Just took a look at the archives, with little success. We are in the process
of looking at options for managing records for discontinued or divested
operations.  The assumptions are that a) prior to the divestiture, decisions
were made as to which records should stay with the divesting company, which
would go to the new company and which records needed to be retained by both
parties; b) these are the records that are required to be retained by the
seller after the divestiture for a period of time (due either to the
purchase/sale agreement or normal retention policies); c) access and
retention agreements are in place; d) the overall parent company still
exists; e) potentially, the line of business no longer exists within the
corporate structure.

We have thought of several options for these types of records and would be
interested in what options other companies have chosen. The question is for
internal use only, not for publication, broadcasting, etc. A summary of the
information posted back to the listserv would have company specifics removed

A)  Create a discontinued/divested operations records management role. This
person would be responsible for "owning" these records, providing access per
any access agreements, would have a basic knowledge of the types of records
from the business and would hopefully have gotten documentation prior to the
divestiture about how various records were used. This person would need to
be aware of any litigation surrounding these records and would serve as the
one stop shop for accessing these records. Advantages would be that everyone
would know who to call. Disadvantages would be that this person may not have
the in-depth knowledge of what the records were, how they were used, etc.

B) Divide discontinued/divested ops records among the departments that would
have the best chance at understanding what the records were. For example,
accounting-related records would be owned by someone in accounting, HR
records would be owned by someone in HR, etc. Advantages would be that they
might be able to interpret the records better than a general point person.
Disadvantages would be that they may not have the in-depth knowledge of
legal holds, others wanting to access the records would need to know who to
contact, etc., or they may not be aware of the nuances of access/retention

C) Create a hybrid approach with one point of contact, but ownership

D) any other possibility? (this is a question not an answer)

Anyway, if you're willing to share what your organization has done, I'd
greatly appreciate hearing about it. If you'd prefer to speak by phone, let
me know and we can schedule a call. Thank you.

Laurie Carpenter, CRM
Records Manager
Koch Industries, Inc.
[log in to unmask]

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