Richard, I'm not sure that I would agree that records/non-records are
defined by whether or not they exist in a retention schedule. Records are
dynamic, and retention schedules - by their nature - tend to lag somewhat
in keeping up with that dynamism. Nor can I agree that records/non-records
are defined by whether or not they reside in a given technological/media
environment or repository. Records need to be defined by what they do: what
they document, what values they serve (legal, fiscal,
administrative/operational, historic), and what stakeholder interests are
involved, as represented in records management policies and regulations. I
have to agree with Larry on this - I'm not sure the record/non-record
distinction really matters with holds, which relate to evidence.

The reason I asked the question I did is because I thought you might be
talking about a litigation support system which, in essence, vacuums up all
content (whether record/non-record, or on hold or not) in a given records
environment (commonly, email) and places it in a separate repository to
prevent inadvertent deletion for litigation support reasons. In my opinion,
such systems represent a calculated risk of whether it is riskier to keep
large amounts of records beyond their retentions, or have to deal with
deletions before the retention periods take hold. Typically, these systems
also have "retentions" applied - at some point the items in the repository
are deleted.

-- 
Dwight Wallis, CRM
Multnomah County Records Management & Distribution Services Manager
1620 SE 190th Avenue
Portland, OR 97233
ph: Records- (503)988-3741
ph: Distribution - (503)988-3533, x29131
cell: (503)260-2263
fax: (503)988-3754
[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]