My thoughts on this situation is that naming and describing the contents and
use of a records series is the key.  While "Employee Time Sheets" as a
physical piece of paper or bits of electronic data may be the same or
similar in every agency how a particular agency or even part of the agency
puts them to use puts them to use is the issue.  Different uses may dictate
different retention schedules.

The individual employee's department may use it to document the hours worked
and that might require "x" years retention.  The agency's payroll department
may use the form to justify and document the disbursement of funds so the
retention period may be "y".  And the agency's or State's retirement system
office may use it to credit the employee's time towards their pension so
they may require "z" years retention.

IMHO, the "General Schedules" put out by a governing authority should have a
specific description of the record series contents and use.  If an agency or
part of an agency has a record series that doesn't match the description AND
use then that agency should not use that general schedule to dispose of
those records; even if the physical characteristics of the record matches
the general schedule.

This is why I put out a general schedule on my web for information but tell
my departments that they can't dispose of anything unless they have a
specific authorization from my office and from the State records Commission.

Gary Vocks
Records Management Officer
Southern Illinois University
School of Medicine
Springfield IL  USA

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kurilecz" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: "Retain a minimum of..."

> In a message dated Wed, 13 Mar 2002 12:33:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
"Mallory, Alicia" <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> > From: Roach, Bill J.
> >
> > >Timesheets/Timecards - Current year + 5 years, ND Job Service
> > >Applies to state, county, city, park boards, and whatever other
> > >subdivision you can think of.
> >
> > >Not all that hard.
> >
> > But, what if those timecards are used for reasons other than paying an
> > employee?  Like verifying hours of official employment for retirement
> > purposes?  I'm don't think our agency uses actual timecards for this
> > purpose, but I do know that there are reports of employees hours we use
> > verification.  I'm just trying to provide an example of one agency
keeping a
> > record longer than other agencies may, and with good reason.
> Alicia hit on the main reason why I do not like "General Schedules" --
they do not take into account the business processes and business rules of
the agency. yes they are nice guidelines, but I wouldn't stake my life to
> These general schedules relate more to the paper environment than they do
to the more current hybrid business processes of today that are comprised of
images , paper and databases. I have always believed and strongly suggested
that the records inventory process needs to be based more upon an
organization's business processes/functions/workflows than on the number of
filing inches etc. that we see on the inventory forms.
> I think that the General Schedules would be more useful if they were
written as a process than as the individual items that comprise the process.
> Must run sorry for the short response,
> ttfn
> Peter Kurilecz
> [log in to unmask]
> List archives at
> Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance

List archives at
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance