This is an interim response as Fred Grevin asked some specific questions.  I shall be making a comprehensive report to the List when the issue has been resolved, probably next week.

In the meantime, Fred asked:

Q. "Is it possible your vendor mistakenly charged you for the photography? I'm aware of your comment "we waived that requirement this time as it was a witnessed destruction", but it's possible the billing staff did not know you had waived the requirement, and so they billed you "normally". Have you asked your vendor about this?"

A. Not in this case.  It is a small business and we were dealing directly with the principal.  I shall ask him about this after I get enough responses from the List and some direction from the Assistant DA on this case.  That will probably be on Tuesday.

Q.  I can understand, under what appear to be special legal circumstances, the need to visually document the destruction, but why still photography, as opposed to video recording?

A.  I am unclear as to what type of photography the vendor uses, it may be video.  

Q.  [I]f cost saving is a consideration and the destruction facility is local, why not simply detail an appropriate staffer to witness every destruction?

A.  I had the records center staff witness the first destruction partially as a training exercise as they had not witnessed grinders in action and partially for due diligence to be able to provide eye-witness reports to interested parties as how things went. Cost is a concern, but so is staff time.

And I'll close (for now) with a thank-you for all who have responded.

Paul

Paul R. Scott, CA, CRM
Records Management Officer
Harris County, TX

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]