Notes of Meeting no



Notes of Meeting 3 of the HE/FE Records Management Group, 2.00pm, London School of Economics, 20 February 2003.

Present: Sarah Aitchison, Institute of Education, London

Clare Cowling, University of London (chair)

Susan Graham, University of Edinburgh

Johanna King, University of Stirling

Andrew Kinglake, City University, London

Victoria Killick, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Disease

Mandy Mordue, Brunel University

James Peters, John Rylands Library, University of Manchester

Jenny Pitman, University of Liverpool

Lizzie Richmond, University of Bath (secretary)

Matt Stephenson, London School of Economics (vice-chair)

Nicky Sugar, Royal Holloway, University of London

Brenda Weeden, University of Westminster

Matthew Zawadzki, University of Sheffield

Apologies: Karen Davies, Lucy Cavendish College, Cambridge

Clare Rider, St Mary’s College, Strawberry Hill

Lynda Smart, Open University

Sara Westwood, Girton College, Cambridge

1. Introduction/welcome

Charlotte Brunskill, founder of the Group, took up a new post as Archivist/Records Manager at the National Portrait Gallery in January 2003 and has consequently had to stand down as chair.

Clare Cowling, Records Manager, University of London has kindly agreed to act as chair of the Group.

2. Notes of Meeting 2

Notes of Meeting 2 were agreed by the Group.

3. Presentation: FOI – general implications for HE/FE records managers; a short talk by Matthew Stephenson, Projects and Records Manager, London School of Economics

For presentation see:

Discussion:

Each institution will need to consider adopting procedures for administering freedom of information requests. The implementation of these procedures will have to be strictly monitored. If a decision with regard to the way a freedom of information request has been handled is challenged, the institution will have to demonstrate that it acted in accordance with approved policy.

Any written enquiries concerning information held by a HE/FE institution constitutes a freedom of information request. Some kind of overall, central supervisory system to log and monitor requests received and processed may be necessary in organisations where enquiries are received in a wide variety of independently functioning offices and departments.

The question of individual liability under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 was raised. It was confirmed that personal liability for fines of up to £5000 arise under section 77 of the Act which relates to the destruction of records to prevent their disclosure.

4. Presentation: FOI – training of staff; a short talk by Clare Cowling, Records Manager, University of London

For presentation see:



Discussion:

An effective records management programme remains the best method of complying with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. CC has produced a number of procedures and guidelines aimed at improving record-keeping practice throughout the University of London. Many of these can now be accessed through the HE/FE Records Management Group website.

The issue of research records was raised. It was noted that the Model Action Plan for Achieving Compliance with the Lord Chancellor's Code of Practice on Records Management for Higher and Further Education (England, Wales & Northern Ireland) does not recommend any special arrangements for the management of records relating to academic research. The Group generally felt that since the Model Action Plan is not mandatory it should be regarded as a tool to aid records management implementation rather than a rigid formula with which to comply. However, the special nature and concomitant complexity of research records was acknowledged. It was agreed that it would be helpful if some kind of recognition of the difficulties involved in managing academics’ records could be added to the Model Action Plan for Scotland presently in draft form.

5. Presentation: FOI, a short talk by Mandy Mordue, Records Manager, Brunel University

MM described the events which had led to her appointment in April 2001 and explained that as a result of the adoption of an institutional information strategy, her initial remit had included only current and semi-current records. Since then archives, data protection and freedom of information have been added to her responsibilities. Recent administrative restructuring has improved the position of records management within the University, bringing it under the direct control of senior management, and MM generally has good support within the organisation.

MM highlighted the reluctance with which many HE/FE institutions regard freedom of information legislation. Universities, in particular, have tended to view themselves as closed to and separate from the outside world. The Freedom of Information Act 2000, with its emphasis on transparency and public access, appears to contravene long-standing traditions of academic isolation.

Before the end of February 2004 all HE/FE institutions must take steps to:

• find out what records they create and use,

• find out what they do with these records,

• assess what measures should be put in place to ensure freedom of information compliance.

Brunel University is exploring the potential of the World Wide Web as a publication medium for its records. MM suggested that the Web seems to offer the most effective way of making large amounts of information easily available to a wide audience. At the moment departments design and publish their own web pages independently. MM is currently investigating content management systems which would help to guarantee the consistency and accuracy of web-based University records. Introducing an institutional web publication policy and implementing a method for controlling the presentation and content of University web pages would facilitate better management of web-based records.

The vital importance of an effectively implemented electronic records management policy as part of any institution’s approach to freedom of information compliance was emphasised. The preparation, presentation and preservation of records in web format will require stringent regulation. MM pointed out that this would have major, organisation-wide training implications and entail a huge shift in the way people work in most HE/FE institutions.

Discussion:

The draft model publication scheme produced by JISC was considered. It was felt that, though welcome, the model scheme would be more useful if it were linked to the functional activity model devised for inclusion in the JISC Study of the Record Lifecycle. In its current version the generic functions identified in the draft model publication scheme appear to mirror those described in the Study without actually citing them. This has caused some confusion. Ideally the model publication scheme and the Study could be used together to produce a customised institutional records retention schedule which indicates the freedom of information status of each record series.

Any generic model publication scheme will require a significant amount of adaptation before it is implemented by an individual institution. Each institutional publication scheme will need to be sufficiently precise to leave no room for misinterpretation. It was felt that if its publication scheme was too broad or generic, an institution might find itself committed to make more information available than it intended. MS pointed out that not everything an institution publishes needs to be included in its publication scheme so it would be possible to adopt a model publication scheme but publish additional information.

CC recommended the Public Record Office publication scheme which she has found easy to use and adaptable. (See ).

6. Date and tropic of next meeting

It was generally thought that the structure of the meeting – informal short presentations on a single topic or subject area from individuals with practical experience followed by questions and discussion – had been useful.

Several suggestions for topics to be covered by future meetings were put forward. It was agreed that the next meeting of the Group would consider retention schedules but would also include a brief survey of where institutions stand on the question of intellectual property rights and academic records. Each member will be asked to report to the Group on their organisation’s approach to/view on this complex issue so that a summary of current status across the sector can be compiled. It is hoped that the subject will then be tackled in more detail in a subsequent meeting.

Action: all HE/FE Records Management Group members

It was also agreed that the next meeting but one of the Group would concentrate on electronic records management.

The next meeting of the Group will probably take place in early May 2003. MS is happy to host the next meeting but suggestions for an alternative venue would be welcome. An offer to host the next meeting was received with thanks from Sara Westwood, Girton College, Cambridge. The problems associated with choosing a venue that is accessible to all members were raised. It was agreed that opinions as to the most suitable venue for the next meeting should be sounded out once an agenda has been confirmed.

Action: CC, MS, LR

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download