Auditor says 5.6.3 should be discussed in Management Review

[qualityboi]

I think, as a business owner or manager, you took the correct path. You can spend hours and days fighting and appealing it. Or just be able to show some type of evidence that it is taking into consideration during THE management review. We have tried the "it occurs in many different reviews" approach to answer the auditor in the past then your on the hook for producing those many other reviews as evidence. The Null approach proclaimed by some of the posters was taking my advice out of context, then came all the strawmen. Do what makes sense to your business. If a one liner in the MR meeting minutes saves you time and money and doesn't affect customer satisfaction negatively then why not?
Also, its not just that auditors Shaky Interpretation, I would say about half if not more the registrar auditors we experience ask for evidence that each item from 5.6 be produced during the audit for them. It is not for the auditor to look for it or assume resources has been addressed just because someone says so. They don't like the answer, "we do management reviews in many processes throughout the businees" those are considered process reviews, not managment reviews and there is a difference.
Challenging the auditors by calling their superiors does not build a good working relationship, its better to work it out. I see more mission creep when you upset the auditors off then when you take a lump then they are much more negotiable on the next one they don't tend to dig more later on in my experience.

 

[SybilleH]

I would say the auditor is right. The output requirement includes " decisions and actions related to resource needs." Pretty tough to make decisions or take actions if it was not discussed.

 

[Wes Bucey]

I'm still hinked about knuckling under to an auditor to avoid pi$$ing him off on future audits. That just trains him to expand his mission creep.

In many threads over the years, Randy has expounded on the propensity of police and other "authorities" to retaliate when any citizen objects to the "fairness" or "legality" of the actions of that policeman or authority. I concur that I have witnessed such retaliation on literally hundreds of occasions over my lifetime. Most recently, a situation came to my attention where a police officer stopped a woman ostensibly for not stopping sufficiently in a "right turn on red" violation. The woman objected, saying she HAD stopped. the policeman then retaliated by adding violations ranging from "obscured window" (one of her windshield wipers streaked on bird poop) to missing headlight (a daytime traffic stop, dry day) to missing license plate light (still the same daylight stop) for a total of six violations. The woman had the presence of mind to use her cell phone to photograph the vehicle and presented her evidence in court. Result - ALL charges dismissed, even the original right turn on red. We can be pretty sure she might not have been so lucky if it had just been her word against the policeman's.

Here in Illinois, until recently, citizens were doubly penalized if they attempted to produce "proof" of the police officer's "misinterpretation" of law or facts by offering up video or voice recordings of such actions. The state legislature and courts recently reversed a law which made it a felony for ANY citizen (even bystanders) to record the actions of a police officer even when the action took place in public. The "blue wall" often invoked charges against anyone offering such proof of wrongdoing to eliminate any incriminating evidence against the police officer.

I'm wondering whether the auditors among our readers would object to their "closing meeting" being video recorded for possible evidence in an appeal situation when and if the auditee were unable to convince the auditor to change N/C items during the discussion.