On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Richard Medina <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> My replies in screaming CAPS below. (Is this good protocol? Please let me
> know. I'd use a different typeface or color if I could.)
>

Rather than going point by point OR SCREAMING, the point I was trying to
make is an organization typically has a Records Management Policy, and as
part of that policy, you define (for YOUR organization) what constitutes a
"Record", and in many cases, what the universe of "Non-Records" are as
well.

You establish retention periods for your records, NOT you non-records... so
why call a non-record a record simply so you can place a hold on it?  If
the content of the information makes it subject to a hold, irrespective of
what it is, then you place a hold on it.

There's no need to re-categorize or identify an object simply so you can
place a hold on it.

Larry
[log in to unmask]

-- 
*Lawrence J. 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]