Has anyone put into place such a retention period based on an assumed
average Knowing that there will be outliers?  Have you ever been
called on it?

For those who haven't, do you think such a policy could stand up in a
court of law as a reasonable attempt to address this issue?


On 9/7/11, John Montana <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> John's statement points to the essential issue that you have to resolve in a
> case like this. In order to remove the triggers you must either:
>
> 1) Do a worst-case analysis and set your  retention to a very conservative
> value.  Then you must recognize that in most cases the retention period will
> be much longer than it needs to be (in John's example, decades too long for
> most records) since the worst-case scenario is undoubtedly an outlier.  this
> excessive retention is now just a cost of doing business.
>
> 2) Attempt to do some sort of average–case analysis, setting your retention
> to what you believe would be the usual period of need for the records,
> recognizing  there will be cases where the worst-case scenario will in fact
> happen and you won't have the records you need.  This also becomes a cost of
> doing business.
>
> 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.
>
> Best regards,
>
> John
> John Montaña
> Montaña & Associates
> 29 Parsons Road
> Landenberg Pennsylvania 19350
> 610-255-1588
> 484-653-8422 mobile
> [log in to unmask]
> www.montana-associates.com
> twitter: @johncmontana
>
> 			
>
> On Sep 7, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Annunziello, John wrote:
>
>> In my previous organization, we did away with event triggers as they
>> were not working as we were seldom notified of the "trigger" to start
>> the retention clock.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> 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]
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

Dana Yanaway, JD, CRM
[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]