Emails and spreadsheets are created, saved, and deleted with such ease that, for many, they are regarded as inconsequential records. The “big idea” in this blog is that poor management of emails and spreadsheets in a British Columbia payroll system is leaving public-sector workers open to potential loss of pay, as well as costing the taxpayer more in resolving pay disputes. The author will argue that the attitude towards the proper retention of emails and spreadsheets has to change. The public-service sector that this relates to will remain anonymous throughout the blog.
From the Government of Alberta’s missing 800,000 emails, to the deletion of two years’ worth of the Governor’s emails in South Carolina, controversies surrounding records of electronic communication are endless. Spreadsheet controversies may not be making the same headlines as emails have in recent times; however, the risks of failing to correctly handle spreadsheets can have serious consequences.
Victoria Lemieux suggests in her article that the neglect of spreadsheet archiving is more common than we think. This appears to be an accurate reflection. Public sector payroll systems have been centralized in many provinces. The Phoenix system, a federal payroll system, is facing particular scrutiny at this time. The system being used in one particular sector here in British Columbia relies on employees submitting their pay on spreadsheets via email.
A number of years ago this public-service sector faced issues similar to the issues that federal workers are currently facing with the Phoenix payroll system. A new centralized pay system was rolled out that adopted a software program used for both scheduling and paying certain categories of BC public workers. For the best part of a year after its roll-out, public servants were underpaid, overpaid, or not paid at all.
These issues were in large part due to the increased volume of paperwork being submitted. The new system relied on Excel forms and emails; this meant that each individual worker was responsible for filling out their daily payroll on a spreadsheet and submitting it to payroll via email. Previously, this work had been the sole responsibility of the manager in their unit. The volume of paperwork arriving into the centralized office in Vancouver for the first 12 months could simply not be entered into the software program quickly or accurately enough for workers to be paid correctly, if at all.
Thankfully, the volume issue has mostly been addressed by hiring more data entry clerks and improved software training. However, the public servants are potentially still at risk because there is no proper records management system in place for these payroll emails. Once the employee submits their pay, this is entered by an office clerk. The email is stamped by the clerk with the date the submission was keyed, and after the bi-weekly payroll cut-off, this email and spreadsheet form is “archived” in Outlook. This means that the original email is moved from the inbox to another location on the server; the email is not duplicated or backed up.
There are a number of issues to highlight with this process. First of all, not all clerks follow the correct naming convention when stamping emails, so emails may be difficult to locate later on. Also, there are only two clerks in the office who have access to the Outlook “archive”. If one of these clerks is absent, responses to pay queries are often delayed. Moreover, there are no retention schedules for these records.
Frequently, spreadsheets or emails cannot be located in the Outlook “archive”. If a pay discrepancy arises for an employee, the centralized office may not be able to locate the original email. If the employee has not kept a record of the transaction themselves, this pay discrepancy will be extremely slow to resolve and may not be resolved at all.
So, we can see there are risks to public servants that stem from a poor records management system. If an employee does not retain their pay submission—which is a regular occurrence—and if payroll is unable to locate the submission, this creates issues when a pay discrepancy arises. Pay issues are often slow to resolve, cause immense frustration to the employee, and cost the employer and taxpayer time and resources to resolve.
A temporary solution is that these workers need to be trained to realize the importance of the spreadsheet record and email submissions that they are creating. This can be done simply by explaining that there is no appropriate records management system in place. It would mean more employees taking responsibility for their own records, which is by no means an ideal solution.
Lemieux argues that organizations need to introduce procedures for the retention of spreadsheets as poor archiving only contributes to operating risk. The payroll system in this government sector highlights problems with the poor management of emails and spreadsheets. The money spent on an electronic records management system would save the employer and taxpayer a lot of money and time, and the employees a great deal of frustration.