Home >  Electronic Records >  Guidelines and Recommendations >  Preface and Introduction

Preface

Under Senate Bill 426, enacted as Chapter 388 of the 1995 Session laws, the General Assembly amended the North Carolina public records law (G.S. 132) to strengthen the public's ability to access all public records. One part of the amended law requires both state agencies and local governments to index their databases and specifically directs the Division of Archives and History to develop guidelines for compliance with this requirement.

G.S. 132-6.1.(b) reads as follows:

Every public agency shall create an index of computer databases compiled or created by a public agency on the following schedule:

  1. State agencies by July 1, 1996;

  2. Municipalities with populations of 10,000 or more, counties with populations of 25,000 or more, as determined by the 1990 U.S. Census, and public hospitals in those counties, by July 1, 1997;
  3. Municipalities with populations of less than 10,000, counties with populations of less than 25,000, as determined by the 1990 U.S. Census, and public hospitals in those counties, by July 1, 1998.
  4. Political subdivisions and their agencies that are not otherwise covered by this schedule, after June 30, 1998.
The index shall be a public record and shall include, at minimum, the following information with respect to each database listed therein: a list of the data fields; a description of the format or record layout; information as to the frequency with which the database is updated; a list of any data fields to which public access is restricted; a description of each form in which the database can be copied or reproduced using the agency's computer facilities; and a schedule of fees for the production of copies in each available form. Electronic databases compiled or created prior to the date by which the index must be created in accordance with this subsection may be indexed at the public agency's option. The form, content, language, and guidelines for the index and the databases to be indexed shall be developed by the Division of Archives and History in consultation with officials at other public agencies.

The guidelines set out in this document are designed to assist state agencies and local governments in meeting the mandated requirements.

[Return to top]

Introduction

These guidelines reflect both the current database indexing requirements of the revised public records law and planned improvements in two related, statewide services of the Department of Cultural Resources--public records management and public access to government information. The guidelines lay the foundation for future "global" state and local standards for managing and indexing all of North Carolina's electronic public records.

The department, through its Division of Archives and History and Division of State Library, is committed to providing mechanisms for the widest possible public access to government information. These mechanisms include the development of locator systems that are compliant with national and international standards for data indexing, access, and exchange. The division supports the further development of interoperability standards through cooperation and consultation with other agencies.

Similarly, the department is charged with managing state and local public records, the heart of government information. The records management program of the Division of Archives and History helps guard the general public's right of access to its records, the privacy rights of individuals, and the security of the records themselves. The records retention and disposition scheduling process is central to this management.

The provisions of G.S. 132-6.1 only obliquely address the statewide records management program and make no mention of locator systems. In calling for "the index," however, the amended law prescribes one set of database documentation standards, applying equally to all state agencies, county and municipal governments, regional authorities, and other custodians of public records. And as agencies collect the specific information required by the law, they will also be collecting basic data needed for locator-service indexing as well as for records retention and disposition scheduling. Accordingly, this document is divided into two major sections reflecting these complementary initiatives-- "Basic Database Indexing" and "Appendix I: Advanced Database Indexing".

"Basic Database Indexing" provides an overview of current statutory index requirements and includes eleven information elements with instructions for their completion. This section also provides criteria for identifying databases that must be indexed and an Electronic Records Officer Registration model form.

Appendix I: "Advanced Database Indexing" is a draft representing an initial exploration of the potential information elements to be included in a global index of state and local public records. This index structure is now under study by an ad hoc group representing the Division of Archives and History, the Advisory Committee on Electronic Records (ACER), the Division of State Library, and the Office of State Planning. This work is being carried out under the general authority of the Department of Cultural Resources as established in G.S. 132-8, 132-8.1, 132-8.2, and G.S. 121.5. The guidelines specific to advanced indexing will remain in draft and advisory in nature until such time that global indexing can be supported by administrative rules. In order to satisfy future requirements, however, agencies may wish to consider recording (as text) those advanced elements that can readily be obtained during basic indexing work.

Of primary consideration in the development of both the basic and advanced guidelines is the compatibility of those index specifications needed for state and local records management with those of emerging "metadata" standards, such as Government Information Locator Service (GILS). A high priority is given to unifying these specifications under a single, statewide, indexing structure.

Records managers, information resource managers, and general administrators must exercise professional judgment in making certain decisions about database indexing, given the lack of precedence and absence of administrative rules. These decisions should be based on (1) a general familiarity with the public records law, (2) a specific knowledge of statutes and regulations that govern the agency, and (3) a familiarity with the guidelines contained in this document. Agency legal counsel may be of assistance in these matters.

Insofar as resources permit, the Records Services Branch staff will be happy to provide advice about particular database indexing situations. This advice will reflect professional rather than legal opinion but may prove helpful in framing the issues for decision makers.

Finally, in responding to the new indexing provisions, agencies are urged to look beyond the immediate requirements of the law, toward developing a comprehensive records management program, encompasing all types of public records--electronic, paper, and microform.

[Return to top]

General Information

 Contact Information
Department of Cultural Resources
Government Records Branch
4615 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4615

E-mail: records@ncdcr.gov

Telephone: (919) 807-7350

Fax: (919) 715-3627

[Return to top]

Definition of Terms

[Return to top]

Basic Database Indexing Guidelines (Required)

Criteria for Identifying Databases that Must Be Indexed

The public records law defines a database as "a structured collection of data or documents residing in a database management program or spreadsheet software." Under the law, databases created, compiled, or newly compiled (significantly changed) after certain dates must be indexed. However, not all changes are considered significant. Based on a February 26, 1996, advisory interpretation of N.C.G.S. 132-6.1 (b) by Senior Deputy Attorney General Ann Reed and Special Deputy Attorney General Charles J. Murray, the addition of new data to existing data fields does NOT represent the compilation of a "new" database, and does NOT, in itself, subject the database to mandatory indexing. (See question 2 below).

N.C.G.S. 132-6.1 (b) directs that the Division of Archives and History, in consultation with officials of other agencies, develop the form, content, language, and guidelines for the index and the databases to be indexed. The division and the Advisory Committee on Electronic Records (ACER) have noted two important issues not directly addressed in the new legislation but which must be considered by agencies in determining whether a particular database must be indexed:

  1. Must all new databases be indexed?
    This question exists because the division and ACER find that the indexing of certain new databases would appear to serve no practical public interest and, indeed, would be counterproductive of legislative intent and general efforts to improve public access to state and local electronic records.

    Generally speaking, a new or newly compiled database or spreadsheet must be indexed if it meets either of the following criteria:

    • Provides primary data supporting the conduct of agency business--serves as the master catalog, file, or inventory listing for agency entities, events, processes, or transactions.

    • Contains legal, administrative, fiscal, or historical records, as determined by the agency's retention and disposition schedule, that would otherwise be recorded on an enduring medium (e.g., microform or paper)--records that have obvious long-term value or that otherwise would merit the expense of microform.

    The division believes that indexing should be required for any new or newly compiled old database that meets all of the following criteria:

    • The data records exist within the context of a database or spreadsheet program. Individual documents or data files grouped together for ease of access do not constitute a database.

    • The database contains records created or compiled by or on behalf of a state or local agency in North Carolina. Copies of databases owned by private or federal sources normally are not subject to indexing and, indeed, may be protected by copyright or non-disclosure provisions.

    • The database or spreadsheet serves a public purpose and has legal, administrative, fiscal, or historical value as determined by the agency's retention and disposition schedule.

    • The database or spreadsheet is an "original" in that it does not consist entirely as a subset or copy of another database.

    • The database or spreadsheet contains one or more public records. This criterion applies without regard to the state of the underlying software development or the extent of the database or spreadsheet use.

    The division believes that indexing should not be required for the following types of databases:

    • A database supporting the operation of an e-mail or similar system. An e-mail system is, essentially, an insecure medium. The Division of Archives and History, for the present, will not standardize retention and disposition schedules for e-mail and similar informal communications systems databases.

      Caution: certain e-mail records (as opposed to the underlying e-mail database) may be of long-term value. Since the security of such records cannot be accurately maintained within an e-mail system, the records should be transferred as soon as possible to a durable paper, microform, or other electronic medium and scheduled for retention and disposition.

    • A database that exists solely to enhance personal, group, or agency productivity is not subject to mandatory indexing so long as the records do not materially impact the public's interests. Such "exempt" databases include general facilities or personnel scheduling systems, or similar "convenience" systems producing records often destroyed within a short time after their creation. For example, a staff member's database "address book" normally does not require indexing.

      Caution: The records of a short-term project may have long-term value. For example, a database created in conjunction with the work of a short-term study commission would not meet the definition of a "convenience system" and may well hold records critical to the commission's findings, giving it a legal and historical useful life far greater than the active life of the database itself. Similarly, an "ad hoc" database that is reconstituted at intervals of one year or less may actually represent a continuing database series. A database containing a spreadsheet, compiled annually, that lists current salary ranges and calculates current fringe benefits represents an example of such a series.

    The following conditions have no bearing on whether or not a database is subject to indexing:

    • The size and configuration of the computer system on which the database resides.

    • The number of staff members regularly or occasionally using the database.

    • The state of development of the database or the extent of its use if it contains one or more public records.

  2. Under what conditions is the indexing of an old database required?
    The division and ACER agree that the only significant changes to an existing (old) database after the applicable mandatory indexing date represent the compilation of a new database that must be indexed.

    • An existing database that is structurally altered to change its utility or purpose is considered a newly compiled database and therefore becomes subject to mandatory indexing. Examples of such changes include the addition of new application modules, major alterations in database architecture, or the addition of significant data fields. Simply adding new data to existing data fields is NOT considered significant and does NOT, in itself, constitute the compilation of a new database that must be indexed.

      A special case exists when a database is copied and fields are subsequently deleted from the copy. While, at least for the present, it is not considered necessary to index the resulting edited copy, the agency's internal documentation should make clear that the truncated database does not replicate the original.

    • The addition of new fields recording information that already can be derived from the database is not considered significant. For example, if each record in the database already contains a field for personal name, formatted as "last name, first name, middle name," and the field "last name" is added, the structure of the database remains unaltered.
    • Technical changes not related to informational content (e.g., increasing the allowable length of a field, changing the number of decimal places in a calculation, enlarging a 5-digit ZIP code field to accommodate a 5+4 code, or adding a 4-character year field to augment or replace a 2-character field) are not considered significant.

CONTENTS | FORWARD forward arrow

[Return to top]