The required format is TIFF 4 at the moment. PDFs are proprietary and are
not currently endorsed by the State Archives in Washington.
Elizabeth Fairfax
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Flynn [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 3:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RM] Cost comparisons
Andrew,
The letter of the law is quite deal. Unless things have changed (you might
want to check this), The State of Wsahington requires that you use Acrobat 5
for imaging your records. I could be wrong, but I don't think the version
rewuired under the WAC's exists. This could be quite the conundrum if this
is still true. The principle behind imaging archival records and then
disposing is fairly old. The difference should revolve around the intrinsic
value of the record. If the value is based on the total volume of the
records they may be elibible for disposal after archival imaging (check your
state regs) If the record has intrisic value (declation of idependence, D.B.
Cooper's court file, etc) you may want to hold on to the record after
imaging. You might contact Paul Piper and see where ATOM is on this issue.
You could also flip and film the image and scan the film (everone is happy
except the finance people).ALARM is active in your area you pitch your issue
to them as well.
Good luck
Chris Flynn
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Penta, Andrew
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 2:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [RM] Cost comparisons
Hello, I'm fairly new to the list, and this is my first inquiry posting. I
have enjoyed reading and have learned much from what I have seen the list
membership post, and I'm certain that I will be appreciative of any feedback
I receive from this question.
I am looking for cost comparisons, or a cost-benefit analysis comparing
microfilming files rather than continuing to store paper in boxes.
Specifically, a large department I work with has digitally scanned thousands
of permanent retention official public records, but has not invested in
producing preservation microfilm back-up for the scanned images. By law in
the State of Washington, to be able to destroy the paper source documents of
permanent files, the files must be filmed, regardless if thy are scanned (or
you can go through a complex process to have your scanning system certified
by the state, which would remove the requirement to microfilm). I'm
thinking that it would be more economical (and less risky) to produce
microfilm directly from the scanned digital images and destroy the paper
files, than to continue to store an ever increasing volume of paper, and now
I'm looking for information on the costs to strengthen my case.
Andrew Penta
Records Officer
Records Management Division,
Clark County General Services Dept.
ext. 4009, or (360) 397-2191
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/252 - Release Date: 2/6/06
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/252 - Release Date: 2/6/06
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
|
