>In response, Annunziello, John <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>As we did this, we assigned retention time periods for what would be the
>longest time for any record in each series.  For instance, if we had to
>keep a record for the life of the employee, we assumed that they would
>start no sooner than the age of 18 and probably would not live beyond
>the age of 90.  This gave a retention value of 72 years.  It did mean
>that we kept some records longer than if we were T+, but it did work.
>

While not always the best example, when it comes to event plus retention
involving employee's life span the US Federal Government typically applies
"Separation from employment plus 75 years" where the 75 years is supposed to
address possible exposure/epidemiological issues.  "75 years was formulated
to include an initial age of 25 years for the workforce at the time of
possible risk and their life expectancy and to encompass 2 lineal
generations achieving the age of 21."  Not perfect, but at least it has SOME
basis.


> Additionally, John Montana [[log in to unmask]] wrote:

>This sort of compromise, necessarily involving the fact that you have to
eat >some cost or risk or  both, is unavoidable.   Many of these triggering
events are >embedded in legal requirements or are necessarily a function of
the record and >what it's used for.

The one way to avoid SOME risk is to set your retention to require a REVIEW
after X years prior to any automated dispositioning and then to set a new
retention period following that review.  John (M) is correct in saying there
is no way to COMPLETELY avoid all risk, but this secondary review eliminates
MOST of the risk.

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]