Hi Linda,

How about having a stamp customized to read something more appropriate,
like: "Received on 02/06/2006 - Does Not Imply Acceptance" or some other
such wording?  We ran into sort of a similar type of problem in the
District Clerk's office for a water management district I worked for a
couple of years ago, and got around it by getting such a stamp.

Good luck.
Earl  

Earl Johnson, Jr.
Consultant (Millican & Associates) to DHS Records Management
Department of Homeland Security
7th & D Street SW, Room 3636-22
Washington, DC 20528
Office:   (202) 205-5803
E-mail:  [log in to unmask]
 
******* This communication, along with any attachments, is covered by
federal and state law governing electronic communications and may
contain confidential and legally privileged information.  If you are not
the intended recipient, you are instructed that any dissemination,
distribution, use of copying of this message or its attachments is
strictly prohibited.  If you have received this in error, please reply
immediately to the sender and delete this message along with any
attachments. *******
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Linda Buss
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 8:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [RM] engineering records and document control procedures

Good morning Listservers,

Your collective wisdom has proven to be useful in the past, and once
again I
come to the fount of knowledge.

I work for an engineering firm which receives submittals from
contracting
design firms that include load rating calculations for bridges. The
engineering manager was concerned when the mailroom stamped incoming
calculation books with the date received stamp.  She stated that by
applying
our date stamp to the calculations it implied we accepted the
consultant's
calculations as true and accurate.  My thinking is that this merely
notes
when we received the submittal and does not imply acceptance of the
content
matter.

My question to you is this: is she correct in her assumption, or is she
being overly cautious?  Am I incorrect in my reasoning that this is
nothing
more than a chain of custody procedure?

Thanks in advance.

Linda Buss, MA
EDMS Manager
OBDP

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