Sorry to hear that you've got both positions!
Personally, I think it's going to be a balance between risk management and time management. By that I mean that I would try to schedule reviews on the high risk areas where you might be able to catch things before they grow into bigger problems and save the audits (annual) for lesser-risk areas or where you need to spend more time because your scope will be broader.
For instance, if check holds (Reg CC) have been an issue you might want to review them on a monthly/quarterly basis to ensure that they are being done correctly and provide time for training and/or procedures development. The same for excess debits to money market deposit or savings accounts; ensure that someone is reviewing those reports and notifying customers on a regular basis.
Others, like a full examination of residential real estate for compliance with a number of regulations (FHA, ECOA, Flood) might take significant time and would be better as an annual audit.
Just my thoughts.
_________________________
I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.--Confucius