Hi Laurie-

In general when this has been discussed, the thinking is when the retention
schedule itself is developed, someone from Finance/Tax (if these
departments/functions exist) should be on the review team and their input
should be sought for the entire schedule up front.  This is true for any/all
impacted functional aspects of the organization.

Subsequent changes/additions/deletions to the schedule should also be
reviewed by the same aspects of the organization that had input in the
original review, so the guidance is consistent over time.

If the approval is given up front, there should be no need to seek an
additional approval when destruction takes place.

What this requires though is that any aspects of the organization that are
aware of a legal action or changing business need that necessitates the
extension of a retention period or the placing of a destruction hold on
records to notify records management when this occurs.

The one argument/disagreement that also comes up when this is discussed is
the RM function DOES NOT OWN THE RECORDS, so in some cases, RM seeks written
approval from the 'owning organization' for the records prior to ANY
DESTRUCTION taking place.

So, as with many issues here... it depends...

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]