Comments on HF 1185

Keith Carlson,
Minnesota Inter-County Association

if, Minnesota Inter-County Association

Data Practices and Records Retention
Are Two Distinct But Related Things

- By law, Records Retention requires the preservation
all records necessary for a full and accurate knowledge of

their official activities
Records Retention policies or schedule approved by Records

Disposition Panel
Counties General Records Retention Schedule without updates is

191 pages long

Data practices applies to all data in government entity?s
possession. Policies beyond those in official records retention

schedule are dictated by:
Business processes
Litigation holds

Legal requirements
Electronic records or e-mail retention policies

Minnesota Inter-County Association 2

 

 

 

HF 1185 goes beyond above by

requiring retention ofa_ll records, not just
records necessary to preserve a full and
accurate knowledge of official activities.

requiring that all ?correspondence?
including electronic text-based
communication be retained for three years

Minnesota Inter-County Association

Retention of all records creates a logistical
nightmare

- because ?correspondence? to be retained would
include Post It notes and other transitory pieces of
paper ?correspondence? and

- text message or transcribed voice mail messages that
never touch current government computer networks
would somehow have to be captured and retained.

This raises substantial personal privacy issues for our staff
Many counties do not own employees? smart phones but
reimburse employees for business use of their personal
phones. There is no way to distinguish between personal
texts and business?related texts that would have to be
captured and retained.

 

Minnesota Inter-County Association 4

 

 

Substantially broadening the scope of

records to be retained is not easy

Private sector record/e-mail retention software not a solution
because Its focus is on litigation holds where complete
records wrthout redaction must be provided to litigants
during discovery

Gov?t. data practices requests are completely different

because:

any records retained must be reviewed and not public data
redacted before being turned over (review and redaction is a
manual process that requires the talents of knowledgeable staff

usually attorneys, and

multiple lines of business that stretch across multiple systems
(several shared with the state). Private sector entities
particularly smaller ones will only have one system

Minnesota Inter-County Association 5

Substantially broadening the scope of
records to be retained is not easy (continued)

Requirement that any written or electronic
text-based communication be retained
breaks with current practice that it is the
content, not the medium, that dictates
whether a communication be retained or not.
Current law requires e-mail be retained if it is

an official record

Minnesota Inter-County Association 6

 

 

Substantially broadening the scope of
records to be retained is not easy (continued)

Even though retention cost are a problem 
cloud-based solutions heighten risk of
hacking/illegal disclosure), review and redaction is
by far the larger problem

Minnesota Inter?County Assocnation

 

HF 1185 substantially increases volume of data
subject to data practices requests increasing
amount of data needed to be searched, much
less reviewed and redacted

Just to search all e-mails on Hennepin County system
with 209 million e-mails retained under current law to
find e-mails responsive to the Webster request was
estimated to take 29 days using separate computer
forensic software. That does not begin to account for
time and costs to review and redact not public data

- By way of comparison, request to Legislative Auditor
for all correspondence relating to two investigations
that generated 140 documents or e-mails took their
staff over 4 hours. No data was redacted.

 

8

 

 

 

With increase in volume of records that
must be retained the chance for
disclosure of not public data goes up

- Hennepin County in responding to one data
practices request that resulted in the release of
8,000 e-mails accidentally released not public data.

They have full time staff dedicated to data practices
requests/management

Most local governments do not, increasing risk of
disclosure of not public data with increases in volume of
data that must be reviewed and redacted

Government entities and their employees are civilly
and criminally liable for such releases

9

Even the Court of Appeals Recognized the
Challenges Posed by Data Practices

Request Under Current law

In their decision on Webster, they said, ?We are
cognizant that the nature of government data has
evolved and expanded in recent decades. It may be
that the time is right for a reassessment of competing
rights to data within the context of effective
government operation. It may also be that the
proposed exception (for extraordinarily burdensome
requests) reflects sound public policy. But when it
comes to public-policy considerations, the task of
extending existing law falls to the legislature or the
supreme court, and not to this court.?

Minnesota Inter?County Association 10