---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 10:21:02 -0500
From: Albert Henderson <NobleStation@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Subject: Accounting method for serials

on 30 Nov 1999 Susan Mueller <mueller@SELWAY.UMT.EDU> wrote:

> At my institution a few years ago, we in serials were told that we had to
> split our subscription cost in order to be paying for our subscriptions in
> the same year that we recieved them.  In other words, our fiscal year runs
> from July 1 to June 30 but our subscriptions run from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, so
> half of the previous year's bill (Jan. 1 to June 30) and half of this
> year's bill (Jul 1 to Dec 31) are combined to come up with our payment to
> our major vendor.  We pay the vendor the actual amount, but on the books we
> show the two halves.  These don't equal the actual amount billed and paid
> because of inflation, change of titles, etc.  It is also very confusing
> when reconciling our local online system with the university's system.
> Does anyone else have to do it this way?  Especially state-funded
> libraries?  We were told to do this because of an auditor's recommendation.
>  If that is the case I would think other libraries would have to also.  Any
> insight would be helpful.

        Auditors are not managers. Their every notion
        should not be taken as gospel, especially when they
        put the metaphysics of allocations above the
        financial interests of their employer or client.

        I have seen many Federal and state government
        subscription orders take advantage of multi-year
        savings. That makes more sense than using scarce
        resources to create work for bookkeepers (and
        their auditors).

Albert Henderson
Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY
<70244.1532@compuserve.com>