I will agree with both Bruce and Peter that IA should approach records
management to inquire about how other operating units should be conducting
their business (i.e. retention schedules and procedures...) but unless they
have a vested interest in the retention schedule (the limit here should be
their own schedule in an overwhelming majority of cases) they should remain
out of the review loop.

Tod Chernikoff, CRM

-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of White, Bruce
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 7:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RM] Reviewing & Approving Retention Schedule

Peter Kurilecz said:
>The key word is INDEPENDENT. That is why IA will not help in the
>development of something because they will lose their independence and
>objectivity when it comes time to test whatever is in development.

I have to agree with my friend Peter (well, I think he still is) on the role
of auditors in the review process.  We have a steering committee made up of
Legal, Finance, and other offices that have a direct interest in the
schedule; Audit is not one of the members but serves in an advisory role, as
needed.  

Like our records policies, we might ask their opinion on certain aspects of
retention but they have no say in the final schedule.  This allows them to
maintain their independence.  We create the policy (in this case the
schedule) and they audit against it.  

Bruce L. White, CRM, PMP
San Diego, CA
TEL: 619-696-4671
FAX: 619-696-2534
CELL: 619-952-7145
 


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