Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRMAB Minutes 2012-01-01RMAB NOTES Monday, February 27, 2012 Present: Paulette Terwilliger, Tee-Ann Hunter and Nahmin Horwitz Set meeting schedule Discussion on whether to follow the Study Session schedule or a strict 3rd Monday of the month for the RMAB meeting. Both board members preferred to follow the Study Session schedule. Review last year’s actions and topics for this year Paulette and Tee-Ann reviewed the role of the RMAB for Nahmin noting that the Records Management Policy had been revised last year including the adoption of a revised local law establishing the Board and its membership as well as separating out the procedures from the policy since by its very nature, records management procedures change as technology changes. The major topic for this year is the review of each department’s procedures regarding records management with an eye towards ensuring adherence to the MU1 Schedule, avoiding duplication of saved records and green initiatives. For example: The Town Board packet is now sent electronically to members and only given in hard copy upon request. Likewise, agenda’s are no longer mailed to lists of people; it is posted on the web and in the lobby and is sent or given upon request. Another example discussed was sending the notifications of hearings to surrounding properties and what the actual footage is. There was a lot of discussion on whether some routine items such as minor lot line changes, allowing an existing shed to stay etc. should require a full mailing. Tee-Ann asked Paulette to bring examples from the 4 “hills” of 50, 100 and 500 feet so they could get a feel for the number of people being notified at different levels of projects. Review Disposition of Tax Assessment Rolls (duplicative) Paulette showed an example of tax assessment rolls that are stored in the Archival Vault but whose retention is actual zero after the final tax roll is received. This is an example of not adhering to the MU1 Schedule. There is no additional information one can glean from these records that is not present in the final tax roll. They are also bulky and take up almost two full bays in the vault. The RMAB recommends that they be listed on a disposition list for Town Board approval. Review Town Clerks Procedures The beginnings of procedures from Town Clerk, Planning and Codes were reviewed. The Board will review the drafts in detail and note questions for the next meeting. Set Agenda for next meeting Next meeting will be April 23rd due to Paulette’s absence on March 26th. Review agenda mailing lists Review drafts from Planning, Codes and Town Clerks and note questions/comments. RMAB June 11, 2012 Notes Present: Tee-Ann Hunter, Nahmin Horowitz, Laura Johnson-Kelly, Lisa Carrier-Titti and Paulette Terwilliger The RMAB had not met in over 3 months due to different circumstances. Posting and Open Meetings Law Changes The board discussed the changes to the Open Meetings Law regarding posting of “packets” to the extent possible. Ms. Terwilliger noted that the town board packets have been posted for the past few meetings and she was not aware of any comments from the public either good or bad. Discussion turned to how long the packets would or should be kept online. Mr. Horowitz preferred that they stay on permanently and Ms. Terwilliger was concerned with following the MU1 retention period of 6 years for board packets. A lengthy discussion followed on the pros and cons of keeping them online indefinitely. Ms. Terwilliger was concerned about the perception that a packet is complete when in fact, many times they will not be complete. Last minute items and large items are not scanned and posted. She was also concerned that drafts that are in the packet and which may be changed prior to adoption could cause confusion. Ms. Hunter talked about watermarks and dating all documents and that would have to be stressed to the support person posting the packets. Ms. Terwilliger was also concerned about having to produce the documents under a FOIL request and Ms. Carrier-Titti noted that John Barney wrote a lengthy disclaimer regarding all documents posted online are copies and not the official town document. Ms. Hunter was concerned about setting a schedule or deadline for the posting of the packets to ease issues for the people doing the posting. After more discussion, it was decided that the agenda and packets would be posted as one document with the current document in one place and the older or past meeting documents in another. Ms. Carrier-Titti noted that the different board agendas and packets currently have different retention periods online and Ms. Terwilliger said she would talk to the other department heads about the recommendation from this board that all agendas and packets be keep permanently and keeping them all the same. This permanent retention would be reviewed in 5 years to see if everyone felt it was necessary or good to keep them permanently. Draft Procedures There was no time to begin review of the submitted procedures. Ms. Terwilliger reminded the board that she was looking for comments from members regarding the direction the procedures are taking and if the board felt they were adequate for summarizing what happens to records at the town. These are not meant to be step-by- step instructions, but rather a snapshot of what happens in each department with different record series. She also thought the board should review them for duplication of effort, wasted resources and ease of retrieval for FOIL purposes. The next meeting of the RMAB will be June 25th at 3:00 with updates on the posting of packets and the review of the procedures submitted so far. RMAB Notes September 24, 2012 @ 3:00 p.m. Present: Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk; Board Members Tee-Ann Hunter and Nahmin Horwitz; Lisa Carrier-Titti, Information Technology Abbreviated meeting; some items will be carried over to the next meeting for a more in depth discussion. Review notes from June meeting – pulled Website postings Agendas and Materials – Paulette reported that she talked to both Bruce and Sue and there are no issues to date. She hasn’t heard any outside feedback except from Bruce Brittain who likes having them there. Final minutes and attachments – Paulette talked about the comments from Susan and Nahmin at the last board meeting about having complete information on line when he was reading the draft minutes. Paulette suggested that she scan the final minutes, with signature and attachments for posting on the web with the local law as adopted and numbered as an attachment. The local law will also have a “disclaimer” on the top stating that this law was adopted on such and such a date but can be amended or rescinded at any time and our current code should be reviewed for any subsequent actions on the law. Discussion followed with Tee-Ann wondering about needing to make scans of documents that are not electronic, and the work involved. Paulette did not want to post presentations such as the recent Hydrilla one that was over 40 pages. Discussion then turned to what attachments are right now and what should be posted; focusing on contracts with fiscal implications. Tee-Ann thought that items under discussion with policy and/or fiscal implications should be included. Anything document given or discussed at the meeting should be posted with the final minutes so that 20 years from now, a person gets the full information. Paulette suggested the packet be posted with the final minutes. She felt this would cover all the concerns expressed because the resolutions, law, and contracts as submitted would be there as well as any changes detailed in the minutes. Many times the changes made to resolutions, laws and contracts are non-substantive and therefore the drafts are there for what was presented and the final is imbedded in the minutes (resolutions) and on the General Code (laws). Contracts will not be posted with signatures so they can not be copied. Scanning versus combining electronic records was discussed and where the County Joint Services Grant was going. Paulette said that it is 99.9% sure we are getting the grant and they will be scanning all of the minutes and attachments. Those scans will be available to staff and board members, and it will be policy question on who will eventually have access. She thought this process would still take at least a year and comes back to the difference between an attachment and information discussed at the meetings such as documents in the packet. The two are entirely different in Paulette’s opinion. A memo is not an attachment and may not be directly referenced in the discussion the board has, yet it might have influenced the decision. The disconnect is the difference between an attachment and supporting material Conclusion is that the minutes will be put up with the packet information so researchers can see what was under discussion at the meeting that they are reading. Lisa explained and showed via the computer what would be brought up by someone searching a phrase or word using a search engine. Final minutes with packet will be posted with the packet called minutes and materials. Tee Ann asked about the process and if would work for Paulette. Paulette responded that she couldn’t really answer yet until she tried one. Lisa added that she and Herb had talked about internet access at meetings and soon the public would be able to see and want to see everything. Paulette suggested we try it for 6 months and see how it goes as far as customer comments, ease of posting, duplicity etc. After doing one of these for the web (TBS Aug) a couple of things came up. The draft resolutions or laws seem redundant if there were no changes and might make it cumbersome. Suggestion – in the minutes, clearly state, no changes to the draft as submitted. Then it is right there. Resolutions in the body and local laws attached. Memos will be included in the postings because they may have influenced the board’s decision making. Website links – 211 and other helpful links This came from Nahmin getting a flyer from Sheehan Construction about being able to make houses handicap accessible and other fixes for seniors or low income people and he wondered how our residents could find this information out from us. We did not want to post a particular company and we poked around our site to see where we could put useful weblinks. There is an Information tab and we could list useful web-links or regional services. Lisa remembered that we talked about having links for any organization that we have a relationship with such as Youth Services, Gadabout etc. Tee Ann suggested someone should contact them and get a blurb about them. Not sure what other sites would be helpful besides maybe the Sheriff’s, Bolton Point and the Health Department. Support staff procedures – update Paulette reported that this has really been harder than anticipated due to Sandy’s absences and Lori being new. Add to that the shared services and potential new software for PEZ and a lot of procedures are going to change. Paulette suggested she keep working with support staff with a target of next year knowing exactly what new software we will have and a better understanding of the shared grant and scans from the county. The up side of starting this process is that it has made us all start questioning what “has always been done” and reviewing and evaluating a lot of processes, forms etc. County Grant – update The grapevine news is that we are receiving the grant. Paulette met with Maureen and Alanna from the County and she has an appointment to meet with the representative from Challenge this week. Scanning will begin by November. Changes to FOIL request processing – making it more user friendly Paulette explained the changes to the request form and ways to make it friendlier beginning with changing the name and making sure staff knows that according to FOIL, a form does not have to be filled out and in fact a name doesn’t even have to be given. SAC had even talked about using the form for staff to fill out for the person when appropriate or as an extra bit of customer service when time allows. Paulette explained that SAC had also talked about a log sheet but which she had drafted up that would be an in-house tool but after finding out that even a name is not really required, what is the use. She also explained that she asked Mr. Freeman from the state about proving that a request was filled, and he said you can’t, you can only fill it again as proof that you most likely did not refuse it the first time. Tee Ann had a suggested change to the form to soften it a bit more. Other October meeting is cancelled due to Paulette’s vacation.