Hmmm - an interesting 'thread' and an observation from  'down-under' 
(Another way of saying Australia for those not across the cultural use 
of the term).

I would argue that some record can be 'official' in many contexts (as 
has already been demonstrated by the examples and discussions earlier). 
Not necessarily knowing how overseas record-keepers operate (and being 
told informally that the North American concept of record-keeping has  
- at least until recently - been a little different to that of those 
who originate from the British perspective) I will offer the 
perspective from my experience (for what that is worth).

A 'record' might exist in many context particularly if the information 
in a particular document cover a number of context - say a list of 
people that are going to be given bonus payments this year because they 
have achieved some desired outcome. That document might appear in three 
different context - the individuals personal file; a financial file 
authorising the payment of a bonus; a file identifying rewards and 
payments. Each of these file will quite possibly have three different 
review/sentencing/disposal actions - for instance a personal file in 
the Australian context might have the sentence date of 75 years from 
date of birth while the finance file has a sentence and disposal date  
of 7 years (and the rewards file might have a life of 2 years).
The document exits in three contexts but is not sentenced in isolation 
from the context it finds itself in - for the personal context is is 
thought to be relevant for the life of the personal file (75 years) 
versus its life in the financial context of 7 years.

Essentially I am saying do not start from the basis that a document 
(record) exists outside of the context that it is concerned with and 
that one official record exists...although that could be the case of 
course. Be aware that in some cases any single document can record 
actions across a number of context.

Of course in answer to the other question I see running through the 
thread - what about copies of the document that lie outside the 
record-keeping system. Well without trying to sound too much like a 
'bush' lawyer [that's an Australian vernacular for an layman purporting 
  to have a lawyer knowledge not a lawyer for your President] the answer 
is material outside the record-keeping system that is a copy of  a 
record could be NAPed easily enough (Normal Administrative Process) 
without penalty...the only problem of course is getting people to get 
rid of such copy material and getting them to rely on the record in the 
record-keeping system rather than relying on using their personal copy. 
 From a business risk perspective getting rid of multiple copies of 
material would be to its benefit but of course the old culture of the 
individual and preferential working style kicks in here and the 
recordkeeper gets that flat shiny aspect to their forehead (the result 
of banging your head on the desk in frustration).


Anyhow stopping here will prevent the document becoming a thesis...


John D
Records Manager
Australian Government

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