That is anything but a sound practice, and it CERTAINLY isn't RM..   
All ESI does not meet the definition of a record. It's simply  
information this is the same ignorant approach used with email  
'archiving' where tons of non-records and junk are saved because it's  
easier than declaring records and assigning retention periods. Any  
organization doing this is sitting on a powder keg

Larry

Sent from MY iPhone

On May 21, 2009, at 10:35 AM, "Manago, William M"  
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> While I appreciate the postings about the Big Bucket Theory, my  
> question
> was directed at the practice of managing all ESI as records for
> discovery and FOIA purposes, regardless of your definition of a  
> record.
> Is that a sound/necessary practice?
>
> Bill Manago, CRM
>
> Director, Records Management Practice
> CA, Information Governance
> Tel: +1-954.482.2977
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Tod Chernikoff
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 1:32 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Everything is a record until it is not
>
> During another discussion about the GAO about a month ago I posted the
> following from my notes at my local ARMA Chapter meeting.  It is the
> basics of the GAO BBT schedule.  IIRC for those records which do not  
> fit
> into any of the buckets, they rely on the GRS.
>
> Mission - 5 year retention from the close of the case/file * This  
> bucket
> holds Testimony, Engagement & Investigation Case Files, Engagement
> Management Files
>
> Policy & Special Collections - Permanent or Long-term retention - This
> bucket holds Agency Reports & Publications, Legal Decisions,
> Historically Significant Engagement Files, Agency Directives,
> Senior Executive Files
>
> Administrative - 7 year retention from the close of file or end of  
> year
> - This bucket holds * Budget, Building & Property Management,
> Congressional Relations, Equal Employment Opportunity, Finance,
> Freedom of Information Act, Library Services, Human Capital,  
> Information
> Systems & Technology, Procurement, Safety, Travel, Etc.
>
> Tod Chernikoff, CRM
> [log in to unmask]
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Jesse Wilkins" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:36
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [RM] Everything is a record until it is not
>
> Let me also make one other point. IIRC, records management started out
> as space management - in other words, since organizations couldn't  
> keep
> everything for forever due to space, there had to be a way to
> distinguish between "stuff to keep" and "stuff to get rid of".  
> That's a
> fundamental first principle of records management.
>
> Many of the classification schemes we've created over the years -  
> Dewey
> Decimal, LOC, etc. have then been used as a mechanism to provide
> metadata to the physical world. Indeed, the analogy for poor
> metadata/indexing is often that of a library with all the books  
> piled in
> the middle of the floor, or with the books on the shelves but their
> covers ripped off, etc. A filing cabinet really isn't much more than
> record+metadata - why is this paper put in this folder, drawer,  
> cabinet,
> room, etc.
>
> So put these two together and you end up with the traditional
> paper-oriented records retention schedule that is doing double duty  
> for
> retention and findability. If you dissociate those two things, and I'd
> argue in the electronic world you not only can but should, then
> retention goes back to being what it started as: what to keep and what
> to get rid of. Sure, you could make hundreds or thousands of rules  
> based
> on the specific requirements of dozens or hundreds of statutes and
> regulations - or you could say here are 3 buckets: Short-term (less  
> than
> a year), mid-term (1-10 years), and
> long-term/undetermined/permanent/whatever. Make it 4 buckets. 5  
> buckets.
>
> Whatever. The point is, and the point I think most of the BBT  
> proponents
> make, is to use the right tools for findability and to make  
> retention as
> simple as possible. Again, that may mean a slightly higher storage  
> cost
> and a slightly increased risk that you'd produce something that might
> have been disposable earlier. But those risks in most cases and for  
> most
> organizations are acceptable compared to the benefits of understanding
> and complying with retention requirements.
>
> Regards,
>
> jesse
>
> 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]

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]