I think that two points need to be addressed here. First, is it the
document that is archival or is it simply the information that requires
"permanent" retention? If the document is truly archival (to use an extreme
example one of the signed copies of the "Declaration of Independence") then
you shouldn't even think of creating an image and destroying the original.
On the other hand if it's the information in the document that's important
and not the physical document then what would be the harm of creating an
image and destroying the original paper? Assuming, of course that the image
was readable.
Which brings me to the second point. If the imaging/microfilming is done to
standards and the proper QC procedures are in place why can't we assume that
the microfilm/electronic image is going to be just as readable as the
original document? In my experience with both microfilm and scanning there
are times when the image viewed on a screen is actually more readable than
the original document.
Gary Vocks
Records Management Officer
Southern Illinois University
School of Medicine
Springfield, Illinois USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "A.S.E. Fairfax" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: [RM] Retention of hardcopy after documents have been imaged
> Elizabeth Fairfax here again.
>
> The feceral government and rules of evidence issues aside, this may depend
> on the specific public records jurisdiction one falls into. Some states
> and
> the records of local agency records within it, mine included (Washington),
> are enjoined from arbitrarily disposing of records that the State Archives
> has scheduled as archival. If the images do not conform to the standards
> set
> by the state archivist here, the paper records are still especially
> valuable
> from a historic point of view as the images may not contain ALL the
> information in the originals--depending on age of the records, quality of
> the paper and contrast etc. Density is an issue if a record is large and
> does not bear very close scrutiny on blow-back because of missing detail
> or
> fuzzy images. The original in such a case may need to be consulted if it
> is
> still available.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roach, Bill J. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 1:36 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [RM] Retention of hardcopy after documents have been imaged
>
>
>>>Has there been any US Federal decision on disposing of hardcopy
> records after the documents have been imaged?<<
>
> The more important question is whether there has been the need to make a
> decision regarding disposal of paper documents after imaging. I am
> certain
> there have been a few. On the other side of the coin, images of documents
> have been produced on court for years without the need for a decision.
>
> (Standard disclaimer: I am not an attorney, get a competent one and ask
> him
> the question.)
>
> Outside of the archival environment, when was the last time someone
> microfilmed documents and retained the paper, rarely if ever. Electronic
> images are addressed in the exact same rules as microfilm. See Rules of
> Evidence 1001, 1002, 1003 and 1004.
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule1001
>
> Pay particular attention to the language in item 1 of Rule 1004: "Rule
> 1004.
> Admissibility of Other Evidence of Contents The original is not required,
> and other evidence of the contents of a writing, recording, or photograph
> is
> admissible if--
> (1) Originals lost or destroyed. All originals are lost or have been
> destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith; or
> (2) Original not obtainable. No original can be obtained by any available
> judicial process or procedure; or
> (3) Original in possession of opponent. At a time when an original was
> under
> the control of the party against whom offered, that party was put on
> notice,
> by the pleadings or otherwise, that the contents would be a subject of
> proof
> at the hearing, and that party does not produce the original at the
> hearing;
> or
> (4) Collateral matters. The writing, recording, or photograph is not
> closely
> related to a controlling issue."
>
> According to the rule, you can destroy the originals as long as you do it
> in
> good faith.
>
> 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
>
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
