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: Use of 'Nebulous' time frames
From: "Phadke, Shreekant" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
Date:Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:51:45 -0700
Content-Type:text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
Parts/Attachments

text/plain (62 lines)


Here are some things to think about.....my 2 cents.

- I wonder what the Litigation Manager thinks about the records that
have a "Permanent" retention period.
  From the 'exposure' perspective, I'd rather not have any records with
"Permanent" retention periods.
  As someone pointed out earlier (Verginia?), there should be some
definitive number for the years depending
  on the business/industry/legal requirements.

- I think there should be a clear separation of 'business records' and
'historical records', where the 'records manager'
  and the 'archivist', respectively be the managers.  By this way, one
can put a definitive number of the business records.
  At the same time, the 'historical records' will typically have a
'retention period' which could be retained through the
  existence of the entity, and will not have any 'exposure'.

- As a result, the General Retention Schedule should exclude the
historical records.

WBR,

Shreekant (Sam)Phadke
Records Mgmt Program Consultant
[log in to unmask]


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Kurilecz [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 10:13 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Use of 'Nebulous' time frames


In a message dated 8/25/2004 11:45:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Chris
Flynn <[log in to unmask]> writes:

>They had uncovered a treasure trove of old
>records. By volume he estimated a full 16% of the records held by the
>county were permanent historical records.

apples and oranges. I suspect most RMs would say that less than 5% of
the identified records series are of permanent historical value. Now as
to the volume that those records occupied they could very well take up a
large amount of space.

In the case you cite the permanent historical records may represent 16%
by volume, but only (for arguments sake) 4% of the identified records
series.


--
Peter A. Kurilecz CRM, CA
Richmond, Va
[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