I agree with John Dowling and Jay Maechtlen that records may be used in  more 
than one context. They are, as John notes, "official" in whatever context  
they are being used.  I personally think the term "Official Record" is  an 
unfortunate usage that so far as I'm aware is largely confined to the US and  some 
international organizations, very possibly because of US leadership in the  
creation of several international organizations. I first came upon the term when 
 I inherited the archives and records management function in the information  
services division of the World Bank in 1987. It had a very special meaning in 
 the Bank not related to anything yet noted in this thread but more to do 
with  making distinctions between certain legal documents and other Bank records. 
 (Again, the term "legal" implies that other records might not enjoy legal  
status, which of course isn't and wasn't the case.) I would like to have  
abolished the term, since it gave rise to the question: if these are "official  
records" then do we also have "unofficial" records? But it was a practice too  
deeply established to do that. 
 
Copies of records are every bit as much "official" as "originals". Their  
authenticity and integrity may be challenged when they exist outside of a  
trustworthy recordkeeping system, but then so can records maintained within the  
system. This is particularly true with electronic records. The Federal Rules of  
Evidence, affords originality to all electronic incidences of the same  
record. Thus, it recognizes multiple originals. Though not exactly the same  
concept, it is reminiscent of the medieval concept of "exemplifications" such as  
there were with the many originals of Magna Carta. John Dowling is saying in a  
nice way that we should be controlling all incidences of a record, not just the 
 ones in the recordkeeping system. What is the point if we say we have a  
system to properly control records in our organization and that they are  
properly disposed of in accordance with established disposition management  
schedules, if there are great numbers of copies all over the organization after  the 
fact? I believe that an opposing attorney could make mincemeat of an ARM  system 
that was managed this way, and likely along with it the organization's  legal 
case. 
 
It may not be so clean cut with paper records.  Coming to Jay  Maechtlen's 
question: might different copies of the same record be  considered distinct 
records in their own rights. This happens in special cases.  There is the obvious 
situation in which a record comes into an organization from  the outside -- 
e.g., an email to an employee in support of one or another of  his/her 
organization's business processes. It can be an original record in both  organizations 
maintained in different file plans, subject to different retention  schedules, 
etc. Another example, much more prevalent with paper records, is  where there 
is important marginalia written on the recipient's original but not  on the 
creator's "carbon copy". Historically, and very much contingent on the  
established ARM procedures to handle records, the creator's version of the  record is 
considered the original, not the recipient's, of which there may be  the TO 
addressee and possibly many CC addressees. But where an executive has  written 
an "OK" or "Disapproved" in the margins, that clearly becomes an  important 
copy of record. In such cases, both such records should be captured  and 
preserved together. 
 
With electronic records, we don't often see cases of embedded comments in  
electronic documents other than drafts, though this could very well change over  
time. What is more common is that there is a separate response (and  separate 
record) indicating action to be taken or not. For example,  there is the 
famous John Poindexter email to Oliver North that said simply,  "GOOD WORK. LET’S 
DISCUSS AT LUNCH."  Lunch-date junk-mail? Not quite. It was in reply to Oliver 
North's earlier em:  "Done.  I believe  we have succeeded.  Deposit being 
made tomorrow [today is a  bank holiday in Switzerland], release of hostages set 
for week of 19 May in sequence you have specified. Specific date to be 
determined by how quickly we can assemble requisite parts. Thank God - He answers 
prayers.  Y/t, North"
 
Poindexter's reply clearly  confirmed North's assertion about Poindexter's 
role in setting the sequence of  events and gave sanction to North's actions. 
And also got both of them a  criminal conviction for which they received 
presidential pardons. This exchange  might be seen as a precursor to the modern 
alternative for marginalia. Two  separate records, no doubt. Much of this will give 
way to the trend toward  integrating recordmaking and recordkeeping within 
business processes, including  many approval/disapproval or other decision 
actions as part of workflow  processes that are, or are embedded in, the business 
processes. In the meantime,  I think we have to do our best to ensure the 
proper disposal of all records  according to established schedules. 
 
Regards,
 
Rick 
 
Rick Barry
_www.mybestdocs.com_ (http://www.mybestdocs.com/) 
Cofounder, Open Reader  Consortium
_www.openreader.org_ (http://www.openreader.org/) 


 

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