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: WAS: Austin Chapter hosts Workshop,NOW: Topics re:Destruction , etc.
From: "Michael, Lee" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
Date:Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:07:53 -0700
Content-Type:text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
Parts/Attachments

text/plain (76 lines)


In support of Peter's scenario, I am fairly sure of a direct conflict
between the NARA-issued General Records Schedule 3 and the Federal
Acquisition Regulation regarding the retention of routine procurement files.
GRS Schedule 3, item 3 is available for review at:
http://ardor.nara.gov/grs/grs03.html  The FAR citation of part 4.705-3(f) is
available for review at:  http://www.arnet.gov/far/current/pdf/FAR.book.pdf

Basically, the GRS has identified retention to be either 3 years or 6 years
and 3 months.  The FAR states a retention of 4 years.  So, who takes
precedence, NARA or OMB?  Both are federal agencies, both have
responsibility to set retention policy, and both have.  But they contradict
each other...

Maybe it is just a matter of interpretation, but I know this specific
contradiction causes a great deal of discussion between records
professionals and financial auditors.



Sincerely,

Lee Michael, CRM
Records Program Manager
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Golden, CO

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Whitaker [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:38 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: WAS: Austin Chapter hosts Workshop,NOW: Topics
re:Destruction, etc.


Peter, I knew the scenario you proposed was hypothetical.  I was addressing
the scenario.

To go a step further, I do not think any U.S. federal or state regulatory
agency would ever have the clout, or legal backing, to be able to require an
organization to destroy records at any certain point in time, unless it is
their own agency and via their own retention policy schedule.

Best regards, Steve
Steven D. Whitaker, CRM

>>> Peter Kurilecz <[log in to unmask]> 12/03/02 08:44AM >>>
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 08:06:57 -0800, Steven Whitaker <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> There are no regulatory agencies of which I am aware who force you to
>destroy records at any certain point in time.

>>>> Peter Kurilecz <[log in to unmask]> 12/02/02 01:55PM >>>

>What if one law says you can destroy a particular type of record after x
>amount of time, AND another law clearly states that you can not destroy
that
>particular record? mmmmmm?

Steve

My statement was a hypothetical one , a "what if", a question designed to
get you thinking. I, too am unaware of a regulation or statute that
explicitly requires the destruction of records,_BUT_ what if there were and
it was in conflict with another law that required you to keep the record?

Peterk

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

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