1 / 12

ACERA Briefing on FRA IPT

ACERA Briefing on FRA IPT. 04/06/2011 Mark Giguere, Lead IT (Policy & Planning) Paul Wester, Chief Records Officer. Why We Did This?. OMB Tech Stat. What Was Authorized by AOTUS?. Convene working group and identify areas for statutory revision – August 1, 2010

nevaeh
Download Presentation

ACERA Briefing on FRA IPT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ACERA Briefing on FRA IPT 04/06/2011 Mark Giguere, Lead IT (Policy & Planning) Paul Wester, Chief Records Officer

  2. Why We Did This? • OMB Tech Stat

  3. What Was Authorized by AOTUS? • Convene working group and identify areas for statutory revision – August 1, 2010 • Deliver final work breakdown structure for evaluation activities – August 15, 2010 • Open up wiki to participants delineated in ‘Other Participating NARA Offices’ for revision suggestions and ranking – August 31, 2010 • Shut down wiki/Begin analysis of comments – September 15, 2010 • De-brief NRMC on wiki results – September 30, 2010 • Complete review of wiki comments – October 15, 2010 • De-brief N/ND on comments – October 31, 2010 • Provide draft final report to N/ND for comment – November 15, 2010 • Comment adjudication of N/ND comments – December 1, 2010 • Clear final report with N/ND – Dec 15, 2010 • Transmit to OMB – December 31, 2010

  4. Who Was On the FRA IPT • IPT Management Sponsor: Paul Wester • IPT Lead: Mark Giguere • IPT Members: • Jason Baron, NGC (Office of General Counsel) • Laurence Brewer, NWML (Scheduling & Appraisal) • Matt Eidson, NR (Regional Records Services) • Laura McCarthy, NPOL (Archivist’s Office – Policy) • Shawn Morton, NCON (Congressional Relations) • Scott Roley, NRI (Regional Records Services)

  5. Who Was Asked to Input Suggestions? • FRA IPT Members • National Records Management Program • NARA RM Council • Select individuals (per Charter) • Cummings (Acting Head Reference Services) • Phillips (E-rec Lifecycle Coordinator) • Sullivan (NARA Records Officer)

  6. What High-Level Decisions Were Made Based on Input Received? • Regulatory changes would not be included in the evaluation, until such later time as OMB reacted to statutory revision proposals • No statutory changes were needed to enable TechStat Objective 3 • Provide for mandatory use of ERA • Office of General Counsel determined that AOTUS already has sufficient authority to require such.

  7. What Changes Were Suggested to OMB • Proposal #1 • Modernizing the definition of a record • Where? • Title 44 §3301 • What is proposed? • Generalizing the definition of a record from an enumeration (i.e., “books, papers, maps, photographs, machine-readable records…”) to “recorded information” • Why? • To acknowledge e-records are composed of data • To more accurately reflect agencies’ creation & use of e-records

  8. What Changes Were Suggested to OMB • Proposal #2 • Providing AOTUS with clear authority to define records • Where? • Title 44 §3301 (b) • What is proposed? • Making binding on all agencies the Archivist’s determination • Why? • Subsequent OLC [DoJ] opinion ratifying the Government’s position in Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press 445 U.S. 136 (1980)

  9. What Changes Were Suggested to OMB • Proposal #3 • Providing AOTUS with clear authority to require digital preservation of e-records • Where? • Title 44 §2904 & 2901 • What is proposed? • Amended versions of ECPA (HR 5811) and EMPA (HR 1387) language • Why? • E-management & preservation of e-records is more efficient, provides for enhanced sustainability & are more easily transferred to NARA (pre-accessioning) into ERA

  10. What Changes Were Suggested to OMB • Proposal #4 • Elimination of the 30-year presumption on transfer of permanent records & provide an enforcement mechanism for NARA’s pre-accessioning policy • Where? • Title 44 §2107 • What is proposed? • Eliminate “in existence for more than 30 years” language and allow AOTUS to enforce pre-accessioning on a case-by-case basis • Why? • Agencies inappropriately interpret “…30 years…” language as a lower limit • Clarifies AOTUS’s ability to enforce pre-accessioning while clarifying agencies’ on-going responsibility for mediating access to pre-accessioned records

  11. What Changes Were Suggested to OMB • Proposal #5 • Clarification of Archivist’s sole authority in the area of records management • Where? • Title 44 §2904 • What is proposed? • Eliminate multiple references to the Administrator of GSA • Why? • Because it is important to coalesce Federal RM responsibilities under a single position… AOTUS

  12. Where Are We Now? • Final draft report transmitted to OMB – December 30, 2010 • Currently still pending under OMB review • Unable to share widely with ACERA at request of OMB • Pre-decisional information

More Related