Good Morning Steve,
Unless, of course, the "paper" is green and white and has monetary value.
All the best,
Peter Richardson, MPA, CRM
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Steve Whitaker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Operational (reference need)
> Fiscal (if any)
> Regulatory (if any)
> Legal (if any)
> Historic (if any)
> The retention will be the longest of the above researched and evaluated
> retention factors.
>
> A certificate of destruction..., if one still creates those to document the
> destruction/deletion of records...., is like any other record. The
> retention policy for those should be developed in exactly the same way as
> retention policy is developed for any other information.
>
> Seems stupid to create a record to document the destruction of other
> records. If the history of retention policies is retained, as they should
> be, I see absolutely no need to CREATE a dadgummed record to document the
> destruction of other records!. I stopped that practice at 4 organizations
> in which I worked in RIM/IG.
>
> I hate paper.
>
>
> Best regards, Steve
> Steven D. Whitaker, CRM, IGP
>
>
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Jennie Dubin-Rhodin <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I would argue that it would make sense to keep them for a time equal to
> > how long you retained the record. Unless there is a regulation I am
> > unfamiliar with that gives a set period of time, this would seem logical,
> > so as to avoid a bunch of Certificates floating around. Also, that
> should
> > be long enough if someone needed/wanted to see it, they could. Can’t see
> a
> > reason someone would really need to see the Certificate fifty years after
> > the records were destroyed.
> >
> > Have a nice night,
> >
> > Jennie Dubin-Rhodin, MLS
> > > On May 3, 2017, at 9:07 PM, Earl Johnson <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Good evening,
> > >
> > > Just curious as to how long you are keeping Certificates of
> Destruction?
> > > I've always thought of them as permanent records but am beginning to
> > > rethink that. I'm not sure they are even long-term records... I'm
> > thinking
> > > they're more like 7-10 year record. For example, what business
> purpose
> > > would a 25-year old Certificate of Destruction serve?
> > >
> > > As usual, any and all responses are appreciated.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > > Earl
> > > -------------------------
> > > Earl Johnson, Jr., CRM
> > > [log in to unmask]
> > >
> > > 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]
> >
> > 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]
> >
>
> 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]
>
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]
|
