So the question is - how do we bridge the gap? As a RM Consultant I have worked on projects for local governments and found my lack of archival experience as a real drawback.
Most of my experience has been with private industry and federal contractors. In private industry the historical perspective of records is very unclear and driven by cost or management's perception of the value of retaining records. If RM is an afterthought, archiving isn't even a gleam in their eye.
As a contractor for DoD, our retention requirements were mostly for the financial records, unless specified in the contract, then usually as a CFR reference. As an employee at a DOE site all of the records were covered under the GRS and they were sent to a federal records center.
The final stage of the record lifecycle is disposition - destroy or permanent preservation. Generally this has just meant putting it in a box and never destroying it.
State and local governments hire archivists, private companies hire records managers. Is that too simple of a statement?
Charmaine Brooks, CRM ERMp
Mark Walsh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Folks -
The chasm between RIMs and Archivists that has developed over the past
half century or more is bad enough anywhere, but especially destructive
in the public sector.
The preservation and accessibility of local government archives is an
important public sector records management issue that I (as a Records
Analyst for the State of Virginia) look forward to seeing solved.
It is among the most basic of RIM problems - storage, failure to
implement existing schedules, lack of adequate facilities and so on.
It is also among the most basic of political problems - territorial
organizations wanting local history close at hand, local government
resisting unfunded mandates that they see as imposed by state
government...and the list goes on.
To think that RIM has had no input into CoSA's project, or that "Records
Managers need not apply" is to ignore the fact that 76% of state records
programs (38/50) have Archives and Records Management programs combined
in one agency. Of that number, 31 states or 62% provide records
management services for BOTH state AND local governments.
Two other points. The constant dragging up of percentages does not
serve any purpose - because that 3-5% creates more local government
storage problems over what will soon be 400 years for Virginia than the
100% created this year, or last or over the past 5 or 10 years. Last
point. Yes, NHPRC funded this project, and good for CoSA for getting
the financial support. The NHPRC exists in part to deal with archival
quality records. It is not responsible for projects relating to the
management of current recorded information. The organization, state,
agency or locality has that responsibility.
Still, it is necessary to move information management forward into
archival endeavors. The management of the information contained in
local government archival records is an important concept that needs to
be part of the project. So here's my suggestion: encourage the RIM
staff associated with your state's records program to get active with
this project. If you know of a RIM consultant with a sound
understanding of things archival, encourage that person to put their
name in as one of the consultants for the project. For those who are
displeased by the chasm between the two groups, my suggestion would be
to spend less time chronicling problems and more time building bridges.
Cheers!
Mark
G. Mark Walsh, C.A.
Records & Information Analyst
Archival & Records Management Services
Library of Virginia
(804) 692-3650
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
|
