Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Records Retention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to extend retention of former employees' emails draws opposition from local records managers
Summary
House Bill 722 would require local governments to retain departing employees' emails for one year; local records officials and the Department of Administration raised concerns about unfunded mandates and potential conflicts with existing retention schedules.
Representative Brad Barker introduced House Bill 722 to extend the retention period for electronic records—specifically emails—from 30 days to one year after an employee leaves state or local government service.
Rob Cook testified for the Montana Newspapers Association and Montana Broadcasters Association in support, arguing the change would aid transparency and public records requests. Mike Maas, Bozeman city clerk and a member of the state's local government records committee, testified in opposition, saying the bill would "statutorily supersede existing approved retention schedules" and create a "stand-alone category" requiring retention of all former-employee emails regardless of content. Maas said the bill makes no distinction between transitory emails (for example, an out-of-office message) and substantive records (for example, an official resignation) and would create unfunded mandates for local governments.
Misty Ann Giles, director of the Department of Administration, described the current practice in the executive branch: when an employee leaves, the agency downloads the inbox and preserves it for 30 days and then deletes it unless retained for a specific reason; the department supports the policy objective of improving continuity but noted a practical storage and funding gap if the retention period is extended. Sponsor Barker said the bill contains language vesting the disposition-schedule authority with the established records committee and said the committee can tailor what must be retained so the change would not require keeping obvious transitory items.
Committee members asked about fiscal impacts and whether the bill would create a separate committee or duplicate existing committees. Maas said the bill as drafted would create additional procedural burden and an unfunded local cost; Barker and Director Giles said they are working to refine the approach and that the records committee would determine categories and disposal rules.
Ending: The bill drew detailed questions from senators about fiscal cost to local governments and technical drafting; the committee did not vote at the hearing.
