On 8/4/06, Jones, Virginia <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> <The retention requirements placed on information being stored at
> the time they were generated or received STAY WITH the information until
> they reach that point.  You don't reschedule records during their
> lifecycle, which is why you don't discard past copies of your retention
> schedule or the reference materials used to establish them in the first
> place until all impacted records have met their assigned retention!  Sure,
> you may
> establish new and different periods for new materials, or you may extend
> or
> suspend destruction due to business needs or legal matters, but you don't
> otherwise change them.>
>
> I have to respectfully disagree with Larry.  His statement is not true.


 Okay, won't get into a public argument on this one, but as Ginny said, will
respectfully disagree... but I don't think I'd go as far as to say my
statement isn't true... it just may not be in agreement with the manner in
which some organizations decide to apply THEIR retention rules or RIM
Practices.

At least, I've not practiced life cycle (continuum, whatever) management
> of records this way for 40 years.


There we go!  That what I was just saying...

The information takes on a value at a
> point in time.  If that value changes due to legal, fiscal, or
> administrative needs changes during the existence of the record, the
> retention value for that records series may change.


FULL agreement up to this point.

Once the retention
> value changes, the new retention is applied to the record series -
> including any existing records of that series.


Here's where we have divergent views.  If a RECORD was created in 2000 and a
retention period was applied to the collection of records created at that
time based on existing regulations, then that's what applies to those
records in that series.  If in 2005, the laws, statues and/or regulations
CHANGE and require a longer or allow a shorter retention, then that should
apply to records created from that point forward.  I don't see the logic in
going backwards and applying the new periods to existing records in the
series, simply because tit didn't exist at the time the records were created
and that's what applied to those records.

I know Ginny also works in a highly regulated environment as I did in the
past (and sort of do now), and this test stood up in court in 1990 when we
got into this issue with the FERC over intrastate contracts for power
purchases and trading.  We had discarded (in accordance with regulations
governing retention) a number of contracts whose retention period had
changed from 5 years to 7 years, and were able to produce the regulation in
effect at the time they were scheduled, and were found to be in compliance
with regulations impacting the contracts in question.

Certainly, if a
> retention value is extended, you do not destroy existing records in that
> series sooner than the new retention value.  The same is true if the
> retention value is shortened.


I would disagree with extending it, because of the impacts of doing that on
a vast repository of records in storage, and because they weren't subject to
the regulations at the time they were created or scheduled.  And I doubt I'd
shorten it either, for the same reasons.

Even formerly designated "permanent" records are not kept permanently if the
> retention value is shortened unless they have already been accessioned by an
> archive, where they take on a new value persona.


I can't think of many cases where I've ever heard of this happening.  In
general, when I think of "permanent" records that aren't in an Archival
environment, I think of Federal Records, and I've never heard of a situation
where NARA has re-evaluated retention periods and re-visited a permanent
retention and shortened it.

Not intending to start a "I Hate Paper" level range war here, but definitely
think there's a difference of opinion and practices here.

Larry
-- 
Larry Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance