RECMGMT-L Archives

Records Management

RECMGMT-L@LISTSERV.IGGURU.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:06:39 -0400
MIME-version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
Content-type:
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Subject:
From:
Charles Childress <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
Content-transfer-encoding:
7bit
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (16 lines)
 
> "Big bucket approaches right now are quite theoretical...... and tend to fall
> apart once we examine the specifics in light of regulatory, statutory and
> litigation/risk concerns......."

I think to a large degree we already use lots of "big bucket" standard
retention periods. For example how many times have you sent a draft
retention schedule to Legal and they send it back with dozens of retention
periods that reflect a statue of limitations (e.g. 7 years)? It happens over
and over.

Charles

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2