I thought the group might be interested in our experience with a
Haworth invoice we recently received.  Haworth sent us a "consolidated
invoice" of all our periodical titles for 1991, even though we receive
these through an agent.  There was no cover letter and no explanation with
the invoice even though they have never sent such an invoice before.  We
called and Haworth said they sent it because they wanted to give the
library the option to pay them directly for these titles.  Apparently,
Haworth has had problems getting timely payment on the titles from the
vendor.  Most, if not all of our Haworth titles, are with Faxon.  Haworth
got paid toward the end of December.  Haworth also felt that some of their
titles were being listed as "delayed" by the agent when, in fact, they were
not delayed.
        The upshot of all of this for us was that we can toss this invoice
since the titles are with an agent.  I do not want to get involved in
unjust "finger-pointing" here, but there seems to be some problematic
behavior on both the publisher's and the agent's part.  How many libraries
might pay the Haworth invoice without checking carefully that they are with
an agent and thus pay twice and have to go through the business of
requesting a credit or having subscriptions extended?  If the agent is
paying the publisher late, how many libraries will miss issues early in the
year and then resort to claims that cannot be filled?  Also, shouldn't we
be able to trust a vendor's status report of "delayed" as being accurate at
the time of posting?
        Has anyone else had a similar experience?

                                Jean Farrington
                                Head, Serials
                                University of Pennsylvania
                                Internet:  farrington@a1.relay.upenn.edu