On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Sergey Kovynev <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>
> We at the District of Squamish (which is in BC, Canada) are working on a
> brand-new Email Retention Policy and considering a different approach from
> the "traditional records management", where each individual email is
> scheduled and retained according to our Retention schedule, as any other
> record. We are thinking instead of a "unified retention", where emails are
> separated from the rest of the records as a unique category, and assigned
> one common retention (with certain exceptions). We would be very interested
> to know, how other organizations (especially, municipalities) tackle this
> issue, and what factors they consider while making this decision.
>
> Thank you,
> Sergey


My opinion?? As soon as you say:

"... "unified retention", where emails... are assigned one common retention
(with certain exceptions)..."

Your ability to defend "unified" goes right out the window.  "Email" isn't
a record type, it's a delivery mechanism for information.  Retention is
based on the value of the information contained in an email, text, instant
message, tweet, etc.

I think the only "exception" should be exact duplicate copies and emails
that are non-records, based on your organizations definition of a record
(and or non-record).

And just a question, but as a municipality, don't you have a further
concern related to Public Records?

Larry
[log in to unmask]
-- 


*Lawrence J. MedinaDanville, 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]