Thinking back to when I was relatively new in records management, and had a
position in municipal government as a city's records
administrator/archivist, we had a tool or should I say, a review body, of
citizens called Public Records Advisory Commission. "The Commission
provides advice and guidance to the City Records Administrator on records
management matters and implementation of the records program in the City.
The Commission is composed of professional archivists, records managers,
historians, research specialists, and citizens."
This group reviewed any requests for changes to the schedules. Such a group
can be a good way to call out those "Just in case, and just because"
staffers and keep them in line. I think the original poster may have
mentioned the use of an attorney at the meetings. I had a very good
relationship with the City Attorney's office as well, dating from previous
positions in the City's government., and when time comes to "Just Say No."
they can be of great assistance. As a consultant, I frequently advise
clients that, Just in case and just because are not valid scheduling
criteria, and so long as the staff can provide a well articulated
justification for their retention request they should be considered in due
course."
Just my observations this morning.
Tod Chernikoff, CRM
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Stephen Cohen" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 10:00
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [RM] Overcoming Opposition to Retention Schedule Implementation
> When I have come across instances where a colleague refuses to sign off on
> the disposition of records, I first ask for a solid business reason for
> extending the retention. The response I almost always get is the "Just in
> case..." excuse. Then if my soapbox talk on the value of destroying
> outdated corporate records does not work, I will acquiesce but will tell
> the colleague that I can no longer retain them per institutional
> requirements and will kindly transfer them to the individual's office. The
> individual then does an about face and says there's no room for them in
> the office, so go ahead and destroy them. (This may not work so well for
> electronic records.)
>
> I say shift the responsibility back to the individual who wants them, and
> document everything along the way so that it can't come back to bite you.
> If a certain individual really wants to hoard records, let them. But also
> let others know he/she is not in compliance with retention policy. If you
> can get support from higher up to push your position (which is the
> organization's position, or should be) you're on terra firma. Usually a
> quick discussion with the individual's supervisor or department head will
> defuse the dilemma. I can't imagine anyone being so obstinate as to defy
> retention policy without a substantial business reason and a discussion of
> the ramifications for keeping records too long.
>
> Stephen Cohen
> Records Manager
> MetLife \ Legal Affairs
> 27-01 Queens Plaza North
> Long Island City NY 11101
> 212-578-2373
>
> The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is for
> the intended addressee only. Any unauthorized use, dissemination of the
> information, or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the
> intended addressee, please notify the sender immediately and delete this
> message.
>
> 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]
|
