I am developing a records audit to test our departments on their records
awareness and procedures (as opposed to a higher-level audit of the
records program itself). We have a few divisions that do some scanning
of particular records, destroying the paper afterwards -- obviously
making the image the official copy of the record. One of the items I
included in the audit was that scanned documents have been QC'd with QC
Logs as supporting documentation.
 
Our legal staff is questioning whether QC Logs are necessary (they don't
do them now). He feels that the best evidence rule would cover us if any
of those documents were called into court. He doesn't believe courts
would ever request a log. He didn't even seem to think that the fidelity
(truthfulness? not sure of the correct word) of the documents would even
be called into question ... in his words "that's not how the courts
work." Every presentation I've seen on e-discovery has stressed the need
for QC documentation.
 
One attorney questioned what a QC Log was, and I described it as
documentation that the image of the scanned documents were verified to
be a true representation of the original and that the person who scanned
the document was not the same person who QC'd it so as to ensure that
the image had not been altered.
 
My questions:
1. Did I describe the QC process and the intent of the QC Log correctly?
2. Am I correct in thinking that scanned records really need to have a
documented QC process? If so, what can I use to convince them?
 

 

Nolene Sherman | Director of Records Management | Standard Pacific Homes
| 949-727-9360 | FAX 949-789-3379 | [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]