Barbara, 

I feel that the Office of Record is a key piece of information relative to
the retention and scheduling of records.  

You state: "Isn't that the purpose of a Functional Schedule, to concentrate
on the 
documents rather than the name of the department that is responsible for 
them?      Department names change.   Reporting structures change. Would 
you not have to update your schedule every time one of these changes 
occur?"

This statement shows exactly why functional schedules are very fragile in
terms of how they actually function ;-). 

Let me give you an example from county government. This situation is
theoretical but could, in fact, really happen. 

Let's say that the record "tax rolls" is created cooperatively in several
offices.  Each office contributes to the series and uses it for their own
purposes.  The Assessor's office has the most immediate need for the record
and it uses it one way.  After 3 years it's usefulness goes away because a
new tax roll with new assessment data is being constructed.  In the
Treasurer's office the record serves a different purpose.  It documents who
is on the roll historically, what they were assessed, what they were billed
and what was paid for which parcels or lots, and what was on the lots at the
time.  Since the function is different, the retention period in the
Treasurer's office will be different because of the legal responsibilities
assigned to that office as distinct from the Assessor's office.  In point of
fact, because of the functional relationship to the mission of the offices,
it is a matter of legal assignment that the Treasurer is the office of
record for this record series, and that it must be kept permanently.  In the
Assessor's office it is a vital record, but not a legal responsibility after
it's usefulness is replaced after 3 years or so.   Under a so-called
"functional" record series, the function is not really reflected in the
title "tax roll." If the Treasurer abrogated that responsibility to the
Assessor's office because the had a vital need for the record, the whole
purpose of needing to retain the record permanently would be lost after 3
years when the vital need in the Assessor's office was met and it could
destroy the record.

What the series really does is provide historical documentation of the
activities of the county, mission vested in the Treasurer's office, in
carrying out is mandated responsibilities and provides a snapshot of the
relationship that the county and the office itself has among the land, the
county and its taxpayers, and finally the relationship with the state,a nd
state income.  If that assignment of responsibility were to be changed to
another office, yes the schedule would have to change to reflect who now
bore responsibility for the record, but so would the tangential
responsibility of the Assessor's office.  There is no way to create a static
schedule that accurately reflects function if it does not take into account
the responsibilities of the given office at the time.  And some one office
has to be the one with final authority or responsibility for records with
permanent, historical, administrative or legal value as appraised.  Hence
the office of record. 

Another flaw in constructing the "functional schedule" is that often the
function isn't reflected anywhere because it rests solely on what the record
is called, assuming that that is an adequate description.  It is not.

So, is an office of record a requirement?  In my opinion it should be.  The
name of the department is similarly not adequately reflective of its mission
or function, and changing that name is like changing the title of a record
series--doesn't adequately describe the function of the office for which it
exists and for which it is a functional record.  The function of the same
record in two or more office may well be wholly different.  Part of the
scheduling and retention purpose is to make these distinctions and to track
them.

My 2 cents worth,

Elizabeth Fairfax, MA,CA 
Island County Records and Information Services 

 




-----Original Message-----
From: Barbara Wyton [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:51 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RM] Office of Record

I have a question which may seem naive but while I have extensive 
experience in creating/working with a Retention Schedule, that experience 
is limited to my current employer. 

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance