A retention period reflected in an organization's Records Retention
Schedule (RRS) is related to what you are referring to as the "office of
record assignment" version.  Any redundant or reference copies have no
formal retention period and are used for convenience and should not be
retained longer than the formal retention period set for the "official
record".

There should not be a stated retention period included in an RRS for these,
only a lead in statement ensuring users are aware that "non-record copies"
are NOT TO BE retained longer than the formally stated retention period.

No need for an appraisal archivist to be involved in this process, it's a
long standing RIM practice.

Anyone else?

Larry
[log in to unmask]

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:15 AM, A.S.E. Fairfax
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> Disparate retention periods for the same record type is easily understood
> if the workflow analysis shows that a given office is the creator and bears
> more responsibility for the record (office of record assignment), and other
> offices have secondary or redundant copies and bear little  or no
> responsibility for the information in the record.  So, you could easily and
> routinely have a "permanent" classification for one office, and "dispose of
> at will" for secondary or redundant copies.
>
> This is not a problem, but an ordered response to either an archival
> appraisal of value in the records that may not be immediately obvious, or a
> decision based on knowledge of varying responsibilities in the various
> offices for the same information. A workflow analyses can partially explain
> these discrepancies.
>
> Elizabeth
>
> --
*Lawrence J. Medina
Danville, 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]