Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Records Digitization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County auditor warns records at risk, seeks permission to scan files and hire temporary clerk
Summary
Auditor Mary Ann told the Pottawatomie County Board of Supervisors that essential paper records are not preserved in a durable digital format and asked for permission to solicit vendors and to post a part‑time temporary position to scan sensitive employee files on‑site.
Auditor Mary Ann told the Pottawatomie County Board of Supervisors at the meeting that the county does not have permanent, preserved digital copies of several classes of records and that those paper records would be lost in a flood, fire or plumbing leak.
She said the records covered by Iowa code sections include drainage‑district records, real‑estate transfers, plats and indices and that none of those documents “have been scanned in a manner that will preserve their content,” and that county employee personnel and medical files also remain unscanned and therefore vulnerable.
The auditor said the volume is large — an estimated 250,000 to 275,000 pages across the record sets she listed — and she asked the board for permission to solicit vendor bids to scan the public records and to post a part‑time temporary county position to scan sensitive employee files on‑site. “I do not want to outsource those records to a company because they are highly sensitive,” Mary Ann said. “They contain all kinds of medical information, personal information.”
Why it matters: The auditor said failing to preserve records in a durable digital format risks noncompliance with state retention requirements and practical loss of records used by property owners, researchers and county staff. The auditor said prior scanning work in other county offices produced some accessible images, but that earlier scans contain missing pages or poor‑quality images.
Board discussion and next steps: Supervisors asked for more detail on scope, timing and cost. Mary Ann said she did not have a firm dollar amount and estimated that vendor pricing and the speed of scanning would determine schedule, but she suggested the employee‑file scanning could take up to a year and proposed hiring a vetted part‑time temporary worker to do the work in the auditor’s office. She also said for some public records she would prefer an on‑site vendor set up to reduce custody and chain‑of‑custody risk.
No formal appropriation or motion to fund the project was recorded at the meeting. The auditor said she would gather vendor estimates and return to the board with a budget request. She also asked permission to post a temporary position to begin scanning employee records; supervisors asked to review a job description and pay range before final authorization.
Clarifying details: Mary Ann provided the page‑count estimate (250,000–275,000 pages) and distinguished between (a) records required by state code (drainage, plats, transfers and indices) and (b) employee personnel and medical files (current employees only). She said some land‑record books were scanned previously but that image quality and completeness are uneven.
What to watch for: The auditor plans to solicit vendor quotes, return a cost estimate and a proposed job description/pay range for the temporary scanning position. The board did not vote to appropriate funds during the meeting.
