliance. The final title of this officer can be determined at the time of implementation as there may be support for an Officer, Archivist, or Records Manager title.
In West Virginia State Code 5A-8-15, it is written: "The
Legislature finds that the use of electronic technology and other procedures to
manage and preserve public records by counties should be uniform throughout the
state where possible." Other states have
demonstrated that use of contemporary technologies and business models can
greatly assist in these efforts. Based
on the lessons learned by these other states,
Purchase/implementation of a more robust system through consolidating the purchasing power of the county courthouses
Reduced costs for system operations and maintenance
Improved disaster recovery and continuing operations capabilities
Increased compliance with state regulations
Standardized online training for local and state personnel involved in records management
Improved public access to most frequently used records
Improved preservation of historical documents due to use of digital files
Ability to implement fee-for services (subscriptions, research, e.t.c.)
Issue 3 of the 1996 Strategic Plan addresses another critical need: training. Currently county employees are insufficiently trained, if trained at all. Although training opportunities exist in the state, many offices are unaware or do not take advantage of them. Training must be regularized and considered part of county employees' jobs, therefore, county offices need to identify the personnel in need of training due to records responsibilities, budget funds for training, incorporate minimum skills and knowledge in written job descriptions, and include training as an expectation in the annual performance appraisal. All office operations and staff will benefit from attending training sessions and the sessions should be germane to their actual work so that they can apply what is learned. The annual cost of training should be estimated by the Local Government Records Officer and based on training schedules.
The proposed Local Government Records Officer would also be
responsible for training county employees in records issues.
Adequate storage was the fourth issue of concern in the 1996
plan and it continues to be an issue.
The courthouses face two types of storage problems. They have inadequate space and they
inefficiently use what space they have.
The companion study done by the Tech Research and Development
Corporation, focusing on facilities, has recommendations and cost estimates for
additional storage, improved storage, and improved environmental conditions for
storage in each county matrix appended to that study. ((See
Storage at courthouses is not confined to records. Courthouse personnel also store office supplies, criminal evidence, and current and obsolete equipment. As is the case with all organizations of great duration, material accumulates. One of the methods for coping with space limitations is to clean out and re-arrange more efficiently. Broken, outdated, unneeded, and unwanted items should be removed from the facilities. Formally designating records storage areas and then removing supplies and other material from these areas can increase the amount of usable space for both types of material. Many of the facilities seen during the surveys had holiday or party items stored alongside records. Records shared space with fertilizer, lawnmowers, and seized slot machines, as well. There often was not a separation between operational materials to be kept and the permanent records of the county. Inactive and active records were often co-located. Some storage areas were so crowded as to prevent staff access. Crowded conditions added to the instances of filth and infestations of animals and insects. Remedying these situations can improve space pressures while more storage is sought through expansion or other methods.
This "rearrangement of the deck chairs" should be seen as an interim solution while the counties increase their space to cope with the vast amount of records material in its possession. Removing old, bulky, infrequently used records from the courthouses is a laudable goal, but the planning and building of space is essential to actually accomplish this goal. (See WVCFIA Facilities 2003, Vol. 1-8, CD included)
The records in West Virginia's courthouses can be divided into four areas: current records, short-term inactive, long-term inactive, and permanent, historically valuable records. Each type has different requirements.
Current records need to be readily available and accessible to the many who have legitimate and approved access. These are most often stored in the office area.
Short-term inactive records are those that must be kept for a limited period of time and then are destroyed. There is less need for access to these materials than there is for current records.
Long-term inactive records are those that must be kept for decades, but are rarely used. These records ultimately can be destroyed after their retention period has elapsed.
Permanent records are those that the state is required by statute to keep in perpetuity. Some of these records are frequently consulted, but many are never used after their active period.
In order to confront the space crisis in the courthouses, West Virginia needs to develop a four-pronged approach to the records in its custody:
Records that are no longer required by statute to be kept should be destroyed.
Vacated storage areas should be rearranged and improved to house those records that are retained and that require regular access.
Infrequently used permanent and long-term inactive material should be sent to appropriate off-site storage.
Reformatting of selected record sets should commence to ensure both improved access to records and preservation of data from rapidly deteriorating and/or historically significant records
The most appropriate reformatting technique should be selected based on the characteristics of the record set. Conversion to both microfilm and digital formats addresses the unique requirements of archivists while providing a means for increased access in the digital format.
Physical Records - converted to both digital and microfilm formats
Microfilm - digitized based on access requirements
Electronic records should
be backed-up and stored offsite in a storage media meeting the state
requirements for non-alterable files.
This could include compact disks, magnetic optical platters or other
media that meet state requirements.
In order to confront the space crisis in the courthouses, West Virginia needs to develop a three-pronged approach to the records in its custody. Those records that are no longer required by statute to be kept should be destroyed. Vacated storage areas can then be rearranged and improved to house those records that are retained and that require regular access. Infrequently used permanent and long-term inactive material should be sent to appropriate off-site storage. Reformatting of selected record sets should commence to ensure both improved access to records and preservation of data from rapidly deteriorating and/or historically significant records.
There are several options for off-site storage of physical records. One solution might be to transfer material from the counties to other organizations with related interests, such as West Virginia University's West Virginia and Regional History Collection or to the state archives. Mr. Fred Armstrong, State Archivist, stated that WVU no longer has authority to accept records and the state archives in Charleston does not have original records, only microfilm copies of what courthouses still have.
Another option is to develop a system of distributed storage. At least three states, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, already use this approach. Through networks of archival depositories that serve the regions in which they are located, these programs ensure that permanent county records are maintained, but not left to crowd the courthouses. Illinois and Wisconsin created their networks by using archival facilities at their state universities. Michigan's network is a combination of academic institutions and large public libraries. The RMPB should investigate whether there are academic institutions or historical societies throughout the state capable of storing historical county records that could become part of a similar network.
Distributed storage can also be created through state or county owned archival storage facilities. These storage facilities could be built from the ground up, or there may be buildings that can be retrofitted to meet the security and climate conditions required for storing records. Because of the significant decrease in population in most counties, nearly all county school boards have buildings no longer used for educational purposes, but which require the expenditure of resources to simply maintain them. It would seem a viable option in many instances to utilize these existing buildings, after suitable renovation, to house these records within the counties.
Recommendations
13.Annual review of the records management progress
should be conducted by an entity external
to the individual counties, such as the West Virginia Association of Counties. An annual report of progress
with recommendations by county for the ensuing year's progress should be a part of the report.
A survey of the county records and their storage conditions was made and findings and recommendations were issued with the purpose of creating efficient and safe storage. At least 420 storage sites were included in the survey of sites found in the fifty-five counties. The recommendations made were based on the situations found in the survey, information gained from county personnel, and best practices. Thirteen recommendations were made addressing various components of records management, on and off-site storage, personnel training, and possible funding sources. Further related recommendations dealing with new and renovated storage options; fire, flood and other safety issues for both personnel and records; and courthouse security are included in the facilities study included on the companion CD.
[1] Detailed Specifications for archival storage areas and for storage facilities are attached as Appendix 3.