September 2006, Laura K. Saegert, Appraisal Archivist
Agency contact
Nicole Venette
Facilities Division
936-437-7286
nicole.venette@tdcj.state.tx.us
Records Series Review
Series Title: Building construction project files
Obsolete record series? No
Ongoing record series? Yes
Annual accumulation: over 50 cu. ft.
Agency holdings:
The agency holds about 3000 cubic ft. of project files (about 1500 transfiles,
each holding two cubic ft.)
Project review:
The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) contacted the Archives
in late August 2006 asking for a review of their building construction
project files so they could make some disposal decisions - either transfer
to the Archives or destroy the records. We had one accession of records
from this series that was waiting appraisal already in the Archives,
consisting of about 88 cubic ft. The total volume to review is about
3088 cubic ft. (about 3000 cubic ft. at the agency, about 88 cubic ft.
at the Archives). I talked with TDCJ staff about the records and had
them send me a typical box to review (files on a kitchen renovation
at the Huntsville Unit). We decided to review the boxes in-house since
they are part of this same series. While reviewing the boxes in our
stacks I discovered a few boxes that do not belong with this series.
Two are boxes of photographs (some construction, some general TDCJ photos)
that belong with an existing series of photographs in the processed
TDCJ records. I will add these boxes of photographs to that series.
There was also a transfile of seemingly routine administrative files
of the Facilities Division - these will be appraised separately, and
a transfile of self-evaluation materials (working files) for a Sunset
Commission evaluation in the mid 1980s. This will also be appraised
separately.
In preparation for this appraisal I talked with TDCJ staff about the
records and the facilities they document, asking for record types, dates,
and which facilities had the most historic value. I reviewed the most
recent appraisal manual on architectural records - Architectural
Records, Managing Design and Construction Records, Waverly Lowell
and Tawny Ryan Nelb, Society of American Archivists, 2006. For our purposes,
we cannot possibly keep all the project files for all the prisons constructed.
There was a flurry of prison construction beginning in the mid-1980s
because of prison overcrowding, both in the state prison units and in
the county jails, which were being used to house state felons until
room was available in the state prison units.
Some of the records in this series are for new units, many are for
additions and renovations to existing units, ranging from adding a new
cellblock to repair of a roof. TDCJ staff sent me a database to the
boxes in storage that includes the unit name, type of project, some
record types, and dates. TDCJ staff also provided me with a list of
12 units that are considered somewhat historic - these are the oldest
units, built between 1849 and 1933 (Central, 1909, rebuilt 1932; Clemens,
1893; Darrington, 1917; Eastham, 1917; Goree, 1907; Huntsville, 1849;
Jester I, 1885, brick building 1932; Ramsey I, 1908; Ramsey II, 1908;
Retrieve, 1919; Vance 1885, brick building in 1933; and Wynne, 1883).
While reviewing the records in-house and the database sent by TDCJ of
the off-site records I did not see any major changes made to these particular
units, just additions and renovations, mostly roof repair, renovations
of kitchens, work on or addition of HVAC units, electrical work, dorm
renovations, changes to the locking systems, plumbing work, additions
to the rodeo area, additions or repairs to water towers, work on the
sewage and wastewater systems, addition or repair of water wells, and
repair of roads. Similar project files, including addition of medical
units and cellblocks, are present for the other units in existence before
the new building rush. There are also project files for construction
of new prison units and several boxes of files for juvenile detention
facilities operated by the Texas Youth Commission (TYC). Staff could
not explain why they had TYC project files in their warehouse unless
their staff did the work. The files in the Archives had similar projects
noted.
The Facilities Division maintain in separate series all the plans and
drawings (original plans and drawings, design drawings, elevations,
perspectives, site plans, as-built plans and drawings, etc.), final
specifications, and copies of contracts (series are 17.03.01, Construction
specifications; 17.03.04 , Record set or as-built drawings).
Both of these series are maintained at the Facilities Division for the
life of the asset and have an archival review code of R. Another series
of interest is the Architect and Engineering files (17.03.02),
also with an archival code of R and maintained for the life of the asset.
These files contain memos, correspondence and other items the architects
or engineers (mostly TDCJ staff, some contracted architects or engineers)
would maintain in their working files. Staff members said copies of
many of these documents also appear in the project files. Original contracts
are kept in the Contracts and Procurement Section and maintained for
four years after the end of the project (18.06.01).
I talked with several Facilities Division staff members about the records
and asked what they would need for renovation or repair of facilities
- would the as-built drawings and specifications be sufficient. They
said yes, but they sometimes need the project files for other issues.
There is currently a lawsuit against the agency brought by parents of
a deceased inmate centered on problems in the design or construction
of the prison unit to which he was assigned. When something like that
happens (and this is not a unique situation), they need the whole project
file, or in this case, the Attorney General's Office is reviewing the
entire project file. The agency started scanning the project files in
2002 (does not include retroactive records) and so they have access
to the electronic copies from 2002 forward. They migrate these files
every two years to maintain the integrity of the scans. While talking
with staff members I asked what they would think if we did a sampling
of a few of the newer units, keeping the entire project file. They liked
that idea and said there were two or three main prototypes for new facilities,
though most facilities do have some unique features, often because of
landscape concerns. They mentioned the 1000 bed prototype unit (to also
include additional cell blocks added), the Michaels Unit and the McConnell
or Connally Unit. They did not see much value in maintaining routine
work to existing units, such as renovation of kitchen and dining areas,
roof repairs and additions, etc. However, an addition of a cellblock
might be worth keeping. They did not see value for their uses in maintaining
videos or photographs of construction, though the appraisal handbook
says those should be kept for buildings you chose to document. The appraisal
handbook also states that some weeding generally has to be done for
large collections of public buildings and the authors suggest sampling
is one way to go with fairly generic buildings.
Files the appraisal handbook says you should keep for buildings documented
are preliminary, working and as-built drawings (presentation drawings,
designs, sketches, perspectives, elevations, selected details, structural
drawings, plans, and site plans). Drawings of electrical, mechanical
and plumbing work are optional, especially when you are faced with a
large volume of material. Also to keep are photos, slides, and videos
of site construction, details, and interiors. Textual records to maintain
are significant consultant and client correspondence; contracts; legal
records; specifications; environmental impact reports; proposals; meeting
minutes; selected phone notes; selected progress, engineering, and consultant
reports; some of the monthly reports; documents for final payment; public
comment; published articles; records unique to particular jobs; and
manufacturers brochures if product significant and used. Non-permanent
records are bid sets, duplicate drawings, duplicate photographs, superseded
construction drawings, daily and weekly reports, change orders, transmittals,
financial records, and non-substantial phone notes and memoranda.
Since the agency is keeping all the drawings and specifications we
are just concerned right now with the textual project files.
Description:
The records consist of project files of construction of new prison units
and additions and renovations to existing prison units. The records
are dated about 1983 to about 2000. Types of records include proposals,
bid documents (have initial specifications), progress reports (daily,
weekly, monthly), change orders, proposed change orders, logs, transmittals,
requests for information, punch lists, claims against contracts, contracts,
photographs, videos, meeting minutes, correspondence, memoranda, field
orders, requests for time extensions, vouchers, schedules, cost estimates,
pay estimates, a few detail drawings, inspection reports, test reports,
project budget worksheets, and litigation settlement information. Correspondents
include staff of the TDCJ Facilities Division, contractors/subcontractors,
architects, engineers, and manufacturing companies. Types of work done
include construction of new prison units, state jails and transfer facilities;
additions of cell blocks, medical units, water wells, or other additions
to existing units; renovation of staff housing, dorm areas, kitchen
and dining areas, rodeo areas, law library, medical units, and other
facilities; repair (or additions) to roads, roofs, sewage and wastewater
facilities, water tanks, HVAC units; and electrical and plumbing work
done in many of the facilities.
Purpose:
Building construction project files document work that went into the
planning, design and construction of buildings.
Agency program:
"An Act to Establish a State Penitentiary" was passed in 1848
by the Second Legislature. The act established a governing body of the
penitentiary as a three-member Board of Directors, appointed by the
Governor, with the approval of the Senate. The Board was responsible
for creating and distributing a set of rules and bylaws for the administration
of the penitentiary, overseeing the treatment of convicts, preparing
an annual inventory of property, and making an annual report to the
Governor. Over the years, the name and composition of the Board changed.
While its basic functions were not greatly altered, some duties were
added. These included acquiring land for the Huntsville and Rusk facilities,
purchasing machinery, effecting repairs, leasing the penitentiaries,
leasing convicts for outside labor, purchasing and/or leasing farms
for the employment of convicts, and providing for the transfer of convicts
from county jails to the penitentiary. During the 19th century the direct
management of the prison was through the inspector, later known as the
superintendent. Other officers included assistant superintendents, inspectors
of outside camps, the financial agent, and physicians. The superintendent
and financial agent had the most direct dealings with the Board and
the Governor in the management of the prison system.
The prison system began as a single institution, located in Huntsville,
known as the Huntsville Penitentiary. Convicts were put to work in various
shops and factories housed within the institution. In 1871, the legislature
directed that the penitentiary be leased to private individuals (Chapter
21, 12th Legislature, 1st Called Session). These men, known as lessees,
paid the state for the convict labor and use of facilities, and in turn,
managed the system, including clothing and feeding the convicts and
paying the guards. It was during this period that the outside camp system
was firmly established as part of the prison system. In addition to
the use of convicts in and around the prison, the convicts were hired
out to large labor employers, mainly plantation owners and railroad
companies. A second prison facility, Rusk Penitentiary, was built between
1877 and 1882. It began receiving convicts in January of 1883.
In 1881, the Legislature reorganized the prison system, abolishing
the Board of Directors, and creating in its place a Penitentiary Board,
consisting of the governor, the state treasurer, and the prison superintendent
(Chapter 49, 17th Legislature, Regular Session). In April 1883, the
administrative system was again reorganized, with the board comprised
of the governor and two commissioners appointed by the governor (Chapter
114, 18th Legislature, Regular Session). In 1885, the board composition
changed once more, now consisting of three commissioners appointed by
the governor (House Bill 562, 19th Legislature, Regular Session). This
board was succeeded by the Board of Prison Commissioners in 1910, which
was composed of three commissioners appointed by the governor (Senate
Bill 10, 31st Legislature, 4th Called Session). The legislation that
created the new board also directed the prison system to begin operating
again on state account, i.e., lessees no longer managed the prison system,
effective in January 1911. Convicts, or inmates, were housed and worked
in one of the two prisons or on one of several state prison farms. The
shop industries slowed down while the prison farms expanded. This arrangement
made it more difficult to provide education and other reform measures.
Such measures were generally practiced at Huntsville, with some teaching
extended to a couple of prison farms by the early 1900s.
The Texas Prison Board replaced the Board of Prison Commissioners as
the governing body for the Texas Prison System in 1927, increasing in
size to nine members (House Bill 59, 40th Legislature, Regular Session).
The members of the board were appointed by the governor, with senate
approval, to six year overlapping terms. The Board formulated the policies
and the manager carried them out. During the Board's tenure, 1927-1957,
the Board made changes in the system including more emphasis on prison
reform, teaching, recreation--including the establishment of the Texas
Prison Rodeo--and a new method of classifying inmates. The Texas Prison
System became the Department of Corrections in 1957 (Senate Bill 42,
55th Legislature, Regular Session). This Department was governed by
the Board of Corrections, composed of nine members appointed by the
governor with the advice and consent of the senate to six year overlapping
terms.
In 1989, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) and the Board
of Criminal Justice were created (House Bill 2335, 71st Legislature,
Regular Session). The Board is composed of nine members appointed by
the governor with the advice and consent of the senate to six year overlapping
terms. The governor may not appoint more than two members who reside
in an area encompassed by the same administrative judicial region. This
new agency absorbed the functions of three agencies: the Department
of Corrections, the Board of Pardons and Paroles, and the Texas Adult
Probation Commission.
As of 2006, divisions of the Department of Criminal Justice are the
Parole Division, the Community Justice Assistance Division (former Adult
Probation Commission), Correctional Institutions Division, Correctional
Managed Health Care, Executive Services (Public Information Office and
the Research, Evaluation and Development Group), Health Services Division,
Human Resources Division, Office of the General Counsel, Office of the
Inspector General, Rehabilitation and Reentry Programs Division, State
Counsel for Offenders, Texas Correctional Office on Offenders with Medical
or Mental Impairments, Victim Services Division, Internal Audit, and
the Windham School District. Direct management of the prison system
is through an executive director, with each division headed by a director
and each individual prison unit managed by a warden.
The Facilities Division duties include facility planning, design, construction,
maintenance, and environmental quality assurance and compliance. The
Facilities Division headquarters is located in Huntsville but has maintenance
employees working at state owned and operated facilities throughout
the state. The Engineering Department provides professional engineering
and architectural support to the agency. The engineers, architects and
project administrators assigned to the Engineering Department perform
oversight, design, and construction operations as well as act as consultants
for the Maintenance Department, and any other office requiring technical
assistance. The Maintenance Department maintains all facilities owned
and operated by the TDCJ. Maintenance departments are located on each
unit operated by the Agency. Headquarters staff is responsible for assisting
in the maintenance and repair process by providing technical guidance,
training and supervision to unit maintenance staff, by organizing projects
constructed by the Maintenance Department, assisting in reducing energy
consumption and developing procedural guidance for maintenance.
(Sources: Various editions of the Guide to Texas State Agencies, the
website of the Dept. of Criminal Justice (http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/index.htm;
accessed September 7, 2006), and the records themselves.)
Arrangement:
According to agency staff, files are arranged by project or prison unit.
Access constraints:
According to TDCJ's Office of the General Counsel these records are
confidential under (V.T.C.A., Government Code, Section 552.108) because
of security issues - some items (plans and drawings mainly, bid specs,
etc.) show access to the prisons that could hinder law enforcement.
Use constraints:
Unknown.
Indexes or finding aids required for/or an aid to access?
A database is available which provides some access to the boxes.
Problems:
Boxes consist of large transfiles. Any records that would be transferred
would need to be reboxed before transfer.
Known related records in other agencies:
Unknown.
Previous destructions:
Destruction requests on file in the Archives and Information Services
Division of the Library and Archives Commission were checked none were
found for this series or for equivalent or related series.
Publications based on records:
None known.
Internet pages based on records:
None located.
Series data from agency schedule: or Suggested series from state Records
Retention Schedule:
Title: Project files (doc. from all Facilities dept.)
Series item number: 5.2.002
Agency item number: 17.03.03
Archival code: R
Retention: AC+10
Archival holdings:
Building construction project files, about 1982-1985, about 88 cubic
ft. These files are unprocessed and confidential. They are part
of the series being appraised.
Appraisal decision:
Files the appraisal handbook says you should keep for buildings you
document are preliminary, working and as-built drawings (presentation
drawings, designs, sketches, perspectives, elevations, selected details,
structural drawings, plans, and site plans). Drawings of electrical,
mechanical and plumbing work are optional, especially when you are faced
with a large volume of material. Also to keep are photos, slides, and
videos of site construction, details, and interiors. Textual records
to maintain are significant consultant and client correspondence; contracts;
legal records; specifications; environmental impact reports; proposals;
meeting minutes; selected phone notes; selected progress, engineering,
and consultant reports; some of the monthly reports; documents for final
payment; public comment; published articles; records unique to particular
jobs; and manufacturers brochures if product significant and used. Non-permanent
records are bid sets, duplicate drawings, duplicate photographs, superseded
construction drawings, daily and weekly reports, change orders, transmittals,
financial records, and non-substantial phone notes and memoranda. Since
the agency is keeping all the drawings and specifications we are just
concerned right now with the textual project files.
This is a massive amount of material and we cannot keep all of it.
The most significant items for all projects are the drawings and specifications,
which are being maintained by the agency for the life of the asset and
they do have an archival code of R for our eventual archival review
and transfer. We will work with the agency to keep complete project
files on two or three prototype units and files on other units, if any,
that are truly unique from the prototype. The Archives does not want
files for routine repairs and renovations (kitchens, dining areas, staff
housing, water tanks, electrical and plumbing work, roof repairs, work
on water tanks and water wells, HVAC units, etc.) We do want to keep
project files of additions of new cellblocks or other buildings to the
older facilities as deemed significant by the staff (perhaps medical
facilities, new law library, etc.), especially additions to the oldest
twelve facilities in the system (listed in the project review section).
Once the files are transferred here we could weed them to keep specifically
what is recommended in the appraisal manual, but for now we should just
take the files of projects I have mentioned. I do not know the exact
number, but I am guessing this will result in somewhere between 100
and 150 cubic ft., maybe less, possibly a little more. And, of the in-house
files, the State Archives is keeping the project files for the construction
of Ellis II, a unit built in the early-mid 1980s. There are project
files for construction of this unit, though the files may not document
all of the buildings. One of its unique features is a large regional
medical facility that is not present in most units. The files for this
unit, renamed the Estelle Unit, comprise about 36 cubic ft. without
weeding.
The staff in Huntsville will need to rebox the files we request into
cubic ft. boxes as we will not accept any more transfiles. There is
the issue of needing all the files in cases such as the attorney general
litigation ongoing right now, however, we can't physically maintain
all the files, and I think litigation issues such as those are few and
far between. The prison unit in question in that case is about 12 years
old and they maintain files for at least 10 years after completion of
the unit. Most of the files we would be getting are from the mid1980s-early
1990s and are 10-20 years old. The staff said they would work with us
to select the most appropriate units to document if we decide on this
sampling strategy. Because of the volume of the material to be transferred
to the State Archives and our current shortage of storage space (construction
of new stack floors will start in early 2007), the agency needs to transfer
the records to our storage facility in Austin, the State Records Center.
Directions for such transfers are on the website of the Texas State
Library, bookmarked in the section - Services to government agencies,
Records Center Services - (http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/slrm/storage/index.html).
Regarding the scanning of files from 2002 forward, the agency needs
to continue to migrate the scans to upgraded hardware and software every
two or three years to maintain the integrity of the scans and fulfill
the archival requirements. Keep the archival review code of "R"
on the retention schedule and add a note to the Remarks column: "The
project files of selected construction projects may be transferred to
the State Archives upon review of the files and in consultation with
staff of the Facilities Division."
Regarding the files of Texas Youth Commission facilities, TDCJ staff
should contact TYC staff before making any decisions about the disposition
of these files. It could be that TYC has their own set of files, but
TYC needs to be informed of the existence of these particular building
construction project files.
return to top
SITE NAVIGATION TEXT LINKS