County attorney outlines records‑retention options as public‑records demands swell

Martin Brody, an attorney invited to advise Williams County officials, told commissioners that keeping retention schedules current, specific and actively enforced is the key to managing public records and the time required to respond to requests. He explained two common tools: RC‑2 retention schedules, which list categories (for example, emails, contracts, engineering plans) and set retention periods, and RC‑3 one‑time destruction forms for bulk disposal of legacy boxes that no longer serve an administrative purpose.

Brody said practical retention choices depend on administrative need: "the statute of limitations on a written contract is 6 years," he noted, and tax guidance commonly recommends keeping tax records for seven years. He recommended that department heads be involved in updating county schedules so records are categorized in ways the county can search efficiently and avoid defaulting to indefinite retention.

Officials described recent incidents in which staff spent many hours redacting personal‑account email and attachments after broad requests. Brody told the board that records kept in archives or backup systems remain subject to public‑records requests and therefore need documented retention policies and occasional active destruction once retention periods expire. He suggested technical approaches (searchable exports of texts and emails), administrative rules about searchable fields (sender, recipient, date range, topic), and direct outreach to narrow overly broad requests.

On the medium for permanent records, Brody said state or archival preferences for microfilm or tape do not legally preclude scanned digital copies so long as the county can retrieve and authenticate the files when requested. Local archivists may prefer microfilm or other certified media, but the attorney said practical, documented digital systems can meet statutory obligations.

Commissioners discussed the workload and the possibility of hiring a dedicated public‑records staff member or relying on the prosecutor’s office for redaction help. Brody offered to be a point of contact for specific requests and to draft suggested responses where a request can reasonably be narrowed.

Next steps: commissioners agreed to start reviewing department retention schedules with department heads, explore RC‑3 submissions for clearly obsolete boxed records, and coordinate with IT on searchable export options to make future redaction and production more efficient.