Peter - You are spot on in my opinion.  I have scheduled my periodic
appointment with the Tax attorney to obtain his signature, then I will
approach the legal practice lead for that business unit, finally the
business.  This gives the business owner the confidence of knowing that
unless there is a specific business reason to hold on to the records - then
it is ok to let go!

There are those with the thought that an approved schedule is just that...
It gives you the authority to destroy without signatures.  I hope one of
our favorite Johns (Montana, Isaza) or Don or Randy... chime in and give a
legal glimpse of what they think about this thread of discussions.

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Peter Kurilecz <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> call me old-fashioned but I always believed that the destruction of the
> records was approved when the retention schedule was approved. The
> destruction authorization process was put in place to make sure that
> records needed for an audit or litigation were not inadvertently destroyed.
> At one former employer we reversed the process. Instead of starting with
> the business unit we started with the Tax people then went to Legal and
> then the business unit. What the business you reviewed were those records
> not subject to either a litigation or tax hold, as a result they were much
> more likely to authorize destruction since they had no business need for
> the records
>
>
>

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]