Azman,  here in Washington State, we follow just as you suggest in your
e-mail. The Auditor, Attorney General and the Archivist, but not Records
Management.  The reason being that the archivist does appraisals for
historical value in the records which may outweigh any legal or fiscal
reasons to allow their destruction.  Records Managers are not generally
trained to do these appraisals of historicity.  

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Fairfax, MA, CA
Island County Washington

-----Original Message-----
From: Mohd Azman Bin Kamarolzaman [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 7:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [RM] Reviewing & Approving Retention Schedule


There is a debate in an organization on who should review the draft 
Retention Schedule and what would be the right sequence of the review 
process. 
The parties involved in this argument are Internal Audit, Legal, Finance, 
Contract, Records Mgmt and User Dept. 

Can anyone suggest or share on who should be involved and what would be 
the most practical approach / reviewing process flow?

Regards,
Azman Kamarolzaman
Email: [log in to unmask]







----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------- 

Confidentiality Notice : This e-mail  and  any attachments  are 
confidential  to  the addressee and may also be privileged.  If  you are 
not  the addressee of  this e-mail, you may not copy, forward, disclose or 
otherwise use it in any way whatsoever.  If you have received this e-mail 
by mistake,  please  e-mail  the sender by replying to this message, and 
delete the original and any print out thereof. 

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