>Wouldn't you rather have a conversation with IM about this, and provide
approval before the records are reboxed?  It appears that, by default,
users are allowing IM to make a judgement call on when to rebox records.  
>
>I, too, would prefer to see the condition of the boxes prior to moving the
contents.  And, as Sherri indicated, would expect a list of those boxes
deemed in need of replacement. 
>

Another consideration should be when were the boxes placed in storage and
how many times have YOU recalled them.  If they are damaged because of
handling by IM staff while moving them around to access boxes of others, NOT
because you recalled them and returned them to storage repeatedly, then why
should you be held responsible for replacing a box damaged while in their
"care"?

I remember a thread here a year or two ago about clients electing to rebox
records they had recalled prior to returning them, then re-applying the IM
labels and IM saying that the clients would be billed a 'reboxing fee' to
generate a NEW label for the boxes.  Two problems I recall being mentioned
here were the index would no longer be accurate, and any crosswalk the
client had for their box number to the IM box number would then be inaccurate.

I'd caution anyone who is going through this reboxing fiasco to find out if
they are replacing the label with the SAME label or using a new number, and
what about any marking YOU had on the box- are those being transferred and
who is QC-ing the effort to ensure it's accurate?

Man, am I glad we run out own record center.

Larry
[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]