2257 and paperwork reduction act...

OK, maybe this is a dumb question, but as AJ and I have been working on version 2.0 of our content management system it suddenly occurred to me how many staffing hours our company spends on compliance... not just recordkeeping, but on development and maintenance of the systems that support the recordkeeping required.

And then it occurred to me that Congress passed the Paperwork Reduction Act years ago, the specific purpose of which was to ease burdens on individuals and small businesses on paperwork and recordkeeping required by the federal government.

One of the parts of the Act says that government is required tol

(1) minimize the paperwork burden for individuals, small businesses, educational and nonprofit institutions, Federal contractors, State, local and tribal governments, and other persons resulting from the collection of information by or for the Federal Government;

Another part says that the Act requires the government to:

(8) ensure that the creation, collection, maintenance, use, dissemination, and disposition of information by or for the Federal Government is consistent with applicable laws, including laws relating to—
(A) privacy and confidentiality, including section 552a of title 5;
(B) security of information, including section 11332 of title 40 [1]

So it seems to me that 2257 *very* clearly violates portions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, particularly with regard to the publication of the custodian's information, when the custodian works out of his/her home and particularly when the custodian is also the performer, and it also seems that 2257 is unduly burdensome.

Now... I know that some of these arguments were made, but they were mostly in the realm of "technical impossibility" rather than a violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

I wonder if anyone has seriously looked into this?

"Morality" will always trump "convenience", but forward it to FSC anyway. One more item to add to the arsenal couldn't hurt, but it was a Clinton/Gore era law, as I recall...

yeah, as much as you have a good, common sense point, they obviously don't care....


... pretty damn frustrating!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

I wonder if anyone has seriously looked into this?

---

yeah, run that one by the supreme court some day and let me know what happens

its actually a plot instigated by the paper companies and Xerox - I'm sure if you look into the sponsors of both bills, you'd find the senators who backed the bills were targeted by the strong paper company lobbies - maybe even free post-its for life?!?!

but. who has time to theorize - i've got to get back to my record keeping! (Cam, warm up the copier baby...here comes daddy with a new load of paperwork!)

btw, no coincidence that some of the major office systems manufacturers (eg: filing, etc.) are located in the same states as the paper mills...?

[QUOTE=A_DeAngelo;204035]yeah, run that one by the supreme court some day and let me know what happens

its actually a plot instigated by the paper companies and Xerox QUOTE]

Actually, I belive it was Canon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

OK, maybe this is a dumb question



(1) minimize the paperwork burden for individuals, small businesses, educational and nonprofit institutions, Federal contractors, State, local and tribal governments, and other persons resulting from the collection of information by or for the Federal Government;

Another part says that the Act requires the government to:

(8) ensure that the creation, collection, maintenance, use, dissemination, and disposition of information by or for the Federal Government is consistent with applicable laws, including laws relating to—
(A) privacy and confidentiality, including section 552a of title 5;
(B) security of information, including section 11332 of title 40 [1]

So it seems to me that 2257 *very* clearly violates portions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, particularly with regard to the publication of the custodian's information, when the custodian works out of his/her home and particularly when the custodian is also the performer, and it also seems that 2257 is unduly burdensome.

Now... I know that some of these arguments were made, but they were mostly in the realm of "technical impossibility" rather than a violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

I wonder if anyone has seriously looked into this?

---

I have.
I actually have a digital archive of everything.
That's how I do it.

Uh, we do too.

My point was that we, as producers, shouldn't have to do the amount of recordkeeping that we do, because it's a violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

that's just the cross we bear for doing what we do

tough life - big city -

I mean, how'd you like to be Chrysler right now trying to figure who goes and what their pensions would be?

I'd rather fuck on film and do my "paper work" from time to time