Hello All,
I would definitely appreciate some distinction for my sake. I'm given
the title Records Officer as a "part" of my job but I do not have any
formal training save for what the State and maybe Federal governments
offer to train me in what to do. I'm responsible for creating retention
schedules, bringing them to the approving committee, doing inventories
of records, and pretty much managing a records program with no records
management background. And its only one part of my job. In fact, I think
it's technically only 10% of my job. It is so hard to get any
direction/action on things that need to be changed, and without the
"real" authority. It is so frustrating...I can't wait to see what ARMA
comes up with. I'm really excited to be a part of this evolving subject.
I am learning so much from these emails, so thanks!

Lura Harrison
Seattle, WA

-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Peter Kurilecz
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 5:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Job Opportunity - Records Analyst

On 1/9/06, White, Bruce <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> What I think is sorely lacking (especially in the private sector) is a

> salary survey that records managers and employers could use as a basis

> for establishing a reasonable salary structure.

One problem with conducting such a survey is the lack of title
standardization. What I mean is that an individual who is responsible
only for a file room, following procedures, and no budget control can be
given the title "records manager". We can find that same title applied
to an individual who is responsible for directing a staff, managing a
budget, doing planning as well as interacting mid to upper level
managers.. And these two folks will have disparate salaries to boot.


>  At the same time, I believe a baseline/range could be established and

> then adjusted appropriately.  Other professions do this - why can't
we.

Hopefully the ARMA Competency Project will help to standardize
responsibilities and titles.

I do think that the CRM designation does serve this purpose to some
extent. Employers are using the designation in their job postings.
They may not say required, but they are definitely saying preferred or
desired. I've even seen some adverts that will consider folks who are
CRM candidates.

>
> Ray Cunningham recently completed an on-line survey (can't remember 
> whether he has posted the results) which could be a start.

I think Ray is still compiling and analysing the results. I think he
received over a thousand responses.


--
Peter Kurilecz
Richmond, Va

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance