2020-04-29 UCAC Agenda & Notes

Matt Stahl led the continued discussion of draft statement. The group went through the proposed edits in the shared document.

Heather Briston suggested that restricted email be addressed in the access section. She also suggested that some of the language about processing levels within the privacy and security sections be made less stringent. Action item: Heather will draft revised language.

Kevin Miller clarified that campus policymakers make up the intended audience for this document, with a particular focus on collecting administrative records. He noted that UCAC needs to continue to work closely with the Records Management Committee. Email policies can be left to the individual campuses but cohesion should be emphasized–e.g. uniformity of titles on the campuses, such as chancellor and vice chancellors per the federal agencies' Capstone approach.

Heather added that we might also consider a functional approach, which could be described in a footnote or addendum.

Matt proposed adding a conclusion to the document. Teresa Mora suggested that it be worked on after the document has been refined. She recommends that the group continue to work on the shared document and discuss changes by email or discuss it during the next meeting.

Polina Ilieva noted that the web page where the Policies for Administration of Archives reside will need to be updated.

Polina proposed that the UCAC create a page to collect documentary resources on the COVID-19 pandemic. UCSF Archives and Special Collections staff has been working with legal, communications, and other campus units to collect documentation from UCSF community members. She will share the link with the group once it goes live.

The group decided that the page should be public and that Jackie DiOrio, UCOP lead records analyst, should be approached about the prospect of hosting it on the UCOP website. See DiOrio's recent blogpost: https://cio.ucop.edu/working-remotely-up-your-digital-records-management-game/. Kevin Miller suggested that Kathryn Stine of the California Digital Library and the Web Archiving CKG also be made aware of this effort.

Action item: Polina will create a table for UCAC members to populate with our campus resources.

Elvia Arroyo-Ramirez said that UC Irvine has created a form
 for campus community members to describe their experiences and submit them for consideration
. UC Santa Cruz and UCSF also are using this approach.

Matt Stahl reported that UC Santa Barbara is limiting its documentation efforts to campus community members.

Polina has presented this proposal to the Heads of Special Collections CKG.

Kevin noted that he has purchased pandemic-related materials for his unit's special collections.

Elvia has contacted the UC Irvine Cross-Cultural Center to offer a workshop on how students can document their experiences during the COVID-19 crisis.

Marlayna led the discussion of Appendix III that she, Stasi Chase (UC San Diego), and Kelley Walker (UC Davis) revised. She noted that 1) the text has been expanded to include the Information Practices Act, 2) the UCLA document referred to in the earlier iteration removed, and 3) that review of the appendix has put on a regular cycle.

Polina had questioned: 1) whether the turnaround time frame for responding to Public Records Act requests (10 days) and Information Practices Act requests (30 days) refers to business or calendar days and 2) whether archivists should not respond to such requests before the information practices coordinator can review them? Answers: 1) Although not specified, we should assume calendar days. 2) We should not delay referring requests to our campus information practices coordinators.

The appendix is ready to move forward. Teresa make the updates and thanked Marlayna and the Records Management Committee representatives for their work.