MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
March 18, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:15 a.m., on Tuesday, March 18, 2003. Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Mark Manendo, Chairman
Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Vice Chairman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Tom Grady
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Bob McCleary
Ms. Peggy Pierce
Ms. Valerie Weber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Mr. Bob Beers
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
Pat Hughey, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Blanca A. Vazquez, Lobby Team, Intrergovernmental Relations, Clark County
Scott K. Sisco, Interim Director, State of Nevada, Department of Cultural Affairs, Director’s Office
Sara F. Jones, State Librarian, Division Administrator, State of Nevada, Department of Cultural Affairs, Nevada State Library and Archives
Guy Louis Rocha, CA, Assistant Administrator for Archives and Records, State of Nevada, Department of Cultural Affairs, Nevada State Library and Archives
Teri J. Mark, CRM, State Records Manager, State of Nevada, Department of Cultural Affairs, Nevada State Library and Archives
Kathy Burke, Washoe County Recorder
Alan H. Glover, Carson City Clerk-Recorder
Margaret Lowther, Store County Recorder/Auditor
Stephanie D. Licht, Legislative Consultant
Kimberly J. McDonald, MPA, Special Projects Analyst and Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas
Mary Henderson, Lobbyist/Government Consultant, representing North Las Vegas
Karen Kavanau, lobbyist, Nevada Judges Association
Chairman Manendo:
Good morning, Committee. Madame Secretary, will you please take the roll. [Roll taken]
Assembly Bill 260: Authorizes use of machine-readable media for preservation of certain public records. (BDR 19-7)
Chairman Manendo:
I would like to start with Assembly Bill 260, which is our colleague, Mr. Beers’ bill. Good morning. Welcome to Assembly Government Affairs.
Assemblyman Beers, Assembly District No. 4, Clark County:
I’m Bob Beers, Assembly District 4. This bill actually does have its genesis in Assembly Ways and Means. In the 25-word-or-less description of what this bill, A.B. 260, proposes to do, it is to expand beyond microfilm the types of mediums that the state can store its permanent records on.
The genesis was in Assembly Ways and Means when we had some testimony from the Nevada State Library and Archives regarding their requirement that they invest more money in microfilm equipment. Coming out of the computer business, I have a great deal of faith in electronic storage methods, not just to save things, but, more importantly, to distribute them. I can send all of you right now an attachment to an e-mail, you can click on it, and up will pop the image of whatever it is that I’m sending you. With microfilm, you have to go down to the microfilm machine and go through some measure of drill to get that turned into paper. If I then wanted to distribute that paper easily, I would have to go through the copying process, or I can scan it and then e-mail it to you.
The primary argument I think that you are going to hear shortly against this [bill] is that we don’t really trust this stuff. For example, here I have in my hand an 8-inch floppy disk that, 15 or 20 years ago, was probably a standard storage medium. In fact, I’ll bet that there’s probably more than one 8-inch floppy disk somewhere at the Nevada State Library and Archives. That medium is useless. However, in 1980-81, I was employed as the news director at KCBN and KRNO up in Reno, and one of my duties was complying with Federal Communications Commission requirements to annually file a list of the public affairs programs that our radio stations broadcast. That list was compiled on a RadioShack TRS-80 Model 3, and in a totally long-gone word processing format. However, there was enough notice, when that format started going away, for me to be able to convert it into a more modern format, which at that time was WordPerfect. WordPerfect has nearly gone away today, but there was enough notice that I was able to convert that format to Word, where it sits today.
[Assemblyman Beers continued.] In 1981-82, I had to put together a series of broadcast pieces that won an award, and they now live on a totally modern MP3 format on a CD at my house, because I have converted them from their original reel-to-reel tape, to cassettes in about 1990, and two years ago, I moved them over to MP3. So, you can convert these digital formats, and you usually have enough notice to be able to convert them from one format to another. Is that additional work? It can be. However, like with graphical image formats, you now have, for the most part, all software coming with a tool that will bulk transform from one format to another format. So, perhaps it’s not as much work as we might think.
That is what this bill is attempting to do. I know that the Nevada State Library and Archives opposes A.B. 260 as it is written. They have some ideas that they’re going to present to you that would allow them in regulations to move the pendulum a bit more toward digital formats. If that is the net result of this legislation, which is to move the pendulum a bit more toward digital formats, I’m happy with that. I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Manendo:
And this is just an alternative, correct? It’s not mandating?
Assemblyman Beers:
Yes. It’s not mandating, and it’s not making microfilm any more obsolete than it is going to become naturally. I think you’re going to hear from the Nevada State Library and Archives that they have some storage requirements that are from 80 years to 100 years. It may be that they have greater comfort with microfilm, and that’s fine, and there may be some longer-term things that we don’t yet want to be permanently stored in digital formats. I’m just seeking to move the pendulum.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
Do we have any idea what the Library of Congress is doing now?
Assemblyman Beers:
I do not. The Nevada State Library and Archives folks probably have a better idea.
Assemblyman McCleary:
Is electronic storage safe, and is there any downside to it?
Assemblyman Beers:
Let’s divide “safe” into two categories. One question would be, is it a safe format for archiving things for the future? The second question would be, could you lose it?
Assemblyman McCleary:
That’s what I’m concerned with.
Assemblyman Beers:
If your hard drive goes down, could you lose it? Let’s first address the first part. I believe that digital formats, because of their ease of conversion into new formats as they are introduced and become accepted, are safe formats.
Now, the second question is the physical security of that stuff, and it’s as safe as your backup policy. It’s as safe as your disaster recovery policy. A good disaster recovery policy is going to dictate that you back up this data onto a separate medium, and that you keep a copy of that backup off premises. With multiple backups in place, yes, I believe that it is safe.
Assemblyman McCleary:
What if, theoretically, we had a nuclear war, and suppose we survive and the species continues to go on, would that type of a disaster destroy all our records?
Assemblyman Beers:
It depends on where the bombs hit. I think microfilm probably melts at a lower temperature than CDs. You’re talking disaster recovery with a capital “D” and a capital “R,” obviously. Neither format is likely to survive the kind of inferno that you’re suggesting.
Assemblyman McCleary:
I was somehow under the impression that electromagnetic waves destroyed computer and electronic equipment.
Assemblyman Beers:
You’re referring to an electromagnetic pulse. An electromagnetic pulse [EMP] blows out semiconductors. It destroys semiconductors and computers would not work if they were subject to EMP bursts. Yes, it’s true, a computer would not work. Now the question becomes, are there components of a modern microfilm reading system that include electronics? I don’t know the answer to that question. Presumably, the plan on how to build a computer is retained on paper someplace and, presuming that the species survived and had an interest in going back and reading old newspapers, which is a cool thing that they have over—I don’t know if you have toured the Nevada State Library and Archives Building, but it is a neat place. That is Nevada’s history, up close and personal. Anyway, certainly in that sort of a catastrophe, these things are probably more susceptible. I’m guessing that microfilm machines don’t have much in the way of electronics in them. However, we would find one or two of them someplace.
The other benefit of the digital format is its ease of distribution. You can go on the Nevada State Library and Archives Web site right now and print out the sheet music to Home Means Nevada. Now, you’ve just created another archived copy of the sheet music of Home Means Nevada. Because it’s so easy to do, we end up disseminating this information into lots of different hands. That, as well, provides a security backup. In the last couple of years, I’ve gotten started rock hounding in the outback of Nevada, and there’s a tremendous wealth of old geology reports available on the University of Nevada, Reno, and the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Web sites. I’ve now got copies of much of that, because I can read it faster than going through the download process again. That’s another benefit to the electronic format.
Assemblyman McCleary:
Do you foresee a day when all government records will be stored in an electronic form?
Assemblyman Beers:
Yes.
Assemblyman Knecht:
Mr. Beers, one of the problems with archival storage is keeping the records for some length of time, typically 50, 80, or 100 years. As you well know, some of the paper products have begun to disintegrate. Now we’re making better paper products that will last longer, but there’s a similar concern with electronic media, unless you’re doing a bulk renewal. Can you comment on how long the electronic medias are expected to last, and how often we might have to do a bulk renewal?
Assemblyman Beers:
By bulk renewal, do you mean a conversion from format A of 1982 to format B of 2003?
Assemblyman Knecht:
Yes.
Assemblyman Beers:
I don’t know what the cycle is. I think back on things that I keep and I’d say maybe every 10 or 20 years. It depends. The other piece of this question is the great “word processor wars” of the 1990s, when we saw WordPerfect lose to Word in terms of market share. Now, what do we do with the world’s “wpd” files, which was the extension for WordPerfect? For most of that period of time, Word had the ability to easily read WordPerfect files. That was one of their competitive things going back and forth, and you could very easily convert that stuff. Both WordPerfect and Word, as well as my TRS-80 Model 3 WordStar, I think it was, read raw text files. So, there are formats that are common to multiple softwares. Nowadays in the imaging business, a “jpeg” file or a “tif” file are pretty much standard, and any graphics software will read them. So, it may be that one of the components as we move down this path over the next 20 years, would be to define acceptable data formats as those that can be read by more than 12 manufacturers of software. I just don’t know.
Assemblyman Knecht:
I appreciate that answer. That’s helpful, but the other place I was going with this is that I’ve read accounts of tapes and floppy disks degrading and losing information in as little as 5, 10, or 15 years. Is that as much of a problem with hard disk and high density storage that we have now, or do you know what progress has been made on that front to obviate the problem so that when we pull out a disk in 30 years, and we happen to have the software and the hardware to use it, are we going to find the files intact and usable?
Assemblyman Beers:
I don’t see that there is any natural degradation in those mediums. I can create anecdotal evidence for you; just give me a little magnet and two seconds, and I can demonstrate for you how they’re unreliable. But with care—number one—no is the answer. Number two, you wouldn’t store this stuff on a floppy disk. You probably wouldn’t even store it on a CD. You would store it on a “RAID” drive on a server. “RAID” is an acronym for “Redundant Array of Independent Disks,” and it is basically a rack of hard drives that are, through some fancy software, capable of surviving physically pulling one out. When one goes dead, as they will sometimes do, you physically pull it out, you put a new one in, the software fully recovers, and your data is intact. So, the technology is there to keep this stuff going forever, as long as we can supply electrons to the plug.
Assemblyman Christensen:
First of all, I completely support taking regular paper and archiving it through electronic media. I would imagine you saw the most recent release of the movie, The Time Machine. It looks like everything in the future will be electronic. As far as how we go about doing that, and the archive system right now—I don’t know if you’ve already addressed this and I missed it, but is anyone here from the Nevada State Library and Archives office to address this today?
Assemblyman Beers:
It’s a friendly enough rivalry that I’m comfortable sitting with my back to them, but they’re right there.
Chairman Manendo:
We will have some testimony from those folks.
Assemblyman Christensen:
I think it’s absolutely great if we can figure out a way to do it. Someday, kids will be doing their homework on Nevada history on some little PDA [Personal Digital Assistant] that they hold in their hand. So, anything that we can do to be pioneers in bringing that to pass, I fully support.
Assemblyman Beers:
There’s a collection of geology, history, and business reports of activity on the Comstock Lode that were typed on paper that only lasts for 10 years. They’re from 1900 to 1910, and they’re fascinating reading available online today. I don’t know exactly what it was typed on, but they’ve been converted to digital format. There may be a microfilm version somewhere, but citizens interested in the history of our state are going to go to those digital formats because they’re so easy. They’re not going to go to microfilm, unless they’re really determined, such as when I asked Mr. Sisco [Scott K. Sisco, Interim Director, State of Nevada, Department of Cultural Affairs] about Good Springs, Nevada, and found that they have the Good Springs, Nevada, newspaper on microfilm. In my opinion, that’s a good thing.
Chairman Manendo:
Have you seen the amendments?
Assemblyman Beers:
I don’t think amendments are proposed. I think “IP” [Indefinitely Postponed] is proposed, with some regulation changes that move the pendulum toward digital stuff for shorter-term documents, but they’ll come up and discuss that.
Chairman Manendo:
“IP?”
Assemblyman Beers:
I’m used to it, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Manendo:
Well, that would have to be accepted by the Chair and this Committee before that would happen, Mr. Beers. Anyone else, Committee? Thank you, Mr. Beers. Do you have anybody else that you want to come up and add testimony in support of your legislation?
Assemblyman Beers:
Thank you. It doesn’t look like it.
Chairman Manendo:
Is there anybody else speaking in favor of Assembly Bill 260?
Blanca A. Vazquez, Lobby Team, Intrergovernmental Relations, Clark County:
[Introduced herself] I just wanted to go on record that several of our departments have reviewed A.B. 260 and they are in support of it.
Assemblyman Christensen:
You say that your departments are in support of this, but are there any high‑level concerns that you think have merit and that we should be aware of?
Blanca Vazquez:
The departments that reviewed the bill include the Clark County Social Service Department, Clark County Department of Administrative Services, and Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning. They all reviewed the bill in its entirety, and all the comments came back as being in support of any legislation that would give us another option for how to retain our records.
Chairman Manendo:
Thank you. Questions? Is anybody else in favor of Assembly Bill 260? Opposition? Mr. Sisco, Ms. Jones?
Scott K. Sisco, Interim Director, State of Nevada, Department of Cultural Affairs, Director’s Office:
[Introduced himself] Before I get started, I thought I’d check with your schedule. Would you like me to speed it up a little from normal, or are you good? [Exhibit C was distributed.]
Chairman Manendo:
We’re fine right now.
Scott Sisco:
With me today is Sara Jones, Administrator with the Nevada State Library and Archives, Guy Rocha, Nevada State Archivist, and Teri Mark, Nevada State Records Manager. All are here today to provide technical testimony and technical expertise regarding the requirements of A.B. 260. First of all, let me make one thing perfectly clear. We are not anti-technology in any way, shape or form. We, through the Micrographics and Imaging Program, encourage state agencies to microfilm and image at the same time; microfilm for long-term preservation of records, and imaging to have an immediately accessible working version of what is needed.
The department is here today to, hopefully, accomplish three things. First, to express opposition to A.B. 260, and to discuss ramifications to public record requirements and accessibility issues; second, to discuss the cost implications if this bill were to pass; and third, to bring to light possible alternatives that we’ve come up with as a result of Mr. Beers opening this important discussion, and in particular, alternatives that can be accomplished without added cost to the state or changes in the statutes.
First, let me state officially for the record that the Department of Cultural Affairs opposes A.B. 260 before you today. While it is easy to put data on whatever the medium of the day is, the requirements of assuring accessibility of that data today, tomorrow, and 20 or 30 years in the future is the core issue of our concern. Imagine that this bill had been law 30, 40, or 50 years ago, and imagine that the state agency in charge of birth certificates had utilized this language to switch from maintaining birth certificates on microfilm to these punch cards [Mr. Sisco held up a punch card], the medium of the day back then. Imagine, again, that you now needed a copy of your birth certificate, which is required in order to obtain a passport, social security benefits, or veterans benefits. There is one thing that you don’t have to imagine. If this punch card were the medium that was used back then, there is little possibility that we would be able to access the necessary data and provide you with the document you need today. We have had thousands of these punch cards dumped on the Nevada State Library and Archives in past years. We can’t read them, although if we dumped enough money on the project, we could probably find out what’s on them. You’ll hear more about this from Guy Rocha and Teri Mark in a few moments.
The next thing I’d like to discuss is the cost that would be involved in properly maintaining public records in an electronic format. As earlier stated, while it’s easier to put data on the medium of the day, in order to properly manage that data, procedures must include how the data, the application, and the computer operating system will be migrated as needed throughout the record retention schedule to maintain accessibility, which in some cases may be substantial. Please remember that more and more of today’s software releases are no longer backwards compatible. State agency record retention schedules range from 3 years to 85 years.
As an example, let’s say that an agency responsible for maintaining personnel records elects, as a result of this legislation, to begin maintaining their records totally electronically. This particular type of record constantly changes. However, legal requirements dictate that a snapshot of that record at any point in time must be maintained. Most of these types of records have record retention requirements in excess of 50 years. Currently, a microfilm copy is made whenever changes are made to the employee’s record. Imagine the expense of maintaining the many copies of that same record in electronic format necessary to meet the legal retention requirements of having a snapshot of that record for any specific point in time. Add that to the cost of migrating the data every time the application is upgraded.
Further, add the costs involved when the application itself is changed and replaced, and older snapshots must be re-imported and migrated to allow for reading by the new application in order to maintain accessibility. Even if you were able to maintain a copy of the original application needed to access each of those snapshots, sooner or later a new operating system upgrade would mandate the need to again migrate both the application and the data.
All of you probably had software that ran just fine on Windows 95 or Windows 98, but will not run on Windows XP or Windows 2000. As you can imagine, the cost of migrating and maintaining accessibility of this particular data over such a substantial record retention requirement would be astronomical. The Department of Cultural Affairs has further concerns because NRS [Nevada Revised Statutes] requires that when an agency, a board, or a program “sunsets,” all of its records must be transferred to the Nevada State Library and Archives, in order to provide continued access for the public. The migration and the costs associated with that process then become the responsibility of the General Fund, regardless of the original funding source for the program.
As I mentioned earlier, as a result of Mr. Beers having brought this important discussion to light, we have had a chance to review the current practices and requirements in this area, and I am pleased to report that Ms. Jones [Sara Jones, State Librarian, Division Administrator, State of Nevada, Department of Cultural Affairs, Nevada State Library and Archives] will provide details on some options that can be accomplished without added costs and without added changes to the existing statutes. Hopefully, these options will show that this issue can be addressed without jeopardizing access to these important public records. Thank you for this time. I’ll turn the presentation over to Ms. Jones, unless you have some specific questions for me at this time.
Chairman Manendo:
Thank you. We’ll have Ms. Jones testify first.
Sara F. Jones, State Librarian, Division Administrator, State of Nevada, Department of Cultural Affairs, Nevada State Library and Archives:
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the Committee. [Introduced herself] I want to make clear at the very beginning of this discussion that we absolutely endorse what Assemblyman Beers says about distribution. We fully understand that electronic record-keeping and electronic records is the best way to distribute in the widest possible means, and if you look at his example about Home Means Nevada, that’s exactly what it’s about. We actually not only keep that information and make sure that it’s readily available to schoolchildren or anyone else who wants it—not only the words, but also the score so they can play it—but it’s important that we keep Home Means Nevada in its original format. It’s important for both historians and researchers to be able to get either the physical document itself from its origination or a microfilm copy, which would be exact. In such a case, a musical score might have hand-written notes by someone who performed it that would be valuable to the research process.
The real point here is that it’s not an either/or option. It’s not, do you microfilm, or do electronic, or do digital, or do the technology of today. You do both, because you have good reasons to keep things for long-term permanent preservation, and you have good reasons for distributing them in the widest possible manner and with the most ease. I want to make that perfectly clear. We don’t see this as a simple either/or kind of discussion here. Microfilm has some very specific needed purposes, and electronic distribution has some very specific needed purposes. Digital imaging is very cost-effective where you’re increasing workflow efficiency, and where there’s a need to provide access to the same record to multiple persons in multiple places, exactly as Mr. Beers talked to you about.
As a means of space saving for records not used regularly, those long-term things that we’ve been talking to you about that have a 50-year to 85-year permanent retention, digital imaging is not a good means to do it, because you have to do the migration process. Microfilm is ideal. You can put all kinds of records in a very, very small space, so you can save a lot of money by doing that. You had asked what the Library of Congress and its counterpart, the National Archives [U.S. National Archives and Records Administration] does, and the standard rule of thumb is that “you image for access and you film for preservation.” There are two different components there.
We have strong reservations that many agencies would have a great deal of difficulty actually adopting A.B. 260 if it were passed, because they are not ready for this. They don’t have the kind of technology that would let them keep electronic recordkeeping for the long term. In 2001, we did a survey of agencies to ask them how they were positioned for this exact kind of policy, and this is what they told us:
It’s important, because records can be accepted as evidence, and if you can question whether they’ve been altered, you can successfully challenge them as the official record, which could have extremely severe consequences in defending legal actions.
You have a proposal in your hand, Exhibit C, which is an analysis that we’ve made of how to, as Assemblyman Beers said, shift that pendulum. We’ve been discussing this for approximately two years, and we’ve reviewed our existing policies and procedures, and have determined two ways within the existing statutes and regulations that will allow for increased use of developing technologies.
The first one is we increase the allowance for agencies to maintain non‑permanent records in an electronic format from six to ten years. You heard testimony that ten years is about the benchmark. We’re not going to agree on 20 years, but somewhere between seven and ten years, you are probably going to need to migrate data based on either applications, or storage devices, or a variety of other factors. We did some research, and we found that many states have adopted a recent recommendation from NAGARA, which is the National Association of Government Archives and Records Administrators, to define long-term records retention requirements in electronic formats as ten years and beyond. Nevada had previously been using the six-year benchmark in our regulations, and we believe that the ten-year standard is reasonable, and we’re certainly willing to adopt it.
Item number two is that we want to create policies and procedures to provide a process whereby state agencies could petition the State Records Committee to approve agency-specific plans allowing for long-term or permanent records to be maintained in electronic format. The process would enable state agencies desiring to maintain electronic, machine-readable, public records for long-term or permanent preservation, without eye-readable backups, the ability to prepare and submit plans to the State Records Committee through the Nevada Electronic Records Committee, one of its subcommittees, for agency and plan‑specific approval. The agency would have to demonstrate in its plan the following elements in their imaging procedures:
If those above conditions are met and accepted by the State Records Committee and the Nevada Electronic Records Committee, the administrator of the Nevada State Library and Archives would provide written authorization for the petitioning agency to maintain records solely in electronic, machine-readable formats. We are talking about moving that pendulum towards permanent records if they can meet all those criteria and could stay in that format.
We believe the authority for this already exists in NRS Chapter 239. The Nevada State Library and Archives is directed to establish rules and regulations governing use of machine-readable images, and the circumstances under which original, analog, eye-readable copies of imaged documents may be destroyed. As mandated by NRS [Section] 378.255, the Nevada State Library and Archives Administrator may adopt regulations and establish standards, procedures, and techniques for the effective management of records.
We believe this to be a reasonable compromise because electronic storage technologies are evolving so quickly. Because of the expense of managing electronic record-keeping over time is substantial, this will allow us to take advantage of the advances of technology, while remaining within the economic conditions that dictate doing more with fewer resources. Do you have any questions?
Chairman Manendo:
Thank you for your testimony. When could you let this Committee know if the State Records Committee and the NERC [Nevada Electronic Records Committee] would have these types of written authorization that we could see before we move forward or not with this piece of legislation?
Sara Jones:
Mr. Chairman, our plan would be that the burden for this plan rests with the agency. The burden would be for them to prove that they have all these pieces in place. The State Records Committee would then have statutory authority over the retention schedules and would review it and say whether they are completely comfortable with the plan or not. I’m not sure if I’m completely answering the question as you asked it, but the burden for the migration of the data and the security of that information would rest with the agency that wanted the exemption from microfilm or paper.
Assemblyman Knecht:
Just to be clear, Mr. Beers testified that this bill is permissive, and if I understand you right, your concern is that it would permit agencies to move on their own without your approval toward use of electronic media? Is that the problem here?
Sara Jones:
Yes, that is correct. Our largest problem with the bill is that it says paper, microfilm, electronic media, all the same. We believe that we can confidently tell you we’re protecting the records under paper and microfilm. We don’t believe, at this point in time, that we can confidently protect those records in machine-readable media.
Assemblyman Knecht:
You also said that you appreciate the value of the portability and communicability using electronic media and you, I presume, therefore recognize the limitations of paper and microfilm in that regard?
Sara Jones:
Absolutely. In fact, let’s go back to where he said this started with Assembly Ways and Means and a project for the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles. We did a large project for them of microfilming driver’s license records, which do have an 85-year retention schedule. In that project, what the Micrographics and the Imaging group [Micrographics and Imaging Program] did was imaged and filmed. We imaged for distribution, which they use readily every day, and we filmed those images for long-term preservation.
So, in 60 years, they can still get that driver’s license off, and they won’t have to worry about the migration. There’s how the hybrid systems allow you to do both at the same time. You could actually put image right on film. You don’t even have to go back to the source document. So, again, in that case, it’s not either/or. If you need it for distribution, we’re 100 percent happy, and we’re more than willing to help you in Micrographics [Micrographics and Imaging Program] to make that happen, but we think that film for preservation for those long-term needs is still essential. We would not have been comfortable in the DMV [Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles] example had they just left that in machine-readable format, because we didn’t think it was stable enough for the 85-year retention.
Assemblyman Knecht:
Let me tell you what my concern is in this regard and get your reaction to it. Businesses and people who operate in the private sector have market incentives to adopt new technologies to make progress and innovations in their operations, because somebody will be out there competing with them to take the business away from them if they don’t do it fast enough. If they are supplying something and they don’t move to the right thing; if they’re reliant on the old technology, 5¼ floppy disks or whatever, they will lose if they don’t react fast enough to where the market is going. The essence of the public sector is that, all too often, it is protected from market incentives.
I guess I’m looking for some comfort here if you can provide some. On this question, there’s a concern for preservation that you’re expressing. Mr. Beers is suggesting the electronic preservation works quite well. There’s a concern for increased or better distribution, which you acknowledge the new technology, the electronic technology, does. Give me some reassurance that we know you’re going as fast as you can, or at least as is optimal, toward adopting electronic technologies, if we don’t put this kind of incentive in place to encourage not just you, but other agencies to do so. Tell me why we should believe that you’ve got all the necessary incentives to move forward as fast as reasonably possible. Thank you.
Sara Jones:
You had a double-pronged question there, but I certainly say in terms of us, the Nevada State Library and Archives and the Department of Cultural Affairs, has probably the richest Web site in state government. We have 10,000 pages of information available to the end user, and much of that is about distributing things that people might not necessarily want to come into the Nevada State Library and Archives for. They want to find Home Means Nevada, or they want to look at territorial records on the Web. So, I think that in terms of us, you have a great deal of proof already that we understand technology and we use it readily. I think in terms of other state agencies, it’s really going to be on what their mission says that they need to do. As information providers, that is our mission and we do it, I think, very well. Other agencies, such as DMV [Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles], for example, certainly has the magnitude of records that makes it extremely difficult to sometimes meet all the requirements, and I’m not sure I would be capable of answering for everyone.
I’m not sure this bill would actually encourage in the way that you would want it to encourage records retention in the fact that we need to make sure that it’s really important that they keep those records and that they’re defendable. I’m having trouble answering that question for all state agencies. I don’t know if Mr. Sisco would like to make a comment about it.
Scott Sisco:
The only other thing I’d like to bring up is that we certainly have that goal, but we also have one that is actually mandated by you, and that is the preservation of those records and the accessibility of those records to the public. Over the years, for whatever reasons, you have deemed some records are permanent, which means we keep them forever. As long as the state of Nevada exists, those records will exist. Others, as I said earlier, range from 3 to 85 years. We have to balance that requirement against some state agency that may jump in and start saving all of those Word files and whatever those documents may be, that somebody may want 42 years from now and, again, you have deemed that they should be accessible to those people.
I think the option is, if those state agencies can show us a plan—and remember, the biggest issue for us is a plan for migration of the data—how is that data going to get from one application to another application to another application, and from one operating system to another operating system, and ensure that those records will still be there, whatever the case may be.
Personnel records, the example I used earlier, are one of those most critical types of records, and we’re watching this very carefully. Right now, if you were to receive a ratings evaluation today, it would go into the computer, but by law, there has to be a snapshot of the record that existed yesterday, as well as the record today. We can make the changes within the State Historical Records Advisory Board, and with the Nevada Electronic Records Committee, that puts the process in place. Is it an easy jump for some state agency to walk in tomorrow and say, “Here’s my plan and this is what I’m going to do?”
If they can prove that they have those accessibility issues and those migration issues taken care of and planned for—and again that’s difficult, because you give us money to run our budgets for two years at a time, and we have to be careful that an agency that has a 50-year record retention schedule has a reasonable assurance to provide us that they’re going to have the money to migrate that data all those years into the future.
Assemblyman Knecht:
I spent half of my 30-plus-years working life in the public sector, and half of it in the private sector in entrepreneurial businesses, and my own personal experience in that regard is what I expressed to you a few moments ago, that the public sector seems to operate too slowly and too unresponsively to new technologies. I appreciate your thoughts and the problems of balancing retention versus distribution, and I don’t mean in any way to diminish the need for retention, but I think electronic media can also serve retention just as well as paper and microfilm. I appreciate your answers.
I would just urge you to keep that problem of the need to move forward with innovation and adopting technical progress because, as you yourselves recognize, there’s only a very limited amount of reassurance that you can give me. I understand what the Nevada State Library and Archives is doing, and I applaud that, but from my own personal, lengthy professional and managerial experience in both sectors, I’m not yet convinced that we don’t need more incentive to adopt innovation and technical progress faster in the public sector.
Assemblyman Hardy:
I’m looking at the concept of libraries and that “forever” concept, and I’m considering different genealogical libraries, and I have a question. The different genealogical libraries interested in that two-fold mission that you talk about, dissemination and storage. What are genealogical libraries such as the National Genealogical Library [National Genealogical Society], and the Salt Lake Family History Center [Salt Lake City, Family History Library], doing, because I know that they are into electronics for dissemination and, at the same time, they’re interested in caves in the mountains for storage.
Sara Jones:
Mr. Chair, I’d like to answer that question. As you say, the genealogical libraries are very interested in distribution. You live on the west coast and you need to get records that are on the east coast. The fact is they do digitize all kinds of records. However, for long-term preservation and making sure that the records are available now and in 20 years, new application is the best available at the time. It’s microfilm or it’s paper. Microfilm is usually preferred over paper just because of what can happen with the degradation of paper. If you had paper that had a great deal of rag content, then you would probably have paper that is going to last for several hundred years, but most other kind of papers—or if you duplicated it on a Xerox machine—you need to microfilm it for preservation.
As I said before, and I’m not sure I made it clear enough, it’s very easy to get data off of microfilm. You don’t have to print it back to paper and scan it in. There are all kinds of hybrid technologies that will let it [the data] come right off the microfilm. But, again, in the genealogical sense, sometimes they want just the data—they want to say this person was dead or died at this point in time—but sometimes they want to actually see a death record for its actual visual kind of historical aspect. In that case, they might get an image from microfilm that would be much more rich and much more valuable to them then they would by just the pure data.
Scott Sisco:
It should be mentioned that the reason, for instance, that the Salt Lake City Family History Library has been so successful in making one of the largest and more successful libraries of its kind available is because they had microfilm originally and were able to go back and get these records. If they had used the medium of the day back then, we wouldn’t have the ability that we have today. So, again, we are pro both.
Assemblyman Hardy:
As I look at the bill, it seems permissive to me, and with your qualifications of what a local agency would have to do, it sounds like we’re trying to go down those two parallel paths that we’re describing in the genealogical libraries. So, we have two goals—two missions as it were—and with your comments as to what the locals would have to do to qualify, we would also be able to retain storage. So, as I see this, it allows two things to happen at once, and perhaps, to gear up on both ends of the spectrum. I don’t see the competition as much as I do the cooperation.
Guy Louis Rocha, CA, Assistant Administrator for Archives and Records, State of Nevada, Department of Cultural Affairs, Nevada State Library and Archives:
Good morning, Mr. Chair, member of the Committee and staff. For the record, my name is Guy Rocha, Assistant Administrator for Archives and Records, aka the State Archivist. I’m a certified archivist and a member of the National Association of Government Archives and Records Administrators. Before I go into my testimony, I want to point out that the backup system we talk about in Salt Lake City, Family History Center is—and they do maintain a tremendous microfilm storage vault in the mountains in the Wasatch front. It is a long‑standing preservation effort on the part of that church. Other churches also do it, as well as other governmental entities.
I’m here to testify today before your Committee in opposition to A.B. 260, which authorizes the use of machine-readable media for—and I emphasize—preservation of certain public records. I feel strongly that this bill is a blueprint for unintended consequences for the Nevada State Library and Archives, and for any records program in Nevada charged with the long-term, permanent preservation of public records.
When I was appointed to my position more than 22 years ago, I found the Nevada State Library and Archives’ program in shambles and very much in need of professional management and standards. One of the problems I encountered, besides the lack of a properly designed facility and professionally trained staff, was obsolete machine-readable media that had been transferred to the Nevada State Library and Archives by state agencies. Much electronically generated information could not be read because the machines that read the media, such as old mainframe computers, had been replaced with new computer technology, and no migration strategy had even been considered at that time.
Director Scott Sisco has given you an example. We had, literally, millions of computer punch cards that were absolutely worthless because we had no way of determining what information was stored on the cards. They were just sent to the Nevada State Library and Archives to get out of the IT [Department of Information and Technology] function at that time, but we had to dispose of this information because we just could not access the information. This would have been the early 1980s.
There was other machine-readable media that found its way to the Nevada State Library and Archives, including Dictabelts and reel-to-reel tapes, also along this line, this is CETA program files, 1985 to 1987. We have no way in which to read this, yet agencies transferred this to us long before anyone considered migration strategies. Dictabelts—your floor hearings, your predecessors, this information was generated in their time, in the 1960s—let me hold up a belt, please, for you [Mr. Rocha held one up]—these are Dictabelts. This is what the technology looked at that time, an analog technology. We still use them. We also have reel-to-reel tapes, which contain legislative floor proceedings dating back to the 1960s and 1970s.
We have no budget to transfer the information from the obsolete technology to cassette tapes. Efforts to establish a line item in the budget for information migration were not supported. We were able to find a few old Dictabelt machines and reel-to-reel tape recorders to read the information, and that’s how people that come in as researchers read it today. These museum items have broken numerous times, and it is increasingly harder to find the parts to keep the machines operating. Essentially, we’ve been forced to cannibalize our existing machines to keep one running.
[Guy Rocha continued.] Learning from the problems encountered by trying to access obsolete media that found its way to the Nevada State Library and Archives because agencies were, essentially, trying to get rid of it. They were not concerned about the long-term issues and presumed they had no use for it anymore. We established a nationally-accepted “best practice” of requiring state agencies to provide either paper or microfilm eye-readable media for records scheduled by the Records Management Program for permanent preservation by Nevada State Library and Archives. That’s permanent, for as long as the record can possibly last. We have records that go back over 150 years.
We cannot maintain and operate obsolete computers and programs to read digital information, nor do we have a budget equal to or greater than our existing budget to call 1-800-ITS-LOST for data recovery and restoration by a private vendor for machine-readable information stored in the Nevada State Library and Archives without having machines with which to read it. Obviously, there’s a growing cottage industry out there where they are providing access to this.
This bill, A.B. 260, puts the Nevada State Library and Archives and local governments in an untenable position of trying to preserve information of enduring value for the citizens of Nevada. Because the information currently stored in the Nevada State Library and Archives is eye-readable, we can provide information to government agencies, the press, and citizens, in short order.
One example: some years ago, a person who claimed he was a World War I veteran was hospitalized at the Washoe Medical Center in Reno as an indigent. Neither the veteran nor the federal government could produce a record of his service. A call to the Nevada State Library and Archives from the VA hospital [VA Sierra Nevada Health Care System] produced an eye-readable record of the veteran’s military service from Nevada, and he was immediately transferred to the VA hospital in Reno [VA Sierra Nevada Health Care System]. If that information had been kept in a machine-readable format and transferred to Nevada State Library and Archives without the means to read it, the World War I vet would have been denied his rightful benefit and would have been compelled to be treated as an indigent at Washoe Medical Center.
[Guy Rocha continued.] I ask the Committee today to not support A.B. 260, because it does not address the question of information migration strategies and the cost associated with keeping information current in the digital media for long-term or permanent preservation. Again, it is not the access issue; we support that without reservation. The state of Nevada’s information heritage is at risk of “institutional Alzheimer’s.”
If I may, I would like to hand out to the Committee a copy of a letter [Exhibit D] from my long-standing colleague, the State Archivist of Oregon, expressing his concerns with A.B. 260. Roy Turnbaugh, Oregon State Archivist, is one of the leading professionals in the information management profession in the country, and has encountered similar legislation introduced in the Oregon State Legislature. I want to highlight his bullet points. If you’ll follow with me:
· Nevada, like Oregon, has adopted the Uniform Rules of Evidence. Whether digital images of governmental records meet evidentiary standards depends on a host of procedural and technological factors that BDR 19-7 [A.B. 160] does not address.
· Although your law mentions ANSI [American National Standards Institute] standards for microphotographs, A.B. 160 [BDR 19-7] does not include any equivalent mention for digital images. Perhaps the most significant publication in this arena is ANSI/AIIM TR25-1995, The Use of Optical Disks for Public Records. Any law and/or body of regulation dealing with digital images needs to address the issues identified in this publication.
· As drafted, A.B. 160 [BDR 19-7] would include documents such as the Nevada Constitution [Constitution of the State of Nevada]. It’s unlikely that Nevadans would want documents with significant historical value imaged and destroyed.
· We are continually reminded of the importance of quality control in transfer of records from paper to digital image. A.B. 160 [BDR 19-7] does not address this issue, yet verification of image quality needs to occur before originals are destroyed.
· Imaging technology has evolved rapidly during the past ten years and it continues to evolve. Absent a legal requirement that users of imaging plan and have identified budget resources in advance, I would expect them to face rapid obsolescence of their systems. The net effect, of course, is that images would be unusable.
· Cost-benefit analysis should drive any conversion of records from one medium to another, yet I find no mention of cost in A.B. 160 [BDR 19-7]. It’s a truism that the payback on imaging projects can be very lengthy. At a time when governments everywhere face dwindling resources, I would expect your law to address this issue.
Show me the money. That’s a very important issue. The technology is out there, things can be done, and we can work with the existing technology as we move towards a world that Assemblyman Christensen said is in that future. Fundamentally, we’re not there now, and clearly we don’t have the resource base to do this. We need to be supported. We can do some things, both statutorily and by regulation. I plead to you at this point in time, this bill is a rush to judgment. Thank you.
Chairman Manendo:
How much do you need then?
Guy Rocha:
You and all the fiscal people here, we could spend a great deal of time. That universe has not been identified. I would just suggest statewide—all the players, state and local—we’re talking millions and millions. Imagine the amount of records that are generated in doing the public’s business statewide. It’s an expensive proposition that should be considered, because, I would argue, information is infrastructure. It is an asset, just like money. It is an asset just like property. It is an asset, yet it is an overlooked asset and a not properly supported asset. We recognize the value of technology, but we don’t provide the resources to enhance that technology. That’s the struggle in the budget shortfall and trying to reach the new world that we’re moving toward. Thank you.
Chairman Manendo:
I was just curious. I didn’t hear Clark County say they needed money to do this. Mr. Knecht?
Assemblyman Knecht:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to my good friend, Mr. Rocha. Let me give you a plus and a minus on your testimony. For those of us who remember and are very familiar with the technologies, the dinosaur technologies you held up, it makes us feel old.
The other thing is that I agree with you, and you make a very good point not just on “show me the money,” but “show me the cost-benefit analysis.” I think that cost-effectiveness and net benefit over cost should be one of the things we measure and require in a showing of any regulations that we do, so I think you make a good point there. You heard my concerns earlier about balancing preservation versus distribution, and about the slowness of state agencies to move forward with innovation. I won’t repeat that, but I do want to thank you for your testimony.
Guy Rocha:
Essentially, we do want to push the technological agenda forward. We just want to assure you that the cost-benefit analysis we do in records management, micrographics, and imaging—that we are, in fact, doing the most efficient business, while at the same time, ensuring that the rights and entitlements of the citizens are not being jeopardized with potential loss. That is why we are here. We serve the people. It’s very important. Thank you.
Assemblyman Christensen:
Mr. Rocha, I’ve got to say that was a very passionate presentation.
Guy Rocha:
That’s my trademark.
Assemblyman Christensen:
You are the most enthusiastic archivist I’ve ever known.
Guy Rocha:
I’m one of the extroverts in the profession. There aren’t too many.
Assemblyman Christensen:
Hats off to you. I think that’s great. I have two questions that I wanted to ask. The first is that neat little punch card that you keep holding up. It’s killing me. What would that be used for? Does that have my SAT score on it?
Guy Rocha:
There is a generation gap, and that’s fair enough. When I went to Clark High School in Las Vegas, and we were studying Fortran and COBOL, and these are the kinds of things that we were using as we were understanding the technology. This is labeled [Mr. Rocha held up a punch card] “Attorney General’s Record” on the top line, “Defending Suits,” but we just don’t know through those holes what suits were defended. These were batched in tremendous batches that moved through the computer. This was how the data was entered and then produced. This is the type of thing that you saw beginning after World War II, and I suspect—and I am deferring to Assemblyman Knecht—up to the 1960s or 1970s. This was called “mainframe technology” at that time.
At that time, people weren’t thinking about migration strategies. People were not thinking about other than the immediate need that they needed that information for. Some of the problems that have been encountered over the years at the federal level include the U.S. [United States] Decennial Census, which did it this way. When they went back to do some other aggregate analysis, they had already surplused their computers. Fundamentally, they had not thought ahead. Our job at the Nevada State Library and Archives is to think about generations unborn, not just about our immediate needs.
Assemblyman Christensen:
My second question is, I think you did a tour of the Nevada State Library and Archives for legislators last month?
Scott Sisco:
We had an open house, and we would be happy at any time to have any of you come over in a group or individually.
Assemblyman Christensen:
I heard it was a good tour. I just want Mr. Rocha to be the tour guide when I get a chance to go over there.
Scott Sisco:
We also had the library days. Again, we would encourage anybody that would like to come over and see the entire processes, we would be happy.
Assemblyman Christensen:
I’d like to take you up on that.
Assemblywoman Koivisto:
This is just a response for Mr. Christensen. In another life, many years ago and far away, I worked for a large company who programmed the first space shots. They were done on those punch cards.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
I just wanted to say that it seems to me the computer industry is still set up to design things for obsolescence, so that every couple of years we have to buy a new computer. I just want to say that I appreciate the caution. When you look at all the technologies that have come along and are now obsolete, and I have no doubt that the computer I’m using now will be obsolete after five years. I just want to say that I appreciate the caution that the State Archivist is using.
Assemblyman Collins:
With the 120-day legislative session, some folks aren’t going over there, but if you haven’t been over to see the archives, whether Guy Rocha is there or not, it’s an awesome thing that they do. Have you requested money since 1997 as an independent item, and then would it have to be enhanced and then deleted, and then we’d be right back to square one?
Guy Rocha:
Are you saying have we requested information for this image migration?
Assemblyman Collins:
The “show you the money” question. Are you still requesting that every annual budget?
Scott Sisco:
This is a politically correct answer. Please understand that Executive Branch Agencies all compete for what little money is available when it goes into the Governor’s request budget, and I can say that, yes, there has been a request for money to try to deal with the electronic records issue in every single agency request budget for the last three or four bienniums that I know of, and we’ve made a little bit of progress. We did get an electronic records archivist position approximately four years ago, although the position was later vacated and frozen for a while, but we’re working on that. We definitely have a need, but there’s just not enough money in the state to go around right now.
Guy Rocha:
Mr. Chairman, may I also address it from a policy point of view? Independently recognizing the emergence of the new technology, and the machine-readable records, and the digital technology, we identified that the state had not really been addressing that, particularly for long-term preservation, and we brought in an independent party from the New York State Archives in 1990, who essentially said we need to start planning for the new technology, and at that time, recommended that we hire someone who was trained to do that. We began pursuing that position in 1991. We did not get the position until 1999.
As we deal from the private sector and the dynamics that drive the private sector versus generating support and consensus in government, it is a different kind of dynamic. I thought we made our case from a point of merit, but we ran into the downturn in the economy in the early 1990s, and other kinds of things. It takes us a long time. In many ways, it’s like watching a glacier move. Don’t watch. It will get around to moving, but that’s government. I guess I’ve been here long enough to see it. We continue to push the issue, but money drives a lot of our progress.
Assemblyman Collins:
The Nevada State Library and Archives basement down there is like the Marlette Lake; it’s out of sight and out of mind, and so it’s not treated well.
Scott Sisco:
Mr. Chairman, if I could. Teri Mark, the State Records Manager, is here to tell you about what she does.
Teri J. Mark, CRM, State Records Manager, State of Nevada, Department of Cultural Affairs, Nevada State Library and Archives:
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, and staff. My name is Teri Mark. I’m the State Records Manager. I’m a certified records manager and a member of the Association of Records Managers and Administrators [ARMA International] and the National Association of Government Archives and Administrators. I’m here today to testify before your committee in opposition to A.B. 260.
First of all, I want to stress that we very much recognize the importance and value of electronic records. Electronic records are very important resources that support our mission-critical business operations. Every agency relies, in some form, on electronic technology to automate their most important activities.
A critical need by government agencies for more efficient methods for the creation, storage, and retrieval of public records has led to the adoption of varied information technology systems for managing records. These include optical disks and CD-ROM systems, as well as more established media, such as magnetic disk and tape.
[Teri Mark continued.] While the advantages of such systems are many, the complexity of safeguarding the authenticity and integrity of the records has increased, requiring greater attention to the issues relating to security, accuracy, reliability, and accountability. The presumption of authenticity must be supported by evidence that a record is what is purports to be, and has not been modified or corrupted in essential respects. Basically, this is the evidentiary value that Mr. Rocha spoke of. The integrity of the record refers to its wholeness and soundness. A record that has integrity is complete and uncorrupted in all its essential respects. Even in the paper world with the passage of time, records are subject to deterioration, alteration, and/or are lost.
In the electronic world, the fragility of the media, the obsolescence of technology, and the idiosyncrasies of the systems, likewise, affects the integrity of the records. In many records-management applications, the useful life of records and microfilm paper media equals or exceeds the retention periods of the information contained on the media. When processed and stored properly, microfilm will remain stable for at least 100 years and is projected to last 500 years or longer.
We already know that microfilm has been in existence since the late 1800s. It is an old technology that has withstood the stand of time. Long retention periods for electronic records are complicated by the limited storage stability of certain electronic media and their dependence on specific configurations of hardware and software. To quote Bruce Dearstyne of the University of Maryland, “Electronic records management is the biggest problem faced by government archivists and records managers today.”
If you look at what other states are doing around our nation, most of them require, for long-term records requiring retention of longer than 10 years, or permanent retention, that they at least have a microfilm backup. Most of the states either purport that or that there has to be a long-term migration plan for the records. The outstanding leader in the industry, William Saffety, says the exact same thing.
Although national and international standards provide lifetime estimates of certain paper and photographic media, no comparable published standards address the stability of electronic records stored on magnetic or optical media. Magnetic media consists of a variety of forms and containers, including a range of magnetic tapes and disks, and experience indicates that physical lifetimes for magnetic tape may be from 10 to 20 years. We already know that magnetic tapes existed from the 1950s; however, environmental factors and media wear will influence the stability of the media.
[Teri Mark continued.] Optical storage media uses laser light to read from a data layer. As with the magnetic media, there is considerable diversity and practice, and greater care is needed in selecting high-quality media from reputable dealers for off line storage purposes. Manufacturers claim payback stabilities of 75 or more years for CDR media. Optical media have been in existence for less than two decades; however, stability claims are based on accelerated aging tests rather than operational experience.
We have some CDs here. [Ms. Mark held up different CDs for the Committee to see.] I don’t know if you can see it from where you are, but this is an unreadable CD, so we already know that there is some instability in the CD world. We also know that they are susceptible to breaks and cracks, and if this is your only record, you have an unreadable record right now in this particular media. Even if the stability of the magnetic media and the optical media were to improve to levels comparable to those of acid-free paper or silver-gelatin microfilm, retention periods for electronic records would still be limited by the media’s interdependence on hardware and software.
While under perfect environmental conditions—and I stress “perfect”—magnetic and optical media may remain stable for several decades. Few recordings or playback devices are engineered for a useful life of longer than 10 years, and most are usually replaced by new equipment within five years. So, it’s not necessarily the stability of the media as Assemblyman Beers was speaking to, but it’s also the lifetime of the technology.
The evolution of the electronic storage devices has led to higher and higher densities of recording formats. To preserve the life of older formats, the new products offer backward compatibility; however, this is not guaranteed for all future products. Generally, this compatibility usually works in two or three generations of equipment. Eventually older products are phased out. I have to show an 8-inch disk [showed Committee an 8-inch disk] so you know exactly what Mr. Beers was speaking to. This was created in 1993, so you know that this is a 10-year-old technology. This was soon replaced by another new technology that was replaced probably about five years ago. Now, you don’t have any equipment in your offices that will read that either. It was soon replaced by floppy disks, and computers are now not going to be manufactured with a disk drive anymore.
Now we are going to our dependable opticals, which, as you saw, are not always as dependable as you’d like them to be. Then you can go on to your DVDs but, if you’ve ever looked at a diskette, it tells you all the things that you aren’t supposed to do with it, which is basically even look at it because it is sometimes susceptible to damage as well. To mitigate these problems, we must plan for data migration. Data migration is a process of periodically converting electronic machine-readable records to new file formats. This is what, unfortunately, we didn’t do in this case.
[Teri Mark continued.] A data migration plan is essential where the destruction of data for electronic records is greater than five years from the implementation data the computer system or software that maintains the records, or when the total retention period exceeds 10 years. Where electronic records are subject to long-term retention periods, data migration plans will involve a significant future commitment of personnel and technological resources through multiple conversions and/or storage media conversions. Where electronic records are designated for permanent retention, this commitment is perpetual. The practicality of such data migration commitments must be carefully considered.
As you know, our state government is not on the heartbeat of technology most of the time. We are a couple of generations back, and to keep up with all of this, if something were to happen to somebody’s budget and they were not able to maintain the migration plan, it could be detrimental to our public records that we are required by law to retain and make accessible for our public. Microfilm and paper are the preferred analog formats for long-term retention greater than 10 years, and for permanent retention periods.
As unattractive as these methods are to modern office workers, these methods are easy to implement, and minimize the risk that public records will be unreadable in the future, because paper and microfilm records contain eye‑readable information, and problems of hardware and software dependency are minimized or eliminated. We understand that this technology is changing rapidly, and at some point in the future, we may have electronic media that will have the stability to preserve electronic records. We, however, today cannot legislate for the future. Thank you.
Assemblyman Collins:
There’s a hit song by Chris LeDeaux about machines still can’t go catch a calf, and break a bale, and feed them and that type of thing.
Scott Sisco:
Mr. Chairman, if I could just do a real quick closing for the department. I actually ordered information put on this CD just barely four years ago, so I’m a little disturbed myself to see that the CD has already become unreadable. As you can see, we have some real strong concerns and passions about maintaining the public’s access to these records. Again, we feel that the compromise here that we’ve come up with is something that we can do with the existing statutes. I only got these to Mr. Beers late yesterday, and I noted that he mentioned that they were acceptable to him, so I hope we can move on from this issue. Again, thank you for hearing from the department’s folks today.
Kathy Burke, Washoe County Recorder:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Introduced herself] We’re here representing at the local level for you today: the county recorders, Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk‑Recorder, on my left, and Maggie Lowther, Storey County Recorder/Auditor, on my right. I think the most important thing I want to say because the state said it all, is thank you to Assemblyman Beers and the people that sponsored this bill for thinking forward and for looking forward, and if there is a merit award in this system, he probably deserves one.
Truthfully, this would be a dream-come-true for recorders that have to keep records forever. Right now, recorders have records in their offices for 142 years. We are not allowed, by law, to expunge those records, and we have to keep them accessible to the public at all times. So, our concern would be, what is forever? Right now, we are shopping every day, looking for a medium that is better and less expensive than good old microfilm. Believe me, there are many of us that would prefer not to have to use that.
Right now, Washoe County is going in two directions. We are delivering to you, via the Internet, our actual images of the documents that we record every single day. I’m recording right now at a volume of 1,100 documents a day. You can view every image of every page at the click of your little finger, and it’s free. You can also print them out. We are moving forward as fast as we can, but what do I do when you want to see something that is 142 years old? I’m open for questions, but I’ll let Alan Glover and Maggie Lowther speak. Thank you.
Alan H. Glover, Carson City Clerk-Recorder:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Introduced himself] I think our position, at least from our office, is that we support the Nevada State Library and Archives in this. We need a standard, and microfilm is that standard. Like Washoe and the other counties, we’re converting optically as fast as we can. We have also offered for the last six or eight months, all our recorded documents in a digital format, and we are the ones who have to deal with this every day. If somebody comes to the counter, and they want a copy, you pull up the microfilm and you get it on the machine, you make the copy. It’s easier to simply enter that name, enter that document number, bring it up on the screen, hit the print button, and there it is. But, again, we’re dealing in “forever” type of documents, and so, if we could keep the microfilm as the standard and readable, and then let the marketplace dictate to us what new formats we will use.
This body was very generous to us last year in allowing us a technology fee, and most of us are using that so that we can convert digitally. If you would continue to let us do that, I think we can provide a very good, quick way for people to retrieve their documents. We’re repairing and restoring a lot of our historic books. We have in our county Utah Territory and Carson County books. We had all of them restored, deacidified, and repaired. While we were doing that, we also had them scanned. We had them put on film from years ago, but we’re having them scanned so that, at some point, we can make those available. That’s our goal, and we’re doing that as fast as we can.
I think our office supports the position of the State Archivist, because we really do need a standard. They’ve done an excellent job in setting that standard. My concern, as the records manager for Carson City, is that we used to control the whole process. Nowadays, departments can buy their own scanners, and all they want to do is move documents. They’ll scan and then throw everything out, and some of those are permanent records, and we have to work with them daily to make sure that they don’t dump those documents on us. Their goal is much different than ours. Theirs is to save space in their offices; ours is to preserve the integrity of the records, so if there are court cases or other problems that come up in the future, we can reproduce those records. If you have any questions, I’d be more than happy to answer them.
Assemblyman Knecht:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the two clerks that serve my district, thank you for the good work you do. I have a problem here understanding exactly what your position is. As I read this bill, and as I heard from Mr. Beers, his bill would not, in any way, remove the microfilm standard. I heard Mr. Glover say very clearly that we need a standard and he likes the microfilm standard. Rather, this would give you and state agencies the authority to move forward from there. I heard the archivist and records people say they were concerned that people in agencies wouldn’t give enough attention to preservation. I presume that your offices give enough attention to preservation. In fact, I know you do, and I appreciate that. What is the problem with adding another standard on a going-forward basis? Am I missing something here?
Alan Glover:
My concern here is that if you don’t have one standard, you’re going to have different departments who don’t want to microfilm. They want to scan directly and then dump their documents. How much authority do I have as the Carson City Records Manager? I might have some statutory authority in this area, but they’re looking to save money, so there are all these different standards out there. I don’t know what it would be on the state level, but from a county level, we like to refer to the state standard that’s in the statutes that you must have it on microfilm. And they’ll still ask, “But, can’t I?” “No, you can’t. These are permanent records. You must preserve them. Now, after they’re filmed, if you want to convert them digitally, please go ahead and do that.”
Assemblyman Knecht:
I understand now what you’re saying. I guess an assumption that’s in my mind, and I think perhaps in Mr. Beers’ mind, is that sooner or later, electronic media will become the standard for preservation, and that microfilm will become truly as obsolete as it already seems to be. The question then is, when are we going to begin migrating toward that future standard, or do you disagree? Do you think that microfilm will indefinitely remain the standard? If microfilm doesn’t indefinitely remain the standard, then at some point, we need to begin converting at the source, rather than accumulating a bigger volume day-by-day that we have to convert later on.
Alan Glover:
I am convinced that microfilm will always be the standard because it’s actually readable. You can put it up to the light and actually read the information off of it if you had to. On a national level, and probably on an international level, that’s the way they’re going. I think there will always be a way to read that and make a copy of that. Now, I could be totally wrong about that, because of the new stuff they’re coming out with. It just moves all the time. There could be a product in a few years that could be so great that it will last forever, and it can be read forever. You can still always open an old book and read it, and I think you’ll always be able to look at microfilm and be able to read that. For day-to-day operations, you certainly need something that’s quick, easy, and convenient for the public to look at and to get that information quickly.
Assemblyman Knecht:
Thank you, Mr. Glover. Mr. Chairman, it seems that the conversation has isolated a point that we need to really focus on going forward with, namely what the long-term standard will be. Will it remain microfilm or will it migrate to some electronic or digital medium? I would encourage the Nevada State Library and Archives and Mr. Beers and everyone else to focus on that question. As I said a moment ago, my understanding from working with these technologies as a working matter for the last 5 to 10 years is that microfilm is becoming, or is already, obsolete and that, sooner or later, electronic media will become the standard for preservation, as well as distribution. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Kathy Burke:
Kathryn Burke, Washoe County Recorder. I agree with Alan Glover that, at this time, I don’t believe microfilm is outdated because we are still using it. My concern would be that we answer to another authority for our budget as well, and if they are given permission to be able to not fund microfilm at some point for this board, and then your next board decides to go there, I guess my concern would be that in the interim, what happens when—I’ve taken my oath, because that’s what I vowed to do, to be the permanent record keeper. That would be a concern of mine, and since taking that oath, that is my job and that’s what I have planned to do. I’ve got dollars written all over my page. I don’t know how anybody can think it’s not going to cost any money, and I have also been through three conversion data projects in my office.
Also, while you’ve all got your laptops up, you could view my Web page, and go into iCRIS, and look up your marriage license, if you bought it in Washoe County. I’m moving absolutely as fast as I can with the money provided, and we all know what that means. Thank you.
Margaret Lowther, Storey County Recorder/Auditor:
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Committee members. [Introduced herself] The main part of A.B. 260 that concerns me is Section 3. I would like to also address this from a small county’s point of view, since that really hasn’t been too well addressed this morning. For 3½ years, I tried to decide how to get Storey County into the technology world. I talked to the Nevada State Library and Archives, I talked to all of the other counties, and I viewed whatever they were doing, but as Kathy Burke tells you, she does 1,100 documents a day. We do approximately 6,000 a year. So you can see the difference we’re talking about. What I was trying to do was find something that was cost effective.
Three years ago, I went to Portland to a national archives convention. I was lucky enough that our archives people that are sitting behind me here were there. Some of them were acting as moderators and presenters. They took me around to the equipment area and showed me equipment that would possibly work for a small county and would cost under $100,000. That might not sound like a lot of money to you people, but to a small county like Storey County, $10,000 is a lot of money. I came home with visions of being able to do this process. Things didn’t move very quickly and, a year later—excuse me, I’d like to back up if I may. At the end of that conference, several of the technology companies showed us what was coming, even a disk the size of a 50-cent piece that had the bible on it.
But, they all said exactly the same thing: we do not have any medium at this time that will guarantee you a permanent record. Thinking about that, I’ve heard 10 and 20 years bandied about today. Almost weekly, we have people asking for their marriage certificates from the World War II era. If we have that on a media we can’t read, how is that gentleman or lady going to get their social security? We have that question daily. To get back to my equipment, I went to Salt Lake City to a convention and looked at the equipment again. In that year, it had changed by about $40,000 worth.
So, I started a lengthy process with my commissioners and with technology people, and our little county is now six months into scanning. We store it on a disk, but at the same time, it microfilms. I got my county to go for the $45,000. I got our bank to finance it. Now, how am I going to go back to this small county with a small volume and say to them, “I need another $45,000 to go into the next step?” I can’t do that, and I know that I am with a lot of other counties that can’t do that. That’s my presentation.
Stephanie D. Licht, Legislative Consultant:
For the record, my name is Stephanie Licht. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I’m neither for or against this bill, but I have a little anecdotal story, and I’ll try to make it brief. In 1989, I became the secretary of the Nevada Woolgrowers Association. I did not know when I went to pick up the records from the former secretary, that the job also included being the secretary of the Nevada State Board of Sheep Commissioners, which had been in existence since 1907. I received two boxes full of jumbled records from which I was supposed to try to decide what it was I was supposed to do. That began my history in learning about state agencies from the ground up.
When I completed my service in 1999, I had a pickup truck plus full of financial records and historical records for both the Nevada Woolgrowers Association and the Nevada State Board of Sheep Commissioners, which I shuffled off to the next secretary and went on my merry way. That person, for reasons unknown, didn’t want to do the job anymore and, in 2000, gave the records back to the then-president of the association. We have the Nevada Woolgrowers Association, which is a private industry, and the Nevada State Board of Sheep Commissioners, and I told them, “If you have any questions at any time, please get hold of me.” It’s my understanding that when the guys got the records it was, “We don’t need this,” so I have no idea what has been saved and what hasn’t. I had done some research and I had the opportunity to go to the Nevada State Library and Archives; that is why I know that the Nevada State Board of Sheep Commissioners was started in 1907. This state had 20 million sheep in the 1920s. Most of them are history by now.
If you don’t have some way, or some kind of guidelines, as Alan Glover, Carson City Clerk-Recorder said, by the time I got through, I had a pickup full of stuff. I didn’t have room for it. The lady that took it didn’t have room for it, and neither did the guys. So, thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman. I’ll stay to answer any questions.
Chairman Manendo:
Is there anyone else that needs to go on record that hasn’t spoke yet? Mr. Rocha, come on back up. I’m just making sure everyone gets a shot in this Committee.
Guy Rocha:
The standard today for preservation internationally is microfilm, throughout the world—Australia, New Zealand, western Europe—wherever we’re doing this. That’s what it is today. We’re dealing with this bill today, A.B. 260. As things change, we’re clearly prepared to move with the times. We’ll come back in two years, if it’s two years. If it’s four years, we’ll come back in four years. Fundamentally, I’m saying we’re not there yet. This ensures the long-term preservation of information for everybody. My colleagues throughout the world stand by this. If the technology changes in two years, and it’s different, and I’m still here, and my people are still here—all the people that are here today from the Nevada State Library and Archives—we’ll come back. We want to be at the cutting edge. We just don’t want to undercut ourselves. That’s our intent. What I want to establish, Mr. Chair, is that microfilm is the standard. It is not considered obsolete yet. Thank you.
Assemblyman Beers:
As I watched the parade of old media and heard the stories of their frailties, I wished I had a strip of microfilm and a lighter. However, I don’t. So, if I could draw your attention to page 5, lines 15, 16, and 17, and note for you that into even the most forward-looking bill, some good must fall. You might want to retain those three lines in this bill.
Lines 15, 16, and 17. It’s just an updating of committee names that they go to for regulatory advice. Of course, I think maybe we could work some more tight definitions of machine-readable medium, or perhaps change the references to machine-readable medium so that it’s explicitly defined by a regulation by the Nevada State Library and Archives, because the Web is now ten years old, and whatever you have set as your home page looks exactly the same on a Macintosh as it does on your machines. The standards are coming together. We’re approaching a universal format. I think Assemblyman Knecht nailed a fiscal impact of not doing this, which is someday we’re going to have to convert all of these microfilm records to a human-usable format. A citizen-usable format that citizens can use from their home or their school or their office. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Manendo:
Thank you, Mr. Beers. We’re going to close the hearing on Assembly Bill 260. Mr. Beers, would you like a little time to see if you could come up with a working agreement or something to bring back to this Committee? [Assemblyman Beers responded that he would.]
I think you have a lot of interest from this Committee on this bill. We appreciate you bringing this forward. We have one more bill. We’re in recess. [10:02 a.m.]
We are back from recess. [10:16 a.m.]
Assembly Bill 248: Amends Charter of City of North Las Vegas to revise provisions concerning Municipal Judges. (BDR S-449)
Chairman Manendo:
Committee, turn to Assembly Bill 248. Ms. McDonald, good morning.
Kimberly J. McDonald, MPA, Special Projects Analyst and Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas:
[Introduced herself.] I’m very pleased to present Assembly Bill 248 this morning, and also would like to state that the North Las Vegas City Council is very strongly supporting this bill. I’d also like to state for the record that our Municipal Court Judge, Warren VanLandschoot, is very apologetic that he cannot be here today because he had a family emergency. Unfortunately, his mother passed away. Other than that, he would definitely have been here.
Chairman Manendo:
Would you give His Honor our condolences, please?
Kimberly McDonald:
Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. In summary, A.B. 248 is a North Las Vegas City Charter change bill. What we would like to do is to extend the municipal court judge term from four year to six years, as well as to enable the North Las Vegas City Council to increase the salary during the current term. We also feel that the six-year-term will provide longevity and also enhance the internal and external efficiency of the judicial process. Now, why are we requesting this charter change? Because we would like to be more consistent with the larger cities, such as the City of Henderson, the City of Las Vegas, and the City of Reno, all of which did pass similar charter changes during the last [Legislative] Session.
Now, to briefly just go over the bill. I would like for you to turn to page 2, Section 1, subsection 3. Line 7 adds language extending the judge’s elected initial term to not more than six years. On line 9, “one-third of the number of municipal judges elected every two years,” has been inserted because we foresee adding two more departments in the future in order to keep up with the municipal growth, as well as the dynamic growth of North Las Vegas. Looking at subsection 4, lines 14 through 15, we’ve also added the language “of six years.” Finally, in Section 2, subsection 3, lines 35 through 37, we’ve added the language “To increase the salary during the judge’s term,” and it specifies that the salaries should be uniform for all the departments. In closing, I would like to thank you for listening to my very brief presentation on Assembly Bill 248.
We respectfully ask for your passage of this bill. Once again, it would simply extend the judgeship term from four years to six years, and enable our North Las Vegas City Council to increase the salary during the judge’s term. Moreover, this would make us consistent with our counterpart jurisdictions, the City of Henderson, the City of Las Vegas, and the City of Reno. Thank you.
Chairman Manendo:
How about Sparks?
Kimberly McDonald:
Mr. Chairman, I do understand that there are some concerns with Sparks, but I think I should probably leave that lobbyist to speak to their issues.
Chairman Manendo:
What is the current the salary of the judge?
Kimberly McDonald:
Mr. Chairman, for the City of North Las Vegas, our judge’s base salary is $91,349.96.
Assemblyman McCleary:
What is the proposed salary increase?
Kimberly McDonald:
That would be at the discretion of the North Las Vegas City Council. Also, this would not become effective for the current judge until his next election, and he was just elected in 2001, so he still wouldn’t even reap these benefits.
Assemblyman McCleary:
Would this affect the present term of your present judge, or would he have to be re-elected and then serve a six-year term?
Kimberly McDonald:
Yes, Assemblyman McCleary, that is correct, because this bill does not apply to the current municipal judge that was appointed or elected before October 1, 2003, so he would have to be reelected. I’d also like to add that it’s my understanding, although I don’t have specific numbers, that our judge has a lower salary than some of the other jurisdictions.
Chairman Manendo:
We can look into that.
Assemblywoman Koivisto:
How many municipal judges are there in North Las Vegas?
Kimberly McDonald:
There is one current municipal court judge, but we are forecasting the addition of two. This would be down the line somewhere in the distant future.
Assemblyman Collins:
The current judge is a workaholic, and someday they’re not going to get somebody that wants to dedicate himself that much. I’ve know Warren VanLandschoot for about 30 years, and he does a great job, so although earlier I thought of “IP’ing” [Indefinitely Postponing] this bill, I would really urge passage. I’m compelled after that testimony to encourage our Committee to support this bill.
Assemblyman Knecht:
I think this one should go forward in tandem with the other local government officials pay increase bill.
Assemblywoman Koivisto:
Just to point out as a matter of clarification to my colleague from Carson City; this is a bill for a city; the pay bill is a county bill.
Mary Henderson, Lobbyist/Government Consultant, representing North Las Vegas:
[Introduced herself.] I just wanted to help the Committee a little bit with this. This is very consistent. Last session, I lobbied for the City of Reno. This is very consistent with what we did for the City of Reno last session. I believe Henderson had the same bill. It is a little bit different in terms of the salary because it is a charter, and that is set for the charter provisions. This body sets the salaries for the county elected officials. Through the charter, the city councils do. So, I think there is a little bit of difference, and I appreciate Assemblywoman Koivisto pointing that out because it does get a little confusing sometime. Again, it’s very consistent with what we’ve done in the past, and I think it brings North Las Vegas to a good place.
Karen Kavanau, lobbyist, Nevada Judges Association:
[Introduced herself.] I’m a lobbyist with the Nevada Judges Association. That’s the justices of the peace and municipal judges in the state, and the Nevada Judges Association supports this bill. Thank you.
Chairman Manendo:
Thank you. Anyone else speaking on Assembly Bill 248? Any opposition? I will close the hearing on Assembly Bill 248, and bring it back to Committee. I’m not accepting a motion at this time.
We have a subcommittee after this hearing. I don’t know if you’re going to have time to do this after this meeting adjourns. If you want to try to get started, you certainly can get a little bit of the work done. If you need more time, that’s fine.
We are adjourned. [10:27 a.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Pat Hughey
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: