I think Bruce has just opened yet another can of worms...
"If you decide after appraisal to dispoose of a record, you are surely now (
if in a public body) need to provide satisfactory documentation of how this
decision was reached, so that in the event of an FOI request, your
organisation can show that it has behaved in compliance...If you schedule material for disposal at a set date at a series or bulk level, there is less need to provide such detailed documentation [for FOI]"
Indeed. Our problem (and that of many others, I am sure) is that the bulk of our records are correspondence files, which aren't scheduled for bulk destruction/permanent retention because they contain gallons of dross and the odd nugget/legal document. They do require more detailed disposal documentation on the relevant retention schedule, because the various categories for permanent retention/destruction will have to be specified.
But that is a one-off action; its how to dispose according to the above categories that's the problem. In previous existences (as an archivist specialising in disposal and appraisal in Oz and then archivist/records manager for a variety of small organisations here) the necessary inclusion of correspondence files on retention schedules meant in practice post-transfer weeding (according to guidelines for each series on the schedules) by the appraiser (me) when the stated disposal year arrived, which does not seem to be fashionable any more (except with me - I personally think it saves endless space and search time in the long run). The alternative, as Bruce points out,is bulk retention. So the original problem I raised this morning comes right back to haunt me...the longer we keep records the longer they will be subject to FOI and the fatter and more numerous they are (whatever the format)the harder it will be to find the relevant information....
It all, of course, boils down to proper file management. If only.
Clare Cowling
|