Sorry, I just re-read the post. I missed one important point in my
first reply:
Generally speaking, any organisation that scans the incoming paper
documentation and then keeps it is going to get the most expensive
solution imaginable. It will incur the (considerable) cost of scanning
and indexing, then the (equally considerable) costs of filing, storing
and retrieving when needed the scanned paper. Awful. By implication,
it will also have to print all outgoing correspondence and file that too
(if the scanned images are not to be trusted, neither are outgoing
electronic letters and e-mails!) It will be much, much cheaper and
better to fix the process so that the scanned images (and the outgoing
correspondence) can be relied on in electronic form. There may be
exceptions to this rule, but they will be exceptionally rare.
Like Chris Tinsley, I have had similar discussions with in-house lawyers
and they always (always) end up agreeing that the paper can be disposed
of, as long as we convince them that the processes and the review are
OK.
Marc Fresko
EDM & ERM Consulting Services Director
Serco Consulting
-----Original Message-----
From: The UK Records Management mailing list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Dodgson
Sent: 14 September 2007 10:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: BIP008 - legal admissibility
A paper document can suffer abuse more easily than an electronic one and
it could be more difficult to prove reliability of paper than electronic
- audit trails etc may carry more trust in the electronic environment
than the paper environment. However, the paper problem has existed for
years, so what makes it more reliable to a lawyer?
Vendors rates should really not be discussed in a public forum, so
please forgive me if I decline to comment.
I wonder?
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: The UK Records Management mailing list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Rodgers
Sent: 14 September 2007 10:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: BIP008 - legal admissibility
I guess there is an issue here in terms of documents scanned before the
organisation is confident of compliance - indeed could a smart lawyer
say that, if the scanned image dated from before "accreditation" then
could it be less reliable.
The other point is we had more or less the same idea - did you tender or
just pay Shipman, and if so is he reasonably priced?!
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: The UK Records Management mailing list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Dodgson
Sent: 14 September 2007 09:33
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: BIP008 - legal admissibility
Hi
We had the same issue recently and decided to ask an external body to
validate our process; in fact we used Alan Shipman!
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: The UK Records Management mailing list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tina Martin
Sent: 14 September 2007 09:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: BIP008 - legal admissibility
Dear all,
I would be grateful for some clarification on the above. We have a
department who have decided to scan reccords with the aim of disposing
of the orginals, we have purchased the toolkit and have set up process
and procedures etc. However my question is can the department dispose
of originals if they haven't been through any accreditation process (I
don't suggest that they do) ????
_______________________________________________________________________
Leicestershire County Council - rated a 'four-star' council by the
Audit Commission
_______________________________________________________________________
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential. If you
are not the intended recipient, any reading, printing, storage,
disclosure, copying or any other action taken in respect of this e-mail
is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify the sender immediately by using the reply
function and then permanently delete what you have received.
Incoming and outgoing e-mail messages are routinely monitored for
compliance with Leicestershire County Council's policy on the use of
electronic communications. The contents of e-mails may have to be
disclosed to a request under the Data Protection Act 1998 and the
Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The views expressed by the author may not necessarily reflect the views
or policies of the Leicestershire County Council.
Attachments to e-mail messages may contain viruses that may damage your
system. Whilst Leicestershire County Council has taken every reasonable
precaution to minimise this risk, we cannot accept any liability for any
damage which you sustain as a result of these factors. You are advised
to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
************************************************************************
*********
Working Together for a Better Tower Hamlets Web site :
http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk
London Borough of Tower Hamlets E-Mail Disclaimer.
This communication and any attachments are intended for the addressee
only and may be confidential. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not
copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have
received this E-Mail in error please notify us as soon as possible and
delete this E-Mail and any attachments. This message has been checked
for viruses, however we cannot guarantee that this message or any
attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted or amended. The
information contained in this E-Mail may be subject to public disclosure
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Unless the information is
legally exempt from disclosure, the Confidentiality of this E-Mail and
your reply cannot be guaranteed.
If your request relates to a Freedom of Information enquiry, please
resend this to [log in to unmask]
************************************************************************
************
|