论文部分内容阅读
我看了陈德同志《保管期限拾零》(一九六二年第六期)一文后颇有启发,但有些不同看法,愿与陈德同志彼此交换意见,求得改进工作。划分保管期限,我基本上同意陈德同志的意见,大致分为永久、长期、短期三种,然具体问题应具体分析处理,因情而异。譬如,短期这一含义的解释,理当看成为十年以下,三年以上的期限较为妥当。因为三年以下的文书保管,已肯定了它的时间,断定了它的价值和应起的作用,假如继续按短期去套,势必会增添今后鉴定过程的累赘。对此,我认为是另立“暂时(即销毁)”一目,是有助于工作的。对于人事财会档案的保管期限问题,这些东西在一定时期内也能起部分个人证明作用,但毕尽是微小的,更不是绝对的。如果硬行的施用“宁长无短”的办法来
After reading the article entitled “Collecting Zero Period of Custody” (No. 6 of June 1962), Comrade Chen De looked quite inspired. However, with some differences of opinion, I would like to exchange views with Comrade Chen Te to seek improvement. Divided by the period of custody, I basically agree with Comrade Chen De’s views that there are generally three types of permanent, long-term and short-term ones. However, specific problems should be analyzed and dealt with in different ways. For example, the interpretation of the short-term meaning should be considered as a decade or less, and the deadline of more than three years should be more appropriate. Since the custody of instruments under three years has been affirmed its time and its value and role have been determined. If it continues to be short-term, it will inevitably increase the cumbersomeness of the appraisal process in the future. In this regard, I think it is a separate “temporary (that is, destroyed)” one is helpful to work. For the issue of the custody of personnel and accounting files, these things can also serve as part of the personal proof for a certain period of time, but they are all minor and not absolute. If the implementation of hard line “rather long rather short” approach