On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 7:39 PM, PeterK <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> have the right to see, examine, and learn from the records that guarantee
> their rights, document government actions, and tell the story of the
> nation. As Archivist of the United States, it is my job to make sure we
> identify, save, and make available the permanently valuable records of the
> U.S. Government. It’s also my job to instruct federal agencies on how to
> make this “what to keep” decision for records ranging from memos written on
> old onion-skin paper and stored in filing cabinets to electronic records,
> including email. This is especially important as the volume of electronic
> records continues to grow.
>
>
> I'll post my comment to the AOTUS Blog
http://blogs.archives.gov/aotus/?p=6055 here, because EVERY TIME I post
something critical of the AOTUS direction on the Blog, they refuse to
publish it. (This has happened a minimum of 10x now) I never post
anything offensive or inaccurate, but if it doesn't follow the "NARA Party
Line", they don't want anyone pointing out the Emperor has no clothes, it
seems.
The posting says:
" Under Capstone, an agency designates a number of senior officials as
Capstone officials, and saves all of their email as permanent records. All
other agency employees’ emails are viewed as temporary and are saved for an
appropriate period of time."
However, the DRAFT Schedule (6.1) is in conflict with this statement. It's
NOT ALL... in fact, the introduction discusses the "culling" of Capstone
accounts, "to the greatest extent possible" to exclude non-record, personal
or transitory AND attachments.
Then, it goes on to say "Agencies have the discretion to designate
individual email messages and attachments as short-term or transitory
records covered by another GRS or as permanent or longer-term temporary
records covered by another GRS or an agency records schedule."
In addition, Item 11 is the first place "and contractors..." is mentioned,
yet in many cases, Contractors to Agencies have LARGE NUMBERS of officials
in positions equivalent to Federal employees, and MANY Agency schedules
currently require retention of "similar level Contractor Officials" to be
retained as Senior Officials records. For NARA to state these should be
deleted after 7 years "...but longer retention is authorized if required
for business use." makes absolutely NO SENSE.
What if the subject matter of the email is related to hazardous materials
exposure, environmental issues, nuclear materials, or other items that have
a seriously longer retention in various schedules... in some cases 75 years
or Permanent?
The whole concept of scheduling records based on the manner in which they
are conveyed (electronic mail) or by the "container" rather than the
"Content:" goes completely against the grain of what Records Management
Practices and Appraisal of Content has taught RM Professionals for over 6
decades.
Why all of the sudden is there such a "rush" to change practices, simply
based on the volume of records being generated?
--
Larry
[log in to unmask]
*----Lawrence J. MedinaDanville, CARIM 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]
|
