Laurie said:
......................
" Less Regulation and More Chaos!
That's what we need in this RIM Profession.
I would have thought that were in deep enough manure already without turning
our backs on Consistency, Accountability and appropriate Guidelines on what
is World Best Practice in RIM.
I do not have a problem with diversification and indivual excellence but if
my system is so good - IT IS ONLY UNDERSTOOD BY ME. I vote for consistent
control from a central point with input from all and a set of rules to abide
by."
...................
Laurie .... step back and take a deep breath. There was consensus on the
ISO. The consensus was the wording would be left as MAY not WILL do it.
Just as ISO 9000 doesn't prescribe or make mandatory legal retention of
documents or if memory serves me, a records management program. It alludes
that you have a system (which I say is a program to manage the records,
which would be in writing). This was left up to the each the user based on
the legal requirements established by the individual governments. Our
government doesn't say "how to manage", but stipulates what records must be
held (sometimes).
You have to remember that each country has their legal requirements for
records. So have simple retention or legal requirements for records, while
some may be complex. We have a complex system. Besides our federal
government, the United States has 50 states that may also have established
legal requirements on retention, how you maintain records, etc., for both
the private and/or public sector (governments). To further complicate the
problem, we have counties and cities that may or may not establish
requirements. I forget how many legal citations mandating what records we
are required to maintain records (the figure 9000 plus comes to mind -
somebody else can fill that in if they want).
Frankly, we experience problems based on government regulations created by
well meaning elected officials and put into regulations by well meaning
government workers who frankly create rules that create chaos on the private
sector because they do not have abide by the rules they establish or do not
have a thorough understanding of the problems associated their mandate to
create the rule. Take a look at our HIPPA, Sarbanes-Oxley, OSHA or our
IRS rules.
As an example, I completed an OSHA report recently for a client that had 50
recordable accidents. The guideline stated it would take about 40 hours to
complete this report. This is a report that the entity is required to
maintain for 5 years and a second report posted on the bulletin board for I
believe one month. You don't send the report to anyone. You produce it and
retain it because somebody in Washington DC or the state created a rule
saying you have to.
The Guidelines passed out by the government agencies responsible for the
program are ambiguous at their best, written in legal terminology, that
would put a hyper active PCP addict to sleep in 2 minutes flat, or for our
friends down under, it would probably stop your friendly Tasmanian Devil in
it's tracks if you read some of the long winded legal documents to them.
I'm sorry to say we did get off the main thread of your original posting,
but you have to admit it did stir the pot.
Even without a classification schema most of the legal requirements created
by our government agencies do have some accountability written into the
rules.
Especially when it pertains to taxes owed the government agencies. I have
always found that something like a formal classification system is like
putting a square peg in a round hole. You are always coming up with new
terms.
If you use consensus, then you are compromising, the compromise being you
are leaving out some terms or adding terms that some members of the group
may have objections.
Laurie ... I find you and I have a lot we agree upon and enjoy your
perspective on RM issues. That's what this forum is all about.
Bob Dalton, CRM
Dalton Consulting
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
