Bob,
I don't know if any of the revisions to Sarbanes Oxley added any specific
retention requirements, but there was not a 10 year requirement when it was
first issued.

I'm very sketical about Stellent - especially in regards to their knowledge
and understanding of Records Management practices and principles.  Stellent
hosted an ARMA webinair a few months ago and the host kept saying that there
are many "non-records" that are vital records to a company.  I sent an email
to this host and he explained that "records" are only those "documents"
required by a law - everything else was a non-record, but he had
"discovered" that many of those "non-records" are vital records.  He did not
accept my correction and only replied that whenever he speaks he gets an
email from some Records Manager who doesn't agree with him on something - no
wonder!  He and/or Stellent are making it up as they go.
Thanks Mary

On 3/5/06, bobd <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Interesting article in the listserv today.   I wonder where they got the
> 10
> year retention under SEC.  I don't remember seeing anything that long.
>
> <http://www.s-ox.com/News/detail.cfm?ArticleID=1659>
>
> Bob Dalton, CRM
> Dalton Consulting
>
> List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
> Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
>

--
Mary W. Haider
Records & Information Manager

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance