No, those of us who are suggesting we CHECK with the auditors are not
oversimplifying things.  In some institutions, including the one where
I work (as my colleague pointed out), the auditors are very picky.
However, in several academic libraries where I've worked, the auditors
have no interest at all in the library, or else they're quite
reasonable and understand that an occasional missing issue is no big
deal. Our auditors are indeed super picky.  As an example, several
years ago three of us spent almost four hours each finding an old dot
matrix printer that had cost $200 new in 1995.  By 2002 it was worth
essentially nothing.  But that didn't matter, as we had to find it,
and finally did in the back of a storage room, waiting to be
surplused.

One of the interesting things in the future will be how the auditors
will deal with online resources.  Suppose you had a license for ABXX
Index for 2005, but cancelled it for 2006.  What will the auditors
possibly see to prove that you "bought" something with your five
thousand bucks?  At least if you hire a consultant, you have a report
to prove that you got something for your money.

dan

Tuesday, January 17, 2006, 9:16:28 AM, you wrote:

HR> Actually, you are mistaken in your
HR> oversimplification of matters. As a
HR> state institution, we have a responsibility to
HR> the public
HR> to see that their funds are used properly.

--
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.