A slightly different context, but the approach suggested by Peter is often
used for social care case files; although technically we may be able to
destroy some records in a case file earlier than others, the feeling among
the social care professionals I have spoken to is that the records make
more sense (e.g. to someone requesting access to their records) in the
context of a complete case file. (And therefore we are justified in
keeping them - it's not "longer than necessary" in DPA terms.)
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:02:10 -0400, Peter Kurilecz
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>On 7/13/07, Vicki Perry <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Their files are organised up to a point according to their functions- so
>> far so good. But above this level they are filed by project and each
>> project file contains many different records series, some of which need
to
>> be retained for longer than others and only some will be preserved
>> permanently in our archives.
>
>The project file itself is a record series. All the documents
>contained within the individual project file are used to support the
>function of managing the project. IMHO all the documents/records in
>the project file receive the same retention period.
>
>At the end of the retention period you would strip out the records not
>of historical/archival value, destroy them and transfer the remaining
>materials to the archives.
>
>This may seem simplistic, but it keeps the workers from constantly
>going into the project file pulling items that have completed their
>retention period.
>
>--
>Peter Kurilecz CRM CA
>Richmond, Va
>=========================================================================
|