Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

YEAH.

[00:00:02]

OKAY.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET

[ CITY OF HUBER HEIGHTS STATE OF OHIO Public Records Commission Meeting September 29, 2020 9:30 A.M. Remote Meeting]

THE MEETING STARTED AT NINE 30.

THIS IS THE PUBLIC RECORDS COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 29TH, 2020.

UM, IN LIEU OF ROLL CALL, WE'LL JUST KNOW WHO'S IN ATTENDANCE.

UH, TONY ROGERS, CLERK OF COUNCIL, UH, KAREN POWELL, DEPUTY CLERK OF COUNCIL AND CITIZEN REPRESENTATIVE, ROB SCHUMER, CITY MANAGER, WHILE DIRECTOR, JERRY MCDONALD AND FINANCE DIRECTOR, JIM BELL, AND IT DIRECTOR, UH, BRAIN AND PEYTON.

SO THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS WOULD BE THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MARCH 12TH, UH, 2020.

UM, THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED, UM, OVER THE SUMMER.

SO, UH, IF THERE'D BE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES, SECOND, WE HAVE A VOTING BUNCH IN A SECOND BY JERRY, UH, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? OKAY.

OKAY.

GOING ON TO ITEM THREE PENDING BUSINESS.

UM, THE ONLY SIGNIFICANT ITEM OF PENDING BUSINESS WE HAD AT THE LAST PUBLIC RECORDS COMMISSION, THERE'S A DISCUSSION ABOUT CONVERTING THE BARRACUDA ARCHIVER RETENTION FROM THREE YEARS TO ONE YEAR, WHICH WE DID GET APPROVED THROUGH A RC TO CHANGE ON A RETENTION SCHEDULE.

UH, THERE WAS THE COMPLICATING FACTOR AND MOVING TO THE ONE YEAR THAT WE HAD THE HOLDS IN PLACE THAT, UM, WE HAD TO DECIDE HOW WE COULD DEAL WITH THOSE IN THE ARCHIVER AND RETAIN ANY RECORDS THAT NEEDED TO BE RETAINED FOR THE LEGAL HOLDS WHILE STILL MOVING TOWARDS A, A ONE YEAR RETENTION PERIOD FOR EMAIL RECORDS.

SO, UM, UH, JERRY HAS INFORMED ME THAT WE'RE DOWN TO THREE LEGAL HOLDS AT THIS POINT.

MMM.

UM, BRANDON W FOLLOW IT UP WITH BARRACUDA ARCHIVER TO SEE WHAT THE SYSTEM LIMITATIONS WOULD BE IN TERMS OF, UH, EMAIL RETENTION.

AND, UM, HE FOUND OUT THAT THERE'S NO ABILITY TO SAVE CERTAIN RECORDS BY, UH, INDIVIDUAL EMAIL ACCOUNTS OR BY, UM, KEYWORDS OR, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T JUST STOP THEM FROM DISAPPEARING FROM THE SYSTEM.

WE WOULD HAVE TO, FOR THE LEGAL HOLDS, GO AND GRAB THOSE EMAILS HAVE BEEN A FILE SOMEWHERE AND SAVE THEM.

AND THEN, UH, WE COULD PROCEED WITH THE DELETION FROM THE ARCHIVER THERE NO WAY TO MAKE THAT SPECIFICALLY, UH, LOOK AT A CATEGORY OF RECORDS AND RETAIN OR NOT RETAIN THOSE AND CONTINUE WITH THE DISPOSAL OF THE OTHER EMAIL RECORDS.

AM I GETTING THAT RIGHT, BRANDON? YES, YOU ARE CORRECT.

UM, WHAT THE BARRACUDA ICON ARCHIVER IS, UM, A GLOBAL EITHER ONE, JUST SIX MONTHS, ONE YEAR, TWO YEARS, BUT AS FAR AS, UH, RETAINING CERTAIN EMAILS BASED ON KEY WORDS OR, UM, EMAIL RECEIVED OR SENDER WILL NOT DO THAT.

GET THAT DOWN.

I'M SORRY.

JOSH JUST CAME IN MY OFFICE.

ALL RIGHT.

I'LL REPEAT.

UM, BASED ON WHAT, THE INFORMATION THAT WE RECEIVED FROM MY BARRACUDA, THE ARCHIVER WILL NOT, UM, SAVE EMAILS BASED ON KEY WORDS FOR SPECIFIC SPECIFIC EMAIL ACCOUNTS IS GLOBAL AND ONLY WORKS ALL EMAILS.

UM, SIX MONTHS, ONE YEAR, TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS, AND SO FORTH BASED ON THAT RETENTION SCHEDULE, TONY, AS I THINK I SAID IN THE EMAIL, WHEN WE HAVE A LEGAL HOLD, WE SHOULD JUST TREAT IT LIKE IT WAS A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST AT THAT POINT, GRAB ANY EXISTING EMAILS, PUT THEM SOMEPLACE WHERE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET DELETED AND THEN GOING FORWARD, MAKE SURE EVERYBODY KNOWS WE HAVE A LEGAL HOLD IN ANY EMAILS REGARDING THAT TOPIC WOULD GO IN THAT FILE AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE.

YEAH, I AGREE THAT THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO PROBABLY GO FORWARD WITH ANY NEW LEGAL HOLES.

THE ISSUE WOULD BE THE THREE LEGAL HOLDS WE STILL HAVE IN PLACE, UH, THAT WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING TO GRAB THOSE OR PREVENT, UM, ANYTHING, UM, FROM BEING DELETED, LIKE THERE'S STUFF BEING DELETED AS WE SPEAK, UM, RELATIVE TO THE, THOSE RECORDS.

YEAH.

WELL, I THINK WE JUST RAN THOSE THREE.

WE PULL WHAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TODAY AND YEAH.

SO, UM, YEAH, THAT, SO I JUST OF WANT TO PRIZE EVERYBODY AND GIVE YOU AN UPDATE WHERE WE STOOD WITH THAT.

AND, UM, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT JERRY AND BRANDON AND I HAVE DISCUSSED AS A GROUP WORKING ON THAT ISSUE.

SO, UM, ONCE WE CAN IDENTIFY THE EXISTING LEGAL HOLD, UH, RESPONSIVE RECORDS AND ISOLATE THOSE AND INFORMED THE PARTIES THAT WE WOULD POTENTIALLY HAVE OTHER RECORDS COME UP RELATED TO THOSE LEGAL HOLDS THAT THEY SHOULD RETAIN THOSE.

THEN WE WILL

[00:05:01]

SHIFT THE ARCHIVER SYSTEM TO, UH, A ONE YEAR RETURN FROM A THREE YEAR RETENTION AND, AND DISPOSE OF THOSE EXCESS RECORDS.

ALRIGHT.

OKAY.

I, TONY, ALONG WITH THAT AS WELL, ONCE WE, UM, DETERMINED THAT DATE, THAT WE'RE GOING TO START, THAT WE'LL ALSO HAVE TO DO THE SAME THING WITH THE, UM, UM, THREE 65 ONLINE AS WELL, CAUSE THAT ALSO RETAINS EMAILS.

SO THAT POLICY WILL CHANGE AS WELL.

ANYTHING THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR INBOX IN OUTLOOK, OR EVEN IN ARCHIVES WILL BE BLOWN AWAY AFTER THAT ONE YEAR PERIOD TO NOW WE CAN TWEAK THAT TO KEEP ARCHIVES, BUT THEN IF YOU ASK SOMEBODY TO ARCHIVES AND EMAIL, THEN THAT'S SUBJECT TO A, TO A, UM, A RECORD RETENTION SCHEDULE OR SOME MIGHT GO IN THERE AND SAY, HEY, I KNOW YOU ARCHIVE THESE EMAILS.

UM, AND I, WE WANT TO CHECK, WE WANT TO SEE THAT AS WELL.

SO IT'S PROBABLY GOOD TO SET IT, SET EVERYTHING THE SAME ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE BOARD.

WE'LL ARCHIVE EMAILS AS WELL, AND ANYTHING IN YOUR INBOX, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

YEAH.

AS LONG AS THE PEOPLE THAT ARE RETAINING THE RECORDS WERE LEGAL HOLDS, WOULDN'T PUT THOSE IN THE ARCHIVES.

THEY'D HAVE TO BE STORED SOMEWHERE ELSE SO THAT IT WOULDN'T BREAK DOWN WITH THE ARCHIVES AS WELL.

YUP.

OKAY.

UM, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT ITEM? OKAY.

UH, THEN ITEM THREE, A, UH, UNDER NEW BUSINESS, PUBLIC RECORDS, RETENTION AND DISPOSAL SCHEDULES.

UM, I ONLY RECEIVED ONE RC THREE FORM FROM THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

UM, IT WAS IN THE PACKET THAT I SENT OUT YESTERDAY.

UM, IT WAS KIND OF WAITING TO DISTRIBUTE THAT UNTIL I SAW IF I GOT ANY MORE AT THE LAST MINUTE, BUT, UM, I HAVE REVIEWED THAT AGAINST THE EXISTING RETENTION SCHEDULE AND I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE PUBLIC RECORDS COMMISSION APPROVE THAT.

SO THE, UM, THE RECORDS THEY'VE IDENTIFIED IN THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT COULD BE DISPOSED OF JERRY MOVES.

IS THERE A SECOND ROB SECONDS? ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? OKAY.

UM, AND THE ONLY OTHER THING I HAD UNDER THAT TOPIC, I DID INCLUDE IT.

I PACK IT IN THE LIST OR LIST IN THE PACKET, UM, UH, BY DEPARTMENT, UH, THE LAST COMPLETION FOR UPDATING THE FORMS. UM, SO THAT THE DEPARTMENT HEADS AND DIRECTORS WOULD HAVE AN IDEA OF WHEN THOSE WERE LAST UPDATED AND SOME OF THE OLDER ONES THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, HAVE NOT BEEN UPDATED, PROBABLY NEED TO BE, UH, BROCK CURRENT AT SOME POINT, UH, PARTICULARLY WITH THE RC TO FORM.

UM, IF THERE'S BEEN ANY CHANGES IN RECORDS, CAUSE SOME OF THEM ARE ALMOST 10 YEARS OLD, UM, IN TERMS OF THE RETENTION SCHEDULE.

MMM.

THEN THE ONLY OTHER THING I HAD, UM, WAS JUST TO GIVE YOU KIND OF AN UPDATE ON THE AUDIT, UM, AS IT RELATES TO PUBLIC RECORDS, WE DID, UM, UH, UNDERGO THE AUDIT FOR, UH, PUBLIC RECORDS.

AND JIM, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE GOTTEN ANY OTHER UPDATES.

OKAY.

UM, THEY HAD, UH, IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE AUDITOR OF STATE'S OFFICE, A NEW SYSTEM.

THAT'S A FOUR STAR RATING BASED ON BEST PRACTICES AND COMPLIANCE WITH BOTH OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND THE OHIO PUBLIC RECORDS LAWS.

UM, I DID MEET WITH THE AUDITORS AND PROVIDED THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION THAT I THOUGHT MATCHED, UM, OUR COMPLIANCE AS A CITY WITH BOTH OF THOSE, UH, LAWS AND, UM, THE BEST PRACTICE STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED.

UH, THE GENTLEMAN THERE WAS HERE AS THE AUDITOR, UM, VERBALLY SAID THAT HE THOUGHT THAT WE MORE THAN EXCEEDED ALL OF THE STANDARDS.

UM, BUT YOU KNOW, HE WAS GOING TO DO SOME FURTHER REVIEW AND THAT THE RESULTS WERE COMING OUT IN THE ACTUAL REPORT.

UM, THERE'S A, THE WAY THE FOUR STAR RATING WORKS TO GET THE FOUR STARS, YOU HAVE TO MEET COMPLIANCE WITH FIVE OF THE SEVEN BEST PRACTICES.

UM, SO EVEN IF WE GOT FIVE OF THE SEVEN, WE WOULD ACHIEVE THE HIGHEST RATING, BUT YEAH.

YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY IT'D BE NICE TO GET ALL SAT AND OTHER BEST PRACTICE STANDARDS IN TERMS OF COMPLIANCE.

SO, UH, WHEN WE GET THAT FINAL REPORT, WE'LL HAVE THAT AS FAR AS AN UPDATE.

UM, UM, I THINK JEN WAS GOING TO LOOK INTO, UM, YOU KNOW, SEEING WHERE THAT W WAS OR WHEN WE MIGHT RECEIVE THAT TO GET FINAL CONFIRMATION ON THAT MATTER.

YEAH.

TONY HAS AN UPDATE.

ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED OUR AUDIT OPINION, WHICH WAS CLEAN.

UM, IT STILL HAS TO GO TO THE AUDITORS, OBVIOUSLY CLATTENBURG DID IT.

SO IT HAS TO GO TO THE HONOR STATE'S OFFICE FOR A FINAL APPROVAL.

AND, UH, THAT ALSO IS WHEN THEY WOULD SAY IT'S OKAY TO, UM, PUBLISH YOUR CAFFER AND SEND IT OUT.

AND SO I WOULD, I WOULD GUESS THAT SINCE IT IS FROM THE OTTER STATE'S OFFICE, THAT WHEN WE GET THAT APPROVAL, THAT WILL INCLUDE YOUR FOUR, HOPEFULLY FOUR

[00:10:01]

STAR RATING THERE.

OKAY.

VERY GOOD.

I'M SURE THEY'RE BEHIND BECAUSE OF COBIT AND BECAUSE OF THE DELAY, YOU KNOW, CAMERAS WEREN'T TURNED IN UNTIL SOME AS LATE AS THE END OF AUGUST, SO I'M SURE THEY'RE BEHIND ON GETTING THOSE WORDS OUT.

AND I THINK THE AUDITOR'S STATE HAD NOT PROVIDED A LOT OF GUIDANCE TO THE AUDITORS, UH, AS TO THIS NEW SYSTEM.

SO THEY'RE LEARNING A NEW PROCESS AND STUFF AS WELL AS, AS IT RELATES TO THE BORSTAR.

SO, YES.

OKAY.

UM, ANY OTHER ISSUES ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO BRING OUT? OKAY.

SEEING NONE MEETING A JUROR 9:40 AM, HAVE A GOOD DAY, EVERYBODY.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Speech-to-Text.