Vermont state archivist warns sealing, expungement law will strain legacy records and technology

Tanya Marshall, the state archivist and chief records officer for the Vermont State Archives and Records Administration (a division of the Secretary of State’s Office), told the Legislature on May 7 that sealing and expungement work under S.112 will require substantial records-management work across agencies.

Marshall said the archives can offer management guidance and functional analyses but cautioned that many records remain in legacy formats and that some technology systems lack the retention and access controls needed to implement sealing and expungement reliably.

Marshall described the archives’ role and the law that created it: “I’m Tanya Marshall. I’m the chief records officer and the state archivist and the director of the Vermont State Archives and Records Administration. We’re a division of the Secretary of State’s Office.” She said the office’s statutory program—created in Act 1 of 2003—establishes statewide records and information management and maintains record schedules that control retention, disposition and security coding.

Why it matters: Marshall told the committee that sealing (making a record inaccessible to public search) and expungement (destruction of records) are technically possible in many cases but often impractical without changes to agency processes, clearer legal definitions and better technology. She emphasized that some records are held as paper, on microfilm or as audio recordings that cannot be surgically redacted or removed without destroying larger, historically significant materials.

Most important facts: Marshall said the archives issues life‑cycle “record schedules” for agencies such as state’s attorneys and the attorney general that define when records move from active use to inactivity and when they are eligible for destruction. She said misdemeanor case files, for example, are generally scheduled for destruction six years after a case is closed and any sentence has been fully served, a period chosen to align with civil statute-of-limitations concerns. “Misdemeanors are set for destruction, right now, after the time frame … that 6 years tends to be where a lot of folks spread kind of tend to go towards the statutory limitations for civil action,” Marshall said.

Marshall outlined four management themes for the committee: (1) the statewide records and information program and how it intersects with sealing/expungement; (2) the need to consider internal controls and record schedules when drafting statutory changes; (3) the technical challenge of legacy formats (paper, microfilm, tape); and (4) the opportunity in the post‑COVID digital environment to design systems that support sealing through data controls rather than manual paper handling.

Technology and staffing: Marshall told lawmakers that many agencies buy or adopt systems without early coordination with records professionals: “one of the boxes that people should check is, have you checked with the state archivist?” She said the executive branch has roughly 400 FTEs focused on technology across agencies but only a small number of staff focused on records-management architecture and that gaps arise when systems are implemented without records requirements. She described cases where a seemingly simple procedure for sealing turned into substantial additional workload for staff because systems and file formats did not match the legal intent.

Legacy records and limits on expungement: Marshall said some records cannot be fully removed—court docket books, microfilm and audio that contain multiple matters cannot always be “spliced” to remove a single entry. She said archivists sometimes see physical cutouts in docket books where earlier efforts attempted expungement. For archival material with statewide historical significance, the archives will preserve records even when individual access is limited by statute: “we’re not gonna pull out pages,” she said, noting the state archives uses long-term access benchmarks similar to HIPAA for sensitive, long‑term restrictions.

Operational proposals and requests: Marshall recommended several operational approaches the committee could consider: require earlier involvement of records managers and IT practitioners when agencies plan new systems or procure software; authorize the archives or court administrator to prepare standard consent/notice forms and process diagrams for sealing petitions; and pilot a single point of entry—such as the Vermont Criminal Information Center or an equivalent—so public searches could return a single “no record found” response when appropriate. She offered to produce functional analyses for the committee and to provide the record schedules that intersect with the proposed statute.

Concerns raised: Committee members asked how sealing or expungement would interact with retention rules that already schedule many misdemeanor files for destruction after six years, how the archives would confirm a parent or petitioner’s identity if records were remote, and whether a single point of entry could be the place where courts and agencies send sealing orders. Marshall acknowledged the complexity and said archives can assist but cannot unilaterally impose changes: “we don’t kind of, like, force ourselves into any situation, but we love it when people do reach out because we love the problem solved around that.”

What’s next: Marshall said the archives will send the committee the record schedules that intersect with the bill (state’s attorneys, attorney general and courts) and offered to provide functional analyses of statutory drafts. Lawmakers and staff asked for sample walk-throughs of a misdemeanor case from investigation, through prosecution and disposition, to show triggers for retention, sealing eligibility and the practical limits of destruction.

Ending: The archives’ presentation underscored that sealing and expungement are legal and management problems as much as they are technical ones. Marshall urged lawmakers to account for legacy formats, to involve records and IT specialists early in the drafting and implementation process, and to consider centralized points of public access to reduce the risk of inconsistent responses across agencies.