 Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to our bridge meeting for February 2023. My name is Arian Ravenbach, and I will be serving as the moderator for today's meeting. As a reminder, the Office of Agency Services at the National Archives and Records Administration hosts these bimonthly records and information discussion group, or bridge meetings, to present information relating to federal records management. Bridge is a co-production of the Office of the Chief Records Officer for the United States and the Federal Records Center Program, and is live streamed to the audience over our YouTube channel. Generally, bridge meetings consist of a scheduled program of presentations with an open forum at the end of each meeting to ask questions of the presenters or of any related federal records management topic of interest. Viewers are encouraged to post questions in the chat or by sending an email to rm.communications.org. Our staff will be monitoring this email box during the meeting. You are also welcome to make comments and ask questions during this meeting in the YouTube chat. However, keep in mind that all comments are subject to moderation, so we ask that you keep the comments relevant to the topics being discussed. Copies of the presentation slides will be posted on the bridge page of the Archives website. That web page is also where you'll find the transcription of today's meeting when it is available, as well as links and information about previous and upcoming bridge meetings. If you have general comments about bridge or suggestions for future topics, you can use that same email address rm.communications.nara.gov to pass these along to us. We welcome your feedback. With that, I would like to start today's meeting by introducing Lawrence Brewer, the Chief Records Officer for the U.S. government. Good afternoon, Lawrence. Good afternoon, and thanks, Ariane. So let me add my welcome to, for this bridge meeting, to everyone here for this Valentine's Day edition of our meeting. It's also the first meeting that we've had this calendar year, and a lot has happened since the holidays. Thank you for flipping the slide. And we're going to try and run through some of the big developments, some of the policies, the memos that have come out since last we met, and maybe look forward a little bit on the kinds of things that we'll be working on, not only in terms of guidance, but we're also going to continue the ongoing discussions at these bridge meetings related to ERA, the Electronic Records Archives, and what is ahead this spring. So with that, why don't we go to the next slide, and I will use this as really just another reminder for where we are and some of the activities that you are currently working on, and hopefully are on your radar. Starting in January, the beginning of the year, we had a number of things kick off, including the renewal for the agency records officer credential process. Just wanted to note that since we have kicked off the renewal in the beginning of January, we have 29 records officers already completing their renewal. So congratulations to those 29 individuals and encourage the rest of you who are currently within the process to keep at it so we can get everyone renewed and complete for this first cycle. Also, at the same time, annual reporting is ongoing. The deadline is March 10th, so hopefully you are all busily working on your say on reports, your maturity models, and of course the records management self-assessment. Also in January, we kicked off the resubmission process for capstone verification form and A1005 for those of you who are using the general record schedule 6.1 for email and other messages. That started January 31st, it goes until April 30th, and if you want to know a little bit more detail about the process and what you need to do, we held a webinar on January 24th. That now has been recorded and captured on our webpage under the email management tab, so I encourage you to go back and review that or if you haven't, you aren't able to participate in the webinar. It is up there for those of you who are working on your capstone resubmission forms. The last two, I'm not going to speak about here in detail because we are going to cover ERA in a few minutes, and we will just flip the slide and get to the memos. This was a pretty big deal that happened right before the holidays in December. We have a new memo, M2307, which I'm sure all of you are probably very familiar with by now. The key thing, obviously, that the memo does is extend the dates. What was the December 2022 dates has now been extended to June 30th, 2024. The other important points to note about the memo is that M1921 is still in place. This new memo reinforces the goals of the memo that was released in 2019. The goals at a high level are still the same. We are still focused on making that transition to fully electronic record keeping and using commercial storage and not leveraging and using our resources to house in-agency record centers. We are also continuing to review and approve exceptions where agencies feel that they need some relief from the requirements in each of these memos. With proper justification and following the guidance that we've issued in our bulletin, we have been reviewing and working with agencies. At this point, we have approved six agency exceptions and are continuing to work on other remaining exceptions and ones that are more recently have come in for our review. One thing I do want to note also for this last bullet is similar to what we did when M1921 came out, we issued in our bulletin sort of following up on that to clarify some of the questions we received when that first memo came out. We are planning on updating that memo and including some other questions which have come up after we issued the first bulletin, making sure that we have as much information and clarifying guidance in a new narra bulletin that would address any outstanding questions related to either M1921 or M2307. We have been spending a lot of time talking with agencies at a number of agency meetings, this one included, and trying to gather feedback, concerns, questions from agencies related to the memos so that we can incorporate that feedback and address it in a revision of the narra bulletin, narra2020-01. So that is ongoing but that is something that we expect to deliver on this school year. The other thing I will note in M2307, there is some new content in there, some requirements that we felt were important to add and one of them relates to the ongoing work that we have been doing under FERME, our Federal Electronic Records Modernization Initiative. So I know many of you are familiar with it but we wanted to make sure because we believe in the importance of that initiative that it had a place in M2307 so that we could point to the standards and the requirements that we have developed working with other agencies and with GSA to allow agencies a way to procure electronic records management solutions and services that align to the work that we are doing under that initiative. So I encourage you to take a look at what we are doing with FERME, it is there in the memo as something that we should all be looking at and reviewing and there is more work for narra to do. We are working on another revision of the universal ERM requirements in partnership with other agencies so there is still work that we are doing and we will continue to do as part of the FERME initiative. So I encourage you to take a look at that and if you have any questions at this point I will pause to see if there are any chat questions related to either the memos or any of the ongoing work that we are all working on right now. Thank you Lawrence. We do have one question that has come in through the YouTube and it is when do you expect a new bulletin to come out? That is under development. We haven't set a date or a timeline for the bulletin. We know we want to do it this year but our focus right now as I said is really just trying to capture feedback questions and if there is a question that you have related to the memos please send it to us. We want to know what agencies are concerned with or need more guidance about so we haven't set a timeline for when the bulletin is going to be done this year. We really want to spend the time listening and learning where we can provide the most value as we develop this new bulletin. Here is another one that has come in. How many exception requests packages? How many exception requests from federal agencies have NARA approved to date? So yes I mentioned that earlier in my remarks we have approved six agency exception requests and we are continuing to review the next batch in coordination with OMB. I think we have another question. Until NARA finally approves the draft, can agencies still move forward and digitize records using this guidance? Some agencies don't want to scan until NARA approves it. I think that is in reference to the digitization standards not the Fermi standards. Yes. It is a good question about digitization and we will get to that so I will defer that question until Lisa comes up to talk about what we are working on in terms of digitization. Is there going to be a review of the RM profession against data managers and knowledge managers? I am not sure what review means in that sense. We are certainly monitoring the data management space. We have already done some oversight work related to chief data officers. We had some recommendations for agencies as part of that records management assessment and we continue to engage and are represented on the CDO council so that we can be more aware of the kinds of issues that are coming up with CDO. So it is certainly within the context of information governance something that we have always advocated for and supported other agencies as they develop and establish those frameworks to make sure that records management and data management and other information management professions are coordinating the work and accounting for the requirements for each of those disciplines. So if review means monitoring and advising and trying to move the conversation forward from our perspective that is what we are doing and we are certainly open to ideas on how to engage further or other areas that we might be able to address and look into from NAR's perspective. So here is another one. Will NAR approve an agency exception to the M2307 memo with caveats? If so, what would those caveats be? So whenever we review the exceptions there are certain things that we are looking for and those are laid out in the NARA bulletin 2020-01. So as a starting point we are looking at those requirements. Copyouts, contingencies, disclaimers, whatever you want to call them are things that we certainly are keeping in mind when we are approving exceptions. One of the things that we want to make sure is that agencies are continuing to mature and work towards fully electronic government. So if it is a question of needing more time for a specific reason then we might grant that exception but we would want to see progress reports as agencies proceed along that path. So part of it is making sure that both NARA and OMB are able to stay engaged with agencies who are requesting exceptions and if they are improved have some way to monitor and ensure that the agencies are continuing to do what they need to do to accelerate and achieve success against the goals in the memos. Thank you. Here's another one. Aside from the general RMSA annual report can agency records officers or SAORMs contact our appraisal archivists for more in-depth information such as why scores increase or decrease or areas of improvement? We are certainly open to have conversations with any agencies and we can have that discussion with our program that manages oversight and reporting. We're certainly willing to have those kinds of conversations and learn what's going on in agencies and share information that we're learning. I think it's a good way to get a good sense of where agencies are and where we might be able to help as we do our oversight and reporting work. So it's just to reach out to us through the records management oversight and reporting emails and contacts that we communicate with you on. I think those are all the questions that have come in for now, Lawrence. As a reminder to the audience feel free to email rm.communications.nara.gov or comment on the YouTube feed and we'll address questions as they come up or later at the end of the meeting. All right. Thanks, Ariane. So I guess I will turn it back over to you to move us through the agenda so we can talk about guidance and the Federal Records Center's program and close with an update on ERA 2.0. Certainly. So next on the agenda is updates on our guidance from Lisa. So Lisa here, Lampus, you're up. Thank you, Ariane. Thanks, Lawrence. And thank you for everybody coming to our bridge meeting today. Our last bridge meeting was in December and it is remarkable to think how much has changed and how much work has happened in these past two months. So first I'd like to make sure from the guidance perspective that it's clear, did you miss anything? So if you could go to the next slide, please, Patty. So this slide that you're about to see is a slide on recent NARA guidance. Everything from mid-December forward. And then we're just going to let this sit here on this slide and I'll speak to it a little bit. One of the things I have on the bottom of the slide is a link to our webpage where we post all of our AC memos. So AC memos are a primary way we communicate with the Federal Records Management community. If you subscribe to Federal Records Management emails, you will receive AC memos. We not only push them out to your email boxes using our email management tool, we also post them online. So if you ever wondered if you missed an AC memo, did I miss some guidance? That link is a place that you can check. And yes, always during bridge meetings, we get questions. How can I get invited to the bridge meeting? How do I find information? It's subscribing to that Federal email subscription link. We'll get you on our mailing list and we generally use it to send out AC memos. That was a little recap on how you find guidance. I then wanted to point out here that yes, the memo is on here. We issued that M2307 on December 23rd. But maybe you might have missed that we also put out a narrow bulletin on radiographic film records. That is not an issue that impacts everyone. But if it is something that your agency has radiographic film records, we have guidance on that. We've pushed out guidance on capstone, guidance on GRS updates, guidance on changes to schedules. So this is a resource for you to use to get caught up on all the pieces of guidance we've talked about. You will find that we've discussed many of these products at upcoming bridge meetings or in previous bridge meetings. So again, bridge is a great way to hear us talk about the guidance. And the AC memos is a great way to make sure you're seeing our communications and know what we're producing. One of the questions we always get at bridge is, can I get a copy of these slides? And yes, you can on our bridge page at archives.gov. If you find the records management page, you'll find the bridge page. And we post the link to the YouTube meetings. You can always go back and look at this recording we're making right now. And you'll find the link to the slides that you can find this slide seven and click on each one of those AC numbers. And it will take you straight to the memo. So that is a recap for you of recent NARA guidance. A lot of times people are like, okay, I got what you what you issued NARA, can you tell us what's coming next? So on the next slide, I wanted to highlight a few of the products that we're currently working on and let you see what's coming. So one of the things that's I'm sorry, it's not on this slide is not just mentioned. We are, Lawrence just mentioned, we are working on a NARA bulletin to supplement or replace the NARA bulletin 2020-20-01. We want to create a bulletin to support M2307. So we're working on that. We're in the brainstorming phase. These other guidance products, we are in the review phase and are working on providing this guidance and hopefully it'll be out soon. So the first guidance product we're working on, we get asked at every bridge meeting or where are the digitization standards for scanning and digitizing permanent paper records or analog records. We are continuing to work on those guidance. The status update, I feel many bridge meetings for the past year, my status update on those has been they are in NARA internal review. Well, the good news is they are no longer in NARA internal review. They are making it through the normal regulations process and they're back with OMB for their review. I will come back next bridge and either tell you we've completed reviews and they are finally finished or I'll come back and give you another status update on where those digitization legs are. I want to emphasize that all of us in the Office of the Chief Records Officer and NARA recognize how important it is to get those digitization standards out and to get them final. Because as part of meeting M2307, agencies will be digitizing their records and that standard is key piece of guidance in that in that work. We've received a lot of questions lately about can you tell me NARA if my standards work is meets NARA's standards. Can you tell me that I'm doing things the right way? And the answer so far is I'm afraid NARA cannot do that for a few reasons. One, they're not final. So once the regs are final, we can start providing answers to questions like what am I doing? Am I doing the right thing? But the second reason we're not able to answer that question is that what we really need to give you are supporting guidance products. When people ask, hey, I want to know am I doing the right thing? Well, we need to develop success criteria. We need to develop FAQs to answer questions that people have had. We need to develop training products. So while we're on review and we hope we're very close to final, I want to remind everybody that we are working on supplementary supporting guidance products. They're going to help understand how to implement those regulations. The regulations as you saw in the 2020 version that was posted on the federal register are detailed and complex. We want to give support to agencies as they work to implement those standards, which will still be detailed and complex. So that is our quick update on digitization standards. The other guidance product we're working on is guidance through in our bulletin on records that are created in collaboration platforms. We know the way agencies have conducted business change. There was a lot of pivots during the pandemic to using more virtual tools, collaboration tools. GSA is running programs to try to help agencies do interagency collaboration better. I think for those of you who live the kind of life we do, we play meeting bingo, you can use Zoom or WebEx or what other tools are out there that agencies have meetings and do collaboration for. We've received a lot of records management questions related to collaboration platforms and agency use. So we expect sometime in the next quarter, definitely fiscal year 23, we're trying to get our bulletin out of NARA internal review and out for agency review. So please be on the lookout. Eventually you will see an AC memo and a records express blog post where we ask for your comments and feedback on that draft guidance. So that is what's up and coming in the guidance sphere. Hopefully I've answered the questions that were asked earlier. And Ari, let me know if there are any more questions that I can answer about guidance. Thank you, Lisa. You did cover all the questions we had previously. So thank you. There are no further questions, but I would suggest don't go far. We will have probably we'll have questions for you at some point. Right. Well, as always, I'll be here for the general Q&A at the end. So if you think of anything, let me know. Thank you, Ari. Thanks, Lisa. Next on this afternoon's agenda is an update from the Federal Records Center Program. So we have Chris Pinkney, the acting director of the Federal Records Center Program. Hi, Chris. Hi, Erin. Well, I guess to begin, I'd kind of echo what the other speakers have said. It's definitely been a hectic couple of months. To lead off with the traditional post COVID update, all of our centers are fully open. We do have several sites where the CDC community level is now medium, but all of our staff are on site at all centers and all of our activities continue unabated. Our focus across the FRCP remains on backlog reduction as we continue to dig out. We are working to fully restore all of our pre-pandemic service levels. We're finally to the point we're very close on reference at most of our centers, and we're continuing to work at the last few that need to improve turnaround a bit. Really, the big news for us is Christmas came early this year. The publication of M2307 on the 23rd allows us to continue to accept records and analog form from all of our customers for 18 months. And this was great. We were very excited to see that, and we're very excited about the opportunity to continue to work with folks. In response to that, our national T&D staff have been working to produce updated capacity planning worksheets as we digest the implications of both the extension and then any exceptions that have been granted. So we can figure out what our standard situation looks like at all of the FRCs. We're in the process of projecting out to 2030, and it generally looks like we've got some pretty good space at most locations. We do continue to receive large numbers of new transfers, and we really appreciate everyone's patience as we work with them to coordinate deliveries and get all the transfers shelved. Just in 23, we've now received and shelved slightly more than was it 364,000 boxes. I looked at ARCIS this morning, and we have an additional 20,000 and 24 transfers, which are covering almost 275,000 cubic feet, which are currently in approved status. So we'll work with agencies to get those into our centers and get them on shelves. Interestingly, the transfers and submitted status has dropped down to 816, which I suspect is almost certainly related to M2307, and the ability it gave all of us to kind of take a deep breath and let our shipping folks have a short break. Another area that we remain focused on is catching up with any of our backlog disposal. I'd again like to thank anyone who's blocked time to review and return all of the disposal notifications. We continue to put a lot of our staffing resources on disposal operations, and the FRCP has destroyed almost 385,000 cubic feet so far in FY23. The total disposal backlog, which includes both records whose destruction would have occurred during the pandemic and then more recently approved transfers, is down to about 1.46 million cubic feet. It's still a lot, but it's down from almost 2 million back in the middle of last year. And so continuing to reduce that number remains a top priority for us, and we'll stay on it until the backlog is eliminated. And then I also wanted to briefly address or I should say anticipate a question because it seems to come up almost every bridge. I checked in with our WNRC director to see if I could get an update on the status of his metro courier and truck service operations. The metro courier is in service right now. It continues to operate at reduced capacity until he can finalize the hire of several new drivers. But the truck service remains problematic. That's the vehicle by which we normally bring in new transfers to the WNRC. The update I got from Mr. Harris is that he is actively engaged with ART, which is an ARR as HR contractor, working to recruit new drivers. They are reviewing postings and will hopefully have them live on USAJobs soon. He reminded me that these are wage grade positions that require a TS clearance. So they're a little bit more complex than most of what he works with. But we hope to have the vacancies posted in the next several weeks, assuming we can then find interested candidates. I'd like to come back here in a couple months and tell you that we have a truck service that's back in operation. But I will definitely stay on top of this one and I hopefully will have something definitive to say at the next bridge meeting. And that is pretty much the news that's fit to print in February. So I guess I can either try to answer questions that might have come in or I can wait to the general Q&A at the end. Thank you, Chris. At this time, I think you're off the hook. We have no questions in the queue, so we can have you wait till the end. It's a deal. Thank you, Aaron. You're welcome. Next on the agenda, updates on ERA 2.0 refer to David Lake and Sean McClure to take it over. So gentlemen. All right, I'm going to go ahead first. This is David Lake, Program Manager for ERA. Hello, everyone. Sam and I are back to give an update on ERA 2.0. Some of what you'll hear is similar to some of our previous briefings with some exceptions. One important exception is the updates to the timeline for launching of ERA 2.0 and shutting down ERA base system in use today. Next slide, please. All right, so in terms of the timeline for agency use, as we've talked about before, we are nearing completion of the project that we've been undertaking to migrate all the records schedule and transfer request forms and related data from the current ERA base system to their new form in ERA 2.0. As we talked about before, that final migration of the data will require a pause in the use of ERA estimated to be up to four weeks. So based on where we are, if the current project remains on schedule, we will plan to stop use of the current system in late March and then launch ERA 2.0 in mid-April. So that is a change that's basically, in short, we've shifted those timelines to the right about a month. I know you've got a preview in the latest AC memo about this shift in the targeted timelines. In the next few weeks, we'll have a much better idea of exactly where we are with this project. And if we are still on target with those timelines, we can then provide specific dates, the specific dates for when we will cut off access to the ERA base system, as well as the date on which we plan to launch ERA 2.0, as I've said, currently scheduled for mid-April. So we do expect specific dates to be announced shortly, especially if we're on target with those timelines. And as always, any subsequent changes to these dates will be communicated. These are the earliest possible timelines that we're looking at right now. But as we get towards the end of this project, the migration project, we can start to hone in on specific dates at that point. With that, I'm going to pass it over to Sam, who's going to talk about user accounts, as well as communications. Sam? Thank you, David. So as David said, we were providing some of the same information from bridge to bridge, one to keep a consistent level of information out there for all of you, but also didn't build from that to the more specifics that are coming in. The main thing for user accounts is the roles that you have available in the new ERA are going to be very similar and identical to the roles you have in the current ERA system. We'll be moving current agency user profiles from the current ERA into the new ERA system. And then moving forward, we'll be using, excuse me, PIV authentication using profiles that folks will have established in OMB Max with accounts that you have established in ERA 2.0. And for those who don't have a PIV CAC and those government standard smart cards, we have alternate authentication means available in ERA 2.0 that we can work with those on an as needed basis to establish exceptions for that. With the AC checklist that was communicated in one of the memos that Lisa referred to earlier, folks who don't have OMB Max profiles already have started to set those up and we thank you for that. It's one of the provide that the point of contact for any issues with you may have in establishing or updating profiles in max.gov, maxsupport at max.gov is a great point of contact for there. And on the ERA side, the ERA help desk is always a great point of contact to this change in our authentication mechanism means our fortunes and all tied to two systems, the authentication directory outside of our direct control and obviously user accounts in ERA that will be in our control as best as we can manage user support across those two environments and those two organizations will work with you to make sure that your profiles are support your business needs and you get into ERA with the account that you need to conduct your business. Next slide, please. So in terms of communication, I want to reiterate a point that Lisa made, right? The AC memos are a great resource both on as posted on archives.gov as the preparation for ERA 2.0 memo with the checklist that was attached to it suggests and there will be more information coming as David said, there was the update that came out at the end of last week, basically discussing the time frames we've given here today. More specifics will be coming through those same memos. So I want to echo everything Lisa said about the usefulness of those memos going to sign up for the the RM email list that you can have the latest and most specific information that's coming out. Beyond that, we'll be working with our help desk in ERA to send specific system notices to all users, particularly when it's time to cut off. And when we move from the URL of our current system to the URL of the new system, there'll be lots of places where we can inform users. We'll have emails that go out for system notices. We'll have a redirect if you try to go to the original ERA URL, a little send you to a website that tells you know you need to go to the new URL so that you can always know, update your bookmarks and then get to the right system at the right time. As Eddie Klein previewed, I think in the October bridge, we'll have a complete refresh of the information available for ERA on archives.gov, new job aids, training content, a new account request form. Everything that's relevant to ERA 2.0 will take the place of everything that's currently there for this original ERA system. As Eddie mentioned in that earlier bridge, we'll be looking to post that training content a couple weeks before system launch so that folks have a chance to see it, but not so long to forget that it was there in the first place when you go to use the system for the first time. Next slide, please. And one of the things we're going to do after launch, as David said, we're currently targeting late April. Near the end of that first week, hopefully on that Friday, we will, we want to set up just an open session for our agency users to come in with questions, concerns, any issues that have arisen in that first week. We don't want to leave you stuck, if there are gaps in the job aids, issues with your authentication, just basic questions about the use of the new system. We want to have a forum where we can take in those questions and provide, either on the spot, help for those issues where we can, we can provide resolution, take back any issues that we need to take back that may require more thought or potential fix or enhancement from a system perspective. We'll also have national archives folks there who can deal with accessioning questions or scheduling questions. And then also our training people will be there who can start to figure out what new products we need to develop in response to the questions and concerns we're getting. So more details on this session will be shared soon, but we want to hold these on a monthly basis for some period of time after launch, as long as they're going to be useful so that folks have a chance to get help with a question besides opening a trouble ticket and to have some place to go to avoid being stuck in trying to fulfill your business in the new system. When I say we'll be close monitoring the trouble tickets that are reported to the help desk, I mean literally David and I will be monitoring the trouble tickets that are reported to the help desk. We want to make sure that anyone who comes in to use the system, particularly at launch, is not left at a dead end. Again, if there's an issue with authentication, some issue with the use of the system that's not been expected. We want to deal with those reports that are coming in either through the help desk system or they come up in those office hours or they come up in any other way. So we're going to be standing by to assist in any way that we can. We recognize any change brings us difficulties. We do think the new system is frankly going to be worth the weight in terms of the better interface and some of the functions that will be available to you. But in the meantime, we want to make sure that when you go in to use the system, you have all the information you need to be successful at first log in and not have a big learning curve to overcome in order to do the business you need to do in the system. With that, we can advance the slide and I will turn it back over to David. Thank you, Sam. So if you can go back one, I think. Thank you. So this is really just to reiterate what we've already talked about in Hammer Home, the idea that we're going to continue to refine and update the timelines related to the shutdown of the URA base and then the release of URA 2.0 for agency use, including getting to the point where we can provide those specific dates soon. And as communication seems to be the word of the day, we want to hammer home the idea that we plan to communicate throughout this process about these, about the timelines, about the dates and anything else that is germane to launching URA 2.0. So again, if there's any changes in the project schedule and the timelines for the projects we're doing now that lead up to these, to the shutdown and the launch of URA 2.0, we will be in touch with that. That kind of ends our briefing. And I'll pass it on to Arian for questions. Thank you, Sam and David. We do have two, we have a couple of questions that have come in since you guys started. First one is appropriate for Valentine's Day. So I've got married and have a new email address here at the FAA. Do I need to do anything special for my login slash PIV account in URA 2.0? A couple of things, ensure that you're, you contact the ERA Help Desk to make any updates to your current user profile that are necessary, even in the current ERA, including updating your email account. If your profile in OMB Max is based on your original email account, go ahead and update that as well through maxsupport at max.gov. We want to make sure that the email address for both ERA and OMB Max is the same. That's the key that associates your authentication profile and the one system with our account in the ERA 2.0. So congratulations. Hope you enjoy the new email address. Make sure it's available in both of our systems and you should be able to link up without any other issue. Thank you. Here's the second one. I have been attempting to delete old TR and RS jobs in ERA that are inactive, but do not see how to delete those jobs. How do we do that? And I'm in RG441. I don't know, Sam, if that's something we'd have to take online and offline and individually deal with that situation. We can get a point of kind of see Rich Green has popped under the screen, but I'll let Rich talk first and then we can talk about next steps. Hi. Yeah. So first, I would say it might be something to talk with your appraisal archivist about as far as the record schedules, if it's inactive in the sense that it was previously approved and now it's inactive, it wouldn't be something we would probably delete from the system. It would just kind of migrate accordingly. I don't know. I can speak to the TRs. It might be something similar. The only thing that would be deleted would be like old drafts that were never submitted to the National Archives at all. But again, I would say top with your appraisal archivist, we can assess it on a case by case basis. Thank you, Rich. Here's another question. Will draft record schedules move from ERA 1.0 to 2.0? The answer is yes and no. As the estimates have communicated for the past year, any of those record schedules that are in draft status from before October 1st of Rich Green 2019 or 2020, anything draft from those years before will not be migrated. Anything draft starting with fiscal year 20 moves forward and draft status will be available in the new system. And there were two AC memos about that in the past. One announcing the change at anything from the end of September 2019 back and a later AC memo to say how to find those schedules that are in draft status in the system so you can act on those. Yeah, so it's draft schedules created in ERA prior to October 1st, 2020 will not be migrated. 2019. I am so sorry, it's Lisa Harrell-Lampas. We actually sent an AC memo out on Friday just this past Friday talking about this. And I believe I had the incorrect information. So I'm only popping in to say another AC memo is in the can, ready to go out. And we're making sure we have that right in. OK. Because it's either four years or three years worth of draft schedules will get forwarded. So for those who are listening and asking these questions and getting ready, thank you so much. Yeah, if you have a draft schedule that's more than three years old, take a look at it and and hopefully you will see it again when we do the migration. And if not, you will have to recreate it. Would you be, I think the general answer for any draft schedule that doesn't get transferred over, you won't have to recreate any new system. Yes, I will find the correct. Make sure I have the direct information. Rich, you and I will double check and make sure the next AC memo is absolutely correct. Yes, but it should be anything FY 2020. We'll get migrated. So anything before October 1st, 2019 will not get migrated starting October 1st, 2019. So FY 2020 will come over. But we will send out the correct information. Thank you. I'm continuing to look for questions, Lisa, since you're here, is there a date by which we need to meet a digitization standard for permanent records? We've been digitizing permanent records for years. Will they be grandfathered in such a great question? Thank you for asking that. I said there's a more information that will be coming on how to manage permanent records and permanent records that have been digitized once we get the standards out in the regs and once we have supporting products. One of the supporting products is to answer this exact question. Of course, agencies have been digitizing permanent records. They've been doing it for years and for decades. What's new is it will be the first time that NARA says this, this is the standard we need because this is what you're going to digitize and we are not going to get the paper. All digitization projects before that, there was an assumption that I'm either sending two versions or I've done some sort of notification or a transformation process to let NARA know what's coming. But in the regulations that said, if you digitize these standards, you send us these validated version and that's the version NARA is going to take. So the first part of your question is by what date do we need to meet the standards? So the date would be once we issue them, their day forward. So we will now have told agencies, here's the standard and it's going to take agencies time to absorb the information that we've issued in guidance, determine if they need to make, you know, adjustments to their digitization activities. Do I need to, how am I going to implement this? So we don't have an implementation date, but rather we're saying this is now the new standard and from day forward we expect agencies to move into compliance with that standard. I hope that answers the first question and it's clear as I can be at this point. The second part of your question is what am I going to do with the records, permit records I've already digitized? We're going to, we're working on that to give you clear answers to that question. So I can't say for sure right now because I don't have all the detail I want to give you NARA approved answers, but I can say in general, we have to manage our records. So we're trying to give you options on what you can do. For example, one option could be I could ask for an exception to NARA and I'm going to say I'm just going to send you these paper records. The scanning wasn't adequate at the time and scanning going in the future. But would you take this in paper as an exception? That is an option. I don't know if that's the preferred option. It may meet some situations, but may not meet many situations. A second option could be we're going to use the scheduling process. We're going to look and sort of reschedule. The records were already permanent, but can we reschedule them to confirm that we can take those records that have been previously digitized? The scheduling process lets us get all the stakeholder and public input and understand what we're doing when we accept records. So that could be an option. Other options might be, and I hate to say it, rescanning, but that may be at most cost effective option. If the standards show that I need to do this for business reasons. Other options, we've tried to think of other options as well. We want to get really clear guidance to you on how to handle records that have been digitized already. So stay tuned. Keep asking us these questions. The questions we're getting now, they help us form our guidance. And you can send those questions to RM standards. That's all one word. RM standards at narah.gov and the team that's developing those regulations. We're taking that input as we get it, and we're using it to help create these drafts of these supporting products. So I hope that answers your question, Arian. I'm not sure if you have any follow-up to that. Right now, there are no follow-ups to that question. So I think we've got it covered. We have an ERA adjacent one. What happens when a permanent transfer in ERA is rejected due to not having a finding aid? We have legacy records from a previous agency that were moved to our agency. However, we don't have any insight other than what was provided at the time it was originally transferred. So that is ERA adjacent, but we're adjacent on the wrong side of that particular question, right? That's really a question to raise with the accessioning archivist or the custodial unit with whom you've been interacting because from our standpoint, we're aggressively policy-neutral when it comes to the handling of transfer requests in ERA or ERA 2.0. That's really a question for the accessioning archivist you're working with. Thank you. Chris, are you here? We've got a couple FRC-related questions. I am still here. I'm just going to read this because I don't understand it. Is there anything that can be done to expedite in our processing of interagency agreement funding modifications for non-G invoicing agency in order to make agency funds available to cover IPAC charges? This is a problem for us. So that's a good one. It's definitely been an interesting year when it comes to G invoicing or out of G invoicing or partially in G invoicing. I'll see if I can follow up and find out which agency that question came in from. The short version is that no one is letting things sit in their box right now, but I will try to follow up pretty aggressively and see if we can resolve that issue for the individual. We definitely want to get things built out, finalized as quickly as possible. And I can divulge that I was looking at accounts receivable this morning. So it's definitely been a challenge for everybody in the 23 cycle. And we know where that question came from, Chris. So if you don't have it, we can give that to you. Absolutely. The next question is absent the Metro Courier service, what are other options for getting transfers to the FRC? So what I would recommend somebody do if they're in that position and they have something that they're out of space, they need to get it in quick. I would recommend they reach out to their assigned account manager or Pam Northern who's acting director for CRM. There's a variety of freight lines, there's commercial companies. And depending on the volume and the distance, we may be able to recommend something that can be worked out. So I would definitely tag the account manager, see what he or she can figure out and potentially get a range of possibilities if it's not something that could potentially wait for several months until we were restaffed. Thank you, Chris. Thank you Chris. For ERA, for the migration from ERA 1.0 to ERA 2.0, what is considered a draft? I.e. if we have a schedule that has been signed by our agency records officer and is being worked by the appraiser but hasn't yet been finalized and signed by the archivist, is that considered a draft still and won't be migrated if it was created prior to October 1st, 2019? Well, that's beyond draft for sure. Yeah. I'll let Rich answer before I misquote the AC memo. Yeah, so a draft would be anything that has not been submitted to the National Archives. So once you hit the button that says certification, then it comes over to National Archives, then it comes into a different status, in which case it is no longer a draft. So draft, but it's a good question. Draft for our purposes of ERA migration would be something that has never been submitted, has never been certified to the National Archives. Thank you, Rich, for the clarification. We have a couple of sort of capstone-related questions in the queue, which I think we can tackle. Can you discuss why Microsoft Teams, Chats, and other collaboration platforms are not included in the revised GRS 6.1? And I saw Lisa put her hand up for that one. She did, I said I would take that one. Thank you so much for asking. So we're going to go back to that piece of guidance that was issued, again, just in early January, where we expanded the capstone approach for electronic messages. So in the bulletin, we sort of laid out the guidance, the principles, that are our standard records management principles that we used and used for email and now have been expanded to electronic messages. So the bulletin would say, would looking to e-messages are defined as recorded information conducted between individuals, for whatever the rest of that definition is. So our guidance tends to look at e-messages as a tool whose primary use is communicating between individuals. Teamstone Chats, Microsoft Chats can be very interesting because it depends on which team chat did you meet. Do you mean the chat in Teams, which is happening because we're having a video conference or an online meeting and we're using the chat feature in that meeting? That is a secondary purpose of chat, right? It's chat to support the main purpose of meeting. Or do you mean Teams chats where people are talking directly to each other and they're using that as communication? I hope I've defined that clearly, like there's a difference between how Teams are used. So for the general record schedule, the GRS 6.1, which is implementing that policy, the GRS said, if you want to use this GRS for electronic messages, at this time it was limited to electronic messages used specifically for communication because that's expanding what we did to e-mail, to e-messages that are very similar. So if you had a Catstone official who in the past was sending an e-mail and now he's using that same chat message or instant message to communicate with other people, we're like, sure, the vehicle has changed, the tool has changed, but we still have collections of information where Capstone officials are communicating electronically to each other. If a Capstone official is doing a chat in a Zoom meeting, right? I'll take it out of Teams into something else. The question would be, how are you memorializing the fact that you had that meeting? Are you taking meeting notes? Was there a meeting summary? Was it sort of meeting? We don't have to document it was a working meeting. So we are not applying the guidance to chats in those types of tools. And I hope that helps a little bit answer that question and we can certainly send them to the GRS team who's sort of helping with that verification form. And I think we have people over there with GRS and Capstone who can help you get into the details of how you're using that Teams chat and whether or not it would be appropriate to check that box and say, yep, I'm gonna manage this Teams chat the same way I'm managing electronic messages but not this Teams chat over here. Life is complex. Then I'm gonna wait Lauren Therrien in case there was a follow-up maybe. We can put that on the back burner. So we do have a question from an individual. If we have any questions on our resubmission of the Capstone NA 1005 implementation verification forms, should we query our appraisal archivist? I can take that one. First I'm gonna plug the webinar. So you should watch the webinar that's recorded on our website. It's really good and there's a lot of resources in there that hopefully will answer most of your questions. But if you do have any questions that don't get answered, our suggestion is if it's sort of like a broader policy process thing related to resubmission, GRS underscore team at nar.gov which is the GRS Teams mailbox would be the place to go. If you have specific questions, agency specific questions about your form, those are probably better to go to your appraisal archivist. And in that same vein Laurence, is there a subject matter expert with whom we may discuss the Capstone email culling process? So we don't have someone who might be able to answer all the questions around culling although we are certainly familiar enough with the issue that if you have a specific question, I would again suggest you send it to GRS underscore team at nar.gov, GRS mailbox and we'll do our best to help you out. Here's a question for Lisa, I guess. Will the NPRC or OPM be accepting electronic employee medical folders by June 2024? Employing medical folders and official personnel folders is a great question. Every agency is at sort of a different point in how they're handling the transition to electronic records and personnel folders is part of that transition. And we're seeing on NARA's end is there's a lot of various statuses. So your question is, will the NPRC be accepting electronic EMS and OPFs? I feel very confident in saying no. And NPRC, our Federal Records Center Program is not transforming to become an electronic Federal Records Center Program. So there is no plans for NARA to build the capacity to take electronic EMS or OPFs. I'm gonna let that sit in case people are like, wait, what did she say? I said, no, we're not sending electronic EMS and OPFs. I'm working to try to make that clear in our guidance and policy. So thank you for answering that question, because I don't think there's a place you can click and see where NARA says that clearly. We're not taking electronic EMS. So hopefully I'll have that update for you in a future question. But the question you've also asked is, will OPM be accepting electronic EMS employee medical folders? And we are working with OPM to try to come together for clear guidance to agencies and come up with what is OPM's plan as they're the agency responsible for sort of the shared service, the HR functionality that happens across government. And as we learn information from them about their modernization work and how they're moving to electronic EMS, we'll certainly communicate it. But that's a little outside of our lane. So right now we're the facilitators of communication, but I don't have the answer of when will they, will they be moving? Yes, what's the plan? How many years is it gonna take? I don't know. And so we are going to work on guidance for agencies on what to do in the meantime. So more to come and thank you for asking that. Thank you everyone. We do have one more question that's come in on the YouTube is would the social media guidance cover podcasts? Wonderful, yes. And if there's a specific case that maybe we need to consider, please ask us at RM policy so we can see if we need to update that guidance. Aryan, would you take your moderator hat off for one second and confirm that I just gave the correct answer under policy? You're gonna put me on the spot in my other job, my day job? Yeah. Yeah, no, sure. I would say my first reaction to that question is that I think not necessarily, you know, we can certainly take a look at the guidance to see if it needs to be updated. But we're also talking about digital audio files underneath, and those may be what we schedule instead. So that's a conversation to be had when it comes to specific appraisal determinations. That's how I would cast that. Podcasts definitely can fall under the umbrella of federal records, therefore they have to be managed. First step is what's your schedule and would the social media guidance help you with that? I think, yes, it could. It's not gonna say podcasts specific in it because it's a little older, but maybe the next version will have to update that. Thank you. So I'll put my moderator hat back on. Thank you. I don't see any further questions in the chat or in the sort of that we have not answered. So I'm gonna thank all the presenters and turn it back over to Lawrence to take a look at the next slide and we can close. Thanks, Aaron. This is the easiest part of the meeting where we say thank you for joining and participating. We appreciate all the comments. We really do work hard to try and answer every single question that comes in and making sure that you get the best information to the extent that we're able to come up with it on the spot. So again, thank you for all of that. As you can see from the slide, our next meeting is April 18th, which I haven't looked at the calendar. May or may not be tax day, but hopefully that won't affect anybody's attendance in April. Until then, stay in touch, follow Records Express. And if you have any questions, feel free to reach out to us at our various email boxes and contacts that we have posted on the website. Thank you again for coming and enjoy the rest of your winter. See you in the spring.