On 12/18/06, Susan Malay <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> So....when a retention schedule requires that documents be purged, and
> the documents are purged by the Records Manager according to the
> published schedule, it's OK for others to complain about the purge?


I'm not sure if you got my point.  The problem here is the scheduled
retention period didn't meet the needs of the judicial system.  So when it
was set, not enough was done to involve all of the impacted parties and a
retention period was set that was too short to allow effective prosecution
of cases.

Judges have the ability to influence retention requirements, as do the
> clerks who administer the records. I agree that records should be
> retained as long as useful, and setting the date for "usefulness" can be
> a challenge. If records are not classified as permanent, it is
> responsibility and obligation of the records manager to purge them when
> their retention is reached. And based on the Kentucky statutes, those
> records had reached their retention.


Yeas, these parties have the ability to influence the decisions IF THEY ARE
AWARE changes are being made.  My read of the various articles on this
specific incident indicate a change was made to the schedule and all
impacted parties weren't made aware of the change.  Either that, or a
decision was made to include all copies of the records in the destruction
where previously the retention was only applied to paper records.

It's not uncommon for organizations to have a two-staged process for records
that are converted to microfilm and/or electronic form (by imaging or
scanning) and the retention schedule to have under disposition instructions
something to the effect of "destroy paper records after 5 years, providing
records have been imaged/scanned and retain enduring copies for an
additional X years."  This allows them to minimize the space used for paper
storage after records are no longer active, but to still meet the longer
retention periods through the use of the other sources.

And yes, Steve.... I know your disdain for paper and you're already
wondering WHY would you keep the paper at all after you've imaged or scanned
it... but with legal documents, attorneys are going to need their paper
copies as long as a case may still go through appeals or become active
again, so until you've reached that period, the scans/images are essentially
just a backup.

Larry

-- 
Larry Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972

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