Hi Julie,

The easiest thing for you to do is to meet with your Records Coordinators
and provide training on a regular basis. This is only easy in comparison to
the other options.

If you have a good relationship with your IT folks you can request the
creation of an online form that routes to you for approval. As someone else
mentioned, you should request drop downs and required fields so there's no
confusion. If the administrative burden of routing all the transmittals to
your team would be too much to add to your already full plate you may
consider assigning peer approvers for each person submitting boxes to
offsite, from among your Records Coordinators. Then at least two sets of
eyes perform quality control. You might also consider this approach for
your existing paper transmittal process as a low cost solution.

Your other problem lies in correctly identifying your offsite holdings that
are insufficiently described. I've handled this in the past by pulling 10
or 20 boxes a week and carving out some time to reclassify them before
returning them to storage. In some situations you can charge back the extra
retrieval fees to the department, which may have the effect of improving
their description of future boxes they send to offsite. You may also try to
have the department reclassify boxes you pull for them from offsite and
this may have the desired effect as well. Without knowing the volume of
records you're unable to destroy (ever) because of faulty descriptions, I
can't say that a cost study would be worthwhile, i.e., you can talk to
upper management and let them know that they will be paying storage fees on
these boxes 'forever' unless the proper information is provided by the
department. Sometimes just outlining these points can have a motivating
effect in a monthly management meeting.

Finally, please know that this is a very common problem so you are
definitely not alone. Best of luck!

Doug Johnson
Atlanta, GA


On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Collier, Julie <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Good morning.
>
> I'm trying to find a solution for an ongoing (and in my opinion, a very
> serious) problem. Let me try to explain, without getting into too much
> detail.
>
> In my agency there are 88 record coordinators (for 31 departments) and
> only 2 records management associates. We have 28k boxes in offsite storage.
> I want to identify boxes in storage that have met retention but it's
> difficult to do b/c the record coordinators aren't using meaningful
> descriptions when they put their boxes in storage. Sometimes they don't
> even include a date range. You can imagine how much fun it is trying to
> find something! Insane, right?
>
> I've provided 2 examples:
>
> Instead of incorporating the record series title in their descriptions
> like this: "contracts/leases/agreements: capital improvement: 46-15114;
> C-860042; ML0637; CP0430" they might only enter this description:
>  "46-15114; C-860042; ML0637; CP0430".
> Instead of incorporating the record series title in their descriptions
> like this: "litigation case files: ev box #169" they might only enter this
> for the description: "ev box #169". (No seriously, I wish I was kidding!)
> I want to find a way that ensures every record coordinator starts using
> the record series titles and entering date ranges to describe their
> records. Someone suggested the record coordinators should submit their
> paperwork to me before any boxes go offsite and I haven't ruled this out
> but I have a lot of other work that needs to be done and I can't imagine
> how I'll be able to get it done if we were to implement this.
>
> Here are some ideas I've considered but I would like to hear from others
> if they've implemented something that works! Personally, I think an
> automated system that forces the record coordinators to choose a record
> series title based on specific criteria, etc. would fix this problem but I
> have serious doubts that this agency would consider implementing such a
> system. (Hey, an excel spreadsheet might even do the trick!) The vendor's
> online system has the option of selecting a record series but it would have
> to be selected manually for each individual record and I don't know if
> management would approve the time and effort to do this. And of course,
> there's always training and that has proven to be beneficial (when it
> occurs) but I want to take the guesswork out of the equation for the record
> coordinators - they're not real familiar with the retention schedule/record
> series.
>
> Is anyone else experiencing this problem at their agency? Is there a
> solution?
>
> Kind Regards,
> Julie Collier
>
>
>
> We value your opinion. Please take a few minutes to share your comments on
> the service you received from the District by clicking on this link<
> http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/pg_grp_surveysystem/survey%20ext?pid=1653
> >.
>
> 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]