Two Republican congressmen have written to GM CEO Ed Whitacre, asking him to halt the destruction of electronic documents as long as the automaker is owned by the government, reports the Detroit News [Full letter in PDF here]. Reps Darrel Issa (R-CA) and Jim Jordan (R-OH) allege that documents destroyed by GM could have helped their House Oversight Committee investigation of GM’s decision to run its infamous “payback” ad, and shed light on government interference in day-to-day operations including influence over plant locations and a “secret agreement” on revised EPA standards. The congressmen write:
In light of these ongoing investigations, we are deeply disturbed to learn that GM is engaging in a continuous process of destroying documents relevant to the Committee’s oversight efforts
Though the congressmen admit that they have no proof that GM is deliberately concealing evidence, their position is that:
Until such time as U.S. taxpayers have been divested of all financial interests in GM, we request that you immediately stop destroying documents and begin preserving all records and communications referring or relating to GM’s status as a taxpayer-owned company, its relationship or interaction with government officials, and any issue that could be relevant to public policy
GM attorney Lucy Clark Dougherty recently revealed to the Oversight Committee that GM’s policy was to delete all electronic communication after 60 days and that the company did not have a backup system to retain copies.
Government to GM: “Do as we say, not as we do”.
Someone does need to tell Lucy that RAM is reeeal cheap now.
GM to Republicans – wanna bet Bush destroyed more documents than we did?
I’m kind of surprised that Document Retention rules (or as I like to refer to them, “Evidence Destruction” rules) have escaped public ire for so long…
With this article, I can safely state that 2/3 of the US automakers have these mandates, and would infer that they are likely standard across the auto industry, if not all large businesses.
From memory, the rule I was under suggested that all communications and documents should not be kept more than 3-ish months with a maximum life of one year for “important” items. The only documents that were exempt for the rule were those documents that were EXPLICITLY mandated by law, and those should be purged as soon as the retention requirement was met.
Further, there were strongly IMPLIED consequences to using documents older than the retention period, even if they were CYA of “get out of Jail cards”.
Good points.
Sarbanes-Oxley drove a lot of the policies that surround retention and discovery, you’re right there. GM Legal probably set these policies some time ago as part of risk-management.
The basic theory is that, if, technically, you don’t have it, and you have reasonable controls to say you don’t have it, the courts won’t subpoena it. And yes, it is interesting that this little bit of legal self-protection has escaped scrutiny. On the other hand, it’s exactly the kind of policy that lawyers like.
Personally, I despise it, but I also made some money off implementing systems to do it, so I’m a bit of a hypocrite there.
I’m surprised that any company would have document retention as short as 60 days. That is just too suspicious of an excuse. My company’s (Fortune 500, household name) shortest retention time is 1 year and some things are literally mandated as infinite retention. Emails at my company are never systematically purged, just moved to slower compressed archive servers after a year.
I’m surprised that any company would have document retention as short as 60 days.
I wouldn’t be, but you’re right that it’s suspicious. Basically, the greater the chance of litigation, the shorter the retention period. You can make it as short or as long as you like, as long as you’re able to stick to that policy. You’re also required to go into “do not destroy” mode if the courts order you to.
Also, there’s a greater likelihood of things like arm’s length mailsystem (eg, gwb43.com being a famous example) where “real” business is transacted.
From a technical standpoint, all this is total crap: it’s pathetically easy to circumvent and it’s far from bulletproof, but it “policy”, which is basically a way of saying “we’ll hang your ass out to dry if you violate it”.
Oh, that’s rich. Where were these guys when the Bush Whitebouse was “losing” emails?
I had to deal with electronic discovery. I love how the government—of whatever stripe—can twist my collective arm about retention and discovery, but will shred and obscure whatever it likes.
Darrell Issa was actively defending Bush about those e-mails being deleted.
Yeah, he’s a bit of a hypocrite.
I really hope this doesn’t get drowned out in cries of partisanship (even if such partisanship is where this started.) There are too many signs of collusion between the government and its namesake auto manufacturer to ignore.
Yes, yes, my tinfoil hat is getting tight…
Well if Waxman can do it (show me your documents) in regards to companies who say they will take a hit in earnings due to Obama Care, than why not these guys? See, show me your documents is good thing, even in Arizona!
IIRC, Sarbanes-Oxley has very strict document retention policies for publicly traded companies. There are few exceptions – and most lawyers will tell you to archive anything questionable.
Of course, GM is (currently) not publicly traded. Counselor Lucy is a clever gal. I’m sure she’s maxing out her IT contract budget. Gotta wipe all the hard drives and shred every paper copy before the IPO this fall.
When you get one chance, you better take it. Any other action would failure to act in the company’s best interests.
Darrel Issa is rapidly becoming the whiniest voice in Congress, pissing and moaning about anything that he can come up with, hoping that sooner or later one of the many things that he complains about will actually turn out to be significant.
So you mean to say that he acts like every Democrat in congress during the Bush years? Got it.
I wonder if the ‘secret agreement’ on revised EPA standards relates to GM’s savior, the 230 mpg Chevy Volt.
The current EPA mileage test protocol is a misfit for such a vehicle. TTAC is that both GM and Nissan should be talking with the EPA about how to rate the Volt and Leaf for ‘fuel’ economy. But the results of those talks should provide an even playing field for vehicle-to-vehicle comparisons, not a biased methodology that favors the government-owned manufacturer.
Or is their allegation referring to the 35.5 mpg CAFE rule for 2016, which will be exceptionally difficult to meet?
Incidentally, do these fellows have no complaints about Chrysler’s document handling?
Politicians are hypocrites? You don’t say.
Then again, GM trashing 60 day old emails is at the minimum, suspect, eh?
News bulletin to Politicians:
You bought it – you OWN it. End Of Story.
Quit whining and BOHICA!
Darrel Issa may be Congress’s most machiavellian smear merchant. Look up his history; it’s unsavory.