On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 12:36 PM, WALLIS Dwight D <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Sharon wrote:
> > Why pass legislation where compliance becomes a problem?
>
> PeterK wrote:
> > Because like a lot of legislation it makes them feel good
>
> Actually, I think they are trying to achieve a goal: accountable,
> transparent government.
>
> The issue of e-mail is running into a brick wall that has been entirely
> predictable. On the corporate side, we hear the same complaints about
> compliance with SOX. What it all boils down to is how important is
> transparency and accountability, and how much is one willing to spend to
> achieve it. Conversely, what are the costs of not achieving it?




> For example, in this particular article: if it is truly the e-mails of
> top leaders and administrators that are causing the greatest concerns,
> why are we focusing on controlling all e-mails at all levels of the vast
> federal government. Wouldn't it make more sense from a policy and fiscal
> standpoint to target first the areas of greatest risk and concern? Is it
> really necessary to spend the money necessary to attack the entire
> problem at once?



I thin Dwight raises some good points for consideration, especially the one
about not casting the broad net across everything because you've identified
a MAJOR problem in a smaller component of the equation that NEEDS to be
resolved in short notice.  If you read the GAO report subsequently posted
about the NARA ERA debacle, you'll see they are sort of shifting priorities
to address just this type of a need.

Now, the question is WHY develop legislation that you can't comply with
because of a lack of funding?  Well, I can give you a couple of thought on
that issue... but I won't name any names and I know a lot of people that
will start smirking an nodding their heads when they read this.

Let's say you're in a heavily Federally regulated industry... OR maybe that
you are a Contractor working for a Federal Agency.  These Agencies largely
take their direction on records management requirements form NARA (the text
of  the proposed HR5811also indicates this).   Now, the legislation goes
into effect, and NARA, following the revisions to the USC makes their
parallel revisions to 36CFR, which tells Agencies what they must do.  The
Agencies must then re-write their Orders and Directives for compliance with
the NARA guidance, and in doing so, they also have to write companion
guidance known as Contractor Requirements Documents (CRDs) for those
entities doing work under their direction.

They pass this guidance along to the Contractors, (who are also obligated to
flow the requirements down to their Subcontractors), and then it become sa
performance measurement tool to determine how they are awarded fee for their
work.

Now, ultimately, it's up to the OMB and GAO to determine how well the
Agencies are meeting their goals in implementing the requirements, and
generally, they develop 'scorecards' and are given a specified amount to
time to achieve the objectives... and they may have measures such as "green"
and "yellow" and "red" that indicate how well they're doing at achieving
these implementations.  And these measures MAY impact their funding if they
aren't moving forward, but in some cases, if they identify a LACK of funding
as why they can't achieve, it MAY result in them getting additional
funding.  However, the Contractors aren't generally awarded additional
funding, and in many cases they can be penalized for failing to implement
the requirements that they Agencies themselves may not have implemented yet,
simply because it's in a CRD and it's a performance metric.

SO... why write the legislation?  Well, because if you have it, you can hold
OTHERS accountable for complying with it!

Yeah, stop nodding your heads and laughing and go back to work...and YOU
KNOW WHO YOU ARE!!

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]