Well, sometimes those auditing procedures were set up years ago and a
library has been doing as it should and following the instructions
given.  But, when you go to the auditors and ASK them, there is always a
chance that practices have changed for them and they didn't realize you
needed to be told.

So, when you find a procedure awkward to follow, it never hurts to just
talk to the auditors, explain the problem and see if the process has
been or can be changed.

I've never had one object to a question: it means we're paying attention
to their rules.  And they will often listen and even consider changing
their policies--or perhaps gently explain why we've misinterpreted what
they need.

JoAnne Deeken

-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
[mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of Cynthia Hsieh
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:51 PM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] Auditing (Re: [SERIALST] Cease claiming,
checking in, binding)

Again, different library may be facing different situation.  I would
suggest posters not to jump into conclusion and start judging the
others.

According my own past experiences, the auditing process was set up and
dictated by either the University's Controller's Office or the State
government's auditing procedures. It was not because the library refused
to change, but because the library did not have the authority to change
the auditing process.

Cynthia H.

Cynthia Hsieh
Head of Technical Services
University Libraries
University of the Pacific
3601 Pacific Ave.
Stockton, CA 95211

-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
[mailto:SERIALST@list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of Ginanni, Katy
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:19 AM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] Auditing (Re: [SERIALST] Cease claiming,
checking in, binding)

IMO, continuing to perform the same process (even when it no longer
makes sense) because "the auditors will question it" is simply another
way of saying, "We do it this way because we've always done it this
way."

Just as we should not hesitate to question prices, practices, etc. of
vendors and publishers, we should not hesitate to question auditors,
either.  In my experience, they aren't scary people.  And if you can
logically explain why you need to make a change in a process, they often
understand and give their blessings.  This has happened to me in 2
institutions.  Actually, the auditors questioned *us* but were satisfied
with our explanations.

Katy G.

Katy Ginanni, E-Access & Serials Librarian and liaison to Soc/Anth &
WAGS
Trinity University
Elizabeth Huth Coates Library
1 Trinity Place
San Antonio, TX 78212-7200
210-999-7613 ph.
210-999-8182 fax
katy.ginanni@trinity.edu
"Establishing lasting peace is the work of education; all politics can
do is keep us out of war." --Maria Montessori

-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
[mailto:SERIALST@list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:02 AM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: [SERIALST] Auditing (Re: [SERIALST] Cease claiming, checking
in, binding)

> Another item to consider is whether you need the print
> check-in for auditing purposes.  Some universities will require it
whether it
> makes sense for you to do so or not.

The auditing objection is one that makes a lot of sense on its face, but
then kind of falls apart upon closer examination.

If you're a typical academic library, you have many more online
subscriptions than print ones.  Any auditing argument that applies to
your
print subscriptions will apply equally to your online ones -- but if you
subscribe to, say, 1,000 print journals and 10,000 online journals,
there's
no possible way to give every subscribed title the level of oversight
that
you can give to your print titles.  So if you have auditors who insist
on
print check-in and claiming, you need to ask them what they'd like you
to do
about the online titles -- surely those should be checked in and claimed
as
well.  But that's impossible without a massive increase in staff.

For what it's worth, I've now worked in two libraries that were audited.
In
one of them, we had eliminated check-in and claiming almost entirely
prior
to the audit, and in the other we had eliminated those processes
substantially but not entirely.  In neither case did the auditor raise
any
concerns about our procedures.

--
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dir. for Scholarly Resources & Collections
Marriott Library
Univ. of Utah
rick.anderson@utah.edu
(801) 721-1687