ACQNET v1n014 (JANUARY 26, 1991) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acq-v1n014 ACQNET, VOL 1, NO. 14, JANUARY 26, 1991 ======================================= (1) FROM: Karen Schmidt SUBJECT: ACQNET, ALCTS Collection Development Section (18 lines) (2) FROM: Christian M. Boissonnas SUBJECT: Proposal to reorganize the ALCTS Resources Section (104 lines) (1) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 January 1991 10:54:49 CST From: Karen Schmidt Subject: ACQNET, ALCTS Collection Development Section I have been watching the development of ACQNET with interest: it's going to be good, mainly because *we* are so good. I was distressed to hear about the impending split between acquisitions and collection development - I missed this news (although I do remember you said something about it on Tuesday at the Acquisitions Administrators Discussion Group meeting and I wasn't certain what you meant.) Could you share with the network the details of this plan, how far along it is, and what - if anything - we can do to register our concerns? Like you, I am concerned about the splintering, most particularly between two areas so closely aligned. If you could share the rationale for this move, I think lots of us would be interested - maybe Karen Muller could shed some light on it? (2) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- FROM: Christian M. Boissonnas SUBJECT: Proposal to reorganize the ALCTS Resources Section DATE: January 26, 1991 In ACQNET Vol. 1, No. 13, I griped about the proposal currently making its way through ALA to split the ALCTS Resources Section into two new sections: One for acquisitions and the other for collection development. See above for Karen Schmidt's opinion on this issue. To place the issue in the proper context I asked Karen Muller to send me what she could about the issue and its background. I now have the appropriate documents and I will attempt to summarize them here. While I do this I will keep my opinion to myself. If I have to say anything more that I did in the last issue, I will say it some other time. In a couple of places you will see bracketed [] text. Whatever is in the brackets is mine. It may very well be wrong, so don't blame ALCTS for it. My sources are: 1. _Proposal for Reorganization of the Resources Section of ALCTS_ by Judy Webster, dated 7/11/90. 2. A memorandum from Cecily John, Chair of the Resources Section, transmit- ting the proposal to Carolyn Harris, Chair of the ALCTS Organization and Bylaws Committee, dated 6/11/90. [There is a problem here. The proposal is dated one month later. I'll assume it isn't significant unless Karen or someone else who was involved tells us.] 3. The text, undated and unattributed, of a series of actions taken on the subject by the ALCTS Board of Directors. [I infer from the context that these actions were taken at the Chicago meeting earlier this month.] The story starts, as near as I can tell, in July 1988, when the Collection Management and Development Committee issued a statement arguing for becoming a separate section within ALCTS. Its workload, CMDC says, has become such that the group can no longer function as a committee. It has become a coordinating body overseeing the work of a dozen sub-committees, each dealing with substan- tive issues. The Acquisitions Committee has similar problems on a somewhat smaller scale. CMDC further says that its structure has been instrumental in getting the job done as far as publications and programs are concerned. It also notes three problems: The lack of opportunities for ALCTS members to be involved in decision-making; the lack of recognition for those individuals who contributed substantively to the work of CMDC; and the defection of people to the new Collection Development and Evaluation Section of RASD, that defection being due to their frustration at not being able to join CMDC. Early in 1989 the proposal is reviewed by the RS Policy and Planning Committee which ultimately decides that CMDC's position has merit. Policy and Planning recommends to the RS Executive Committee that the ALCTS Serials Section and the RS Acquisitions Committee be merged into a new Acquisitions Section. At the Summer 1989 conference the RS Executive Committee recommends to the ALCTS Executive Board that the Board appoint a subcommittee to look into the whole ALCTS organizational structure. Instead the Board refers the RS reorganization proposal to the ALCTS Organization and Bylaws Committee. At Midwinter 1990 the proposal is referred back to RS which subsequently asks the RS Policy and Planning Committee to reformulate a more complete proposal to be sent to the Organization and Bylaws Committee. The RS Executive Committee proposal lists 6 advantages for the proposed organization: "1. Increase the visibility of Acquisitions and of Collection Development activities within ALCTS 2. Increase the number of committee appointments available in Acquisi- tions and Collection Development activities [within] ALCTS 3. Attract more members to ALCTS because acquisitions and collection development are more visible and there are more opportunities for committee assignments and recognition for work accomplished 4. CMDC and Acquisitions are already operating like sections, i.e., the Committee functions like an executive board and sub-committees function like section committees; this would legitimize their mode of operation 5. CMDC and Acquisitions can increase their activities within a logical and workable management structure. For example, CMDC has long wanted to initiate mini-workshops on a regional basis using parts of previously successful institutes 6. Reduce the layers of decision-making between important project leaders, e.g., chair of a guide sub-committee and the ALCTS Publica- tions Committee." The proposal does not present disadvantages, if any. The ALCTS Board of Directors has voted [at the last Chicago meeting?]: 1. To "establish a Collection Management and Development Section at the end of the 1991 Midwinter Conference." 2. To "designate Cecily Johns as interim chair of the Collection Management and Development Section." 3. "that the ALCTS Board of Directors direct the Resource Section Nominating Committee to prepare a slate for ... officers in the Collection Management and Development Section ...." 4. "that the ALCTS Board of Directors approve all members of the Resources Section being automatically enrolled in the Collection Management and Development Section ... until the 1991-92 renewal year; at which time all ALCTS members will be eligible to elect to join the Section." 5. "that the ALCTS Board of Directors endorse the Resources Section proposal to change the name of the Resources Section to the Acquisition of Library Materials Section (ALMS) ...." 6. "that the Resources Section proposal to elevate the Library Materials Price Index Committee to division Level and the Blackwell North America Scholarship Committee to intersectional [level?] be referred to Organiza- tion and Bylaws." That's it. Let the debate begin. ***** END OF FILE ***** END OF FILE ***** END OF FILE ***** END OF FILE *****