>>One thing that records managers will never be able to live down is
that they allowed "Hostage Fees" to dominate an industry. This moved
from a practice of the unethical to almost a common practice.
Independent companies have had to resort to these fees because those
that have the fees would come in and offer to cut their annual storage
fees in half. Then the following year raise the fees double and more
with the absolute protection of the hostage fees.

While I agree that hostage fees are a major problem today, I do not
believe that their original use was unethical.  We spend a great deal of
time blaming the IM's of the world for using the practice.  My
experience was that the independents were the ones who initiated the
practice, not the biggies.

Years ago, I was looking for records storage for a large number of boxes
of paper records.  Most of the regional records centers that I contacted
did not have room available for the records.  Those that did were the
big, national organizations.  The big vendors did not have charges for
"permanent removal".  Instead, it was the smaller centers who were going
to have to invest big bucks in space, shelving, environmental controls
and other sunk costs that wanted to collect additional fees if the boxes
were removed before a specified date.  The reason for the "hostage fees"
was to make sure the vendor was able to recover the investment required
to handle the additional volume.

Frankly, I have seen similar situations and agreements in a dozen other
industries.  In many, it is called a best practice.  Spare parts are one
area where this is common.  You agree to maintain a minimum inventory of
all of the parts I need in exchange for an agreement with me to purchase
all of my materials through you.  The term of our agreement is X years.
If either party decides to break the agreement, there are monetary
penalties.  Other areas where this practice is commonplace is for
maintenance and professional services.

Granted, the concept has become a painful issue for Records Managers
today.  But the original concept was neither unethical or underhanded.
The downside is that over time, a reasonable business practice of the
small provider became the standard for the industry.

>>Records managers who allowed this to happen have hurt the ARMA's
reputation.<<

If I recall the bulk of messages over the past several years, the common
complaint is that the decision to sign contracts that include a "hostage
fee" clause is made in procurement, without input from the records
manager.  If this is true, how does this reflect on ARMA's reputation?
And if ARMA's reputation is damaged, who is doing the damage?  Those
that blame records managers for something that was outside their control
or an external unknown group that doesn't even know that ARMA exists?

Fire away.

Bill R

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