Notes of Meeting no



Notes of Meeting 4 of the HE/FE Records Management Group, 12.00, London School of Economics, 16 May 2003.

Present: Sarah Aitchison, Institute of Education, London

Jim Alexander, University College, Northampton

Stephanie Allen, University of Liverpool

Lucy Burrow, University of Wales, Aberystwyth

Clare Cowling, University of London (chair)

Karen Davies, Lucy Cavendish College, Cambridge

Hilary Haigh, University of Huddersfield

Johanna King, University of Stirling

Victoria Killick, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Disease

Patricia Methven, King’s College, London

Pam Pearce, University of the West of England

Andrew Reay, Leeds College of Music

Lizzie Richmond, University of Bath (secretary)

Clare Rider, St Mary’s College, Strawberry Hill

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

Brenda Weeden, University of Westminster

Apologies: Anne Barrett, Imperial College, London

Clare Coyne, University of Bristol

Ann Jones, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh

Andrew Kinglake, City University, London

Mandy Mordue, Brunel University

James Peters, John Rylands University Library of Manchester

Nicky Sugar, Royal Holloway, University of London

Peter Tinson, City University, London

Sara Westwood, Girton College, Cambridge

Patricia Whatley, University of Dundee

Matthew Zawadski, University of Sheffield

1. Introduction/welcome

CC welcomed all attendees to the meeting.

She announced that Matthew Zawadski, who was scheduled to give a short presentation on records retention work at the University of Sheffield, had been forced to withdraw. Brenda Weeden, Archivist, University of Westminster had very kindly agreed to give a short talk on her retention schedule experiences at very short notice.

2. Notes of Meeting 3

Notes of Meeting 3 were agreed by the Group.

3. Presentation: Compiling a Records Disposition Schedule – a short talk by Patricia Methven, Director, Archives and Corporate Records Services, King’s College, London

For presentation notes see:



For King’s College Records Disposition Schedule see:



4. Presentation: Records Retention at the University of Westminster – a short talk by Brenda Weeden, Archivist, University of Westminster

For presentation notes see:



5. Presentation: Student Records: a web-based approach to producing a retention schedule, a short talk by Lizzie Richmond, Archivist/Records Manager, University of Bath

For presentation notes see:



Discussion:

The merits of the terms ’retention schedule’ and ‘disposition schedule’ were discussed. ‘Disposition’ was generally thought to be preferable because it encompasses both keeping records and throwing them away.

High level recognition and endorsement of a finalised disposition schedule is crucial to its successful implementation. Various methods for obtaining formal ratification of records disposition policy were discussed. It was noted that the King’s College Records Disposition Schedule was very deliberately produced in glossy hard copy format to enhance its status as an official corporate document.

The vital importance of staff training to support the implementation of a disposition schedule was also highlighted. The effectiveness of even the most comprehensive disposition schedule is dependent on the co-operation of records creators and users throughout an institution.

It was pointed out that the other core business functions of an institution would benefit from the overview achieved through the investigative and survey work required to compile a records disposition schedule.

The importance and difficulty of assigning specific responsibility for the implementation of the disposition policy for each type of record was underlined. It was felt that explicitly citing the member of staff, e.g. departmental administrator or head of estates, was a useful way of ensuring that policy was put into practice.

6. Intellectual Property Rights – A Survey of HE/FE Institutions’ IPR Policies: a report by Clare Cowling, Records Manager, University of London

CC presented her summary report on responses to her request for information on institutional policies (or lack of them) on intellectual property rights. She drew the Group’s attention to the apparent lack of consistency of approach within the sector and the absence of an official consensus on the matter. The findings of her survey emphasize a need to formally define ownership of all types of records created or collected by members of academic staff both for disposal purposes and to facilitate efficient handling of freedom of information enquiries.

For the summary report see:



7. Any other business

i. Report from the Records Management Society (RMS) Conference, Leeds, 6-8 April 2003

MS gave a brief summary of the various events he had attended at the RMS conference where issues covered ranged from storage equipment and commercial records management services to freedom of information and retention schedules. For more information contact MS (M.Stephenson@LSE.AC.UK).

ii. Public Record Office work on ‘fileplans’

Recent e-mail correspondence concerning work being undertaken by the Public Record Office in the area of intellectual control in structuring information (‘fileplans’) in electronic records management systems was discussed.

The problems associated with managing electronic records were highlighted. It was suggested that the obvious attractions of creating and using electronic records sometimes deflect attention from the need to control and manage them. The Group will consider the topic of electronic records management more fully at the next meeting.

iii. Progress with JISC Freedom of Information Draft Model Publication Scheme

Attendees generally indicated that they were intending to use the JISC model publication scheme as the basis for their own institutional publication schemes. The dangers of ‘signing up’ to the model without properly considering its suitability or adapting it to the individual requirements of the institution were recognised.

It was reported that the King’s College model publication scheme pilot project was nearing completion and that it was based on a narrower, more detailed definition of information classes.

The importance of managing the information included in the publication scheme was stressed. Institutions would have to take steps to avoid a situation where freedom of information queries received in various offices and departments were directed to different ‘versions’ of documents published on the World Wide Web.

The King’s College model publication scheme pilot project is now available at:



iv. Possible affiliation with RMS as HE/FE sector sub-group

CC undertook to explore the possibility of arranging some kind of affiliation agreement between the Group and the Records Management Society.

Action: CC

v. Raising the profile of the Group

MS agreed to draft and circulate a HE/FE Records Management Group constitution and policy document with a view to clarifying the Group’s standing and raising its profile within the records management/archives and higher/further education sectors.

Action: MS

8. Date and tropic of next meeting

It was noted that the next meeting would probably take place in early September and would focus on the subject of electronic records management. Steve Bailey, Records Manager, Joint Information Systems Committee, had agreed, in theory, to address the Group on this topic and to answer any specific questions members might have relating to their own experiences in this area.

MS undertook to arrange for a demonstration of the electronic records management system developed and used at the London School of Economics to take place at the next meeting.

It was agreed that the next meeting should take place at the University of Bath. Partly to accommodate Steve Bailey, who is based in Bristol; partly as a change from London and to ascertain the level of attendance outside the capital.

Action: CC, MS, LR

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download