Yes, retention schedules work for law firms.
Ginny Webster, CRM, MLS
Records Manager/CLE Coordinator
Jones Day
2727 North Harwood Street
Dallas, Texas 75201-1515
214-969-2965
[log in to unmask]
"Jackson, Sandy"
<SJackson@LOCKELO
RD.COM> To
[log in to unmask]
Sent by: Records cc
Management
Program Subject
<[log in to unmask] Re: [RM] Records Schedules (html)
UFL.EDU>
01/03/2008 11:09
AM
Please respond to
Records
Management
Program
<[log in to unmask]
UFL.EDU>
Do these retention schedules work for law firms?
------------------------------------
Jackson Records Management Services
Sandy Jackson
Independent Contractor & CRM Candidate
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
Norcross, Georgia
tel: 404-870-4656
tel2:770-899-7618
http://sjrmservices.cabanova.com
------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Trudy M Phillips
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 11:36 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Records Schedules (html)
I have long been a believer in the Functional Retention Schedule as I
have seen it work quite well in numerous settings and it seems to be a
very easy concept for the non-records manager to grasp and use.
My personal opinion is that if someone or other is putting together
retention schedules arranged by retention periods, they are trying to
take a short cut, or do not understand the chaos they are creating and
the potential liability risk that might insue.
In a message dated 1/3/2008 10:25:56 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
January 3, 2007 Colleagues- Probably many of you are working within
your agencies (using the term loosely) to determine whether "flexible"
and or "big-bucket" records schedules are appropriate for your
organization.
If they are, I suspect that many of you are trying to design and
implement these types of records schedules. At the US National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA) we have been reviewing, and approving
functional/big-bucket schedules for approximately 3-4 years. NARA
guidance for big bucket scheduling is found at:
http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/bulletins/2005/2005-05.html I
commend this guidance for your review. Lately, we have been receiving
"big bucket" schedules from various agencies that are arranged not by
"function," or "line of business," but by "retention driven buckets."
That is the schedules are arranged by retention period, by say,
retention periods of 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, 20 years, and then
thereunder by the records created. The schedules are not arranged by
business operations (policy, fiscal, administrative, etc.)- but by
retention periods. NARA is not amused by retention based arrangement.
NARA Bulletin 2005-05 states specifically that a big bucket schedule is
an application of disposition instructions against a body of records
grouped at a level of aggregation greater than the traditional file
series or electronic system that can be along a specific program area,
functional line, or business process (Paragraph 5). These function- or
business process-based schedules reflect the way work is actually
accomplished in each office or program area, and the records created
during these activities arise from the same context and are subject to
the same legal and regulatory obligations. Function-based schedules
thus preserve the context and therefore the meaning of records, as well
as reflecting the business process. In our opinion, retention based
schedules will not maintain the context and meaning of the records. If
the context and meaning of these records is not ensured, then we cannot
endorse the concept that the agency is maintaining adequate and proper
documentation. I should emphasize at this point that this is my own
interpretation of NARA policy. All of that being said, and not wishing
to argue the point, how do others of you all feel? Are there any who
have implemented a successful functional/big-bucket schedules arranged
by retention periods? Any bad experiences? Is there anything in the
records management/archival literature supporting a pro-retention
arrangement view point? (I have not had time to check out the
literature.) Are there many who see the virtues of such a schedule
arrangement? Is there agreement with NARA that only functionally
arranged big bucket schedules are appropriate? Is there anything in the
records management/archival literature supporting the idea that only
functional based arrangements will work? (I have not had time to check
out the literature.) I'm more interested in general thoughts. I'd be
happy to provide any clarification or clear up any confusion I may have
created. Happy New Year! Jim Cassedy (This interpretation of NARA
policy has not been approved by higher authority, and should in no way
be interpreted as NARA policy (for the present purpose). Any
inaccuracy/vagueness/stupidity reflected in this query is completely my
own.
James Cassedy
Archivist, Work Group 4 Leader
LifeCycle Management Division (NWML)
National Archives and Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Road
College Park, MD 20740
[log in to unmask]
(301)-837-1584
301-837-3697 (fax)
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]
Trudy M. Phillips
File Management, LLC
"Bringing Order Out of Chaos"
8440 Lanewood Circle
Leeds, AL 35094
Office: 205/699-8571 Fax: 205/699-3278 _www.filemanagement.com_
(http://www.filemanagement.com/)
Now also in Huntsville AL
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
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]
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: United States Treasury Regulations provide
that a taxpayer may rely only on formal written advice meeting specific
requirements to avoid federal tax penalties. Any tax advice in the text of
this message, or in any attachment, does not meet those requirements and,
accordingly, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by
any recipient to avoid any penalties that may be imposed upon such
recipient by the Internal Revenue Service.
IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIAL: This message from the law firm of Locke Lord
Bissell & Liddell LLP is privileged, confidential and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to act on behalf of the intended recipient) of this message, you
may not disclose, forward, distribute, copy, or use this message or its
contents. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
us immediately by return e-mail and delete the original message from your
e-mail system. Thank you.
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]
==========
This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is
private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege.
If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system
without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records
can be corrected.
==========
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]
|
