Actually, you are mistaken in your oversimplification of matters. As a
state institution, we have a responsibility to the public
to see that their funds are used properly. And we actually have had
auditors come to our department, check our invoices,
and demand to see that ALL of the issues PAID FOR were RECEIVED. If they
have not been received, then they require a
documented explanation. This does not bother me, and furthermore I feel
that this is how things should be run. (And yes,
I could be reproved, with possible loss of my job, if it was deemed that
I was not handling my duties correctly and
costing the state money by mishandling departmental funds.)
Our journal subscriptions are costly, and getting insanely more so every
year.
We cannot afford to pay $600 or more for a quarterly, or $7,000 or more
for a weekly, and then not know whether
or not we are receiving all that we have paid for! Who responsibly
spends money this way?
Furthermore our overall journal budget is not that forgiving. We cannot
afford to be cavalier with how any of our funds are spent.
You start having multiple problems with expensive journals (like
Elsevier, Blackwell, etc.) and the cost for loss starts
adding up into the thousands of dollars quickly and easily. Who can
actually afford to just let $5,000 to $10,000 of
materials go missing and unaccounted for? Would be acceptable for your
book budget? Or any other budget?..
I don't think so. Money lost is money lost. Thus, to me, its the height
of irresponsibility and misuse of departmental funds
to knowingly allow nonreceipt of any materials paid for. Conversely,
responsible management is getting exactly what you paid for in a
timely manner, and if there are problems, refunds and compensation for
missed issues are ALWAYS required.
Any prolonged problems with titles or publishers are resolved by
discontinuing doing business with them and finding a
better alternative.
Most arguments for ditching checkin ring hollow. When it comes right
down to it, it represents lazy management and
the equivalent of playing Russian Roulette with your budget. How can you
have an accurate finger on the pulse of your
journal collection without checkin, and corresponding use studies? You
can't. Because you have no idea what you have
received, nor what is being used. You also have no idea if you have
overlapped subs (that basically equates to double
billing for the same issues), dropped subs, delayed issues, missed
issues, misdelivered subs, etc., etc., etc. You would
even have a hard time catching title changes! You'd have to wait until
the next billing cycle, and that's only if your department
paid the invoice and not some other accounts payable department at your
institution! How can anyone call this good management?
You can't, because its not. I am one voice that will never join the
noncheckin bandwagon!!
My passionate 2 cents....
Renee Hijleh
Periodicals Department
William D. McIntyre Library
PO Box 5010
University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire
Eau Claire, WI 54702-5010
715-836-3306
fax: 715-836-2949
-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
[mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of Dan Lester
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 5:05 PM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] Looking for other libraries that have eliminated
check-in
Every state and every institution has different rules regarding auditing
of institutional property. However, has an auditor EVER come looking to
see if you have the December 2004 issue of Albanian Underwater
Basketweaving? I didn't think so.
Remember that even if you have a subscription to the journal, and have
carefully recorded that you received it, that doesn't mean that it is
still in the library. Right? As long as you have some issues for 04 (or
whatever subscription period) and the documents that show you paid for
it (rather than writing a check to yourself), I believe you've done your
duty. And even if your auditors aren't happy that they, what sanctions
are they going to take? Certainly they can't do anything that will get
you fired.
No, I'm not, thank goodness, an auditor. But I do know that we
librarians make FAR too many decisions based on "what if" worst case
scenarios than we need to. All too many libraries and library
departments are managed by fear and worry, rather than common sense.
dan
Wednesday, January 11, 2006, 1:51:51 PM, you wrote:
TSE> There were a
TSE> number of participants however who quickly noted that check-in was
TSE> required for auditing purposes.
--
Dan Lester, Data Wrangler dan@RiverOfData.com 208-283-7711
3577 East Pecan, Boise, Idaho 83716-7115 USA www.riverofdata.com Fair
is whatever God decides to do.
