While I might agree that "permanent" archival retention might be a
stretch for policy documents, I don't agree that the retention period is
somehow related to how long the policy is in place (if I'm reading
Christian's comment correctly). Actions taken under a policy (of even
short duration) can come back later under litigation. For instance, the
University was sued by a former employee in a whistle-blower situation
where the individual claimed that expenditures made were improper or
illegal under the University's purchasing code. Might have been so but
I was able to show from policy documents in the administrative archive
that the expenditures were quite proper under both state law and
University policy when they were made. Without the superseded copy of
the policy from ten years back the state could have lost this litigation
although nothing had been done wrong under then existing law & policy.
So while permanent may not be necessary potential litigation should
play a major role in determining the retention period (assuming there
are no historical or other reasons for the "permanent" designation).
Dick King, University of Arizona
Christian Meinke wrote:
>Well - I'm going to have to add my own qualification - as I really hate
>"permanent" retentions - that if the manual/procedure/policy covers a
>process that is itself short term, or generates records of relatively short retention - you probably don't need to keep those much longer than the subject they manage.
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance