The Primacy and Problems of Digital Records: the California Occupational Information Coordinating Committee Records at the California State Archives

THE PRIMACY AND PROBLEMS OF DIGITAL RECORDS: THE CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL INFORMATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE RECORDS AT THE CALIFORNIA STATE ARCHIVES

Tyler Gilbert Cline B.A., Humboldt State University, 2009

PROJECT

Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

HISTORY (Public History)

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO

SPRING 2011

THE PRIMACY AND PROBLEMS OF DIGITAL RECORDS: THE CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL INFORMATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE RECORDS AT THE CALIFORNIA STATE ARCHIVES

A Project

Tyler Gilbert Cline

Approved By:

______, Committee Chair Lee M. A. Simpson, Ph.D.

______, Second Reader Jeffrey Crawford

______Date

iii

Student: Tyler Gilbert Cline

I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for this Project.

______, Department Chair ______Aaron J. Cohen, Ph.D. Date

Department of History

Abstract

THE PRIMACY AND PROBLEMS OF DIGITAL RECORDS: THE CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL INFORMATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE RECORDS AT THE CALIFORNIA STATE ARCHIVES

Tyler Gilbert Cline

Statement of Problem

The records of the Occupational Information Coordinating Committee include floppy diskettes and CD-ROMs. The files on these electronic media could not be processed because the State Archives has not developed procedures for processing electronic records.

Sources of Data

Data sources for this project included monographs, newspaper articles, journal articles, archival materials, unpublished manuals and guidelines, emails, memoranda, publications, and web pages.

Conclusions Reached

The inability to describe the media according to archival best practices left the author with valuable insight into the functions of large archives without existing electronic records management programs as well as an understanding of the developments in the field of electronic records management.

______, Committee Chair Lee M. A. Simpson, Ph.D.

______Date

DEDICATION

To my father, my greatest teacher. Without your love and support this would never have been possible. Without your guidance my love for learning would never have sprouted.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work would not have been possible without the guidance and friendship of

Lee Simpson and Jeff Crawford. Dr. Simpson, thank you for lending me a sympathetic

ear during my first semester when I had absolutely no idea what I was doing. Jeff,

you’ve been guiding positive force and a great boss; and to the extent that managing

processing students is like herding cats that’s saying something.

To all at the archives who made this thesis possible, Jeff and Sara, Breanne Cato,

and my fellow processing students. Without your institutional knowledge I would be lost

in a morass of red tape and headache.

To all my teachers, whose inspiration took me on wings of knowledge and fasci-

nation through this great academic journey over the last decade, thank you. Andrea Ta-

rantino, Craig Parker, Gayle Olson-Raymer, my life is better for having known you, my love of history, of knowledge, of education and society is stronger for having known your wisdom.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Dedication ...... vi

Acknowledgments...... vii

Chapter

1. METHODOLOGY ...... 1

Accessioning ...... 2

Agency History ...... 7

Arrangement ...... 10

Description ...... 15

Conclusions ...... 18

2. ELECTRONIC RECORDS ...... 20

Preservation of Physical Media ...... 21

Preservation of Digital Data...... 25

Metadata ...... 31

Integrity and Authenticity ...... 32

Electronic Records Program ...... 37

3. FINDINGS ...... 41

Findings...... 42

Conclusions ...... 45

Appendix A. Inventory of the COICC Records ...... 47

Appendix B. Sample Processing Plan ...... 64

Appendix C. Sample Catalog Cards ...... 66

viii

Appendix D. Sample Box Labels ...... 69

Bibliography ...... 75

Chapter 1

METHODOLOGY

Records created by agencies and interagency committees of the State of Califor-

nia that are determined to have enduring value are kept in perpetuity for the people of

California. The repository for such records is the California State Archives, a division of

the Office of the Secretary of State.1 California’s Constitution of 1849 charged the Sec-

retary of State with keeping “a fair record of the official acts of the legislative and execu-

tive departments of the Government.”2 The first law passed by the Legislature and chap-

tered as Chapter 1 of the Statutes of 1850 codified this constitutional responsibility to in-

clude:

all public records, registers, maps, books, papers, rolls, documents, and other writings...which pertain to…the political, civil, and military history, and past administration of the Government in California; the titles to bonds within the territory, or any other subject…references or authorities to the Government, or people of the State.3

The State Archives has been the repository for such records since its establishment on

January 5, 1850. Records of State agencies at the end of their operational lifecycle and

not destroyed are transferred to the State Records Center for storage. Those records

which are flagged for destruction by their official records retention schedules but catego-

rized as having enduring value are transferred to the State Archives upon the end of their

informational lifecycle and storage period at the State Records Center.4

1 Preserving and Promoting the History of California, Brochure (Sacramento: California State Archives, Office of the Secretary of State, n.d.). 2 Constitution of the State of California, Adopted 1849, Article V, Section 19. 3 California, An Act Concerning the Public Archives, Statutes of 1850, 1:44. 4 Jessica Herrick, “Records Retention Schedules and Accessioning,” presentation to the California State Archives, 14 July 2010. 2

Accessioning

The records of the California Occupational Information Coordinating Committee,

or the COICC, came to the California State Archives over a period of years from 1998 to

2006 in four separate accessions, ranging from five to twenty-one cubic feet of records each. The accessioning process is one in which records are transferred to the State Arc- hives in physical form. The Archives also gains intellectual and legal control and authority over records. These three forms of control: physical, intellectual, and legal, constitute an accession, and guarantee that the Archives may properly provide access to the records for researchers.5 The first of these such accessions occurred in July 1998, and included

twenty-one cubic feet of records from the inception of the COICC in 1978 through Pro-

gram Year 1994.6 The accession worksheet filled out by the accessioning archivist listed

only textual materials as being present, although later examination by the author during

processing yielded three-quarters of one cubic foot of electronic records in the form of 5

¼” and 3 ½” floppy diskettes.7 The accession worksheet listed the contents of the acces-

sion as “memoranda, committee minutes, agenda, correspondence, operations and budg-

ets, reports, curricula, and projects.”8

5 Gregory S. Hunter, Developing and Maintaining Practical Archives: A How-To-Do-It Ma- nual, 2nd Ed. (New York: Neal Schuman Publishers, 2004), 101-102. 6 Accession Number 1998-07-10, Accessioning Worksheet, Accessioning Program Records, Cali- fornia State Archives, Office of the Secretary of State, 1998. 7 “Micro-OIS Version 1.0,” Occupational Information System Development Files, Occupational Information Coordinating Committee Records, R189.08, California State Archives, Office of the Secretary of State, Sacramento, California. 8 Accession Number 1998-07-10, Accessioning Worksheet, Accessioning Program Records, Cali- fornia State Archives, Office of the Secretary of State, 1998.

Accession worksheets are prepared by the accessioning archivists, and contain information about the collection. This information may come from records retention schedules provided by the agency transferring the records, or from the records themselves. Information listed on the worksheets typically includes the record creator, the title of records series within the collection, the date span of the records, the size of the collection in cubic feet, the arrangement of the records, any restrictions to access by researchers, and any notes the archivist may make during the accessioning process. More often than not, not all fields on the accession worksheet will be completed, either because the archivist cannot find the information, or because such information is not readily accessible without thoroughly processing the collection.9

Often, only a cursory glance through the records will be performed, in order to remove acidic papers and metal which might rust. This cursory examination can often make the arrangement of the records harder for subsequent archivists, as well as researchers who request the records in the mean time. During processing, records which arrive with no apparent discernible arrangement will be arranged by a processing archivist, who will determine the logical or functional arrangement of the records according to best practices. As accessioning grants the Archives basic and perfunctory control over the records, greater physical and intellectual control is established during processing.

The second accession came in November of 1998, and contained twenty cubic feet of textual records ranging from 1980 through 1995. The arrangement of these records was listed as “to be determined,” and subsequent examination by the author dur-

9 Hunter, Developing and Maintaining Practical Archives, 93.

ing processing revealed that the records were most likely in their original order as pre-

pared by the COICC during transfer. However, the records were organized neither chro-

nologically nor by subject. The record types listed on the accession worksheet included

“correspondence, annual plans, program guidelines, grants, minutes, contracts, and publi-

cations.”10

The third accession arrived at the Archives in 2002, and from its description was a

“catch-all,” group of records, spanning the years 1982-2000. These five cubic feet of

records were accessioned by Deputy State Archivist Laren Metzer, and included corres-

pondence, meeting files, and files of the Executive Director of the COICC.11 The last

group of records, accessioned by Archivist Jessica Herrick, included six cubic feet of tex-

tual records as well as electronic records on approximately one dozen CD-ROMs.12

These records were accessioned in 2006, and included “interagency correspondence, con-

ference information, publications, meeting information, and Occupational Outlook re-

ports.”13

The records of the COICC as accessioned totaled fifty-two cubic feet, spanned the dates from 1978 to 2004, and comprises both textual and electronic records. During accessioning, the records were placed into acid and lignin free cardboard boxes, but little else besides the removal of rusted paper clips or disintegrating rubber bands took place.

10 Accession Number 1998-11-35, Accessioning Worksheet, Accessioning Program Records, Cali- fornia State Archives, Office of the Secretary of State, 1998. 11 Accession Number 2002-198, Accessioning Worksheet, Accessioning Program Records, Cali- fornia State Archives, Office of the Secretary of State, 2002. 12 Accession Number 2006-090, Accessioning Worksheet, Accessioning Program Records, Cali- fornia State Archives, Office of the Secretary of State, 2006. 13 Accession Number 2006-090, Accessioning Worksheet, Accessioning Program Records, Cali- fornia State Archives, Office of the Secretary of State, 2006.

The processing of these records by the author thus served two functions: the first was to

increase their physical and informational value by arranging them into series and describ-

ing said series using best archival practices; the second was to allow researchers to search

the record group through the Minerva online database. This allows archivists and staff to

efficiently locate these records for researchers.

While these records contain no legal restrictions to access and are technically and

legally open to the public for research, the lack of organization through arrangement and

description during the accessioning phase meant that until processing was completed, the

public would have less complete and less open access to the records.14 While accession-

ing is an important step towards furthering the Archives’ physical and intellectual control

over the records, it remains a first step. According to author and archivist Greg Hunter,

the processing of a collection is the true “bridge between the records and their use by researchers of various types.”15

As accessioned, the collection included subject files, correspondence, meeting

files, memoranda, minutes, agendas, operational budgets, curricula, project files, background information, and reports on the development of systems used by the committee.

These records were not organized by series within the accessioned material, nor were they organized by year. With the guidance of Archivist Jeff Crawford, the author undertook a search for the copies of the COICC’s records retentions schedules which were

14 Hunter, Developing and Maintaining Practical Archives, 101-102. 15 Hunter, Developing and Maintaining Practical Archives, 113.

submitted to the State Archives at intervals required by law.16 The internal catalog of the

Archives’ “Minerva” database, created using GENCAT software, contains accession in-

formation and collections information in the form of finding aids and digitized records

retention schedules.

The author found that the COICC submitted two records retention schedules, one

in 1998 and another in 2005. Each of these retention schedules list the COICC as having

dramatically different records series. While the contrast between these two schedules can

be attributed to the gradual shift in program direction over these seven years, the differ-

ences between the records listed on the retention schedules and those which the archives received are harder to reconcile. Because these differences made it considerably harder to develop a proper processing plan for the arrangement and description of the records without knowing the true original order of the collection, the author found the need to research the agency history of the COICC.

Agency History

The California Occupational Information Coordinating Committee was created by

an act of the legislature in response to the national Comprehensive Employment Training

Act of 1973, or CETA17 The Comprehensive Employment Training Act was passed by

16 Department of General Services, Records Retention Schedule Guidelines, California Records and Information Management (CalRIM) (Sacramento: State Printing Office, 2007), 4. 17 “COICC History,” Memoranda Files, Occupational Information Coordinating Committee Records, R189.05, California State Archives, Office of the Secretary of State, Sacramento, California.

the 93rd Congress and chaptered as Public Law 93-203.18 This act created the National

Occupational Information Coordinating Committee as a federal level interagency com-

mittee with consolidated responsibilities for funding federal job training programs, for the

unemployed, underemployed, the disadvantaged, and youth. The NOICC coordinated

with state level Occupational Information Coordinating Committees or SOICCs, and distributed block grants and the Basic Assistance Grants to state level programs which met the NOICC’s development guidelines.19

The California Occupational Information Coordinating Committee (COICC) or

California SOICC was established by statutory authority in the Statutes of 1975, Chapter

853.20 The Committee consisted of the Director of Employment Development, the Direc-

tor of Commerce, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Chancellor of the Califor-

nia Community Colleges, the Director of Rehabilitation, the chair of the State Job Train- ing Coordinating Council, the Executive Director of the Employment Training Panel, the

Director of Social Services, and the Executive Secretary of the Council for Private Post- secondary and Vocational Education. The goal of the committee was to act as an advi-

sory body to the Employment Development Department in the department's operation of

the State-Local Cooperative Labor Market Information Development Program or LMID,

as specified in the above mentioned federally funded program requirements.

18 Comprehensive Employment Training Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-203, Oct. 27, 1973, 92 Stat. 1909 (29 U.S.C. 801). 19 NOICC Records Retention Schedule, National Archives and Records Administration, 7 July 2000. 20 Labor Market Information Systems, Chapter 853, Statutes of 1975.

In 1984, the authorizing legislation granting the COICC statutory authority was

shifted from the Education code to the unemployment insurance code. The COICC was

defined as an interagency committee in the Unemployment Insurance Code sections

10531 and 10532, with the same language, structure, and board composition as the previous statutes.21 The scope and mission of the COICC was modified several times after

its inception. Revised federal legislation such as the Job Training Partnership Act of of

1982 provided funding through the NOICC for state level OICs to fund job corps, adult

and youth education programs, and labor market information statistics programs. These

LMI programs included gathering, publishing, and promulgation of labor market infor-

mation.22 During this time, the COICC, which had a full-time staff of two and one half

persons, began efforts to promulgate labor market information for California. The

COICC chose a distributed model for this information, with the intent to facilitate coordi-

nation between the California State College system and the Private Industry Councils of

major California cities such as San José, Fresno, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San

Diego.23

The national Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1984

further restructured the NOICC/SOICC relationship by providing funding and mandates

for the creation of technical and vocational education programs. The COICC was en-

couraged to sponsor and track the successes of vocational programs in California. These

21 Unemployment Insurance Code, Chapter 4, Contributions and Reports, Section 10531. 22 Job Training Partnership Act, Pub. L. 97-300, October 13, 1982, 96 Stat.1322 (29 U.S.C. 1501). 23 OIS Development Files, California Occupational Information Coordinating Committee Records, R189.07 California State Archives, Office of the Secretary of State, Sacramento, California.

9 mandates continued until Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, which restructured the NOICC into America’s Career Resource Network.24

Code sections 10531 and 10532, replacing them with Education Code section 53086.25

The committee was renamed the California Career Resource Network and became a special program within the Department of Education. The members now included the Direc- tor of Employment Development, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, the

Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, the Director of Rehabilitation, the Di- rector of Social Services, the Executive Director of the California Workforce Investment

Board, the Chief Deputy of the Adult Programs Division, Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, the Chief Deputy of the Juvenile Justice Division, Department of Correc- tions and Rehabilitation, and the Director of the Department of Developmental Servic- es.26 The program then had the goal to distribute career information, resources, and training materials to middle school and high school counselors, educators, and administrators, in order to ensure that middle schools and high schools have the necessary information available to provide a pupil with guidance and instruction on education and job requirements necessary for career development.27

24 Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-220, August 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 936. 25 SB665, California Career Resource Network, Chapter 208, Statutes of 2005. 26 The California Career Resource Network, www.californiacareers.info. 27 Hunter, Developing and Maintaining Practical Archives, 207.

Arrangement

Archival processing, comprised of the arrangement and description of records, is at the heart of an archives’ mission.28 After obtaining the original accession worksheets for the accessioned COICC records, the author stamped the duplicate worksheets in the research room as “out for processing.” The author then physically removed the fifty-two cubic feet of records from climate-controlled storage stacks to the general processing area, known as the “Processing Lab.” The author then sent an email to the State Archives staff notifying them that the records were “out for processing” and could be located at the author’s desk so the records could be accessed and retrieved by researchers while the records were being processed. The Archives’ “Minerva” GENCAT online database was updated with this information, so researchers would know that the collection was being processed.

The author researched the agency history of the COICC to determine the scope, background, and purpose of the committee. He then compared the files found in the boxes of the collection with both the accession worksheets and the records retention schedules in order to arrive at a basic conception of the records series contained within the collection. The following twelve series were preliminarily identified as follows (further description can be found in Appendix A):

Agency Files Conference Files Correspondence Meeting Files

28 Kathleen D. Roe, Arranging and Describing Archives and Manuscripts (Chicago: The Society of American Archivists, 2005), 2.

Memoranda Files Office Files OIS Development Files Outlook Reports Program Files Project Files Report Files Subject Files29

Following the guidelines set forth in the State Archives’ Processing Manual, written by

deputy State Archivist Laren Metzer in 2004, the author then submitted a plan for

processing the records to supervisor Jeff Crawford, processing coordinator for the Arc-

hives.30 According to the processing manual, processing plans are based on a “prelimi-

nary review of records,” and remain subject to change.31 The plan includes the records creator, the condition of the records, the subjects covered by the records, restrictions, if any, and the types of material, in this case textual and electronic. The plan spells out the arrangement, including series and sub-series. that the records are to take.

The arrangement and description of records is based upon two concepts in archiv-

al theory: provenance and original order. The first, provenance, comes from a French

term meaning “stems from.” Since the records were created by the COICC, held at the

State Records Center, and then transferred to the Archives, the chain of custody was well

documented and the provenance of the records is known. The second term, “original or-

der,” is related to the French respect des fonds, meaning respect for property.32 Hunter

29 Guide to the California Occupational Information Coordinating Committee Records, R189.01- R189.12. California State Archives, Office of the Secretary of State, Sacramento, California, 2011. 30 Laren Metzer, “Processing Manual” (Sacramento: California State Archives, Office of the Sec- retary of State, June 2004), 3. 31 Metzer, “Processing Manual,” 6. 32 Hunter, Developing and Maintaining Practical Archives, 113.

maintains that original order is much harder to implement than it sounds. At the most

basic level, original order refers to keeping records in a collection organized in the same

fashion as they were by the organization that created them. In the practical sense howev-

er, this becomes harder to implement. Archivist and author Kathleen D. Roe of the So-

ciety of American Archivists writes that the preservation of original order makes for a

greater “understanding of the context in which the records were used, which can provide

important clues for the potential researcher in discovering the function of specific docu-

ments or agencies that created those documents.”33

For the records of the COICC, the span of years between accessions, the shift

from NOICC sponsorship to ACRN sponsorship, and the differences between records

flagged for preservation by the records retention schedules and those accessioned by the

Archives all meant that the author had to attempt to reinvent the original order for the

records whole cloth. The most useful tool for this process was DACS, or Describing

Archives: A Content Standard by the Society of American Archivists.34 This work in-

cludes guidelines for description of specific elements of the collection, and provides a

working guide to the creation of a finding aid. The State Archives also partially follows

the new paradigm of arrangement and description put forth by Mark Greene and Dennis

Meissner in “More Product, Less Process,” in which records are described to the series

level for a given finding aid.35 While this is applicable to textual records, an exploration

33 Roe, Arranging and Describing Archives and Manuscripts, 15. 34 Society of American Archivists, Describing Archives: A Content Standard (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 2004). 35 Mark Greene and Dennis Meissner, “More Product, Less Process: Revamping Traditional Arc- hival Processing,” The American Archivist, 68 (Fall/Winter 2005): 208-263.

of item level for electronic records was undertaken where possible, and hardware or

software limitations did not prevent it.

The processing of the records began by combining similar record series that

spanned different accessions. Meeting files, memoranda, and subject files were the ea-

siest to combine into their proper records series. Occupational Information Development

Files, composed of both textual and electronic records, were the hardest to combine. The

electronic records, found on both floppy diskette and CD-ROM were nearly inaccessible

before the Archives acquired a “clean machine” on which to view the records. The clean

computer was “locked down” with minimal network access and user privileges, which

provided the author with the ability to access files on 3 ½” floppy diskette and CD-ROM

without the possibility of harming either the integrity and original order of the electronic

data, or the network of the Office of the Secretary of State and State Archives.

Following the instructions in the processing manual, which specified that records

of enduring value were to be kept, but allowing that the author had broad intellectual

leeway to determine which records were of enduring value, the author reduced over thir-

ty-eight cubic feet from the collection, consisting of duplicate items, bulky binders and

file folders, material irrelevant to the history and scope of the COICC, and information

which contained the personal information of private individuals.36 Likewise, rusted staples, paper clips, three-ring binders, plastic binding materials, and plastic report covers were all removed from the collection. Blank forms, blank paper, publications, hardback and paperback books, and office supplies were also discarded. Newsprint, acidic paper,

36 Metzer, “Processing Manual,” 13.

transparency sheets, and thermographic facsimile paper were all photocopied onto acid

free paper and the originals were removed from the collection to prevent the destruction

of the information which they contained, as well as any collateral damage from the leak-

ing of acid onto other records.

Many CD-ROMs were removed from the collection after cursory examination of

their data revealed that they were secondary records not created by the COICC, nor of

any particular informational value to researchers of the COICC’s history or operations.

Additional preservation of the textual records was accomplished by “re-foldering” the

documents into acid and lignin free folders and boxes. Rubber bands, pins, and fasteners

were removed. Sticky notes and telegrams were removed and photocopied onto acid free

paper. Bent documents were straightened to the best of the author’s ability, and extrane-

ous information was removed. No significant preservation work was required by the preservation staff at the archives.37 The majority of the textual information discarded was

duplicate items, accounting for nearly forty cubic feet of wasted space. Similarly, publi-

cations and binders took up a significant amount of space, while the rest of the textual

items discarded contained personally identifiable information with no enduring informa-

tional value to the archives.

After refoldering and arranging the records, weeding out superfluous and unne-

cessary records, and removing paper clips, post-it notes, binders, and newsprint, the au-

thor arranged the re-foldered records into proper series in one cubic foot archival boxes.

Each folder was hand numbered in number 4 pencil with the unique record group identi-

37 Metzer, “Processing Manual,” 23.

15 fication number, called an “R Number,” as well as sequential folder numbers along with the name of the records creator, series title, and folder contents for each individual folder.

During this process the author took notes on series for entry into the master finding aid.

Description

Gregory Hunter categorizes the description phase of archival processing as “establishing administrative and intellectual control over archives through the preparation of finding aids.”38 The processing manual calls for certain details to be included in the master finding aid for any given collection. These details include:

The history and predecessor names of the records creator, inclusive dates, overall content, organization, types of materials and research value, total volume and restrictions on access. At the record unit level [series], the unit title, inclusive dates, volume, arrangement, summary description and restrictions on access.39

For each file folder of records, which was numbered with a number four hard lead pencil with the record identification number and series number, agency name (COICC), series, date range, and item level titles, information was compiled for use in the master finding aid. The file folders were placed into acid free archival boxes of one cubic foot each, and labeled using archival practices found in the Processing Manual. These box labels were created using a Microsoft Access database with a custom designed layout. The labels included the record identification number, agency name, series, and date range.

The box and folder numbers were then incorporated into the finding aid, which also included scope and content notes for the entire collection, an agency history of the Occu-

38 Hunter, Developing and Maintaining Practical Archives, 131. 39 Metzer, “Processing Manual,” 16.

pational Information Coordinating Committee, and a list of the records series with cor-

responding descriptions. The series included Correspondence Files, Subject Files,

Project Files, Memoranda, Occupational Information System development files, and

meeting files. The scope and content served as a narrative for the series, highlighting important details in the history of the COICC such as the passage of the Perkins Act for vocational education.40 The series titles were drawn from DACS, and the policy of the

State Archives mandated that records were to be described at the series level with appro-

priate hierarchy when necessary.41

After completing the finding aid, the author created catalog cards for inclusion in

the Archives research room card catalog. These cards were created using Microsoft

Word and printed on card stock. One catalog card was created for each series of records

within the COICC records, and each card included the physical location of the records in

the archives stacks, the record number, and the agency name. These cards were then

added to the card catalog for “quick reference” by researchers.42

Following this, the author removed the COICC records from the archival and mu-

seum processing laboratory on the third floor of the archives to the fourth floor of the

climate controlled stacks, or the “D” floor, where the records would be permanently

housed. The accession sheets held in a binder in the research room were removed and

delivered to the processing coordinator, and the finding aid was submitted for review. In

an email, the archives staff was notified of the new permanent location for the COICC

40 Guide to the California Occupational Information Coordinating Committee Records, R189.01- R189.12., California State Archives, Office of the Secretary of State, Sacramento, California, 2011. 41 Metzer, “Processing Manual,” 26. 42 Metzer, “Processing Manual,” 26.

17 records, as well as the addition of cards to the catalog and the review of the finding aid for the committee records. The finding aid was then encoded using Encoded Archival

Description (EAD), a markup language for web based archival description, and added to the Online Archive of California.43 The encoded file was saved as an extensible markup language (XML) file for uniformity and ease of access to the encoded information. The finding aid was also entered into the Minerva database, which generates responses from

GenCat, a database program with a proprietary markup language. However, both Miner- va and the Online Archive of California are accessible through the internet external to the

Archives servers.

Conclusions

The processing of the California Occupational Information Coordinating Commit- tee records was a long and drawn-out process which took over seven months to complete.

The author spent a majority of the time processing the textual records of the collection, to the detriment of the electronic records, the ramifications of which will be explored in the following chapters. The research of the history of the collection as well as the necessary information to create effective and logical records series was intensive, and each step of the processing project required not only adherence and knowledge of the applicable principles, standards, and practices of archival theory, but also a working knowledge of the

43 Online Archive of California, “About OAC,” The California Digital Library, oac.cdlib.org.

18 procedures of the California State Archives and all the intricacies which go along with them.44

Due to the nature of the records containing both textual and electronic materials, the author took it upon himself to make sure that the textual records were processed thoroughly and effectively before examining the electronic records. Insofar as the Archives’ electronic records program is neither fully developed nor fully functional, the electronic records of the COICC were not arranged and described to the extent found in practices and protocols of professional standards. This has given the author a greater understanding of the intricacies and difficulties in processing collections with mixed forms of records, as well as a new resolve to carry what he has learned to future projects when and where applicable.

44 Metzer, “Processing Manual.”

Chapter 2

ELECTRONIC RECORDS

Digital, or electronic, records represent a vast and growing segment of archival

collections. Additionally, digital storage of archival records has evolved at a near over-

whelming pace. The archival community has attempted to keep pace with the growth of

electronic records and formats, and has done so by crafting standards for digital records

collections and placing the development of archival practices for electronic records col-

lections at the forefront of archival concerns. However, archival institutions are being

rapidly outpaced by the growth of the digital community. Digital records thus remain

both a subject of increasing focus of archival programs as well as an ongoing concern.45

Electronic records can refer to two disparate concepts. The first is the digitization

or scanning of archival records, and the archival processing of electronic records; the lat-

ter is distinguished by the moniker “born digital records.” It is important to note that

while these two processes are overtly similar in a variety of ways, they remain fundamen-

tally different in the approach that archivists must take in their management. The digiti-

zation of archival records, namely, paper documents or manuscripts, photographs, film or

audio recordings, is performed primarily as an addition to existing records.46 This is

done either to ensure continuity of the information contained in such analog records, or to

aid in the dissemination of such records through digital means. While this in itself is a

worthwhile goal of archives, it is not their primary concern; that is to say, it is super-

45 Richard Pearce-Moses, “Janus in Cyberspace: Archives on the Threshold of the Digital Era,” The American Archivist 70, no. 1, (Spring/Summer 2007), 13. 46 Hunter, Developing and Maintaining Practical Archives, 248.

fluous in their mission to acquire records for preservation. Born digital records, on the

other hand, are of more pressing concern to institutions such as the California State Arc-

hives, and will be the sole focus of this discussion. The acquisition and processing of

“born-digital records” such as word processing files, email messages, hypertext webpag-

es, and databases, is the logical extension of an archives’ mission in the digital age. This

process has generated the most controversy, scholarship, and professional debate in re-

cent memory, and has produced both government and private-sector responses. Organi-

zations ranging from the RAND Corporation to the Online Computer Library Center to

the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) have crafted working stan-

dards for digital records.47

Preservation of Physical Media

In processing electronic records, one must be aware of two problems: physical

preservation and informational preservation. Informational preservation is defined as the

arrangement and description of the digital data itself, and will be addressed subsequently.

Physical preservation refers to the storage and arrangement of the physical media upon

which the digital data is encoded.48 We will first address the problems and statistics of

physical preservation before exploring the more complex problems of informational pre-

servation.

47 Nancy Kunde, “Getting it Done - Collaboration and Development of the Digital Records Standard,” The American Archivist 72, no.1 (Spring/Summer 2009), 149-150 48 Gregory S. Hunter, Preserving Digital Information: A How-To-Do-It Manual (New York: Neal Schumann Publishers, 2000), 4.

Archival storage of electronic records depends on the physical format of the sto-

rage medium. Digital records were first created during World War II in the 1940s, with

the invention of supercomputers such as ENIAC and UNIVAC used for the American

war effort.49 The first electronic records were stored on large metal cylinders known as

magnetic drum memory units, and held only a few dozen bytes worth of data.50 For the

first fifty years of electronic storage, magnetic encoding of digital data was the preferred

method of storing this information. Tape storage evolved in a succession of physical

formats, beginning with reel to reel tapes in the 1950s and 1960s in the age of supercom-

puters; the more compact cassette tapes in the 1970s were used for business and home

computing, and DAT (digital audio tapes) providing increases storage capacity for server

or backup use.51

Beginning with the “personal computer revolution” of the 1970s and 1980s, mag-

netic disks became a ubiquitous method of data storage, first in the form of 8-inch “mini-

floppies” and 5-and one-quarter inch “microfloppies.” These floppy disks could hold 400

kilobytes, or about 150 pages of text.52 High density 3-and one-half inch diskettes could

could could hold over 1 megabyte, or 500 pages of text. Soon larger metallic platters,

popularly known as “hard disks” became available to the consumer market, holding up to

49 Michael Hally, Electronic Brains: Stories From the Dawn of the Computer Age (New York: Joseph Henry Press, 2005), 12. 50 Hally, Electronic Brains, 13.

A byte is a string of eight bits, which is either a 1 or a 0. For magnetically encoded storage, a 1 is a “written” space on the storage medium, a 0 is a blank space. 51 Michael Todd, Design Criteria Standard for Electronic Records Management Software Ap- plications (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 19, 2002), 8-9. 52 Hally, Electronic Brains, 19.

10 megabytes by 1981, which meant that a single hard disk could store up to 10,000 pag-

es of text. By 1991, the average hard disk size was 100 megabytes, by 2001, the average

hard disk size was 10 gigabytes (10,000 megabytes). By 2011, hard disks are commonly

1 terabyte (1,000,000 megabytes) or larger.53 This represents an exponential increase in

the storage capacity of electronic media, an increase with which archives are struggling to

keep pace. For example, the textual records of the Gray Davis administration contain

over 2,200 cubic feet of material, and the textual records of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s

administration totaled 3,800 cubic feet. The electronic records of the Schwarzenegger

administration, totaling nearly three terabytes of data, can fit on a hard disk less than the

size of a paperback novel.54 The problem remains that the time necessary to properly ac-

cession, let alone process these records, is dramatically higher.

Aside from magnetically encoded media, two other forms of media became popu-

lar in the 1990s and 2000s; compact discs and “flash” disks, respectively.55 The read- only compact disc, or CD-ROM, held 700 megabytes, and the eight-gigabyte DVDs bridged the divide between high capacity storage and small physical footprint.56 NAND

or “flash” memory has, from its introduction in the early years of the 21st century, seen an

increase in storage capacity exponentially from less than 500 megabytes in 2001 to over

64 gigabytes by 2010.57 All of these different storage mediums have various challenges,

53 Hally, Electronic Brains, 21. 54 Hally, Electronic Brains, 58. 55 Frederick J. Stielow, Building Digital Archives, Descriptions and Displays, (New York: Neal Schumann Publishers, 2003), 31. 56 Hally, Electronic Brains, 59. 57 Elizabeth H. Dow, Electronic Records in the Manuscript Repository (New York: Scarecrow Press, 2009), 103.

not only in terms of preservation of their physical structure and integrity of the data con-

tained, but also in simply accessing the data.

If the State Archives were to seek to preserve data from one of the earliest digital

mainframe supercomputers from Livermore Laboratories, the archives would require ei-

ther a working version of one of these computers, or a reverse-engineered magnetic drum core reader. Either of these solutions would be cost-prohibitive to all but the most well- funded of institutions. If on the other hand, the archives sought to preserve the data from the Teale Data Center created within the last ten years, the hardware of the present day would easily be compatible. Ten years may be the most amount of time within which hardware remains compatible, however.

Moore’s law, written in a 1965 white paper by Intel cofounder Gordon Moore, states that the number of transistors which can fit on a microchip doubles every two years.58 This means in essence that the raw power of any computer will roughly double

at the same rate. A computer in 2010 has on the order of 4 billion transistors; the com-

puters of the year 2000 had only 100 million.59 By comparison, the computers of 1970

had roughly 2,000 transistors.60 These progressive increases in computing power have necessitated shifts in computer hardware accordingly.

Archivists, then, are faced with two problems regarding computer hardware; 1.)

the ability of archives to interpret machine-readable storage media from past generations,

58 Gordon E. Moore, “Cramming More Components Onto Integrated Circuits,” Electronics Magazine (April, 1965), 4. 59 Almon Cleggsan, “Moore’s Law,” E-Zine Articles (August 31, 2010). 60 Jonathan Rauch, “The New Old Economy: Computers and the Reinvention of the Earth,” The Atlantic Monthly (January 2001).

be they media magnetic tape, drum cylinders, DAT tapes, floppy disks, or CD-ROMs; and 2.) the ability of archivists to preserve existing historic storage media, or to transfer the data off such media to modern storage media. The first problem can be dealt with in a self-contained solution of having the requisite hardware to decode the legacy media.

The obvious problem with this purported “solution” is the fact that any historic media is subject to degradation over time, as much as any historic document or artifact, or more so. However, due to the wide variety of storage media and the susceptibility to hazards such as magnetic fields, the ability to preserve such media is often lost.

Preservation of Digital Data

It is in these cases that software becomes a factor. The rapid-paced evolution of computer hardware has been accompanied by an overwhelming diversity of computer software. Given fifty companies each with a modern mainframe computer or server, one will find forty-five different software databases in use, each incompatible with the others.

For example, the digital records of the California Occupational Information Coordinating

Committee contain three different proprietary databases; the Occupational Information

System Database developed by Pacific Research Management Associates in 1985, the

Labor Market Information database developed by a consulting firm in 1993, and the

Crosswalk database developed by the Employment Development Department concurrent- ly with the LMI database.61

61 Microfloppy Diskettes, The California Occupational Information Coordinating Committee, Occupational Information Development Files, R189.07, California State Archives, Office of the Secre- tary of State, Sacramento, California.

Problems such as this led to the supposition that the era from 1950 to an undeter- mined future date may one day be viewed as the “digital dark ages,” as coined by the In- ternational Federation of Library Associations at a conference in 1997.62 The diversity of software applications used in creating digital records combined with the lack of any unified standard for preserving such records will leave future generations of historians and archivists at a loss when attempting to reconstruct any data that may survive into the future. It is precisely this fear of losing our collective digital history that has prompted public and private agencies to craft standards aimed at mitigating and preventing data loss. The U.S. Department of Defense and the National Archives, the University of Brit- ish Columbia’s InterPARES Projects, and the Internet Archive have all crafted standards and produced white papers which attempt to deal with the complexity of digital records management.63

Even if we assume that the physical media and the data structure encoded on such media is intact and preserved, the digital file structures may face several preservation problems. The Online Computer Library Center’s three-point strategy for informational preservation is concise. Digital preservation in this case must include:

• Assessing the risks for loss of content posed by technology variables such as commonly used proprietary file formats and software applications. • Evaluating the digital content objects to determine what type and degree of format conversion or other preservation actions should be applied. • Determining the appropriate metadata needed for each object type and how it is associated with the objects, and providing access to the content.64

62 Margaret MacLean, Time and Bits: Managing Digital Continuity (The Getty Institute for Conservation, 1999). 63 Frank Boles, Selecting and Appraising Archives and Manuscripts (Chicago: The Society of American Archivists, 2005), 121-135. 64 Todd, Design Criteria Standard, 9.

In order for the application of these standards to achieve relevance and practicality

among archivists, archivists must first have a working knowledge of both computer

hardware and computer software. Depending on the nature of the born digital records an

archive seeks to preserve, these two interrelated aspects could have far-reaching and ex-

pensive problems. The inability to access archival data, due either to lack of appropriate

hardware or software is known as “digital obsolescence.”65

The Electronic Records Archives Program at the National Archives and Records

Administration is at a forefront of this movement to preserve digital history. As Kenneth

Thibodeau, the Director of the ERA program states:

NARA’s electronic records challenge is to preserve any type of record, created using any type of application, on any computer platform, by any ent- ity in the federal government, and to provide discovery and delivery of those assets to anyone who has an interest in them. [...] And we have to do all that now and for the life of the republic.66

This absolute mandate is daunting. While the areas identified by the National Archives

refer to problems of archiving Federal records, this can easily be extrapolated to address

the growing problems of attempting to accomplish the same for California government as

necessitated by the State Archives. The ERA has identified five fundamental factors

which affect the NARA’s ability to fulfill it’s mandate to preserve this information.

The first condition is the factor of scale; namely, that the amount of digital informa-

tion being created by Federal agencies is growing at an expanding rate. This growth is

65 Jeff Rothenberg, Avoiding Technological Quicksand: Finding a Viable Technological Foun- dation for Digital Preservation, Council on Library and Information Resources (1998). 66 Kenneth Thibodeau, Preserving Electronic Records: Developments at the National Archives and Records Administration, Long Term Preservation of Digital Archives (New York, May 19, 2004), 1.

27 due in some part to the Mooreian growth of computing power, but is mainly due to the expanding role of “e-government,” in which there is a shift of the bureaucracy from traditional formats to electronic formats.67

Second, the data being created by Federal agencies is diverse, both in its intrinsic file format, as well as particular storage media.68 No two Federal agencies use the same relational databases, nor do they store their information in the same media containers.

While the State Department may use enterprise hard drives, NASA may prefer to use tape backup drives.69 For the National Archives to effectively collect archival data, they must be prepared to deal with a morass of formats which change at an increasing rate. The third problem is that of sheer complexity of data. From the 1940s UNIVAC era computers through the 1970s and the “personal computer revolution,” the data being created by these mainframes was relatively simple.70 Statistical data or numeric data sets comprised most of the electronic records archived by NARA.

However, since the advent of the personal computer and the adoption of PCs by

Federal agencies, the data archived by NARA has become far more complex.71 Word processing files to XML-encoded databases, large format PDF documents, digital images, digital audio and video files, and GPS/Global Information Systems data files all require exponentially larger storage space. Likewise, these files are not unified file formats, and

67 Thibodeau, Preserving Electronic Records, 2. 68 Thibodeau, Preserving Electronic Records, 2. 69 Terry Kuny, “A Digital Dark Age? Challenges in the Preservation of Electronic Records,” International Federation of Library Associations (August 27, 1997), 2. 70 Kuny, “ A Digital Dark Age,” 5. 71 Thibodeau, Preserving Electronic Records, 3.

many have become obsolete within the past five years, widening the complexity of arc-

hiving them.72

The fourth and most troublesome issue faced by the NARA, and all other archives

as well, is that of data durability. No true “archival storage” medium exists for digital

records. Magnetic storage media, ubiquitous before the year 2000, is susceptible to cor- ruption or complete erasure at even the slightest of magnetic fields. New storage media, such as “optical” or “solid state” formats, have their own problems. Flash drives are sus-

ceptible to memory wear, which could render the data inaccessible.73 Compact discs and

DVDs are susceptible to “disc rot,” or the literal breakdown of the material of the discs.

This leaves CDs and DVDs with a very short lifespan, anywhere from 1-15 years. While

there are “archival quality” discs available, many are very recent additions to the market.

These “archival” DVDs claim durability of 100 years or more, but currently are cost-

prohibitive, and their integrity has not been approved by any agency for archival use.74

The last factor affecting the NARA’s archival practices is that of the changing na-

ture of technology itself. As computers continue to double in raw power every two years,

new capabilities for the digitization of bureaucracy emerge. Twenty years ago, it would

have been impossible to have access to high resolution digital images available across the

internet; today, such access is status quo. As Thibodeau puts it:

While the core function of archives is to deliver evidence of the past to the present and the future, we must anticipate that future users will want to use

72 Kuny, “A Digital Dark Age,” 11. 73 Helen Heslop, et al. “An Approach to the Preservation of Digital Records” The National Arc- hives of Australia (December 2003), 11. 74 Patrick McFarland, “How to Choose a CD/DVD Archival Media,” Free Software Magazine (October 30, 2006).

the best technologies available for discovery, delivery and processing of records of the past. The need to incorporate new technologies in digital preservation creates an inherent tension with the goal of faithfully transmitting records of the past.75

This continual revolution through the evolution of technology prompts a shift in the fundamental perspective of archivists. While all archivists are concerned over the preservation of their information for future generations, archivists must now become active futur- ists, engaging their digital records in a way that will be sustainable and accessible for the digital-native patrons of the near future.

Continuity of data in digital archives is achieved in one of two ways: software emulation or software migration. NARA is currently addressing issues of data continuity through a partnership with Lockheed-Martin.76 With a $308 million contract, Lockheed has identified over 4,500 different types of computer files held in collections of the Na- tional Archives. Through software migration, these computer files will have their data re-encoded by Lockheed’s software engineers into a long-term file format such as extensible markup language (XML), an open-source standard. This allows the authenticity of digital records to be preserved when viewed on modern computers, while ensuring accessibility of the records through open standards like XML, which have the ability to adapt to new changes in computer hardware.

75 Thibodeau, Preserving Electronic Records, 2. 76 Brad Reagan, “The Digital Ice Age,” Popular Mechanics (December, 2006), 2.

Metadata

The role of metadata (or, the data about a particular data file) is key in determining digital authenticity.77 Metadata is defined as “a set of data which gives information about other data.”78 More specifically, it refers to a specific section of an electronic document or file which contains information about the file such as file type, record creator, date of creation, and the program used to create it. This information is contained within a specially formatted section of a file, and while not always complete, is provides a way for digital records to be organized, catalogued, and databased.

The University of British Columbia’s InterPARES working group has called for a new standard in meta information for the benefit of establishing both archival authenticity as well as categorization for electronic records. The MADRAS standard, or Metadata and Archival Description Registry and Analysis System provides for both integrity and transparency in the archival process. The importance of this system is described in the

MADRAS section of the working group’s report:

Contextual metadata documents circumstances relevant to the making of the record: who, when, how, why. Efforts now being made to regularize the process whereby knowledge of context is captured as metadata for electronic record-keeping should not blind us to a fundamental truth. Be- cause records themselves are time-bound, metadata must be verified within a context which is both current and historical. Records cannot remain current unless the metadata is externally validated.79

This problem compounds the complexity of digital preservation. In order for a digital record to be thoroughly authentic as well as thoroughly accessible, the encoded meta in-

77 Roe, Arranging and Describing Archives and Manuscripts, 138. 78 Erik Duval, et al “Metadata Principles and Practices,” D-Lib Magazine 8, no. 4 (April 2002), 3. 79 Duranti, InterPares2, 270.

formation must represent both the current state of the record, as well as any and all pre-

vious states from creation until processing by an institution.

Integrity and Authenticity

Authenticity in digital records is difficult to properly define. In a white paper

published by the RAND Corporation, digital preservationist Jeff Rothenberg argues that

hardware and software emulation is the most appropriate method for ensuring both the

authenticity and accessibility of digital records.80 States Rothenberg, software migration

“doesn't even try to save the original. What you end up with is somebody's idea about

what was important about the original.”81 While there are benefits to migration of data,

namely the ability to re-encode files in more open and accessible formats, the original

structure of the documents is lost. The question of whether authenticity in digital records

extends to original structure as well as content is a perpetual debate, and both sides in the

argument have merit. Frank Boles, director of Central Michigan University’s Clarke His-

torical Library, argues that “the farther that one moves away from being able to see the

data as it appeared to the record creator, the less evidential and valuable the record be-

comes.”82

The InterPARES project of the University of British Columbia, evocative of the

phrase primus inter pares or ‘first among equals,’ attempts to set international guidelines

80 Jeff Rothenberg, Digital Preservation: The Uncertain Future of Saving the Past, RAND Eu- rope (2008), 4. 81 Reagan, “Digital Ice Age,” 2. 82 Boles, Selecting and Appraising Archives and Manuscripts, 128.

for problems such as authenticity and obsolescence.83 The Project’s InterPARES2 report

is nearly 850 pages and contains reports on issues such as models for appraisal of digital

records, digital preservation, management of digital metadata, and the structure of rela-

tions between the creators of records and archivists.84 From 2002 through 2006, archiv-

ists and researchers from UBC formed working groups to explore and report on the sub-

jects mentioned above. Each working group explored a particular aspect of electronic

records, incorporating existing scholarship and professional reports with hands-on study and interaction with digital archives.

For the appraisal and preservation of digital records, the heart of digital archiving,

the InterPARES working group made the observation: “it is not possible to preserve a

digital record: it is only possible to preserve the ability to reproduce the record.”85 From

this, the group made the conclusion that:

The intellectual and physical components of a digital record do not neces- sarily coincide; a digital component is distinct from an element of docu- mentary form. For example, the content of a record may include both text contained in a word processing file and a table generated by spreadsheet software. Technically, the text file may only contain a link to the spreadsheet file, which in turn may depend on the spreadsheet software rather than word processing software to display it by recognizing and actualizing formatting information.86

This duality of digital records deconstructs the archival meaning of the term “record” it-

self. While interrelated physical records are kept in a record group, any singular electron-

83 David Pogue, “Seeing Forever: TechnoFiles,” Scientific American (April 2011), 34. 84 Luciana Duranti and Randy Preston ed., InterPARES 2 Project: Experimental, Interactive, and Dynamic Records (Padova, Italy: National Association of Italian Archivists, 2008), iii. 85 Duranti, InterPARES 2 Project, 164. 86 Duranti, InterPARES 2 Project, 164.

33 ic document might contain multiple records within it, each requiring a different piece of software to reproduce.

In a study conducted by the Masters of Archival Studies program at the Universi- ty of British Columbia, researchers created integral definitions for digital records. Grad- uate researchers Luciana Duranti and Heather MacNeil defined a digital record in terms similar to that of records of other media, that is, by a system of formal elements, and not simply for the information it may contain. They wrote that a record is composed of several key facets, including physical form, data structure, and other parts:

medium (the physical carrier or container for the message) form (the rules of representation that allow for the communication of the message) context (the juridical-administrative framework in which the action takes place) archival bond (the relationship that links each record to the previous and subsequent one and to all those which participate in the same activity) and content (the message that the record is intended to convey).87

This complex nature of digital records allows for a more in-depth understanding of their creation and preservation. These criteria: medium, form, context, bond, and content, allow archivists first and foremost to distinguish digital records from other digital information, and more importantly, to set a threshold or “bright line” during the accessioning process. The evaluation and selection of digital records for preservation is not an easy task, but through the understanding of the criteria set forth by the University of British

87 Luciana Duranti and Heather MacNeil, “The Protection of the Integrity of Electronic Records: An Overview of the University of British Columbia Masters of Archival Science Research Project”(Abstract, 1995), 49.

Columbia study, this task becomes easier. Duranti and MacNeil subsequently describe

that appraisal can be broken down by the categories listed above.

For issues of storage media, the threshold itself is fairly low. The physical inte-

grity of the medium is most important; any cracks, chips, dust, or magnetic flaws are present, can be cause for loss of the digital information, usually without further recourse.

Since the particular medium holds no evidentiary or informational value in and of itself,

it is essentially interchangeable. Duranti writes that:

The preservation of electronic records requires repeated and continuing reproduction…because the medium of electronic records is not imbued with meaning, each record reproduction in which only the component that changes is the medium can be taken to be a complete record identical to the one that it reproduces.88

The encoded data must then be evaluated according to its physical form. This refers to

the form the digital information takes when decoded using technology appropriate to its

encoding. The form includes type, fonts, formatting, colors, attachments, image files

such as logos or emblems, the software architecture, operating system, and metadata such

as time-stamps or version information.89 When the technology with which the record

was designed becomes obsolete, the choices, besides retaining the original hardware, are

emulation, virtualization, or migration, discussed earlier. According to Duranti, any change in the physical form, or file structure, of a record results in a new and different record. She writes that “after migration, the resulting records may look like the ones that

88 Duranti and MacNeil, “The Protection of the Integrity of Electronic Records,” 49. 89 Duranti and MacNeil, “The Protection of the Integrity of Electronic Records,” 50.

have been migrated, their physical form has substantially changed, with loss of informa-

tion on the one hand, and addition of new information on the other hand.”90

This means that the authenticity of the digital records can never be truly static;

each record must be evaluated according to its individual situation. Duranti writes that

this process of migration must be “self-authenticating” -- that is, the process of migrating a record keeps the migrated version as an authentic record equal to the original in terms of value.91 The fact that this information remains contained within the record is the key difference separating electronic records from textual records: the information about the data is contained within the data.92 Such metadata and identifying information, including form and file structure, would be lost if digital records were to be transferred onto a more stable physical mediums such as bonded archival paper. The loss of informational value would destroy the authenticity of the records and render them worthless to the researcher.

Electronic Records Program

The California State Archives has focused on a limited scope for preservation of digital records. Aside from digitizing a small amount of textual and audiovisual records for use in their MINERVA online catalog and database of collection finding aids based on the GENCAT database, the Archives does not perform item-level processing of electronic records. The Electronic Records Task Force, charged by state archivist Nancy Z.

Lenoil with crafting the archives’ electronic records policy, meets monthly. Composed

90 Duranti and MacNeil, The Protection of the Integrity of Electronic Records,” 53. 91 Duranti and MacNeil, The Protection of the Integrity of Electronic Records,” 54. 92 Erik Duval, et al “Metadata Principles and Practices,” 3.

of archivists Rebecca Wendt, Jeffrey Crawford, IT support person Breanne Cato, and

graduate intern Lisa DeHope, the task force has purview over electronic records consid-

erations not already handled by the Secretary of State’s IT division.93

Several options are being considered by the task force for implementation in order

to process currently held and future incoming electronic records. The primary focus is on

a unified and centralized system for processing incoming records of state agencies and of

Governor Schwarzenegger’s administration, which will use script-based RSS (Really

Simple Syndication) services to download records posted to the websites of state agencies. The task force is also exploring use of an off-site vendor for processing and storage of electronic data. One possibility includes Iron Mountain, a for-profit data storage com- pany, which proposed a virtual digital environment to preserve the informational value of the archives’ digital holdings.94

Archives’ IT support person Breanne Cato recently oversaw the acquisition and

installation of a “clean” PC running Windows XP service pack 3. The “clean” computer

has limited intranet access, and has the majority of its network transmission control ports

(TCP), and universal datagram packet (UDP) ports blocked, allowing an environment in

which electronic records can be safely explored and described without fear of virus con-

tamination or the modification of their original order -- namely, the digital file structures.95 During the first trial run of the clean machine, Cato and this author examined

93 Electronic Records Task Force, California State Archives, email to author, November 2, 2010. 94 Electronic Records Task Force, California State Archives, Minutes, November 8th, 2010. 95 Technical Memorandum, Office of the Secretary of State, Information Technology Division, n.d.

37 two 3.5” floppy diskettes from the COICC collection. The first contained a portable document format (PDF) file written using Adobe Acrobat 1.01, a piece of software from

1994 with an expected operational lifetime of just six months. The file was uncorrupted, and opened flawlessly, displaying both the text of the PDF as well as the intact metadata.96

The second disk contained a DOS executable file. When the author and Cato ran the program, a blank database document was created on the original disk; the author sur- mises this to be the original purpose of the program. Unfortunately, this modification of the disk’s file structure to include a new file dating to 2010 negatively affected the authenticity of the disk, and changed the original order of the data. While this problem may be rendered moot by an eventual migration or virtualization of the program, this mistake highlighted an important necessity: until a unified standard for digital processing, all disks should be write-protected before being explored in an archival setting on the clean computer, so as to avoid further compromising the authenticity and informational value of the data stored on them.

The State Archives policy on electronic records is still undergoing significant and dramatic changes. While the electronic records task force has met with several vendors for remote storage and digital preservation in the form of hardware migration and software emulation, the lack of requisite funding has limited the Task Force’s ability to produce meaningful results. The official guidelines for the processing of electronic records

96 California Micro Occupational Information System, The California Occupational Information Coordinating Committee, Occupational Information Development Files, R189.07, California State Arc- hives, Office of the Secretary of State, Sacramento, California.

38 call for an extremely limited description during processing, and preservation limited to low-temperature storage in the Archives “Z” vault.97

The electronic records of the COICC which the author sought to explore using professional standards for digital media were thus left largely unprocessed. With the ex- ception of 3 ½” diskettes, the majority of records on 5 ¼” diskettes could not be described according to their content. Rather, they were described only according to their physical label. These electronic records were placed in climate-controlled low temperature storage with the hope that eventual adoption of a uniform digital record policy by the

State Archives would allow these and other electronic records to be sufficiently arranged and described for access by researchers.

The State Archives’ Electronic Records Task Force continues to meet and discuss the future of electronic records at the Archives. While it remains unclear if and when the

State Archives will adopt an electronic records policy, there is no guarantee that even if digital records are preserved that access will be given to the public in any manner different than it is given for textual records. The great potential for the electronic records of the State of California to be accessed by hundreds if not thousands of researchers per year is limited by the potential policy for access that the Archives may adopt in the future.

97 Metzer, “Processing Manual.”

Chapter 3

FINDINGS

From inception to final completion, the processing of the records of the California

Occupational Information Coordinating Committee took over six months. The author began this project in October 2010, without prior knowledge of the extent of the under- taking. Investigation into the agency history and the many state and federal legislative and structural changes that the COICC experienced in its twenty-seven year history proved intensive and time consuming.98 The processing plan for the records as originally created, with access only to a basic records retention schedule and the limited description of records series as understood by the accessioning archivists over a period of a decade or more, differed significantly from the size and arrangement of the collection at the time of the final completion of their processing.

Arranging and describing the records, particularly in reducing the overall volume of the collection from nearly fifty-two cubic feet to just over thirteen cubic feet, including electronic resources, posed a significant challenge to the author. The lack of logical arrangement of the records, both within and across the four separate accessions (and thus the lack of original order to the records) meant that the author’s definitions of series for the records was an ongoing process during the arrangement of the records.

98 Guide to the California Occupational Information Coordinating Committee Records, R189.01- R189.12., California State Archives, Office of the Secretary of State, Sacramento, California, 2011.

Findings

With respect to the subjects covered by the records of the COICC, the author be-

gan this project with a limited knowledge of labor market information, as well as the con-

text of the labor information dissemination, employment training, and vocational educa-

tion as it existed both at the national level and within California between 1975 and

2005.99 The evolution of the COICC from the passage of the Comprehensive Employ- ment Training Act of 1973 and the creation of the National Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee through the establishing legislation in California in the statutes

of 1975 in the Education Code, was complex. Tracing this history through the reforms of

the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education act of 1984 and the shift of statu-

tory authority for the COICC from the California Education Code to the Unemployment

Insurance Code proved challenging due to the changing and evolving elements of the go-

verning statutory authority.

The NOICC was defunded in 2000 and America’s Career Resource Network was

subsequently established. At this same time the COICC continued to operate through

federal Perkins Act funding until being dissolved in 2005. Senate Bill 655, introduced by

Senator Migdin, replaced the title and functions of the COICC with the California Career

Resource Network. To the author, this history gave the records of the COICC a very de-

finite context, well-placed within the national theatre of events.100

99 H. H. Splete and J. Hoppin, “The Emergence of Career Development Facilitators,” Career De- velopment Quarterly 48 (December 2000), 341. 100 SB665, California Career Resource Network, Chapter 208, Statutes of 2005.

The records series varied from correspondence to subject files to budget reports.

Correspondence seemed the largest series, as it included mail from the COICC staff to member agencies, from agencies working with the COICC to one another, from the executive director to the COICC board, from the COICC to other State Occupational Infor- mation Coordinating Committees and the National Committee, and from the COICC to vendors, schools, Private Industry Councils, and labor market information test sites.101

Memoranda files were similar, but included information between COICC staff members and the executive director. Files on labor market and occupational conferences and on subjects related to labor market information development were also found. Reports of the committee to the legislature, the NOICC, and the general public took up a smaller amount of space than anticipated. The Occupational Outlook Reports, which the COICC was created to compile and distribute, were not completed until 2000 to 2004 and only included half of California’s counties.102

The author was given broad authority over what was to be considered a record of

“enduring value,” and subsequently the collection was reduced by 75 percent. A majority of the records not retained for the collection were blank, duplicates, or redundant. The remainder of the records removed from the collection included personally identifiable information on parties not related to the scope of the collection, budgetary allocation and funding reports, and interagency correspondence and memoranda without any long term

101 Correspondence Files, Guide to the California Occupational Information Coordinating Com- mittee Records, R189.03, California State Archives, Office of the Secretary of State, Sacramento, Califor- nia, 2011. 102 Occupational Outlook Reports, Report Files, Guide to the California Occupational Information Coordinating Committee Records, R189.08 and R189.11. California State Archives, Office of the Secretary of State, Sacramento, California, 2011.

value to researchers. Best practices for archives, as well as the Society of American Arc- hivists’ Code of Ethics mandates that records be appraised with impartial judgement.103

The author felt that to be completely impartial was to ignore the broader context of the records and their place both within occupational information history and the history of

California labor markets, but appraised the records within the collection as objectively as possible.

The myriad of problems of the electronic portion of the COICC’s records, not

simply due to the broader problems of electronic records processing, but specifically the

shortcomings of the California State Archives, presented the author with both a mounting

challenge and valuable insight as to the function of large archives without existing elec-

tronic records management programs. The difficulty posed by even identifying the subjects of electronic records, especially those of such disparate formats from 5 ¼” floppy diskettes to Video-CDs, was significant.

It was not until the State Archives installed a “clean machine” that the author could even examine the electronic records; and even then only the 3 ½” diskettes and

CD-ROMs were accessible. Despite several conversations with the State Archivist Nan- cy Z. Lenoil, the Archives never officially received the capacity to read electronic records on 5 ¼” disks. The only other possibility would have been removing duplicate 5 ¼” disks from the collection to be read on a private machine, but this would violate both

Archives’ policy and the Society of American Archivists’ code of ethics by removing

103 Hunter, Developing and Maintaining Practical Archives, 382.

records. To remove any records, even duplicates, from the building would have been sig-

nificantly inappropriate.

Notably, the electronic records contained on both 5 ¼” and 3 ½” floppy disks in-

cluded not just data, but original programs as well. The development of an Occupational

Information System by Pacific Research Management Associates for 1984-1985 spanned over seven disks for each of three different versions. Access to these records will be se- verely limited for researchers, as the majority remain on as-yet unreadable 5 ¼” disks.

The remainder, on 3 ½” floppies, will remain in the Archives’ cold storage vault, and will not be migrated or virtualized on any accessible servers. While the possibility exists that data contained on the several compact discs could be migrated to the Archives’ servers, the likelihood that this digital information will be made available to researchers or through the internet to the general public is currently minimal at best.

Conclusions

The problems of electronic records at the State Archives can be compounded by the general difficulties of processing a collection without defined arrangement. While the author brought a working knowledge both about digital information systems and information management, as well as standards and practices of archival theory, the task of processing the collection proved to be substantial and time-consuming. It is hoped that the rewards gained in terms of experience and contribution to future researchers are valuable, as is the importance of knowing how to implement the theories behind the arrangement and description of archival records.

The processing of the records of the California Occupational Information Coordi-

nating Committee illustrates some practical realities of working with electronic records in

an institution not currently set up to effectively ingest and disseminate them for research-

ers and the general public. It is the author’s hope that this process may serve to better the

understanding of any, be they record creators, archivists, researchers, or interested citizens, who interact with electronic records. The state of electronic records at the Califor- nia State Archives, like those of any archives, is one of slow progress. While the path to effective electronic records management may not be straightforward, quick, or easily tra- versed, it is there. Archival institutions are already on this path, they need only to continue moving forward towards the digital future.

APPENDIX A

Inventory of the COICC Records

Inventory of the Records of the Occupational Information Coordinating Committee 1978-2004

California State Archives Office of the Secretary of State Sacramento, California

Contact Information California State Archives 1020 O Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 653-2246 FAX: (916) 653-7363 E-mail: [email protected] URL: http://www.sos.ca.gov/archives/

Records processed by Tyler G. Cline Date Completed: May 2011

Descriptive Summary

Title Records of the Occupational Information Coordinating Committee

Collection Number R189

Creator California Occupational Information Coordinating Committee

Extent 13 Cubic feet

Repository California State Archives Office of the Secretary of State Sacramento, California

Administrative Information

Publication Rights For permission to reproduce or publish, please consult California State Archives staff. Permission for reproduction or publication is given on behalf of the California State Arc- hives, Office of the Secretary of State, Sacramento, as the owner of the physical items. The researcher assumes all responsibility for possible infringement that may arise from reproduction or publication of materials from the California State Archives’ collections.

Preferred Citation [Identification of item], Occupational Information Coordinating Committee Records, R189. [series number], [box & folder number], California State Archives, Office of the Secretary of State, Sacramento, California.

Restrictions Records are open for research.

Agency History

The California Occupational Information Coordinating Committee (COICC) was created by an act of the State Legislature in response to the national Comprehensive Employment Training Act of 1973, or CETA. That act was passed by the 93rd Congress and chaptered as Public Law 93-203. The federal act created the National Occupational Information Coordinating Committee (NOICC) as a federal level interagency committee with consolidated responsibilities for funding federal job training programs, for the unemployed, underemployed, the disadvantaged, and youth. The NOICC coordinated with state level Occupational Information Coordinating Committees or SOICCs, and distributed block grants and the Basic Assistance Grants to state level programs which met the NOICC’s developmental guidelines.

The COICC (alternately referred to as the California SOICC) was established by Statutes of 1975, Chapter 853. The Committee consisted of the Director of Employment Devel- opment, the Director of Commerce, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Chan- cellor of the California Community Colleges, the Director of Rehabilitation, the chair of the State Job Training Coordinating Council, the Executive Director of the Employment Training Panel, the Director of Social Services, and the Executive Secretary of the Coun- cil for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education. The goal of the committee was to act as an advisory body to the Employment Development Department in the department's operation of the State-Local Cooperative Labor Market Information Development Program, or LMID, as specified in the above mentioned federally funded program requirements.

The scope and mission of the COICC was modified several times after its inception. Chapter 972, Statutes of 1978, stated that the Legislature’s intent for the COICC was to make “timely labor market information” available to the public. Revised federal legislation such as the Job Training Partnership Act of 1982 provided funding through the NOICC for state level OICCs to fund job corps, adult and youth education programs, and labor market information statistics gathering, publishing, and promulgation.

The national Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1984 restructured the NOICC/SOICC relationship by providing funding and mandates for the creation of technical and vocational education programs. The COICC was encouraged to sponsor and track the successes of vocational programs in California. In 1984, the authorizing legislation granting the COICC statutory authority was shifted from the Education code to the unemployment insurance code. The COICC was defined as an interagency committee in the Unemployment Insurance Code sections 10531 and 10532, with the same language, structure, and board composition as the previous statutes of 1978.

During this time, the COICC, which had a full-time staff of two and one half persons, began efforts to promulgate labor market information for California. The COICC chose a distributed model for this information, facilitating coordination between the California State College system and the Private Industry Councils of major California cities such as San José, Fresno, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego.

In 1998 the committee became part of America’s Career Resource Network as funded under the Workforce Investment Act. The committee was restructured in 2005, following the passage of SB655 (Midgin), which repealed the Unemployment Insurance Code sections 10531 and 10532, replacing them with Education Code section 53086 (Chapter 208, Statutes of 2006). The committee was renamed the California Career Resource Network and became a special program within the Department of Education.

The members now included the Director of Employment Development, the State Superin- tendent of Public Instruction, the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, the Director of Rehabilitation, the Director of Social Services, the Executive Director of the California Workforce Investment Board, the Chief Deputy of the Adult Programs Divi- sion, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Chief Deputy of the Juvenile Jus- tice Division, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and the Director of the De- partment of Developmental Services.

The program then had the goal to distribute career information, resources, and training materials to middle school and high school counselors, educators, and administrators, in order to ensure that middle schools and high schools have the necessary information available to provide a pupil with guidance and instruction on education and job requirements necessary for career development.

Scope and Content

The records of the Occupational Information Coordinating Committee (COICC) consist of thirteen cubic feet of textual records and one box of electronic media. These records are arranged into twelve series and date from 1978 to 2004. The series arrangement re- flects an imposition of an artificial arrangement structure onto records which were organized neither chronologically nor by subject. Records were stored in folders with limited description, and organization was imposed on these folders.

The records between the creation of the COICC in 1978 and the passage of the Job Train- ing Partnership Act in 1982 and the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act in 1984 are sparse and reflect a lack of direction within the COICC. Despite having a mandate from the state to propagate labor market information and funding to do so, the records of the COICC from this period display both lack of consensus as to the COICC’s mission as well as the methods through which such mission was to be accomplished.

Beginning in 1982, the COICC undertook a study of the usefulness of Labor Market In- formation (LMI) within the state, contracted to Pacific Research Management Associates of Sacramento. This group developed three versions of a Labor Market Information Sur- vey, to be distributed electronically on microfloppy diskette for MS-DOS computers. The survey was distributed to Private Industry Councils of San Jose and San Diego, as well as several colleges and universities. Despite spending several years and many thousands of dollars on the survey project, the COICC would not effectively distribute Labor Market Information within and about the state for another decade.

Beginning in the late 1990s, the COICC began to distribute Occupational Outlook Re- ports for the counties of California on an annual basis. These reports were distributed in bound volumes as well as electronic format as Adobe PDF files.

The records of the COICC reflect shifting trends in both the labor market and labor market information over a period of twenty-five years. In the late 1990s, the Committee’s memoranda and interagency correspondence reflected the growing realization that the changing realities of labor in California and the Untied States meant that as companies shifted their workforces towards “mobile” more temporary employees, the ability for agencies to track labor market information, as well as the relevance and timeliness of labor market information, was significantly decreased.

By the year 2000, the National Occupational Information Coordinating Committee (NOICC) had its statutory language revoked, and was replaced by America’s Career Re- source Network (ACRN), with a focus on employment education for high school students

52 and retraining for people changing careers. The COICC continued to produce and distribute Occupational Outlook Reports up until its restructuring as the California Career Re- source Network (CalCRN) in 2005.

Series Description

1. Agency Files. 1982-1990. 9 file folders. R189.01. Box 1, folders 1 – 9.

Arranged alphabetically by agency name.

Agency files include material relating to the various agencies with which the COICC had a relationship. These include the Employment Development Department, the Department of Education, and the California Community Colleges. Agency files include materials such as interagency agreements and budgetary information.

2. Conference Files. 1996-2002. 8 file folders. R189.02. Box 1, folders 10 – 17.

Arranged chronologically.

This series contains material related to conferences attended by COICC members. They COICC attended numerous conferences between the inception of the Committee and its disbandment. The COICC also sponsored and hosted conferences in California related to labor market information, labor statistics development, and workforce information. Ma- terials include promotional material, research material, remarks, and correspondence with conference members or hosts.

3. Correspondence. 1982-2003. 60 file folders. R189.03. Box 1, folder 18 – Box 4, folder 4.

Arranged into two subseries. The first subseries covers the years 1982 to 1986, and is arranged chronologically. The second subseries covers the years 1983 to 2003, and is arranged alphabetically by subject.

Correspondence files include letters and emails from the COICC, its executive directors, and its advisory members to and from various agencies, legislators, researchers, consul- tants, and members of the private sector, both citizens and industry leaders. The COICC also had correspondence with the National Occupational Coordinating Committee on matters of policy, procedure, funding, and scope.

4. Meeting Files. 1979-2002. 43 file folders. R189.04. Box 4, folder 5 – Box 5, folder 23.

Arranged into two subseries: (1) Meeting Agendas and Minutes, and (2) General Meeting Files. Meeting agendas and minutes are arranged by date, and general meeting files are arranged by subject.

The first subseries includes agendas and minutes from meetings of the full Committee including advisory members and general staff. These meetings typically occurred on a monthly basis, but were frequently postponed or cancelled. The second subseries included meeting notes and reference material. Topics discussed at the COICC meetings include the directorship of the Committee, the workforce development block grant program, labor market information, the Joint Employment Training Conference of 1992, and cooperation with other State Occupational Information Coordinating Committees.

5. Memoranda. 1989-2002. 34 file folders. R189.05. Box 6, folder 1 – Box 7, folder 11.

Arranged alphabetically by subject.

The COICC staff included the executive director and one to three staff assistants at any given time, and correspondence between the staff and the full body of the Committee was often the best way for these two groups to communicate. As the COICC met monthly and frequently cancelled or postponed meetings, memoranda between the executive director and members of the Committee allowed for the free flow of information and ideas to develop projects and continue the general functions of the committee.

6. Office Files. 1981-1999. 11 file folders. R189.06. Box 7, folders 12 – 22.

Arranged alphabetically by subject.

Office files include material from the day-to-day operations of the COICC staff, which included an executive director and at least one support person. The correspondence and materials of the executive director is included.

7. OIS Development Files. 1980-2002. R189.07. Box 7, folder 23 – Box 9, folder 25.

Arranged alphabetically by subject.

The development of a California Cooperative Occupational Information System (CCOIS) was a fundamental goal of the COICC. The OIS Development Files include reports, research, and background information on the development of the CCOIS. From the creation of the Committee through the late 1990s, this system was never fully developed or implemented. The COICC contracted with Pacific Research Management Associates in 1983-1985 to develop a comprehensive survey meant to gauge the interest of the public and private sectors in participating in the CCOIS, but participation was low. These files include research and correspondence between PRMA and the COICC members, user manuals for the Labor Market Information Survey, and digital media including three versions of the LMIS on 5 ¼” diskette. The COICC attempted to coordinate a distributed Occupational Information System by making it voluntary and industry-led, but by 1995 it had returned to a centralized CCOIS concept.

For a complete description of OIS media, see Appendix A.

8. Outlook Reports. 18 file folders. 1982-2004. R189.08. Box 10, folders 1 – 18.

Arranged alphabetically by county.

The Occupational Outlook Reports cover a wide variety of labor market information in several regions in California, usually separated by County. For the first decade of these reports, the information is scattered and not uniform. However, reports included after 1995, both electronically and in textual format are both comprehensive and uniform. The reports included are primarily from 2001-2003 and include multi-year projections by the counties.

For a complete description of report titles, see Appendix B.

9. Program Files. 7 file folders. 1986-1988. R189.09. Box 10, folder 19 – Box 11, folder 4.

Arranged alphabetically by program.

Program files include material both on the programs developed by the COICC as well as programs led by private industry council, for-profit groups, other SOICCs, and the NOICC. These include printed and promotional material, correspondence to and from these groups, and feedback on the COICC’s programs such as the Cooperative Occupa- tional Information System. Programs managed by the COICC included the Labor Market Information Technical Guide program, the Occupational Handbook Workshop Guide, the guide to the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, and the distribution of research on paths to entering the workplace.

10. Project Files. 10 file folders. 1987-1995. R189.10. Box 11, folders 5 – 14.

Arranged alphabetically by project.

Project files include documentation on the various tasks which the COICC performed, including preparation for conferences, development of strategies to fulfill its mandate of labor market dissemination, and the creation of guides to career development training. Some projects included finding local partners for the California Cooperative Information System, the Career Development Training Guide, and the Vocational Training Wage Da- ta project.

11. Report Files. 15 file folders. 1978-2004. R189.11. Box 11, folder 15 – Box 12, folder 6.

Arranged alphabetically by subject.

Reports created or retained by the COICC including those on labor market information, career development training, career reeducation and workforce adjustment, workforce development, and vocational and technical education.

12. Subject Files. 26 file folders. 1988-2002. R189.12. Box 12, folder 7 – Box 13, folder 9.

Arranged alphabetically by subject.

Subject files span a wide array of topics of interest or use to the COICC and typically consist of correspondence, background material, newspaper clippings, notes, reports, legislation, and educational tools. Some subjects of specific interest to the COICC are SB178 (1983-1984) which reauthorized the COICC with a mandate for labor market information gathering and distribution, the Carl D. Perkins Act for Vocational and Tech- nical Education of 1984, which contained information similar to SB178 on the federal level, the COICC’s distribution of the “California Career Video” series, and the Real Game/Make It Real Game for use in the public school system at differing grade levels.

For a complete description of subject headings, see Appendix C.

Appendix A: OIS Development Files, Electronic Media

Media Type Description Location

5 1/4” Disk 1992 State Training Inventory. 2 disks. Z59

5 1/4” Disk 1993 State Training Inventory. 2 disks. Z59

5 1/4” Disk 1994 State Training Inventory. 2 disks Z59

5 1/4” Disk Labor Supply Survey Kit. Version 1.0. 6 disks. Z59

5 1/4” Disk Labor Supply Survey Kit. Version 2.0. 8 disks. Z59

5 1/4” Disk Labor Supply Survey Kit. Version 3.0. 12 disks. Z59

5 1/4” Disk Pacific Management Development. 4 disks. Z59

5 1/4” Disk Survey Handbook. 8 disks. Z59

5 1/4” Disk COICC/NOICC Training Module. 10 disks. Z59

3 1/2” Disk 1993 State Training Inventory. 2 disks. Z59

3 1/2” Disk 1994 State Training Inventory. 2 disks. Z59

3 1/2” Disk 1995 State Training Inventory. 2 disks. Z59

3 1/2” Disk 1996 State Training Inventory. 9 disks. Z59

3 1/2” Disk California Job Prospects. 1 disk. 1998. Z59

3 1/2” Disk COICC Lesson Guide (WordPerfect). 1 disk. 2001. Z59

3 1/2” Disk CCOIS Marketing Brochure. 2 disks. Z59

3 1/2” Disk Spectrum Job Search System. Version 1.0. 13 disks. Z59 1991.

3 1/2” Disk ERISS. Version 4.0 15 disks. 1995. Z59

3 1/2” Disk Monterey Outlook Report (PDF). 1 disk. 1995. Z59

3 1/2” Disk Mother Lode Outlook Report (PDF). 1 disk. 1995. Z59

3 1/2” Disk San Francisco Outlook Report (PDF). 1 disk. 1995. Z59

3 1/2” Disk San Luis Obispo Outlook Report (PDF). 1 disk. 1995. Z59

3 1/2” Disk Sacramento Outlook Report (PDF). 1 disk. 1996. Z59

CD-ROM COICC logo (Adobe Illustrator). 1 disc. 2001. Z59

CD-ROM COICC banner (Adobe Illustrator). 1 disc. 2001. Z59

CD-ROM Golden State Career Videos. 1 disc. 2001. Z59

CD-ROM Labor Market Training Provider Information. 1 disc. Z59 2001.

Videocas- “Career Counseling in California: The New Agenda.” Z59 sette 1994.

Appendix B: Occupational Outlook Reports

Date Description Identification #

2002-2003 Alameda County Box 10/7

2003-2004 Alpine, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer, and Sierra Counties Box 10/7

2003 Fresno Box 10/7

2000-2002 Humboldt Box 10/8

2001-2003 Humboldt Box 10/8

2000-2002 Mother Lode Consortium Box 10/9

2001-2003 Mother Lode Consortium Box 10/9

2003-2004 North Central Counties: Colusa, Glen, Lake, Sutter, Yuba Box 10/10

2002-2003 NorTec Region Box 10/11

2002 Orange Box 10/11

2000-2001 Sacramento Box 10/12

2003 San Diego Box 10/13

2000-2002 San Luis Obispo Box 10/13

2003 San Mateo Box 10/14

2002 Santa Clara Box 10/15

2003 Santa Clara Box 10/16

2004 Shasta Box 10/16

2002-2003 Stanislaus Nox 10/17

2003-2004 Stanislaus Box 10/17

2003-2004 Ventura Box 10/18

Appendix C: Subject Files

Date Subject Identification #

1995 Career Counseling for Change (1ff) Box 12/7

2001 Career Videos (5ff) Box 12/8 – Box 12/12

1998-1999 Employment Development, Department of. (2ff) Box 12/13 – Box 12/14

1999-2000 Employment Training (1ff) Box 12/15

1994 Higher Education (3ff) Box 12/16 – Box 12/18

1982-1983 Job Training Partnership Act (1ff) Box 12/19

1998-1999 Kaleidoscope (1ff) Box 12/20

1992 Labor Market Information (1ff) Box 12/21

1999 Make it Real Game (1ff) Box 12/22

2002 Perkins Act (2ff) Box 13/1 – Box 13/2

2002-2003 The Real Game (1ff) Box 13/3

1983-1984 SB 178 (1983-1984) (2ff) Box 13/4 – Box 13/5

1994 State Job Training Coordinating Council (1ff) Box 13/6

1998 State Plan for Higher Education (1ff) Box 13/7

1990-1992 Telecommunications (1ff) Box 13/8

1994 Unemployment Information (1ff) Box 13/9

APPENDIX B

Sample Processing Plan

Processing Plan Worksheet

Collection Name: Occupational Information Coordinating Committee

Accession Numbers: 1998-07-10; 1998-11-35; 2002-198; 2006-090

Total Volume: 52.0 cubic feet Dates: 1978-2004

Organization: Office files, subject files, correspondence, publications, reports.

Types of Materials: Textual and electronic.

Primary Subjects: Interagency correspondence, conference information, The Make It Real Game, meeting information, county Occupa- tional Outlook Reports.

Physical Condition: Good.

Restrictions: None – open for research. .

Record Units:

Correspondence Files (1994-1996) 2 cf Meeting Files (1983-2000) 4 cf Memoranda Files (1983-1993) 2 cf OIS Development Files (1981-1989) 3 cf Report Files (2000-2004) 3 cf Conference Files (1996-2001) 2 cf Subject Files (1982-1996) 1 cf

Date Assigned: 10/01/2010 Revised 3/20/11

Processing Archivist: Tyler G. Cline

APPENDIX C

Sample Catalog Cards

OCCUPATIONAL INFORMATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE

LOCATION DESCRIPTION DATE

Dxxxx

R198.01 AGENCY FILES 1982-1990

Box 1/1 – Box 1/9

R189.02 CONFERENCE FILES 1996-2002

Box 1/10 – Box 1/17

R189.03 CORRESPONDENCE FILES 1982-2003

Box 1/18 – Box 4/4

OCCUPATIONAL INFORMATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE See Master Finding Aid for Details LOCATION DESCRIPTION DATE

Dxxxx

R189.04 MEETING FILES 1979-2002

Box 4/5 – Box 5/23

R189.05 MEMORANDA FILES 1989-2002

Box 6/1 – Box 7/11

R189.06 OFFICE FILES 1981-1999

Box 7/12 – Box 7/22

See Master Finding Aid for Details

OCCUPATIONAL INFORMATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE

LOCATION DESCRIPTION DATE

Dxxxx

R189.07 OIS DEVELOPMENT FILES 1980-2002

Box 7/23 – Box 9/25

R189.08 OUTLOOK REPORTS 1982-2004

Box 10/1 – Box 10/18

R189.09 PROGRAM FILES 1986-1988

Box 10/19 – Box 11/4

OCCUPATIONAL SeeINFORMATION Master Finding Aid COORDINAT for Details ING COMMITTEE

LOCATION DESCRIPTION DATE

Dxxxx

R189.10 PROJECT FILES 1987-1995

Box 11/5 – Box 11/14

R189.11 REPORT FILES 1984-2002

Box 11/15 – Box 12/6

R189.12 SUBJECT FILES 1988-2002

Box 12/7 – Box 13/10

See Master Finding Aid for Details

APPENDIX D

Sample Box Labels

California State Archives AN: ID# - Agency/Source - Record Title - Dates R189.01 - R189.03 Occupational Info Coordinating Committee Agency Files (1982-1990) Conference Files (1996-2002) Correspondence Files (1982-2003) 1982-2003 Loc: D4482Box 1 of 13 27173

California State Archives AN: ID# - Agency/Source - Record Title - Dates R189.09-R189.11 Occupational Info Coordinating Committee Program Files (1986-1988) Project Files (1987-1995) Report Files (1984-2002) 1986-2002

Loc: D4485Box 11 of 13 27183

California State Archives AN: ID# - Agency/Source - Record Title - Dates R189.03 Occupational Information Coordinating Committee

Correspondence Files (1996-2002)

1996-2002 Loc: D4483Box 3 of 13 27175

California State Archives AN: ID# - Agency/Source - Record Title - Dates R189.04 Occupational Information Coordinating Committee

Meeting Files (1979-2002)

1979-2002 Loc: D4483Box 5 of 13 27177

California State Archives AN: ID# - Agency/Source - Record Title - Dates R189.07 Occupational Information Coordinating Committee

OIS Development Files (1980-2002)

1980-2002 Loc: D4484Box 8 of 13 27180

California State Archives AN: ID# - Agency/Source - Record Title - Dates R189.08-R189.09 Occupational Information Coordinating Committee

Outlook Reports (1982-2004) Program Files (1986-1988)

1982-2004 Loc: D4485Box 10 of 13 27182

California State Archives AN: ID# - Agency/Source - Record Title - Dates R189.12 Occupational Information Coordinating Committee

Subject Files (1988-2002)

1988-2002 Loc: D4486Box 13 of 13 27185

California State Archives AN: ID# - Agency/Source - Record Title - Dates R189.05-R189.07 Occupational Info Coordinating Committee Memoranda (1989-2002) Office Files (1981-1999) OIS Development Files (1980-2002) 1980-2002 Loc: D4484Box 7 of 13 27179

California State Archives AN: ID# - Agency/Source - Record Title - Dates R189.03 Occupational Information Coordinating Committee

Correspondence Files (1996-2002)

1982-2003 Loc: D4482Box 2 of 13 27174

California State Archives AN: ID# - Agency/Source - Record Title - Dates R189.03-R189.04 Occupational Information Coordinating Committee

Correspondence Files (1996-2002) Meeting Files (1979-2002)

1979-2002 Loc: D4483Box 4 of 13 27176

California State Archives AN: ID# - Agency/Source - Record Title - Dates R189.05 Occupational Information Coordinating Committee

Memoranda (1981-1999)

1981-1999 Loc: D4484Box 6 of 13 27178

California State Archives AN: ID# - Agency/Source - Record Title - Dates R189.07 Occupational Information Coordinating Committee

OIS Development Files (1980-2002)

1980-2002 Loc: D4485Box 9 of 13 27181

California State Archives AN: ID# - Agency/Source - Record Title - Dates R189.11-R189.12 Occupational Information Coordinating Committee

Report Files (1984-2002) Subject Files (1988-2002)

1984-2002 Loc: D4486Box 12 of 13 27184

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Accession Number 1998-07-10. Accessioning Worksheet, Accessioning Program Records. California State Archives. Office of the Secretary of State, 1998.

Accession Number 1998-11-35. Accessioning Worksheet, Accessioning Program Records. California State Archives. Office of the Secretary of State, 1998.

Accession Number 2002-198. Accessioning Worksheet. Accessioning Program Records. California State Archives. Office of the Secretary of State, 2002.

Accession Number 2006-090. Accessioning Worksheet, Accessioning Program Records. California State Archives. Office of the Secretary of State, 2006.

Boles, Frank. Selecting and Appraising Archives and Manuscripts. Chicago: The Society of American Archivists, 2005.

California. An Act Concerning the Public Archives. Statues, 1850.

California. Constitution of the State of California. 1849.

Cleggsan, Almon. “Moore’s Law.” E-Zine Articles (August 31, 2010).

Dow, Elizabeth. Electronic Records in the Manuscript Repository. New York: Scarecrow Press, 2009.

Duranti, Luciana, and MacNeil, Heather. “The Protection of the Integrity of Electronic Records: An Overview of the University of British Columbia Masters of Archival Science Research Project (Abstract, 1995).

Duranti, Luciana, and Preston, Robert. InterPARES 2 Project: Experimental, Interactive and Dynamic Records. Padova: National Association of Italian Archivists, 2008.

Duval, Erik, Wayne Hodgins, Stewart Sutton, Stuart Wiebel. “Metadata Principles and Practicalities. D-Lib Magazine 8, no. 4. (April, 2002).

General Services, California Department of. Records Retention Schedule Guidelines. Cal- ifornia Records and Information Management. Sacramento: State Printing Office, 2007.

Greene, Mark, and Dennis Meissner. “More Product, Less Process: Revamping Tradi- tional Archival Processing.” The American Archivist, vol. 68 (Fall/Winter 2005): 208-263.

Hally, Michael. Electronic Brains: Stories from the Dawn of the Computer Age. New York: Joseph Henry Press, 2005.

Herrick, Jessica. “Records Retention Schedules and Accessioning.” Presentation to the California State Archives. July 14, 2010.

Heslop, Helen, et al. “An Approach to the Preservation of Digital Records.” The National Archives of Australia (December 2003).

Hunter, Gregory. Developing and Maintaining Practical Archives. New York: Neal Schuman Publishers, 2004.

------. Preserving Digital Information: A How To Do It Manual. New York: Neal Schumann Publishers, 2000.

Kunde, Nancy. “Getting it Done - Collaboration and Development of the Digital Records Standard.” The American Archivist, vol. 72 (Spring/Summer 2009).

Kuny, Terry. “A Digital Dark Age? Challenges in the Preservation of Electronic Records. The International Federation of Library Associations (August 27, 1997).

MacLean, Margaret. Time and Bits: Managing Digital Continuity. The Getty Conserva- tion Institute, 1999.

McFarland, Patrick. How to Choose a CD/DVD Archival Media. Free Software Maga- zine. October 30, 2006.

Metzer, Laren. “Processing Manual.” Sacramento: California State Archives, Office of the Secretary of State, 2003.

Moore, Gordon. “Cramming More Components Onto Integrated Circuits” Electronics Magazine (April, 1965).

Pearce-Moses, Richard. “Janus in Cyberspace: Archives On the Threshold of the Digital Era,” The American Archivist 70, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 2007).

Preserving and Promoting the History of California. Brochure. Sacramento: Office of the Secretary of State, n.d.

Pogue, David. “TechnoFiles: Seeing Forever.” Scientific American. April 2011.

Rauch, Jonathan. The New Old Economy: Computers and the Reinvention of the Earth. The Atlantic Monthly. January, 2001.

Reagan, Brad. The Digital Ice Age. Popular Mechanics. December, 2006.

Roe, Kathleen. Arranging and Describing Archives and Manuscripts. Chicago: The So- ciety of American Archivists, 2005.

Rogers, Brent. “Facing An Uncertain Future: Electronic Records Preservation and Cali- fornia State Government.” Masters Thesis, California State University, Sacramen- to, 2007.

------. “The Historical Community and the Digital Future.” Department of His- tory James A. Rawley Graduate Conference in the Humanities. Lincoln: Universi- ty of Nebraska Press, 2008.

------. "Unbounded History: Technology, Tools, Scholarship, and Preservation in the Digital Age." Hindsight 3 (May 2009): 108-130.

Rothenberg, Jeff. Avoiding Technological Quicksand: Finding a Viable Technological Foundation for Digital Preservation. Council on Library and Information Re- sources, 1998.

------. Digital Preservation: The Uncertain Future of Saving the Past. RAND Europe. 2008.

Society of American Archivists. Describing Archives: A Content Standard. Chicago: So- ciety of American Archivists, 2004.

Splete, H. H., and Hoppin, J. “The Emergence of Career Development Facilitators.” Ca- reer Development Quarterly 48. December, 2000.

Stielow, Frederick. Building Digital Archives, Descriptions, and Displays. New York: Neal Schumann Publishers, 2003.

Thibodeau, Kenneth. “Preserving Electronic Records: Developments at the National Arc- hives and Records Administration.” Long Term Preservation of Digital Archives. (New York: May 19, 2004): 1-6.

Todd, Michael. Design Criteria Standard for Electronic Records Management Software Applications. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. June 19, 2002.