|
| | 1. | | Call to order.
Minutes note: Meeting called to order at 10:02 a.m. | | | |
|
Not available
|
|
| | 2. | | Roll call.
Minutes note: Present 10 - Kovac, Olson, Himle, Klajbor, Meyer-Stearns, Owczarski, Pinger, Sawa, Watt, Wilichowski
Excused 1 - Parish
Sheldyn Himle was present as a member in the place of Jane Islo for this meeting.
Individuals also present:
Bradley Houston, City Records Officer
Peter Block, Assistant City Attorney | | | |
|
Not available
|
|
| | 3. | | Review and approval of the previous meeting minutes from December 13, 2018.
Minutes note: Member Klajbor moved approval, seconded by member Wilichowski, of the meeting minutes from December 13, 2018. There was no objection. | | | |
|
Not available
|
|
| | 4. | | Records retention.
Minutes note: a. Proposed departmental record schedules for approval
Mr. Houston gave an overview. The proposed schedules included 42 new schedules and the closing of 67. Half of the new schedules were housekeeping items. Schedules of note included: Comptroller records related to contracts, MPROP and property record files, a longer retention schedule for Health Department lead program records due to the current lead issue, numerous Health Department schedules as a part of a comprehensive review of the department’s record management processes, Department of Employee Relations employee history cards, grant files being segregated and added to archives, and schedules for text messages.
Mr. Houston commented further on the text messages schedules. The two-tiered schedules presented are an attempt at a compromise and are different from the original one schedule with a 6 month retention period that was discussed internally. He was not comfortable with the original one schedule due to concerns over the possibilities of the State Records Board rejecting the schedule, lack of capacity to sort text messages, and records-keeping mischief. The first of the two proposed schedules would require the 6 month retention period for most City employee transitory text message records. The second schedule would provide for the permanent retention of texts saved and received from the accounts of elected officials and critical departmental staff. The new schedules did not include review internally from the original team.
Members and participants stated concerns over the lack of discussion on the new text message record schedules (including the topics of logistics and responsibility), that the state does not know how to address the issue, that the state reversed its retention schedule approval on transitory records back in 2015 due to media backlash, that the two tiered approach is adding unnecessary complexity, that mischief may be inevitable regardless of medium, that no best practice exists, that there are not enough resources and good reasons for permanent retention of texts, that permanent retention of text records would be burdensome for public record requests, and that there is no consistency with the retention of transitory records (emails are kept permanently).
Member Klajbor moved to hold items 31 and 32 (19-0001 and 19-A001) on global retention schedules for text messaging and approval of all other proposed retention schedules. Member Meyer Stearns seconded. There was no objection.
b. State Records Board approval of the previous schedules
Mr. Houston said that all schedules from the last meeting were approved by the State Records Board except one schedule for the Fire and Police Commission, which was revised to remove the chief rollover component of records concerning end of employment.
c. City Records Management 2018 annual report
Mr. Houston gave an overview. There were 559 total schedules last year with almost half coming from the Milwaukee Police Department and the Department of Public Works. A long term goal is to address the records and schedules from these two departments, which have a high percentage of obsolete schedules. This year some major initiatives from City Records Center would include addressing obsolete schedules from the Milwaukee Public Library, reviewing the Health Department’s record management processes, obtaining Common Council approval on a city-wide records management policy, implementing a new record management system, doing citywide records management development training, and providing basic archival description and archives service to members of the public in the Municipal Research Center.
d. Discussion on permanent retention of text and email records
Mr. Houston said that his memorandum, which was provided to the committee, was asking for a more nuance approach to managing email records and aligning them better to the schedules to which they pertain to.
Mr. Owczarski added that not everyone keeps email records the same way, there are costs associated to locate email records, and time consuming responses to email record requests do frustrate members of the public (especially the media). | | | |
|
Not available
|
|
| | 5. | | Discussion on 2019 Budget footnotes.
Minutes note: a. Reducing the City’s dependence on proprietary technology
Vice-chair Olson said that the budget footnote affects every department, and feedback is sought.
Vice-chair Olson gave a PowerPoint presentation overview regarding the definition of proprietary software, concerns from the Common Council, IT trends in the last 10 years, reasons for using proprietary software, striving for long vendor relationships, making vendor relationships work, alternatives to proprietary software, comparisons between IT purchase and build/borrow, and current approach.
Further details of the PowerPoint presentation can be found within file number 181727 or at https://milwaukee.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3872631&GUID=AF6DE145-2E92-4196-96AE-B129D7045B9B&Options=ID|Text|&Search=181727.
Main information takeaways from the presentation are: alders are suggesting for the City to perhaps write or purchase its own software; alders are concerned with many proprietary IT contract waivers coming before them; proprietary technology is non-free computer software for which the software’s publisher or another entity retains intellectual property rights; proprietary software comes in different flavors; IT security and threats have risen in complexity; and there are more efficient, faster, less complex, richer, and better staffed vendor provided solutions with expertise for almost everything the City does now.
Reduction ideas from the presentation include: providing opportunities for local firm inclusion with expertise, looking for vendors that offer value, embracing change, reinventing current processes, sharing systems between departments, investing in IT project managers, expanding training opportunities around IT systems, negotiating upfront with vendors, continuing to build or borrow applications, and collaborating with outside education organizations to build and maintain applications.
Vice-chair Olson said that the current approach is to build unique, less complex applications and to evaluate total cost of ownership and return on investment prior to building or buying applications.
Ms. Rhonda Kelsey, City Purchasing Director, added remarks. Alderpersons are concerned with smaller contracts adding additional costs subsequently, bigger contracts becoming too costly, and the lack of opportunities for small local vendors. Proprietary technology is inevitable; however, it would make sense to consider RFPs on contracts after a certain number of years have passed. Although it would require more work, there could be better justification on the front end for proprietary contracts with an evaluation on the return of investment.
Members discussed that alders need to be more informed about the inevitability of proprietary software; the liability of the City developing its own software; that contracts are mostly multi-year agreements; that replacing IT systems is expensive, resource intensive, and disruptive to operations; that vendors should be partners, and the cost comparisons of owning or contracting a technology service.
Vice-chair Olson said that she will present her presentation and the suggestions gathered today to the Finance and Personnel Committee. | | | |
|
Not available
|
|
| | 6. | | Review and approval of the 2018 CIMC annual report.
Minutes note: Mr. Lee said that the required annual report is a summary of the topics discussed by the committee in its meetings for 2018.
Member Klajbor moved approval of the 2018 CIMC annual report. There was no objection. | | | |
|
Not available
|
|
| | 7. | | Agenda items for the next meeting.
Minutes note: To be determined. | | | |
|
Not available
|
|
| | 8. | | Next meeting date and time.
Minutes note: a. Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 10 a.m. | | | |
|
Not available
|
|
| | 9. | | The City Information Management Committee may convene into closed session, pursuant to s. 19.85(1)(g), Wis. Stats., for the purpose of conferring with the City Attorney who will render oral or written advice with respect to litigation in which the city is or is likely to become involved.
Minutes note: A vote was requested for the City Information Management Committee to convene into closed session, pursuant to s. 19.85(1)(g), Wis. Stats., for the purpose of conferring with the City Attorney who will render oral or written advice with respect to litigation in which the city is or is likely to become involved.
Ayes 10 - Kovac, Olson, Himle, Klajbor, Meyer-Stearns, Owczarski, Pinger, Sawa, Watt, Wilichowski
Excused 1 - Parish
The committee convened into closed session at 11:30 a.m.
Present 10 - Kovac, Olson, Himle, Klajbor, Meyer-Stearns, Owczarski, Pinger, Sawa, Watt, Wilichowski
Excused 1 - Parish
Individuals also present at the table:
Peter Block, Assistant City Attorney
Miriam Horwitz, Deputy City Attorney
Andrea Fowler, Assistant City Attorney | | | |
|
Not available
|
|
| | 10. | | Adjournment.
Minutes note: Meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
Chris Lee, Staff Assistant
Council Records Section
City Clerk's Office | | | |
|
Not available
|
|
| | | | Materials for this meeting can be found within the following file: | | | |
|
Not available
|
|
181727
| 0 | | Communication | Communication relating to the matters to be considered by the City Information Management Committee at its March 21, 2019 meeting. | | | |
Action details
|
Not available
|
|