Local education officials have introduced a new email deletion policy aimed at enhancing recordkeeping and ensuring compliance with public records regulations. However, a First Amendment attorney has raised concerns that this could impede public access to information.

The School Administrative Unit 29 (SAU 29) board approved the policy, which directly impacts staff at the central office responsible for managing seven districts: Chesterfield, Harrisville, Keene, Marlow, Marlborough, Nelson, and Westmoreland. Under the new guidelines, employees are tasked with determining which emails should be preserved or deleted within a 60-day timeframe.

According to the policy, the board believes that retaining excessive email records for long periods is an inefficient use of resources due to limited digital storage. It aims to safeguard essential institutional knowledge while removing unnecessary information automatically once it is deemed no longer useful.

The executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition voiced worries that the new guidelines could disrupt citizens’ legal right to access information. In contrast, the SAU 29 Superintendent asserted that the policy actually promotes transparency rather than reduces it.

This policy also facilitates the proper organization of sensitive files, such as personnel data, which must remain within the human resources department. The superintendent emphasized that the goal is to manage records responsibly and appropriately.

Despite the intentions behind the policy, the attorney expressed significant concerns about employees having the authority to delete public emails, suggesting that this could lead to the risk of crucial information being permanently erased.

Citizens are granted access to public records through New Hampshire’s public record law, which encompasses various documents like public meeting minutes and employee payment records, while certain documents, such as student records, remain confidential. The superintendent indicated that requests for emails are infrequent in SAU 29. He recounted a past request requiring him to review around 8,000 pages of emails from a short period.

Key factors behind the policy’s development included a lack of existing rules for email retention and the high costs of maintaining excessive email storage. While the superintendent stated that expanding storage space was not overly costly, he emphasized that the SAU should not depend solely on email for recordkeeping.

Through the policy, officials aim for greater transparency by ensuring records are systematically stored instead of left scattered in multiple inboxes. The board examined various email retention practices in the private sector before finalizing its own timeframe. One board chair expressed confidence that the policy should not jeopardize transparency, noting that many details about the school systems operations are already publicly accessible.

Conversely, another board member raised apprehensions about the broader implementation of the policy across all districts, cautioning that it might be less effectively understood at the district level where technological proficiency may vary among staff.

He underscored the necessity for robust safeguards if the policy extends beyond the central office and pointed out that a significant emphasis should be placed on ensuring compliance with transparency protocols. The First Amendment Coalition representative maintained that no amount of training could guarantee that staff members would recognize which emails need to be retained under existing laws. He argued that the short retention period could undermine the ability for potential future public records requests.

While acknowledging the challenges associated with handling large volumes of emails, he suggested that there are more effective alternatives that don’t involve automatic deletions. The superintendent confirmed that the district already employs some of these strategies and that the policy aims to enhance existing practices. Proposed discussions about expanding the policy to include SAU 29s neighboring school boards are anticipated to take place next summer, as the board considers it a secondary priority compared to other ongoing initiatives.