Good afternoon from sunny Phoenix - The following is my opinion on the
matter and understand other organizations designate information differently
and that everything is discoverable..

I place information into three "buckets" 1) Records 2) Business Value
information & 3) Non-Value information.  Records are listed on the
company's record retention schedule, Business Value information is not a
company record but possesses business value, e.g. referential value, such
as spreadsheets and presentations.  Business Value information typically
has a limited "shelf life" and should be appropriately discard once the
business value no longer exist.  Non-Value information could be personal in
nature and should be immediately discarded or may at one time fell into the
category of Business Value, but the value expired and it is just hanging
around because no one has discarded it.

Sincerely

Blake E. Richardson, CRM

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Records Management Email <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Aloha All,
>
> Back from a well-needed vacation and decided to chime on this issue...
>
> I agree with Glen that the "record" versus "official record" is a needed
> distinction and extremely relevant...I agree that everything in a "legal
> sense" despite what format or media it is created or transmitted.  However,
> the issue is whether the "record" is an "official" representation of the
> "intent" of the company or originator of the message and whether it
> correctly represents what was created in the "normal course" of business.
> It is extremely relevant to make the distinction between an "official"
> representation of fact or one's views versus something that may have been
> altered or created informally.
>
> Yes, I believe that Glen is correct that this issue needs to be discussed
> at length...
>
> Mahalo,
>
> Brian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> In reading the post, I followed the link and looked around the site.
> While reading the 8 Rules for Next Generation Records Management, the very
> first rule.
> Rule 1 -"Debating whether an item of information is a ‘record’ or
> ‘non-record’ is no longer relevant. E-discovery makes all recorded
> information – regardless of format – a ‘record’"
> IMO, I have to disagree with for the following reasons:
> 1-If it isn't requested in a lawsuit it is not a record(unless it fits the
> definition of a record).
> 2-e-discovery does not make all recorded information a record, it may have
> the potential but it doesn't do it.  E-discovery and the eventual churning
> through of data doesn't make everything responsive.
> 3-And I believe it is relevant to discuss.
> I would like to know the rationale behind that rule.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Glen
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> At First Hawaiian Bank, we care about the environment.
> Please consider our planet's limited resources before
> printing this email.
>
> This email is intended only for the person or entity
> to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
> information.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination
> or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon,
> this information by persons or entities other than the
> intended recipient is prohibited.  If you receive this
> e-mail in error, please contact the sender by replying
> to this e-mail and delete this e-mail and any attachments
> from all computers without reading or saving the same
> in any manner whatsoever.
>
> 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]