Where Do You File a Deed? (And Why the Answer Isn't as Simple as You Think)

What happens when the way we organize government records isn't the way people actually look for them?

Where do you file a deed?

Sounds like a pretty straightforward question, right?

Well, welcome to the wonderful world of records management, where even the simplest questions have a way of turning into a full-blown philosophical debate about filing systems, retention schedules, and public access.

Recently, I was working with a municipal client when this exact question came up. We were discussing records related to a property the organization had acquired, and we realized that one document could reasonably belong in several different places.

The deed could live in:

• The property deed files.

• The acquisition file.

• The asset management file.

• Or potentially somewhere else entirely.

And depending on who you asked, each answer could make perfect sense.

Which got me thinking: Are we organizing records for the people who manage them, or for the people who need to find them?

And more importantly, can we do both?

The Records Manager's Instinct: File Like With Like

My initial reaction was immediate.

"With the deeds, of course."

I know. Very librarian-slash-records-manager of me.

But there's a reason my brain goes there.

When you organize records by type, you're creating consistency. You're making it easier to apply retention schedules, identify records eligible for disposition, and maintain an organized filing structure.

A deed doesn't necessarily have the same retention requirements as the other records associated with a property acquisition. Keeping records organized by classification can make the entire retention and disposition process much more manageable.

From a records management perspective, this approach makes perfect sense.

But then my client offered another perspective.

"If I were a member of the public looking for everything related to this property, I would go straight to the acquisition file, since that's where most of the purchase records already live."

And you know what?

She wasn't wrong.

Not even a little bit.

The Problem With One-Size-Fits-All Filing Systems

Here's something we don't talk about enough in records management:

The way we organize information is not necessarily the way someone else will search for it.

A records manager might search by record type.

A finance employee might search by asset number.

A building department employee might search by property address.

An attorney might search by acquisition or transaction.

And a member of the public might simply want everything the agency has related to a particular piece of property.

Same records. Same organization. Completely different search strategies.

This becomes especially challenging when we're talking about physical records.

Unlike digital records, where a document can potentially be discovered through multiple metadata fields and search terms, a physical document generally has one primary filing location.

Sure, you can make copies and put them in multiple folders (but, please dont - see last blog post to learn my horror story with that!).

But now you've created another problem.

Which one is the official record? Which is a convenience copy? How are the copies managed? And what happens when someone updates one file but not the others?

Suddenly, our simple filing question has become a much bigger records management headache.

And I don't know about you, but I have enough of those already!

A Simple Solution: Meet the File Finder

As we talked through the problem, my client and I landed on an idea that I think more organizations could benefit from.

Instead of creating duplicate copies of records, what if we created file finders?

A file finder is exactly what it sounds like: a simple reference that tells someone where to find related records.

Nothing fancy.

No expensive software.

No complete reorganization of your filing system.

Just a practical tool that connects records across departments, folders, and filing structures.

For example, a file finder for a particular property might look something like this:

FILE TOPIC: 123 Main Street

Related records can be found in the following locations:

Record	Department / Location	File Name/Keyword
Property deed	Property Records	Recording Number 1234567890
Acquisition documents	Legal	Police Station Building
Asset records	Finance	Police Station Building
Building permits	Building Department	Address file for: 123 Main St. & PLN-12-917

_{*note: each record is dispositioned according to itsretention, if you are unable to find the record, check to see what its retention is and if it may have been destroyed!}

The sheet could be attached to the front of a physical folder (my fav - make it a sticker, even better!), placed inside a file, or maintained as a reference document. And should simply be attached to each of the different records listed - so if someone goes to one of those location, they know which others to look for.

The key is to include enough information for someone to actually locate the record, such as a folder identifier, file number, or specific storage location.

It's essentially a roadmap.

And sometimes a roadmap is all you need.

Why Cross-Referencing Matters in Records Management

A good filing system should support more than just storage.

It should help users find information, understand relationships between records, and apply appropriate retention and disposition requirements.

That's where cross-referencing becomes incredibly valuable.

1. It improves access to public records.

Government records don't exist solely for the people who create or manage them. They also exist to support transparency, accountability, and public access.

When related records can easily be identified across departments, staff are better equipped to conduct thorough searches and respond to requests in a timely manner.

2. It preserves logical filing structures.

Not every department needs to organize records in exactly the same way.

Finance, Legal, Public Works, and the Clerk's Office all have different operational needs.

Cross-referencing allows departments to maintain practical filing structures while still connecting related information.

3. It supports better retention management.

When records remain organized according to their appropriate classification, it's generally easier to apply retention schedules and manage disposition.

A file finder doesn't replace a retention schedule or change the retention requirements of the records it references.

It simply helps people locate them.

4. It reduces unnecessary duplication.

Instead of maintaining multiple copies of the same document solely because different departments might need to find it, organizations can create references to the appropriate record location.

Of course, legitimate business needs may still require copies. The goal isn't to eliminate every duplicate. It's to avoid creating unnecessary ones.

5. It makes institutional knowledge less dependent on individual employees.

This might be my favorite benefit.

How often does someone say, "Oh, Susan knows where that is"?

Wonderful.

But what happens when Susan retires?

Or gets sick?

Or changes departments?

Or takes a much-deserved vacation (gasp! How could she!?!?)?

Your records management system shouldn't depend on one person's memory.

What About Digital Records?

Now, if your organization has a well-designed electronic records management system with strong metadata and search capabilities, some of these challenges become much easier to address.

A single record can be discoverable through multiple search terms, classifications, and relationships without needing to exist in multiple locations.

But there's an important catch.

Your digital records are only as findable as your metadata (and folder structures) allow them to be.

If your system doesn't capture meaningful information about related records, users may still struggle to connect the dots.

That's why I'm a fan of considering a "related records" metadata field or another form of electronic cross-referencing (if you dont have an Enterprise Content Management system, you can even consider having a "file finder" page that is saved to each folder.)

Imagine being able to open a property record and immediately identify that the organization also has a related deed, acquisition document, asset record, and permit files.

That's the kind of functionality that makes an electronic records management system genuinely useful.

Not just a very expensive digital filing cabinet.

The Bigger Lesson: Organize for Management AND Access

If there's one thing this conversation reminded me of, it's that records management isn't about finding one perfect filing structure.

It's about creating systems that support the people using them. ALL of them.

That includes the people responsible for retention and compliance, the employees who rely on records to do their jobs, and the public who may need access to them.

Sometimes those needs align beautifully.

Other times, they don't.

And that's okay.

We don't necessarily need to force every department into one universal filing structure. We need thoughtful systems, clear procedures, and practical tools that connect information across the organization.

Sometimes that means sophisticated metadata.

Sometimes that means improving your file classification system.

And sometimes?

It means stapling a single sheet of paper to a folder.

Not every records management problem requires a six-figure solution.

So, I'm curious: How does your organization handle this?

Do you file "like with like"? Organize around business functions or the way people search? Or have you developed your own cross-referencing system?

I'd love to hear what works for you.

Because if there's one thing I've learned from working with different government organizations, it's that some of the best records management ideas come from the people doing the work every single day.