Meanwhile, we shall soldier on in our learning.
As I mentioned in earlier Purge entries, each state agency/governmental office establishes its own retention schedule for all of its records, and creates a time frame to archive or delete depending on subject of the record. This is the retention schedule of the Texas Governor's Office, which I've uploaded to a divshare account because it was too big for google docs.
It's lengthy, but take a look at schedules are 1.1.007 and 1.1.008. (Pages 14 and 15 on the pdf):
1.1.007 Correspondence - AdministrativeThe Governor's established retention period for correspondence (in any media and format) is for the term of his office plus one day -- not seven days. The term ends in early 2011. So, is the Governor's office violating its own retention policy by deleting its emails every week? It says no. Here's spokeswoman Krista Moody:
Incoming/outgoing and internal correspondence, in any format, pertaining to the formulation, planning, implementation, interpretation, modification, or redefinition of the programs, services, or projects of an agency and the administrative regulations, policies, and procedures that govern them.1.1.008 Correspondence - General
Non-administrative incoming/outgoing and internal correspondence, in any media, pertaining to or arising from the routine operations of the policies, programs, services, or projects of an agency.
Official correspondence, such as constituent inquiries and contracts, are saved in some format until the end-of-term. Transitory correspondence, according to the Texas State Library, is communication that is only useful for a limited amount of time and then is no longer needed. This correspondence is exempt from the end-of-term retention policy.An example of this would be back and forth emails between multiple people trying to set up a meeting time. Once the meeting is set, the emails are no longer needed or useful.
This seems to open up some new questions. The office is creating a distinction within their own public records, between "Official Correspondence" and "Transitory Correspondence". Who deems whether something is "official" versus "transitory"? Each individual employee.
So Perry's office says that it is letting individuals within a public office decide whether something "is needed" for the public record or not. The example about setting a meeting could very well be important public information -- what if the emails "setting up a meeting time" actually discussed having lunch with a powerful lobbyist with interests related to a measure the Governor was pushing?
What is "transitory" and therefore "not needed" to one person, may be something "official" in the eyes of another. What's the danger in saving it all, for a longer period of time?
Anyone want to weigh in on this? The journey continues...
