> When I have come across instances where a colleague refuses to sign off on
> the disposition of records, I first ask for a solid business reason for
> extending the retention. The response I almost always get is the "Just in
> case..." excuse. Then if my soapbox talk on the value of destroying
> outdated corporate records does not work, I will acquiesce but will tell
> the colleague that I can no longer retain them per institutional
> requirements and will kindly transfer them to the individual's office. The
> individual then does an about face and says there's no room for them in
> the office, so go ahead and destroy them. (This may not work so well for
> electronic records.)


So I've stayed out of the discussion to this point, and much of what I would
have said has been said by others in one way or another up until now. I
agree with this approach for centrally stored physical format records, our
model is similar in that we (Records Management) do not 'own' the records,
we simply perform an institutional service in providing storage and access
to records that have meet their immediate business need and have become less
active but still have a required retention period.   Our obligation is to
inform the "owning organizations" when records are about to meet their
required retention period and seek their acknowledgment and written approval
for the destruction of the records, which we perform.

In rare instances when we are requested to retain the records (for reasons
other than a legal hold or Federal  destruction moratorium being placed on
them) we request a written justification for the added retention period and
limit the additional period to one year maximum, after which we go through
the process again.  The letter requesting the extension must be signed by an
authorized entity within the owning organization, ensuring they are
knowingly accepting any risk associated with an extended retention period.
IF WE ARE AUDITED or a legal action occurs during this period, that request
becomes our defense against any accusations that we are "inconsistently
applying our retention schedule" and/or "arbitrarily retaining records
beyond approved retention periods".

If we are requested a second time to extend the retention period for these
records, we hold a meeting with the owning organization to discuss the
nature of the extension and review the guidance used to develop the
retention period to determine if a) the retention period MAY BE insufficient
for the record series or b) if the records may be improperly classified and
should possibly be in another records series with a longer retention
period.  Based on the outcome of this meeting, we make adjustments as
needed.  Extending a retention period is not an easy task, because it
requires approval from a Federal Agency, who must subsequently submit it to
NARA for investigation through the SF-115 process.
http://www.archives.gov/about/regulations/part-1228/b.html

Suffice to say, it isn't an arbitrary process.


> I say shift the responsibility back to the individual who wants them, and
> document everything along the way so that it can't come back to bite you.
> If a certain individual really wants to hoard records, let them. But also
> let others know he/she is not in compliance with retention policy. If you
> can get support from higher up to push your position (which is the
> organization's position, or should be) you're on terra firma. Usually a
> quick discussion with the individual's supervisor or department head will
> defuse the dilemma. I can't imagine anyone being so obstinate as to defy
> retention policy without a substantial business reason and a discussion of
> the ramifications for keeping records too long.


In a private entity, you can do this... it's a basic risk-based decision.
What is the potential risk of retaining the records longer than required as
opposed to the benefits of having access to the information contained in
them?  SOMEONE has to make that decision, and once they do... as mentioned
here and by others, have that responsible party document their decision and
move forward.  If you have a charge back system where they are paying for
storage, then at least there's no additional cost being incurred to store
them.  However if you DON'T have one, you may want to impose a charge for
storing records beyond the required retention (if sending them back to the
owning organization isn't an option)  AND... if you DO send them back, make
sure your inventory reflects they still exist, only in another location.
Also, if the records don't belong to the requesting organization, they
should be required to secure approval from the owning organization prior to
extending the retention.  They need to be aware that records they assumed to
have been dispositioned are still in the inventory.

Larry

-- 
Larry Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972

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]