A 60-minute meeting recording is not a meeting summary. A transcript is not a procedure. A Teams recording is not a training resource. And "it's in the recording somewhere" is not a documentation strategy. Many of us have probably found ourselves digging through old recordings (or *ahem* 36,910 screenshots) trying to answer what should have been a simple question. The information technically existed. Somewhere. In a recording. Maybe in a transcript. Possibly in a Teams chat.

Organizations often invest in new tools to fix existing problems. Sometimes the tools help. Sometimes they expose what’s already broken. When workflows are unclear, ownership is inconsistent, or standards vary across teams, new technology tends to amplify those issues instead of solving them. I’ve seen this happen with records systems, intake processes, and internal tracking tools. The system works as designed, but the underlying process was never clearly defined. Better outc

“This meeting should’ve been an email.” But what about the meetings that needed an email? I can’t count the number of times I’ve participated in a meeting where the meeting happens and… that’s it. That’s the deliverable. No agenda. No recap. No action items. No record that the meeting happened other than a calendar block and, maybe, a recording no one will ever watch, or a transcript someone might dig through later, trying to find what could’ve been documented from the outset

One of the most common operational issues I see isn't complexity. It's unclear ownership. A task gets shared across teams. Responsibility gets assumed, questions get redirected, and deadlines slip. Everyone is involved. No one is accountable. I’ve seen this in policy implementation, internal workflows, and public-facing work. A request comes in, touches three departments, and no one is clearly responsible for seeing it through to completion. Clear ownership doesn't mean doing

There’s a difference between a transition question and ongoing reliance. A quick follow-up a week or two after someone leaves is normal. It happens. But when an organization is still calling months later, something else is going on. That’s not about helpfulness or professionalism. It’s about missing infrastructure. If knowledge lives in one person’s head instead of in systems, documentation, and clear handoffs, the work doesn’t transfer. It follows the person out the door. At

Most discussions about records and information governance focus on federal or private-sector frameworks. Those are complex, but relatively structured. Local government is where things get messy. FOIA does not apply to municipal records. For that, you need state law, and those laws vary widely. Just the acronyms can be confusing: FOIL, OPRA, APRA, FOAA, CPRA, GRAMA, IPRA, PIA, Sunshine Law, Open Records... even the baseline is hard to track. Then come the state-by-state nuance

Ballston Spa’s FOI debate gets at a problem I see often: agencies talk about records access as though the main issue is requester behavior, when the real issue is usually process. Volume is unpredictable. Capacity is limited. Training is uneven. When agencies are not set up to efficiently handle routine requests, legal review, delays, and frustration multiply. All of that is real. But FOI is still a right. It can’t be treated as abuse simply because compliance is inconvenient

Documentation is accountability. The fullest full stop. Every single one of us has been there: "I thought someone else was handling that." "I don't remember agreeing to that." "Nobody told me." "That's not what we decided." "We've always done it this way." “Does anyone remember…?” “I think maybe Mike was supposed to…” Without documentation, we're relying on memory, interpretation, assumptions, and whoever happens to be the most confident person in the room. We need a shared r