There was a discussion on this list of offsite storage vendors charging
for reboxing back in November 2008.
<http://mm1.lettermark.net/smithgambrellrussell/card/OIPC_3.map>
Scott Taylor
Records Manager
(404) 815-3521
[log in to unmask]<http://mm1.lettermark.net/smithgambrellrussell/card/
OIPC_3.gif>
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Hugh Smith
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:48 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Repack Charges & Other Tricks
I find it funny that we have never had this discussion, and I have been
on this list for many years, and now 24 different RM's replied to this
topic. Doesn't that strike you as a new phenomena in the industry?
As companies pay ever closer attention to the bottom line they are
finding scams that cause their costs to rise. At the same time
companies who perpetrate scams are constantly having to find new scams
as the old ones are discovered. At a recent conference, vendors were
talking about new accounts they won and why.
So I pose the question "Do you even have any idea how many boxes you
have?" "Do you keep a running rate of how many you add and how many you
shred?"
Boxes used to average 16 years on a shelf as their normal life
according to industry standards. And we never heard about re-boxing.
Now with shredding, boxes are more likely to exist for 7 years and then
go to a shredding company. The box is shredded along with the files. If
we are using boxes for a shorter period of time, why would they break
down? Why is re-boxing an issue today?
Here is another conundrum: Why do companies that audit their actual box
and tape count each year to verify the actual tapes in storage see a
re-calibration to correct number each year. The reduction in volume is
significant if they have not run an audit for several years. I would
find it mighty uncomfortable to go into court with the task of
explaining why the volume of tapes I have in storage and pay for each
month is not the the volume I have for discovery by the opposing
attorney.
I was surprised (shocked?) that the Chain of Custody issue was not
talked about more. In litigation, I think the fact that boxes are
allowed to be re-boxed, resorted into larger and/or smaller boxes would
be a cause for summary judgement as you cannot provide an accurate Data
Map. Certainly not in 99 days. If files are to be re- boxed they
should be done under your supervision. Isn't that what Chain of Custody
is all about; proper supervision. Unless you have an affidavit
appointing some unknown warehouseman as your surrogate then your
integrity is bogus.
This list argued for days on what is a record! How about "What is a box
of records?" And who can open it, resort it, and review it and possibly
remove items or lose them. Years ago, the offsite storage contract had
a clause giving the vendor the right to open a box and inspect it. That
was removed so no right to open this box exists.
Maybe companies should attempt to bill their offsite storage company for
disturbing the integrity of the records and voiding the Chain of Custody
and billing them for the cost of inventorying the records and restoring
the proper chain of custody. Watch re-boxing fees go away!
I remember visiting a offsite company and witnessing a pallet of records
coming in from a client. The client had stacked the pallet too high and
boxes burst. They immediately took photos to protect themselves. They
had a shrink wrap unit that could wrap the whole pallet and they did so.
The client was then told to come immediately to re-box the records.
This was years ago before all these new laws creating CEO, CFO and even
Board of Director liability.
Odd that re-boxing is worth $9.00 but if the box is destroyed along with
all the documents it is only worth $1.00. So that must end our debate
about what is a record? It is a record until you put it in a box. Then
it is nothing. Actually it is less than nothing. It is a negative
$8.00.
Hugh Smith
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.
[log in to unmask]
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Confidentiality Notice
This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
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]
|
