From tbuckner at ibiblio.org Fri Jul 1 11:22:26 2005 From: tbuckner at ibiblio.org (Terri Buckner) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 11:22:26 -0400 Subject: [Chtechcomm] Discussion on Paperless Councils Message-ID: <42C55FB2.70608@ibiblio.org> Some of you may be interested to hear what Cary and Wake Co are doing in terms of electronic council packages. The question came from the new CIO in Orange Co. http://lists.unc.edu/read/messages?id=2915503 From tbuckner at ibiblio.org Sun Jul 3 13:02:36 2005 From: tbuckner at ibiblio.org (Terri Buckner) Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 13:02:36 -0400 Subject: [Chtechcomm] Webcasting council meetings Message-ID: <42C81A2C.60503@ibiblio.org> The City of Saint Paul will be webcasting and archiving the first two Council meetings in July as part of a pilot project to explore the feasibility of live web streaming and archiving of video on the City Web site. Please visit http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/council/2005/ to watch the live Council meetings on July 6, 2005 at 3:30 P.M. and July 13, 2005 at 2:00 P.M. We will also archive the two videos of the council meetings for viewing at your leasure. Visit us on the web at http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us. From arisb at channeladvisor.com Tue Jul 5 13:01:05 2005 From: arisb at channeladvisor.com (Aris Buinevicius) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 13:01:05 -0400 Subject: [Chtechcomm] new wide range wireless tech Message-ID: <36F1A6822DE75340B3036B5F217F31ED0606E8DC@m.channeladvisor.com> FYI http://today.reuters.co.uk/News/NewsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&story ID=2005-07-04T134748Z_01_MOL449599_RTRIDST_0_OUKIN-TECH-WIRELESS-XMAX.XM L Aris From tbuckner at ibiblio.org Thu Jul 7 13:10:22 2005 From: tbuckner at ibiblio.org (Terri Buckner) Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 13:10:22 -0400 Subject: [Chtechcomm] Question posed to NGLGISA Message-ID: <42CD61FE.7030908@ibiblio.org> Martha Holyman (new committee member) has posed the following questions to a School of Government listserv that servces information technology officials within NC local governments. She will share any responses she gets: Question 1: A number of volunteer advisory committees appointed by either the Chapel Hill Town Council or the Orange County Board of County Commissioners use listservs to communicate to all committee members and elected officials on committee-specific topics. These communications venture beyond just sharing of information into discussing issues and, occasionally, reaching conclusions or making decisions. It has recently been noted that the use of listservs could, if substantial business is being conducted, be considered a committee or board meeting and thus would be in violation of the public meetings law. Do any of you have policies or procedures in place to guide advisory boards and committees in their use (or not) of listservs? For that matter, do you have any policies or procedures in place for the use of any type of information-sharing technology as it relates to the public meetings law? Any information on how you handle this situation would be most helpful. Question 2: Do you have any policies or guidelines for the use of email by elected and appointed officials? I am specifically interested in the retention of those emails and the applicability of the public records law. Does the public records law apply when the official is using a personal (non-government) email address? When a citizen sends an official an email, does it then become part of the public record? Are there particular circumstances where it does not? Do you have a suggested wording for disclaimers to include in emails from elected or appointed officials to indicate that the correspondence is part of public record? From tbuckner at ibiblio.org Mon Jul 11 10:02:04 2005 From: tbuckner at ibiblio.org (Terri Buckner) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:02:04 -0400 Subject: [Chtechcomm] Email Use and Public Records Law Message-ID: <42D27BDC.3010702@ibiblio.org> Martha Hoylman wrote: > Here are the posts that were generated by my questions to NCLGISA. The > consensus seems to be that, regardless of the email address, most > communications with elected officials should be considered public record > law and should be maintained and retained as such. (There are a number > of exceptions to the public record law as well as some nuances as to how > long to retain the records dependent on long-term usefulness.) > > This presents a significant challenge - there is a general feeling on > the discussion board that most elected officials (and perhaps some > government employees) don't understand what the public records law is > all about and what it means to them and how it changes their work > practices. Some counties ask that their public officials use county > email for county business, but that's difficult to enforce. Some ask > that their public officials cc the clerk of the board with any > correspondence and allow that individual to maintain the records. > Again, difficult to enforce. > > Same goes for the public meetings law - the town council probably is > well-versed in the law (having been bitten in the past and having > attorney support available at all times), but most advisory boards, task > forces and work groups probably are not. Some training is probably in > order. > > I don't know what, if anything, the tech committee can do about these > issues. At the very least, we can educate ourselves. But, aside from > that, I'm not sure. > > Please send this on to the other committee members. When I get the > April 2004 posts from Herman Schmidt, I'll pass those along as well. > > Martha > > Martha A. Hoylman > Business Analyst/Project Manager > Orange County Government > 208 S. Cameron Street > P.O. Box 8181 > Hillsborough, NC 27278 > Office: (919) 245-2287 > Cell: (919) 949-3958 > mhoylman at co.orange.nc.us > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: > RE:[nclgisa] Email Use and Public Records Law > From: > "Janet Lowe" > Date: > Fri, 8 Jul 2005 09:01:20 -0400 > To: > "The nclgisa mailing list" > > To: > "The nclgisa mailing list" > > > Hello all. Here's a link to a document (2002) relating to email and public record law: http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/records/e_records/Email_8_02.pdf > > Hope that helps answer your questions. > > Janet Lowe > GIS Coordinator > Buncombe County, NC > (828) 250-6861 59 Woodfin Place > (828) 250-6869 fax Asheville, NC 28801 > > "The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them." > - Albert Einstein > ******************************************************************* > E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized state official. > ******************************************************************* > > > If you need to change/update your e-mail address, please go to http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/forms/listservchange.htm and use the online form to submit the change/update. > To access messages through a Web browser go to http://webmail0.isis.unc.edu:82/lists/. > To unsubscribe send an unsubscribe message that says [unsubscribe nclgisa] to pyoung at email.unc.edu > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: > RE:[nclgisa] Email Use and Public Records Law > From: > "Martha Hoylman" > Date: > Fri, 08 Jul 2005 09:13:51 -0400 > To: > "The nclgisa mailing list" > > To: > "The nclgisa mailing list" > > > This is helpful for clarifying the requirements for government employees > and contractors. Do you think this also applies to elected officials? > > I am specifically interested in the case where elected officials receive > emails to personal accounts (such as, xxx at aol.com ), > retain those emails in their personal file system, and respond to emails > without cc'ing anyone who would be keeping public records and without > indicating on the email that the document may fall under the public > records law. > > Does anyone have any insight into how that situation is covered (or not) > in the public records law? > > TIA, > > Martha > > Martha A. Hoylman > Business Analyst/Project Manager > Orange County Government > 208 S. Cameron Street > P.O. Box 8181 > Hillsborough, NC 27278 > Office: (919) 245-2287 > Cell: (919) 949-3958 > mhoylman at co.orange.nc.us > > > >>> Janet.Lowe at buncombecounty.org 7/8/2005 9:01:20 AM >>> > Hello all. Here's a link to a document (2002) relating to email and > public record law: > http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/records/e_records/Email_8_02.pdf > > Hope that helps answer your questions. > > Janet Lowe > GIS Coordinator > Buncombe County, NC > (828) 250-6861 59 Woodfin Place > (828) 250-6869 fax Asheville, NC 28801 > > "The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the > level of thinking that created them." > - Albert Einstein > ******************************************************************* > E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the > North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties > by an authorized state official. > ******************************************************************* > > > If you need to change/update your e-mail address, please go to > http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/forms/listservchange.htm and use the online > form to submit the change/update. > To access messages through a Web browser go to > http://webmail0.isisunc.edu:82/lists/. > > To unsubscribe send an unsubscribe message that says [unsubscribe > nclgisa] to pyoung at email.unc.edu > > If you need to change/update your e-mail address, please go to > http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/forms/listservchange.htm and use the online > form to submit the change/update. > To access messages through a Web browser go to > http://webmail0.isis.unc.edu:82/lists/. > To unsubscribe send an unsubscribe message that says [unsubscribe > nclgisa] to pyoung at email.unc.edu > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: > RE: [nclgisa] Email Use and Public Records Law > From: > "Schmid, Herman E" > Date: > Fri, 8 Jul 2005 09:53:44 -0400 > To: > "The nclgisa mailing list" > > To: > "The nclgisa mailing list" > > > Martha, > I am "re-researching" Public Records to shore up my division's indexed > databases. > > Regarding your question: "Do you think this also applies to elected > officials?", I think that the basic definition of Public Records in G.S. > 132-1 definitely includes Public Officials and all types of communications: > > ? 132?1. "Public records" defined. > > (a) "Public record" or "public records" shall mean all documents, > papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, films, sound recordings, > magnetic or other tapes, electronic data?processing records, artifacts, > or other documentary material, regardless of physical form or > characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance in > connection with the transaction of public business by any agency of > North Carolina government or its subdivisions. Agency of North Carolina > government or its subdivisions shall mean and include every public > office, public officer or official (State or local, elected or > appointed), institution, board, commission, bureau, council, department, > authority or other unit of government of the State or of any county, > unit, special district or other political subdivision of government. > > There are certain exceptions that follow, but generally speaking, public > officials go right in with employees and contractors as they go about > the "transaction of public business." So, generally speaking, email, in > any email account, would be a public record. > > BUT, the question of what must be DONE with a given individual email > message is more complex. The document Janet provided says that the > person must judge each piece on its merit as a public document and how > it should be handled (disposed, printed, kept). Much of this would > involve employee/official training and require a good records retention > policy for the agency. > > I do not think many agencies really take it to that level where an > employee or official really prints or stores individual emails based on > their interpretation of how it fits in to the agency retention scheme. > > My guess is that those officials/employees who delete all email ARE > deleting public records that should be archived or retained in some > fashion. However, how many of them have been trained in this aspect of > the law or have even read their own agencies record retention policy - > if it even exists? > > All this is not an area that anyone really wants to wade into too far.... > > Herman Schmid, Office Automation Manager (PCs, Phones, DTP) > Forsyth County MIS Dept > o: 336-703-2150 m: 336-682-1848 f: 336-727-2172 > "If we're going to do this, we may as well have fun!" (Patty Ricono) > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Martha Hoylman [mailto:mhoylman at co.orange.nc.us] > *Sent:* Friday, July 08, 2005 9:14 AM > *To:* The nclgisa mailing list > *Subject:* RE:[nclgisa] Email Use and Public Records Law > > This is helpful for clarifying the requirements for government > employees and contractors. Do you think this also applies to > elected officials? > > I am specifically interested in the case where elected officials > receive emails to personal accounts (such as, xxx at aol.com > ), retain those emails in their personal file > system, and respond to emails without cc'ing anyone who would be > keeping public records and without indicating on the email that the > document may fall under the public records law. > > Does anyone have any insight into how that situation is covered (or > not) in the public records law? > > TIA, > > Martha > > Martha A. Hoylman > Business Analyst/Project Manager > Orange County Government > 208 S. Cameron Street > P.O. Box 8181 > Hillsborough, NC 27278 > Office: (919) 245-2287 > Cell: (919) 949-3958 > mhoylman at co.orange.nc.us > > > >>> Janet.Lowe at buncombecounty.org 7/8/2005 9:01:20 AM >>> > Hello all. Here's a link to a document (2002) relating to email and > public record law: > http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/records/e_records/Email_8_02.pdf > > Hope that helps answer your questions. > > Janet Lowe > GIS Coordinator > Buncombe County, NC > (828) 250-6861 59 Woodfin Place > (828) 250-6869 fax Asheville, NC 28801 > > "The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the > level of thinking that created them." > - Albert Einstein > ******************************************************************* > E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the > North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third > parties by an authorized state official. > ******************************************************************* > > > If you need to change/update your e-mail address, please go to > http://ncinfoiog.unc.edu/forms/listservchange.htm > and use the > online form to submit the change/update. > To access messages through a Web browser go to > http://webmail0.isis.unc.edu:82/lists/. > > To unsubscribe send an unsubscribe message that says [unsubscribe > nclgisa] to pyoung at email.unc.edu > > If you need to change/update your e-mail address, please go to > http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/forms/listservchange.htm and use the > online form to submit the change/update. > To access messages through a Web browser go to > http://webmail0.isis.unc.edu:82/lists/. > To unsubscribe send an unsubscribe message that says [unsubscribe > nclgisa] to pyoung at email.unc.edu > > > If you need to change/update your e-mail address, please go to > http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/forms/listservchange.htm and use the online > form to submit the change/update. > To access messages through a Web browser go to > http://webmail0.isis.unc.edu:82/lists/. > To unsubscribe send an unsubscribe message that says [unsubscribe > nclgisa] to pyoung at email.unc.edu > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: > RE: [nclgisa] Email Use and Public Records Law > From: > "Boling, David E." > Date: > Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:29:29 -0400 > To: > "The nclgisa mailing list" > > To: > "The nclgisa mailing list" > > > Martha, > > A public record is (according to NC General Statute Chapter 132), > > *132-1. "Public records" defined.* > > (a) "Public record" or "public records" shall mean all documents, > papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, films, sound > recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data-processing > records, artifacts, or other documentary material, regardless of > physical form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law > or ordinance in connection with the transaction of public business > by any agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions. > Agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions shall mean > and include every public office, public officer or official (State > or local, elected or appointed), institution, board, commission, > bureau, council, department, authority or other unit of government > of the State or of any county, unit, special district or other > political subdivision of government. > > I think this means, any communications about public business by anyone > working for government, that is not excluded by law. > > Public record is not dependant on ownership of the computer or email > address or where it was received. > > Three simple rules apply, (I my view, nothing else really matter). > > 1) The communication is about public (county, city, etc) business, > > 2) It was received by a public person (official, employee, agency, etc), > > 3) There is not an General Statute excluding it (and there are several). > > Also a "Reply to All" email conversation, may be considered a public > meeting and may need to be advertised. > > Retention should follow the same policy, media really doesn't matter. > Emails don't have to be saved in an electronic format, but they can be. > > David Boling > Rowan County Information Systems > (Voice) 704-633-5761 > (Fax) 704-642-2083 > Bolingde at rowancountync.gov > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Martha Hoylman [mailto:mhoylman at co.orange.nc.us] > *Sent:* Thursday, July 07, 2005 10:25 AM > *To:* The nclgisa mailing list > *Subject:* [nclgisa] Email Use and Public Records Law > > Do you have any policies or guidelines for the use of email by elected > and appointed officials? I am specifically interested in the retention > of those emails and the applicability of the public records law. Does > the public records law apply when the official is using a personal > (non-government) email address? When a citizen sends an official an > email, does it then become part of the public record? Are there > particular circumstances where it does not? > > Do you have a suggested wording for disclaimers to include in emails > from elected or appointed officials to indicate that the correspondence > is part of public record? > > TIA > > Martha > > Martha A. Hoylman > Business Analyst/Project Manager > Orange County Government > 208 S. Cameron Street > P.O. Box 8181 > Hillsborough, NC 27278 > mhoylman at co.orange.nc.us > > If you need to change/update your e-mail address, please go to > http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/forms/listservchange.htm and use the online > form to submit the change/update. > To access messages through a Web browser go to > http://webmail0.isis.unc.edu:82/lists/. > To unsubscribe send an unsubscribe message that says [unsubscribe > nclgisa] to pyoung at email.unc.edu > If you need to change/update your e-mail address, please go to > http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/forms/listservchange.htm and use the online > form to submit the change/update. > To access messages through a Web browser go to > http://webmail0.isis.unc.edu:82/lists/. > To unsubscribe send an unsubscribe message that says [unsubscribe > nclgisa] to pyoung at email.unc.edu > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: > RE: [nclgisa] Email Use and Public Records Law > From: > "Boling, David E." > Date: > Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:55:06 -0400 > To: > "The nclgisa mailing list" > > To: > "The nclgisa mailing list" > > > Thanks Herman, > > Maybe my simply-ness (un-complexity) is due to my lack of vocabulary > (big words) or because I say have to "s'plain that to me" several times > a day. > > Have a good weekend! > > P.S. Sorry for re-quoting GS 132-1 again, I didn't see it before I made > my post. > > David Boling > Rowan County Information Systems > (Voice) 704-633-5761 > (Fax) 704-642-2083 > Bolingde at rowancountync.gov > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Schmid, Herman E [mailto:schmid at forsyth.cc] > *Sent:* Friday, July 08, 2005 10:40 AM > *To:* The nclgisa mailing list > *Subject:* RE: [nclgisa] Email Use and Public Records Law > > One of the emails from April 2004 was a "classic Boling" where he listed > exceptions he had found in his "digging." David - you gotta love him - > he makes the complex easy. The rest of us keep on pluggin' . > > Here is what he said: > > **Begin Boling ** > Dawn, > > Mr. Boling was my Dad, but thanks for the comment. > > You are exactly right as well, in that there are many exceptions. > Personnel records fall under 153A-98 for Counties and 160A-168 for Cities. > > Here are some exceptions, I have found in my digging, I'm sure there are > more. Also don't forget HIPAA, HIPAA, HIPAA. > > Libraries > ? 125-19. Confidentiality of library user records. > > County Employee records > ? 153A-98. Privacy of employee personnel records. > > City Employee records > ? 160A-168. Privacy of employee personnel records. > > Counsel, State Tax info, etc. > ? 132-1.1. Confidential communications by legal counsel to public board or > agency; State tax information; public enterprise billing information; > Address Confidentiality Program information. > > Trade secrets, etc > ? 132-1.2. Confidential information. > > Police, Sheriff > ? 132-1.4. Criminal investigations; intelligence information records. > > Phone, address, etc > ? 132-1.5. 911 database. > > University of North Carolina, a community college, public hospital > ? 132-1.6. Emergency response plans. > > Password, etc > ? 132-1.7. Sensitive public security information. > > Credit Card contributions > ? 163-278.14. No contributions in names of others; no anonymous > contributions; contributions in excess of one hundred dollars. > > Taxes > ? 153A-148.1. Disclosure of certain information prohibited. > > Room Taxes > ? 153A-155. Uniform provisions for room occupancy taxes. > > > > David Boling > Rowan County Information Systems > (Voice) 704-633-5761 > (Fax) 704-642-2083 > Bolingde at rowancountync.gov > ** END Boling > > > > Herman Schmid, Office Automation Manager (PCs, Phones, DTP) > Forsyth County MIS Dept > o: 336-703-2150 m: 336-682-1848 f: 336-727-2172 > "If we're going to do this, we may as well have fun!" (Patty Ricono) > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Boling, David E. [mailto:BolingDE at co.rowan.nc.us] > *Sent:* Friday, July 08, 2005 10:29 AM > *To:* The nclgisa mailing list > *Subject:* RE: [nclgisa] Email Use and Public Records Law > > Martha, > > A public record is (according to NC General Statute Chapter 132), > > *132-1 "Public records" defined.* > > (a) "Public record" or "public records" shall mean all > documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, films, > sound recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic > data-processing records, artifacts, or other documentary > material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made > or received pursuant to law or ordinance in connection with > the transaction of public business by any agency of North > Carolina government or its subdivisions. Agency of North > Carolina government or its subdivisions shall mean and include > every public office, public officer or official (State or > local, elected or appointed), institution, board, commission, > bureau, council, department, authority or other unit of > government of the State or of any county, unit, special > district or other political subdivision of government. > > I think this means, any communications about public business by > anyone working for government, that is not excluded by law. > > Public record is not dependant on ownership of the computer or email > address or where it was received. > > Three simple rules apply, (I my view, nothing else really matter). > > 1) The communication is about public (county, city, etc) business, > > 2) It was received by a public person (official, employee, agency, etc), > > 3) There is not an General Statute excluding it (and there are > several). > > Also a "Reply to All" email conversation, may be considered a public > meeting and may need to be advertised. > > Retention should follow the same policy, media really doesn't > matter. Emails don't have to be saved in an electronic format, but > they can be. > > David Boling > Rowan County Information Systems > (Voice) 704-633-5761 > (Fax) 704-642-2083 > Bolingde at rowancountync.gov > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Martha Hoylman [mailto:mhoylman at co.orange.nc.us] > *Sent:* Thursday, July 07, 2005 10:25 AM > *To:* The nclgisa mailing list > *Subject:* [nclgisa] Email Use and Public Records Law > > Do you have any policies or guidelines for the use of email by > elected and appointed officials? I am specifically interested in > the retention of those emails and the applicability of the public > records law. Does the public records law apply when the official is > using a personal (non-government) email address? When a citizen > sends an official an email, does it then become part of the public > record? Are there particular circumstances where it does not? > > Do you have a suggested wording for disclaimers to include in emails > from elected or appointed officials to indicate that the > correspondence is part of public record? > > TIA > > Martha > > Martha A. Hoylman > Business Analyst/Project Manager > Orange County Government > 208 S. Cameron Street > P.O. Box 8181 > Hillsborough, NC 27278 > mhoylman at co.orange.nc.us > > If you need to change/update your e-mail address, please go to > http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/forms/listservchange.htm and use the > online form to submit the change/update. > To access messages through a Web browser go to > http://webmail0.isis.unc.edu:82/lists/. > To unsubscribe send an unsubscribe message that says [unsubscribe > nclgisa] to pyoung at email.unc.edu > If you need to change/update your e-mail address, please go to > http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/forms/listservchange.htm and use the > online form to submit the change/update. > To access messages through a Web browser go to > http://webmail0.isis.unc.edu:82/lists/. > To unsubscribe send an unsubscribe message that says [unsubscribe > nclgisa] to pyoung at email.unc.edu > > > If you need to change/update your e-mail address, please go to > http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/forms/listservchange.htm and use the online > form to submit the change/update. > To access messages through a Web browser go to > http://webmail0.isis.unc.edu:82/lists/. > To unsubscribe send an unsubscribe message that says [unsubscribe > nclgisa] to pyoung at email.unc.edu > If you need to change/update your e-mail address, please go to > http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/forms/listservchange.htm and use the online > form to submit the change/update. > To access messages through a Web browser go to > http://webmail0.isis.unc.edu:82/lists/. > To unsubscribe send an unsubscribe message that says [unsubscribe > nclgisa] to pyoung at email.unc.edu > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: > Re: [nclgisa] Email Use and Public Records Law > From: > "Jeff Futch" > Date: > Sat, 9 Jul 2005 10:22:04 -0400 > To: > "The nclgisa mailing list" > > To: > "The nclgisa mailing list" > > > I feel my agency would agree with Mr. Boling's comments below. I'm not > sure if Fleming Bell or David Lawrence with the IOG monitor this > list serve, but someone should consider running this question by them. > While its become common practice to allow public officials (especially > elected ones) to use their private e-mails accounts (AOL, Hotmail, > Yahoo, etc.) as a way for county and/or municipal staff and the public > to contact them, it isn't something my agency feels is wise to do. > E-mail sent and received via such private accounts would be > considered part of the public record if used to conduct > public business. It might take a court order before access could be > gained, but I think a strong case for such action could be made, should > it come to that. Some folks I guess may feel this is silly, but we tell > our staff when questions regarding the use of e-mail come up, "Would you > feel uncomfortable or embarrassed if the content of your message showed > up on the front page of the newspaper?" > > As for retention of e-mail, once again this is dictated by > content. Much of the e-mail we receive has very short administrative > value and can be deleted in a matter of days, if not hours. Still, at > any given time I have hundreds of e-mails stored in various "folders" on > my computer because, like everyone else, I might need to refer to > something in the future. However, I do from time to time look through > my folders and decide if I can or should delete messages. Once a major > project ends, I print and file the e-mail messages regarding that > project I feel I need to retain for future reference. Plus I dump my > folders to disk from time to time just in case my computer decides to die. > > If we don't consider the retention of our e-mail messages we're > just creating piles and piles of very tiny file cabinets which are not > unlike the large ones we have in the file rooms and basements of our > public buildings filled with paper records. Records folks retained many > times simply because they felt they might need them some day, but which > have since become a problem no one has the time to deal with. > > Jeff Futch > Records Analyst > Western Office - Asheville > NC State Archives > (828) 274-6789 > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Boling, David E. > *To:* The nclgisa mailing list > *Sent:* Friday, July 08, 2005 10:29 AM > *Subject:* RE: [nclgisa] Email Use and Public Records Law > > Martha, > > A public record is (according to NC General Statute Chapter 132), > > *132-1 "Public records" defined.* > > (a) "Public record" or "public records" shall mean all > documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, films, > sound recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic > data-processing records, artifacts, or other documentary > material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made > or received pursuant to law or ordinance in connection with > the transaction of public business by any agency of North > Carolina government or its subdivisions. Agency of North > Carolina government or its subdivisions shall mean and include > every public office, public officer or official (State or > local, elected or appointed), institution, board, commission, > bureau, council, department, authority or other unit of > government of the State or of any county, unit, special > district or other political subdivision of government. > > I think this means, any communications about public business by > anyone working for government, that is not excluded by law. > > Public record is not dependant on ownership of the computer or email > address or where it was received. > > Three simple rules apply, (I my view, nothing else really matter). > > 1) The communication is about public (county, city, etc) business, > > 2) It was received by a public person (official, employee, agency, etc), > > 3) There is not an General Statute excluding it (and there are > several). > > Also a "Reply to All" email conversation, may be considered a public > meeting and may need to be advertised. > > Retention should follow the same policy, media really doesn't > matter. Emails don't have to be saved in an electronic format, but > they can be. > > David Boling > Rowan County Information Systems > (Voice) 704-633-5761 > (Fax) 704-642-2083 > Bolingde at rowancountync.gov > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Martha Hoylman [mailto:mhoylman at co.orange.nc.us] > *Sent:* Thursday, July 07, 2005 10:25 AM > *To:* The nclgisa mailing list > *Subject:* [nclgisa] Email Use and Public Records Law > > Do you have any policies or guidelines for the use of email by > elected and appointed officials? I am specifically interested in > the retention of those emails and the applicability of the public > records law. Does the public records law apply when the official is > using a personal (non-government) email address? When a citizen > sends an official an email, does it then become part of the public > record? Are there particular circumstances where it does not? > > Do you have a suggested wording for disclaimers to include in emails > from elected or appointed officials to indicate that the > correspondence is part of public record? > > TIA > > Martha > > Martha A. Hoylman > Business Analyst/Project Manager > Orange County Government > 208 S. Cameron Street > P.O. Box 8181 > Hillsborough, NC 27278 > mhoylman at co.orange.nc.us > > If you need to change/update your e-mail address, please go to > http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/forms/listservchange.htm and use the > online form to submit the change/update. > To access messages through a Web browser go to > http://webmail0.isis.unc.edu:82/lists/. > To unsubscribe send an unsubscribe message that says [unsubscribe > nclgisa] to pyoung at email.unc.edu > If you need to change/update your e-mail address, please go to > http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/forms/listservchange.htm and use the > online form to submit the change/update. > To access messages through a Web browser go to > http://webmail0.isis.unc.edu:82/lists/. > To unsubscribe send an unsubscribe message that says [unsubscribe > nclgisa] to pyoung at email.unc.edu > > > If you need to change/update your e-mail address, please go to > http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/forms/listservchange.htm and use the online > form to submit the change/update. > To access messages through a Web browser go to > http://webmail0.isis.unc.edu:82/lists/. > To unsubscribe send an unsubscribe message that says [unsubscribe > nclgisa] to pyoung at email.unc.edu -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Martha Hoylman" Subject: Fwd: RE:[nclgisa] Email Use and Public Records Law Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 08:38:21 -0400 Size: 86237 Url: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/chtechcomm/attachments/20050711/cd69cd1d/attachment.mht From tbuckner at ibiblio.org Wed Jul 13 22:40:13 2005 From: tbuckner at ibiblio.org (Terri Buckner) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:40:13 -0400 Subject: [Chtechcomm] Meeting reminder Message-ID: <42D5D08D.1090008@ibiblio.org> Hi, Just a reminder that we are scheduled to meet this coming Tuesday at 5:30 in the second floor training room at the Chapel Hill Town Hall. I've haven't seen an agenda yet. Terri From tbuckner at ibiblio.org Sat Jul 16 10:45:17 2005 From: tbuckner at ibiblio.org (Terri Buckner) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:45:17 -0400 Subject: [Chtechcomm] E-democracy references Message-ID: <42D91D7D.9080609@ibiblio.org> Here are some of the e-democracy references I've found recently in my online travels. Each of these relates to current work before the committee. Blogs for Local Government http://www.govtech.net/magazine/channel_story.php?channel=17&id=93913 ....a very small investment in terms of time and money, with a positive return in encouraging citizen participation. Wireless Politics May Determine Future of Digital Democracy http://www.digitaldivide.net/articles/view.php?ArticleID=96 "The internet wired geographical locations. Wireless connects individuals, and it's a very different phenomenon." A Nation Online: Entering the Broadband Age http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/anol/NationOnlineBroadband04.htm This year, we have chosen to focus on broadband technologies because now, more than ever before, high-speed connections promise to enhance our Nation?s productivity and economic competitiveness, improve education, and expand health care for all Americans. High-speed networks provide the power to erase geographic, economic, and cultural gaps. With high-speed connections, American workers can find jobs; small businesses can have global markets; rural doctors can consult with specialists; and students can take classes that are taught from across the country. From tbuckner at ibiblio.org Sat Jul 16 11:29:44 2005 From: tbuckner at ibiblio.org (Terri Buckner) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:29:44 -0400 Subject: [Chtechcomm] electronic communications survey data Message-ID: <42D927E8.2040503@ibiblio.org> Last week, Martha Hoylman shared responses to her investigation on NC local governments email policies for elected and appointed officials (most, including Chapel Hill, do not have any). This gap appears to be consistent with most large industries according to the study referenced below. According to the agenda for our July 19 meeting, we will be discussing the allowable use of listservs. To make that discussion and any resulting policy/practice decisions more legitimate, we need to also pursue the larger issue of electronic communications retention and use policy for employees and elected/appointed officials. A few facts: --current town policies on use and retention relate only to email, nothing on text messaging, discussion forums, listservs, blogs, etc. --current town policies on use of email apply only to staff, elected and appointed officials are not covered --except for the Mayor, elected officials of the Town are not using town email addresses, therefore no retention (public records/open meetings) policy is feasible. According to one Council member, this service has not been offered, although each council member is provided with a town-owned computer which somewhat mitigates the problem. --by using their business and/or computers and/or personal email accounts, elected (and appointed) officials put all of their digital records at risk in the event of litigation We're not alone. See this 2003 Survey on Electronic Communications and Policies (multiple industries) http://www.aiim.org/viewpdfc.asp?ID=29430 From tbuckner at ibiblio.org Thu Jul 21 09:08:49 2005 From: tbuckner at ibiblio.org (Terri Buckner) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:08:49 -0400 Subject: [Chtechcomm] Question Regarding Official Meeting Threshold Message-ID: <42DF9E61.3090408@ibiblio.org> For some reason, a message from Steve Irving to the list was bounced by the server. I'm copying it here and providing the reference he requests. Terri, During Tuesday?s meeting I asked a question regarding the number of members of a committee or subcommittee required to be present (or otherwise participating) to constitute an official meeting. You responded quite authoritatively that the threshhold is two members. I?d like to understand this issue more fully and was wondering if you can provide a reference to your source for this information. Thanks, Steve *********************** Steve, Based on further reading since Tuesday's meeting, I was wrong. I was confusing the definition of a 'public body' with a 'meeting.' It takes only 2 people to constitute a public body. It takes a majority of the public body "deliberating" to constitute a meeting. To deliberate was explained by the AG's office as: "to examine, weigh, and reflect upon the reasons for or against a possible decision, if a board receives a briefing regarding an item that amounts to deliberating as well because it connotes not only a collective discussion but also a collective acquiring of information on the basis of which it will later act." He further wrote: "It is ok to use the listserv to send materials. For example sharing a news article or materials that will be used during the official meeting. If the materials that are being sent are in the form of a briefing, that is if it going to be used a part of the "deliberative" or "substantive" discussion, then the body should convene an official meeting to receive that briefing." The full transcript of that discussion is posted at: http://localecology.blogspot.com/2005/07/open-meetings-questions-and-answers.html Terri From tbuckner at ibiblio.org Wed Jul 27 15:26:46 2005 From: tbuckner at ibiblio.org (Terri Buckner) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:26:46 -0400 Subject: [Chtechcomm] WHOLE CITIES AS INTERNET HOTSPOTS? Message-ID: <42E7DFF6.7090304@ibiblio.org> A year old, but still relevant..... http://www.napawash.org/resources/peirce/Peirce_9_14_04.html WHOLE CITIES AS INTERNET HOTSPOTS? -- THE WiFi REVOLUTION SPREADS Philadelphia is debating making all 134 square miles of the city the world?s largest wireless hotspot. Boston, Atlanta, New York, Los Angeles and other cities are considering parallel moves. In Europe, the firm HotSpot Amsterdam is set to go citywide in the Dutch capital soon. A OneCleveland campaign, led by Case Western Reserve University, boasts of the thousands of users already logged cost-free onto rapid broadband Internet service through the 4,000 wireless transmitters recently installed in the University Circle, Midtown and lakefront districts. From Corpus Christi, Texas, to the Silicon Valley, at least 50 cities are actively exploring their own versions of remarkably inexpensive community-wide transmitter nets, mounted every few hundred feet on utility poles and light posts. The new technology, called WiFi (shorthand for wireless fidelity), is increasingly popular as manufacturers build receiver chips into laptops and handheld computers. The broadcast costs are amazingly low. The estimate for mounting a network serving all of Philadelphia and its 1.5 million people, for example, is just $10 million, or less than $7 a person. ?This comes as close to a free lunch as I?ve ever seen in my years watching technology,? says Costis Toregas, recently retired president of Public Technology Inc. in Washington, D.C. City governments are logical WiFi network initiators and anchor users, creating instant low-cost communications systems for every function from police reporting to meter reading, video surveillance to disaster management. Yet once a city network is built, the same equipment can easily provide Internet service, including all manner of e-government services and free or low-cost web service. Users include lower-income students and struggling small businesses likely to find normal commercial broadband service ($35 to $65 monthly) unaffordable. Just this month, little Chaska, Minn., is shaking up the high-speed Internet providers by offering all its 7,000 homes city-run wireless broadband Internet for $16 monthly. But there?s no set formula on how community-wide WiFi will develop, says Toregas. Government may be an initiator, but it?s not always good at the challenges of deployment, marketing and maintenance required. So look for a period of intense experimentation with multiple partners -- private providers, utilities, chambers of commerce, neighboring communities, schools and universities all playing roles. The progression from ?hot spots? such as Internet cafes to ?hot cities? will quickly have to jump traditional borders to ?hot regions,? notes community communications expert Seth Fearey of Joint Venture Silicon Valley. As opposed to radio and tv stations and cell phone operations, WiFi operates on unlicensed frequency spectrum. This allows for fast experimentation, but also potentially jammed or overlapping signals if one city picks one vendor and its neighbor another. So ?it?s absolutely essential communities talk with each other and plan ahead-- and given the speed with which this is developing, they can?t delay long,? says Fearey. WiFi Internet will open new possibilities -- for example log-in pages that serve as civic bulletin boards, fostering tighter-knit communities. But the most exciting vision yet comes from Cleveland, where Edward Hundert, Case Western?s president, and Lev Gonick, the school?s chief information officer, believe their OneCleveland technology and its Internet signal for thousands is just an enabler of something far broader. With all of Cleveland and Northeast Ohio in their sights, they want to create a national model of applying WiFi technology to bolster culture, advance learning, better health services and spread economic opportunity to pockets of extreme poverty. To model its approach, Case Western built an extensive public wireless system linking its campus and its University Circle neighbors including the world-famous Cleveland Orchestra, the Cleveland Museum of Art, Institute of Music, Natural History Museum, Botanical Gardens and four dozen other cultural, research, healthcare and government institutions. ?Every coffee shop, museum space, park here is now wireless enabled,? says Gonick, adding ?We say it should be like the air your breathe -- free and available everywhere.? Cleveland Mayor Jane Campbell has identified herself closely with the OneCleveland initiative, in which such major technology companies as Cisco and IBM are also significant players. But the challenge seems immense: the Census Bureau recently declared Cleveland the nation?s most impoverished major city. Technology, notes Gonick, needs to be ?not only an enabler but a transformative agent for a community very much on the edge, with a steep precipice below us.? The historic reality is that new technologies are like double-bladed knives cutting through history -- their positive impacts (like television?s amazing imaging revolution) are often offset by unanticipated drawbacks (like tv?s social isolation and dumbing-down impacts). But if areawide WiFi telecommunications can deliver even a fraction of the benefits its advocates see -- from democratized broadband Internet to economic openings for the poor to unleashing university skills for cities and regions -- then there?ll be a lot more to proclaim than just its rock-bottom cost. Comments may be addressed to npeirce at citistates.com From tbuckner at ibiblio.org Thu Jul 28 10:48:29 2005 From: tbuckner at ibiblio.org (Terri Buckner) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:48:29 -0400 Subject: [Chtechcomm] St. Paul MN Wifi project Message-ID: <42E8F03D.5020509@ibiblio.org> The following report was provided by a council member to a citizen query on St. Paul's Issues Forum (e-democracy) on the status of a townwide wifi initiative. Thought you might be interested in their process ***************************************** Re: St. Paul Wi-Fi / Broadband Access The St. Paul broadband access (Wi-Fi) project is moving forward on a number of fronts. First, we have completed an initial selection and cost estimates for several pilot Wi-Fi Hotspots at city run facilities including Central Library, Highland Library-Rec. Center, and the Como Zoo Visitors Center. The initial cost estimate is about $50,000, which will need to come out of the Library and Parks Department budgets. The Parks Department is currently looking for corporate sponsorship to help cover these costs. Second, the City's Office of Technology is moving forward with a community needs assessment that will include public surveys, key participant interviews, and focus groups with key stakeholders. This process with continue through the summer and early fall leading to a large public forum in late September or early October. This community needs assessment will allow to focus or efforts and allow the city to develop business model that is appropriate to St. Paul. Third, the City of Saint Paul is conducting an internal needs assessment to develop a better sense of our needs for broadband access through both fiber optics and Wi-Fi infrastructure. We need to establish a "business case" that demonstrates the potential for improving the delivery of city services and/or reducing operational costs over the long term. Once we have completed these initial steps the City of Saint Paul will be in a much stronger position to make a good judgment about which business model to use and how to negotiate with the various providers and vendors. In general terms our options might include the following: - Build and own the network and be the ISP provider (Chaska, MN).- Franchise the network to a private provider who manages the system (Minneapolis, MN).- Build and own the network, but contract out the management of the entire operation (UTOPIA, UT). Regardless of how the various communities in the twin cities region choose to create and finance their networks, interoperability among systems will need to occur.