>
> I don't think Bill was suggesting that all ESI is a record, rather seeking
> input on the approach of treating all ESI as a record for a short, specific
> period. (snip)
> Or is that just an "ignorant approach" as well?


Are you asking for a direct answer to that? =)

Okay, as has been said with respect to information created and stored in
electronic forms (and I'm not ignoring paper or saying that this isn't also
applicable to paper, but that isn't the subject ESI is) and it;s been said
repeatedly here, if an organization HAS a RM Policy, and that policy clearly
defines what constitutes a record for the organization, anything that is NOT
A RECORD should not be stored within the organizational repositories.

Once it has met it's purposes or if it is a draft or working paper (a
transitory record with a maximum set retention period of x days, typically
not to exceed 180) and the valued content has been moved to a final document
hat meets the definition of a record, then it should be destroyed, not
stored, so it is no longer ESI after that period.

And YES while it exists as a draft or working paper, if a legal action is
filed  (FOIA requests are different, and because all States and other
entities subject to them have different rules,no sense in getting into that
here either) they ARE subject to discovery and must be declared in your data
map *IF* the subject matter is what the action is related to.  BUT, if
non-record information is discarded and transitory records are held for
fixed periods, what constitutes ESI in an organizations repositories ARE
records and should be subject to discovery.

The object is to have a policy, save ONLY records for as long as your
retention schedule states they must be held, and eliminate all other
"information" as soon as it's value has diminished... and eliminate ALL
non-records in the course of normal business rather than save them at all.


I don't know how I feel about the approach yet - gotta think about it some
> more. But to call it "the same ignorant approach" really does a disservice
> to the request and to the other organizations (including, apparently, the
> GAO) who are considering that approach. I certainly don't believe it's an
> "ignorant approach" at all.


It's NOT RECORDS MANAGEMENT... which is why "saving everything" (a'la email
'archiving') is ignorant... it's not consistent with policy and practice.
Bill's question was about treating ALL ESI as records, not about what GAO
was doing... if you read his question he said clearly he wasn't talking
about the practices of using the Big Bucket Theory, so no one was apparetly
or otherwise making reference to what the GAO was doing.

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?

I guess some folks have the luxury of thinking about an approach to doing
things, while others are busy actually doing them and creating policies and
training staff to follow practices that are consistent with them to ensure
the volume of ESI that exists are limited to records so when/if a data
request or FOIA or other call is issued, the environment and volume of
records required to be searched and produced is much more limited and the
risk to the organization is also smaller.  Practicing Records Management
Professionals are at a great advantage in that they only have to respond to
real world scenarios and not to postulate on theoretical approaches to
treating electronic records any differently that physical forms of records.

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
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]