Opinion ID: 628033
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Supervision of Electronic Recordkeeping Practices

Text: 36 Appellants also dispute the district court's finding that their records management practices were arbitrary and capricious in failing to provide for supervision or auditing of employees' electronic recordkeeping practices by knowledgeable records management personnel. Specifically, appellants contend that they reasonably discharged their obligation to safeguard federal records by assigning records managers the task of providing oral and written guidance to agency personnel and making those recordkeeping experts available for resolution of specific problems. 37 The FRA explicitly requires each agency head to establish such safeguards against the removal or loss of federal records as she determines to be necessary and required by regulations of the Archivist. 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3105; see also 36 C.F.R. Sec. 1220.2 (Federal agency records management programs must be in compliance with regulations promulgated by [the Archivist].). In this case, the agency heads clearly failed to discharge this obligation. The Archivist's regulations provide: 38 The head of each Federal agency shall ensure that the management of electronic records incorporates the following elements: ...[303 U.S.App.D.C. 121] (l ) Reviewing electronic records systems periodically for conformance to established agency procedures, standards, and policies.... The review should determine if the records have been properly identified and described, and whether the schedule descriptions and retention periods reflect the current informational content and use.... 39 Id. Sec. 1234.10 (emphasis added). The Archivist has defined an electronic records system as any information system that produces, manipulates, or stores Federal records by using a computer. Id. Sec. 1234.2 (emphasis added). As previously discussed, the electronic communication systems used by the EOP and the NSC do produce federal records, and it follows that agencies have an obligation under the Archivist's guidelines to undertake periodic reviews to assure that established agency procedures, standards, and policies, including instructions as to what constitutes a record, are being adhered to. Moreover, the relevant regulations make clear that they apply to all electronic systems used by agency employees to create electronic records, not just, as appellants suggest, to official agency electronic records systems. See id. Sec. 1234.1 (Unless otherwise noted, [this section's] requirements apply to all electronic records systems, whether on microcomputers, minicomputers, or mainframe computers, regardless of storage media, in network or stand-alone configurations.); cf. id. Sec. 1234.22 (listing specific requirements for electronic records systems that maintain the official file copy of text documents on electronic media). Moreover, to the extent there is any residual doubt on this question, we think that the agencies' own action in undertaking some review of employees' paper records before those employees exit government service and the common sense insight that an adequate program for ensuring records preservation must include some ongoing inspections and evaluations tip the balance against the government and lead to the conclusion that oversight is necessary as part of an agencywide program for the management of all records created, received, maintained, used or stored on electronic media. Id. Sec. 1234.10(a). 40 On that basis, we affirm the district court's holding that the defendant agencies must undertake some periodic review of their employees' electronic recordkeeping practices. 12 41