Chris,
I think most Archivists would argue that everything has permanent value,
while we RM's are struggling to reduce storage spend for our organizations.
I asked early on in my career if we shouldn't return business records once
classified as permanent to entities that we had not had a relationship
with for 7 years, rather than destroying them. The answer was that those
clients should have maintained their own copies. This never sat well with
me but the administrative burden of returning all those records was
determined to be unreasonable so it was not done.
In the case where records have permanent retention value we could arguably
'correct' that retention value to LOS (life of species). Adding an
additional number of years to that value would be silly, wouldn't it?
Ahoy, ye scurvy dogs,
Doug Johnson
Atlanta, GA
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Chris Flynn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Doug,
>
> Archival reappraisal is very problematic. When I was working NARA I worked
> on the reappraisal of bankruptcy records. Reappraisal is not something that
> is taken on lightly and typically is a date forward solution. Bankruptcy
> records held in the Archives were scheduled as permanent and the
> reappraisal did not affect them. It only applied to records held in the
> records center or the courts.
>
> Life of the company should only affect permanent records if there is no
> other entity that takes on records. The obligation to maintain the
> permanent records "should" transfer.
>
> Chris Flynn
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Douglas Johnson <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Chris, I agree as long as number 4 is ...'or until reclassified.' I
> > personally appreciate the finality of the term Permanent. It conveys the
> > idea that this record shall not be destroyed for any reason, even though
> we
> > in the RM function know that the classification is conditional. The new
> > popular use of the term LOC (life of company) is politically correct but
> > just seems to lack the authority of Permanent. I expect it will go the
> way
> > of the term 'archival' in reference to microfilm life expectancy, whether
> > we approve or not.
> >
> > This is my second post in years and I failed to introduce myself in the
> > first. I've posted to this list starting @1996 representing DeKalb
> College
> > (now Georgia Perimeter College). Later I posted while working for OHM
> > Nuclear Remediation Corporation and after that PricewaterhouseCoopers. I
> am
> > currently seeking a new challenge. In the same vein as the topic of my
> > response; this is the PC way of saying I've recently been laid off.
> >
> > The upside is that I again have time to read and appreciate this forum.
> >
> > Happy Friday folks.
> >
> > Doug Johnson
> > Atlanta, GA
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Chris Flynn <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Glen,
> > > Not to beat a dead horse, but you are wrong.
> > > Permanent means forever.
> > >
> > > regardless of your individual view, love springs eternal, and when an
> > > Archivist determines that a record has permanent value the obligation
> is
> > > retain that record forever. Forever means until the end of time.
> > >
> > > The end of time can be met by any number of factors.
> > > 1) the world could end
> > > 2) Pandemic wipes us all out
> > > 3) your company could bankrupt and no successor takes on the records
> > > 4)......
> > >
> > > Buck up we migrate permanent records to increasing stable formats
> > > throughout there life.
> > >
> > > Chris Flynn
> > > P.S. Don't make me call you
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Glenn Sanders <[log in to unmask]
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've sounded off before on why I think it's ridiculous to have a
> > > retention
> > > > period called 'permanent'. My argument is based on two factors:
> > > >
> > > > 1. 'Permanent' is a lazy way out of really thinking through what you
> > need
> > > > or mean
> > > >
> > > > 2. In 4.5 billion years or so the Sun goes red dwarf and we all get
> > > fried.
> > > >
> > > > It now turns out my second factor is wrong. The Sun doesn't just
> flick
> > a
> > > > switch and change overnight, it's a gradual process, exacerbated by
> our
> > > > capacity to screw up the environment. A recent report suggests we
> don't
> > > > have 4.5 billion years, we may have as few as 1.7 billion.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/20/habitable_zone_study_determines_earths_lifetime_exoplanet_intelligence_candidates/
> > > >
> > > > At least it puts a shorter limit on how long we'll have to keep
> > migrating
> > > > stuff as systems become obsolete over time, Adjust your business case
> > > > costings accordingly.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > Glenn
> > > >
> > > > Glenn Sanders
> > > > [log in to unmask]
> > > > Australia
> > > > 0467 740 161 (new mobile number)
> > > > These views are mine alone. They may or may not be those of any
> > > > previous or present employers or clients. I don't know. If I'd asked
> > and
> > > > they'd agreed, I would have signed it "Harry Peck and Co and Glenn".
> > > > Or whatever. But I haven't, so I didn't.
> > > >
> > > > 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]
> > > >
> > >
> > > 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]
> > >
> >
> > 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]
> >
>
> 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]
>
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]
|
