Isn't this the point in the game where if records are scanned as a part
of a business process and come into question, those who scan the
documents attest that all records scanned are what they purport to be,
they were scanned at the highest quality and legibility possible,
verified, captured as an electronic document in a routine course of
business, with the same quality and authenticity as was found in the
paper source document? Then the paper becomes an input document or
backup copy with a lesser retention and is disposed of according to that
lesser retention.
Cheryl Rose
Records and Archives Analyst
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
Battle Creek, MI 49017
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Gary Vocks
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 11:41 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RM] Doc Scanning : how to best indicate original doc was
of poor quality
I understand that rationale but I'm wondering if there is a less
labor-intensive way to accomplish the same thing. I've watched both
people
preparing documents for filming and camera operators spending a lot of
time
trying to decide if a document should be stamped "Best Available Copy"
or
not.
I'm wondering if a general disclaimer filmed at the beginning of each
roll
or scanned at the beginning of each project saying something like "These
documents are the best available at the time of microfilming and some
images may be unreadable because the original document was unreadable"
would
be as effective.
Just wondering!
Gary Vocks
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cusack, Maureen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: [RM] Doc Scanning : how to best indicate original doc was
of
poor quality
>< Is it really required by standards or statute or is it just something
> that's done because "that's the way it's always been done">
>
> Since there is legislation (in Canada, and likely in the US) requiring
> that electronic records be readable and since many organizations might
> choose to destroy paper originals if they have no archival value, I
> could see such a "disclaimer" stamp helping the admissibility of the
> scanned image in a legal dispute or regulatory inspection and
> safeguarding against challenges to admissibility (if the organization
is
> trying to use the record for support - eg. in its favour) and
> safeguarding against spoliation charges against the organization (if
the
> record is being used against the organization).
>
>
>
>
>
> Records Management Website
> http://teamsites/sites/Records_Management/default.aspx
> Maureen Cusack | Smart Systems for Health Agency
> desk phone: 416.586.4012 | cell: 416.854.4987 | fax: 416.586.4398
> [log in to unmask]
> 415 Yonge Street, Suite 1900 | Toronto, ON M5B 2E7 | www.ssha.on.ca |
> www.maureencusack.net
>
> This message (including any attachment, if any) is confidential, may
be
> privileged and is intended for the above-named recipient(s) only. If
you
> have received this message in error, please notify the sender by
return
> email and delete this message from your system. Any unauthorized
> distribution, disclosure or use of this message is strictly
prohibited.
> ssistance
>
> 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
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
