Records Retention; Destruction a Violation of Law?

Comments regarding retention of public documents.
It is interesting that when public documents are destroyed and their is evidence of that destruction noted to the City Manager, Oakland County Clerk, and the Oakland County Prosecutors Office, it would be anticipated that someone or some office of authority should be reasonably interested. No so!
It would be expected that a violation of the public trust by the individual/s that did the destruction may have violated state laws regarding the retention of the employees records.
A consideration of the potential for a violation of law and the retention of public records is a Public obligation of the City of Wixom’s Administration. To protect employee records is legally essential for businesses, corporations and Governments.
Does it take a local “charge of the offense” to the local authorities be initiated to investigate the issue to either determine an offense is evident or to  note that no infraction of law was broken? This  action may have to be initiated to resolve this issue.
Presently,  there is a presumption that public records of employees can be destroyed at the whim of anyone who has them in their hands. One would think that legal implications abound with no authority over the destruction or retention of public/employee records.
Ref:  TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2015 Council meeting  records
Call  to the public
Wayne Glessner, 1950 Hopkins Drive, said he had a question relative to general records retention. He went through our ordinances and perhaps we do not have
a policy or record retention disposal schedule. He wondered if we do have one
and if so, where it was. If we don’t have one, he wondered why. If we don’t have one under a local ordinance, he wondered if state statute prevailed. For example, in
the Michigan Trial Court case, Michigan law requires that all public records be listed on an approved retention and disposal schedule that identifies the minimal amount of time that records must be kept to satisfy administrative, legal, physical and historical needs. Clerks may destroy these records or transfer them to archives in Michigan for permanent preservation. At the end of the assigned retention period, unless a statute of court rule prescribes otherwise, a court may retain records longer than specified periods of time. Any record not contained on this list that does not have a statutory retention period may not be disposed of without first securing an amendment to the schedule or have the court review such matters. Mr Glessner recommended that if we do not have one, we should get one. He then thanked Deputy Mayor Ziegler for pointing out the one negative vote that would make the choice++ go away.
He agreed with Council members Rich and Rzeznik that there was a real struggle at
the long study sessions, but sometimes new information prevails between now and then.
++ To give a contract to any company or  corporation without a bid, requires a  unanimous vote of  council, one  negative vote by any council person denies the approval of any contract.
Note the Closed Session
4.)Recommendation and request to convene a Closed Session of the City
Council in accordance with the Open Meetings Act, after “Council
Comments” for the purpose of discussing Attorney Client Privileged
Communication Pursuant to MCL 15.268(h)
The minutes of  these Executive Sessions are not available to the public. If necessity requires their opening of records of the meeting, a court order is required.
A review of the destruction of records relative to their retention requires an investigative review and a comprehensive report to the community.
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top