RECMGMT-L Archives

Records Management

RECMGMT-L@LISTSERV.IGGURU.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Penta, Andrew" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:12:06 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (59 lines)
I would like to thank the dozen or so list-persons that responded to my
post seeking input as to the cost comparisons, or cost benefits of
microfilming records instead of continuing to allow them to sit in boxed
storage.  Since this was my first posting, I am encouraged by the
participation and learning opportunity that it presents.  

My particular situation is that I have over 1,800 boxes of Superior
Court case files sitting in a records center - that have all been
digitally scanned.  These files are permanent retention official public
records.  An another 200 to 250 boxes of these records gets added to
storage each passing year (and that is after deducting for the amount of
boxes that we are able to microfilm in-house).  Basically I am looking
for statistics and economic data to show that creating archival
microfilm from the scanned images, then destroying the paper is the
correct strategy to take.  Thanks again, everyone.

Andrew Penta
Records Officer
Records Management Division,
Clark County General Services Dept. 
ext. 4009, or (360) 397-2191
e-mail:  [log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Roach, Bill J.
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 1:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RM] Cost comparisons

>>Unless the State Archives has certified that these records are not
wanted for transfer, it would seem that they are ineligible for
destruction or transfer to any other facility or institution.<<

Can't speak for other states but here in North Dakota our Archives
appreciates it if the records are filmed prior to ascension to the
Archives.  Space is at a premium and they don't have room for large
volumes of paper records.  Long term they would need to film them anyway
so why not have the agency do it and avoid incurred storage costs and
filming expenses.

Available space should be saved for at risk collections where intrinsic
values have a high importance, not the general business documents of a
public agency.

Bill R

Bill Roach, CRM
Enterprise EDMS Coordinator
State of North Dakota
ITD/Records Management
701-328-3589

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2