RECMGMT-L Archives

Records Management

RECMGMT-L@LISTSERV.IGGURU.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 6 Jun 2011 11:17:09 -0700
Reply-To:
Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From:
Pilar McAdam <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (44 lines)
Adam Herbst asked:

"I am involved in a project to consolidate many (many) retention
schedules.
As part of that project, similar records series are being consolidated,
as
well.  I'm interested in hearing from folks who have done something
similar
and specifically, if when consolidating records series, you consolidated
based on similar *subject matter* or similar *retention periods* (e.g.,
all
IP records series with the same retention period get one records series
after consolidation)."

Both areas should be considered when combining records series.  I'd
never advise combining records series based solely on retention period.
There's too much risk that a subsequent change in retention requirement
would impact one of the categories but not the other.  (Example: You
wouldn't want to combine personnel records and tax records under a
single series, even if their retention period was currently the same.)

Combining records series is an admirable and noble effort!  (Yes, I've
previously worked on reducing the quantity from 10,000 to 2,500 ... but
that's still too large.)  It really can't be done without fully
understanding the affected records, including some understanding of the
regulating bodies setting retention periods.  (For example, I'd be leery
of combining series if the retention requirements were set in completely
different regulations, e.g., Dept. of Commerce and NASA).

Just my opinion, though.

Pilar C. McAdam, CRM
[log in to unmask]
Los Angeles, CA

Circular 230 Notice: In accordance with Treasury Regulations we notify you that any tax advice given herein (or in any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein (or in any attachments).

Attention: This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

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]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2