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
|