[12207] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
PROFS Case: Legal Confusion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eddie Becker)
Thu May 14 20:21:31 1998
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 14:28:14 -0500
From: Eddie Becker <ebecker@cni.org>
To: PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Lynn Calvin is quite right, I am one of the plaintiffs in the PROFS Case
Judge Friedman's ruling is under debate. I defer to legal counsel, whose
statement follows Lynn's. The finally - a request for assistance from
anyone who might be damaged by any Federal Agency that continues to delete
federal electronic records. Eddie Becker ebecker@cni.org
Lynn Calvin <calvin.lynn@epamail.epa.gov> wrote
> Subject: PROFS Case: Results of Legal Ruling-Reply
> To: RECMGMT@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> For those who don't follow this case, I would point out
> that Mr. Becker is hardly a disinterested party posting
> an abstract news article. I am pleased to see Mr.
> Kamen (of the Washington Post) taking
> an interest in the issue.
> For those who are interested, here is the text of the
> Federal Register notice that the judge dictated in lieu of
> what the Archives had been saying. Please note the
> phrase "The Court has authorized the Archivist to state
> that a federal agency may continue to follow its present
> disposition practices for electronic records . . ." which
> were presumably the now void GRS 20. . .
Mike Tankersley replies:
I don't think that you can square this with the
statement in Judge Friedman's memorandum in which he says: If the Court's
declaration that GRS-20 is null and void means anything, it means that the
schedule cannot "currently authorize" destruction of electronic records
and that government agencies may not "rely upon GRS 20" as a valid
schedule for destroying such records. (see
http://www.citizen.org/litigation/briefs/pccarlin.htm). This reading is
also inconsistent with the portion of the notice that states that "GRS-20
remains null and void pending resolution of that appeal." But I
understand that agencies may be reading the notice in this manner.
Although this ruling denies our request that the Federal Register notice
be clarified, it makes clear that agencies cannot rely on that notice as a
basis for continuing to destroy electronic records pursuant to GRS 20.
If there are specific electronic records that individuals have requested
or expect to request in electronic form from agencies that are continuing
to follow the "print and delete" practice under GRS 20, please let me know
and we will look into taking steps to challenge the practice. At this
point, the focus should be on records that we can show have been requested
or will be requested, but the records will not be available if the agency
is permitted to continue to apply GRS 20.
Michael Tankersley
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 20th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
tankers@citizen.org
