> 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 XYZ's of the world for using the practice.

 Given this is the Webster's definition of ethical: "...conforming to 
accepted professional standards of conduct..." and there are NO STANDARDS of 
conduct, then I'd have to agree with Bill. =) Maybe "inappropriate" or 
"poopy" would be better words to use... 
 
> 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.

 What I experienced was much different, but there were a number of choices 
for providers. The larger firms were hungrier and offered lower rates for 
storage if you could meet their minimum volumes, but higher rates for 
services... the smaller firms offered higher rates for storage andt were 
willing to take on smaller volumes, but they offered lower rates for 
services. The smaller vendors also asked you to sign for longer terms and 
the contract clearly stated that you were obligated to retain a minimum 
volume of records for the term of the contract, or you would be billed fo 
the balance of the term. Now, personally, I never saw this as a hostage fee, 
I saw this as a good business agreement. If you sign a contract to do 
soemthing for a period of time, then you're BOTH obligated to live up to 
your part of the agreement, right? On the other hand, the larger firms 
didn't want to sign for anything more than one year, and if you moved th 
erecords out, you paid a fee that was the stated service fee for 
removal/delivery per box when you left, but every year, they raised the rate 
for storage AND for services... and that's a good business agreement, too... 
but in this case, it's better for the service provider. 

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.

 I think the distinct difference here is "The term of our agreement is X 
years." If the term is over, there is no agreem,ent and you should be able 
to remove your holding for the costs stated in the agreement... a pull and 
deliver fee only. Problem is, that's not what happens.
 
> >>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?

 I must agree that in most cases, the final decision is made by the 
Procurement Personnel... where it reflects badly on the RIM Professional is 
for not being able to educate Procurement in advance that this was likely to 
happen and it was part of the decision made in selecting one vendor over 
another... and this is why everyone here is being encouraged to look at the 
ARMA Guideline for Offsite Storage and download a test copy prior to June 
1st. This is intended a s a tool to help you educate others in the 
procurement and negotiation process of what to look for. 
 And I think what Hugh was getting at is it reflects badly on ARMA for not 
being able to educate the Professionals in the field that this practice is 
common and that they need to be aware of it.

Fire away.

 Weapons lowered... =)
 Larry

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