Dwight, 

This is a very interesting topic to me also.  I work in the public sector
and find that one of my biggest challeneges is with newly elected officials
or appointed department heads coming from the private sector, and knowing
actually very little about the nature of public records and their
management.  These realms are quite different, and it frustrates me a good
deal to hear politicians suggest that government ought to be run just like a
business when even the lifeblood of the organization, its "record"
information, is characteristically different in terms of how we appraise and
define it. 

Government has responsibilities to the public defined by law, and embedded
in its records, that differ from business and the private sector. For some
this is a hard concept to grasp.  I hope you do develop this as a
presentation!

Elizabeth Fairfax



 

-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of WALLIS Dwight D
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:10 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RM] IRM vs RIM

John and Larry, its possible that the issue of "what is a record" is
different in the public vs. private sector. Most public entities operate
with a clear definition of "record", generally in statute. 

Larry, you take a very similar approach to what I would take - broad
approaches to "recorded information" lead to controls that could be ill
advised from a cost standpoint. Our interest is in focusing on those
elements of recorded information that meet the statutory definition of
record, and which achieve the greatest "bang for buck" (since I rarely
encounter public entities which can "do it all"). In my environment,
establishing full controls on all recorded information would be a very
hard sell, and would not be justified by either legal risk or cost
savings. 

John, in your environment, "record" is fuzzier, particularly if you are
operating in a multi-national environment. It is understandable why you
would broaden your scope to reduce risks, particularly if you are
dealing with a business with high risk exposure. That reduction of risk
may be more likely to offset the increase in cost of controls than would
be the case with many public entities. From a marketability standpoint,
such an approach would meet with blank stares in my environment, yet
appears to be quite effective in yours. 

Which raises an interesting, perhaps obvious observation: What we
consider to be information subject to records management controls is
directly related to how clearly "record" is legally defined for our
organization, and how high our risk exposure is. This can lead to
considerable variations in practice from one entity to the next. 

One of the things on my excessively long "to-do" list is to develop a
session on distinctions between public/private practice. This is another
angle worth exploring. Thanks for the conversation, guys.

Dwight Wallis, CRM
Records Administrator
Multnomah County Fleet, Records, Electronics, Distribution and Stores
(FREDS)
1620 S.E. 190th Avenue
Portland, OR 97233
Phone: (503)988-3741
Fax: (503)988-3754
[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]

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]