The records governance model and trust in organizational systems
Municipalities A and B had well-developed records and archives policies, but these were not known to some of the officers except in one case in Municipality B where a head of unit made reference to a handbook. There was a strong adherence to the legal framework that governs public records even though the Archives Act was not known. However, those working with records management confirmed that management trusted that they knew their job and that it was their responsibility to ensure that the legal framework was followed. There was also high trust in the use of the common systems put in place to manage records. The case and records management systems were seen as common repositories where one could access records.
In Municipality C the records governance model had many weaknesses. The structures that could have facilitated the capture and management of public records were not fully developed. The case and records management system that had been put in place to manage the registration of public records did not capture the entire records flow, that is the incoming and outgoing records. The officers did not show trust in their registry. They were expected to register and to access the records in the case and records management system. They instead created personalized systems due to fear that they would not be able to readily access their records since the system was not user-friendly. Others did not use the system because they had heard from fellow colleagues that they also did not use it. In Municipality C where the records governance model did not include a well-developed registry, public records were not being effectively captured. This also led to a culture where officers could choose not to use the records management system.