Re: Auditing (Re: [SERIALST] Cease claiming, checking in, binding) Ginanni, Katy 20 Jan 2010 20:30 UTC
I'm afraid you missed my point. I'm not suggesting that the library could or should change the auditing process. I'm saying that if you want to change a process in the library but someone advises against because it's something that the auditors require, then you should *ask* the auditors. Sometimes we are so concerned about complying with the auditors that we forget to ask them what actually is and is not required. Katy G. Katy Ginanni, E-Access & Serials Librarian Trinity University Elizabeth Huth Coates Library San Antonio, TX 78212-7200 katy.ginanni@trinity.edu -----Original Message----- From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum [mailto:SERIALST@list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of Cynthia Hsieh Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:51 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