LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for RECMGMT-L Archives


RECMGMT-L Archives

RECMGMT-L Archives


View:

Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font

Options:

Join or Leave RECMGMT-L
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives


Subject: Re: Hypothetical was Re: WAS: Austin Chapter hosts Workshop,NOW: Topics re:Destruction , etc.
From: "Carrie Fager, CRM" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
Date:Thu, 5 Dec 2002 14:44:20 -0600
Content-Type:text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
Parts/Attachments

text/plain (52 lines)


Don't know if this is out of the box, but here goes:

If you have two conflicting laws and operating on the notion that the
legislature considers existing laws before enacting new ones, couldn't you
look at when they were enacted and go with the most recent because it would
illustrate the legislature's most current intent?  Of course, I would think
that if failure to adhere to the earlier law results in explicit fines and
other penalties it would trump the new legislative intent if the more
recent one makes no mention of such penalties.

Carrie Fager, CRM
[log in to unmask]

At 10:26 AM 12/4/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 09:30:44 EST, Gerry Clifford <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> >It is always prudent to choose the longest retention. Your risk level is
> >minimum, and you eliminate possible litigation by the party with the longer
> >retention.
>
>Lee's problem is one that most of us face on a regular basis. Two
>requirements, two different retention periods, general consensus? go with
>the longer retention period. no problem
>
>BUT lets get back to my original hyphothetical problem. (with refinements)
>
>What if one law/regulation states that you MUST destroy a particular type of
>record after x amount of time, AND another law/regulation clearly states
>that you can NOT destroy that particular type of record? What is the
>solution?
>
>this is a hypothetical situation I know of no such conflict in existence
>today. Could it happen? who knows
>
>both laws/regulations must be from the same jurisdiction ie both are federal
>requirements or are both state requirements (and please don't reply with "my
>state doesn't have any such laws/regulations") and they must apply to the
>same entity, either to a government agency/body or to a non-government
>agency/body.
>
>Think outside the box. What would be your solution?
>
>
>PeterK
>[log in to unmask]
>
>List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
>Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance

Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main RECMGMT-L Page

Permalink



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager