[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: From "This Just In..."



John,

Here is what one textbook on Information and and Records Management has to
say about when you could be faced with criminal penalties/judgements in
relation to destruction of records.

You could be in trouble if you destroy records:

"Upon learning of any investigation or proceeding in which the documents
might be relevant.  Upon learning of a government inquiry but before being
contacted by authorities." (Robek p. 48, Information and Records Management,
1996)

It seems to me that if you destroy records under a specific schedule within
the course of business and before any proceedings in which they might serve
as evidence you put yourself in a defensible position (speaking in a
professional ethics sense not a legal sense as I am not an attorney)

If you destroy records after learning someone might want them for an
investigation...Isn't that know as a "Fawn Hall"?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Fowler [SMTP:johnhowardfowler@JUNO.COM]
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 3:08 PM
> To:   ARCHIVES@LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU
> Subject:      Re: From "This Just In..."
>
> This is a hard one to judge on.  The question is whether there was a
> policy that allowed or required the destruction of records.  Quite often,
> retention schedules read, "Keep for 5 years or until audit."  Every time I
> see that statement, I cringe, since it implies that that once an audit is
> done, records can/must be destroyed and so make checking up on the
> auditing agency's competence or honesty next to impossible.  Still, it
> appears to be pretty standard practice.
>
> This is critical.  The ones who should be looked at closely are not Enron,
> per se, but Arthur Anderson, the auditing firm.  AA is responsible for the
> plurality if not the majority of all Fortune 500 reports that go to the
> SEC.  If they cannot be audited themselves, there could be real trouble
> awaiting everyone....  Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?
>
> Yet, as archivists and records managers, we are responsible not only for
> preservation, but for the orderly and timely destruction of records, once
> their legal or organizational mandate requires it.  Under these
> circumstances, is it possible to retain documentary evidence that would
> allow "second-guessing" of auditing agencies, either through the
> identification of key documents or through a sampling scheme.
>
> Any thoughts from the group?
>
> John Fowler
>
> A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List!
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to listserv@listserv.muohio.edu
>       In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
>                     *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
> To post a message, send e-mail to archives@listserv.muohio.edu
>
> Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html
>
> Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <rschmidt@lib.muohio.edu>

A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List!

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to listserv@listserv.muohio.edu
      In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
                    *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to archives@listserv.muohio.edu

Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html

Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <rschmidt@lib.muohio.edu>