Hello Susan,
I agree with you.  If electronic systems are configured correctly, the audit
trails should be sufficient.  I think we are coping with electronic systems
that were not configured to provide this information - and more importantly
were not configured to activate disposal based on the current records
retention schedule.  So unfortunately we are often creating work arounds
until the technology catches up with established Records Management
practices.

In regards to Certificates of Destruction, they generally document that
someone actually completed the disposal; and are generally useless for RIM
purposes unless the list of records destroyed is attached.  We do this to
document the final step of the life cycle process.
Thanks Mary


On 8/23/06, DIGEST Susan Vaillant <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> I may be naive, but I don't understand why you would need to create a new
> record to explain what happened to a destroyed record, in an electronic
> environment.
>
> If document A is scheduled for destruction after five years, and after
> five
> years you can no longer find it, this "absenceness"  would indicate that
> the retention schedule had been applied.  And the evidence for destruction
> would be in the audit trail of metadata.  (That is, in those systems that
> are programmed to retain the audit trail/metadata "forever".)   The audit
> trail becomes your de facto destruction certificate - although the absence
> of the record should speak for itself.    In a properly designed system,
> the destruction mechanism is controlled only by an authorized records
> manager anyway.     (Not just anybody can trigger destruction.)
>
> A second problem with issuing destruction certificates is that I may in
> good faith sign one, unaware of copies elsewhere...that's another topic..
> But the first problem is creating a new record to replace an old record,
> just because it was destroyed properly.     A self-perpetuating industry!
>
> Please everyone correct me if I'm way off here.  I spent most of my time
> in
> data protection land these days and only reactivated my subscription a few
> weeks ago.
>
> My 2 Euros worth, from Strasbourg, France
> Susan
> *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> Susan Vaillant
> Director, Quintiles Europe Data Protection Compliance/Records Management
> Correspondante Informatique et Libertés, Quintiles France
> [log in to unmask]
> ****************IMPORTANT--PLEASE READ*******************
> This electronic message, including its attachments, is COMPANY
> CONFIDENTIAL
> and may contain PROPRIETARY or LEGALLY PRIVILEGED information.  If you are
> not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,
> disclosure,
> copying, or distribution of this message or any of the information
> included
> in it is unauthorized and strictly prohibited.  If you have received this
> message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and
> permanently delete this message and its attachments, along with any copies
> thereof. If this electronic message contains a zipped attachment and you
> do
> not have a decompression tool, you may download unZIP (free of cost) from:
> http://www.mk-net-work.com/us/uz/unzip.htm. Alternatively, you may request
> that the attachment be resent in an uncompressed format.        Thank you.
> ************************************************************************
>
> List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
> Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
>



-- 
Mary W. Haider, CRM
Records & Information Manager

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