Bill, one of the reasons that I speak on up these issues is to remind people that how things look depends on where you sit. I do this because sometimes I see postings on the List that come across as didactic, i.e., "there's only one solution and everyone should act as I would." I'm not applying that to you personally, BTW. But there simply are going to be questions for which no single person on this List can come up with a solution that fits everyone's recordkeeping needs. To some extent you are right, records retained in one setting because they are useful for national memory or necessary for public accountability can be downright scary to contemplate keeping in another setting.
You write, "A big part of our function is to insure our organizations are protected from liability from old,
incomplete, and cryptic records." From an historian's perspective, I would say that records always will be somewhat incomplete and cryptic, whatever records managers do or do not do. There are few subjects on which records can be complete and crystal clear, just look at how often historians disagree on interpretive narratives! I was going to say that only by having the tape recorder running full-time in your office could you approach something like a complete record. And I of all people wouldn't recommend that to anyone, LOL.
Even with the sound-activated Nixon tapes, there can be questions as to when the President merely was venting and when he actually was giving orders. (See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1996/11/21/NEWS12569.dtl for a story which has been subject to this type of debate.) As an historian, you need contextual sophistication, an understanding of how a particular White House operated and how people handled things. It can be a fascinating process to unravel. For example, Nixon's chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman, reportedly admitted later that he sometimes ignored orders that the President gave because he thought they were unreasonable and given in the heat of anger. And when Nixon sometimes learned that Haldeman had failed to act, he reportedly ended up saying on at least one occasion, "just as well."
Maarja
>>> [log in to unmask] 10/31/2005 8:16 AM >>>
>>"We will seek to change the statutory requirement for mandatory
destruction of records and substitute a more flexible and less
labor-intensive approach to meeting agency needs to keep some records
longer than their NARA-approved disposition authorities (retention
schedules) specify."<<
The approach that NARA is taking is fine for an organization that is
insulated by sovereign immunity. It is a real problem for organizations
that are not.
It appears from the discussions that have taken place on the list for
the past several days that many have forgotten some of the key
requirements and reasons for a records retention program; Disposition in
the regular course of business and the impact of old, open for
interpretation, records. Have we forgotten about directed verdicts and
adverse inference? Piper Aircraft and their claim for having a
retention program? How about the asbestos, silicone breast implants, or
Chevy truck gas tanks? Maybe the following will be helpful:
http://library.findlaw.com/1993/Jan/1/129313.html
Especially in today's environment of short notes rather than well
thought out statements, retaining everything forever is a very dangerous
standard. I challenge any organization to critically look at your
records and say that they would not be damaging if someone was to use
them 20, 30 or even 50 years from today. A big part of our function is
to insure our organizations are protected from liability from old,
incomplete, and cryptic records.
Flexible retention guidelines and permanent retention "just because we
can" may be palatable to the feds, but not to anyone else.
Bill R
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
|
