All -

I'm with Jesse on this...

The retention period in effect when the record subject to a hold has been released is what has been used in every job I have had over the past 35 years...otherwise it becomes difficult to argue against a sort of reductionism that wants to use the retention period in place when the record was created...thereby ignoring any legal or operational requirements which were considered in the lengthening of the retention period.  But at the same time as Jesse points out, careful language is required lest retention periods be misinterpreted and records kept way too long. So to reiterate what Jesse already advised...a 2010 record with a 6 year retention at the time of the hold in 2015 but a 10 year retention is approved January 4th, 2016 and the hold is released January 5th, 2016 sits for an additional 4 years before becoming eligible for destruction, not an additional 10 years.

Those of us who worked on revising the ARMA Technical Report on Retention were mindful of holds, and referred the reader to the ARMA guideline, "Records Management Responsibility in Litigation Support" under Section 8.2, "Legal Holds".

Cheers!

Mark

G. Mark Walsh CA, CRM
University Records Manager
Assistant Director, Records Management & IT Policy
Old Dominion University
Norfolk, Virginia 23529
757-683-3411

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]