ACQNET v2n072 (July 28, 1992) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acq-v2n072 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 72, July 28, 1992 ===================================== (1) FROM: Richard Jasper SUBJECT: ALCTS reorganization (97 lines) (2) FROM: Beth Shapiro SUBJECT: ALCTS reorganization (45 lines) (3) FROM: Richard Jasper SUBJECT: ALCTS reorganization (24 lines) (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 12:17:48 EDT From: RICHARD P. JASPER Subject: TASK FORCE PROPOSAL July 24, 1992 Lizbeth Bishoff, President Association for Library Collections and Technical Services BITNET: LJB@RSCH.OCLC.ORG Dear Liz: I am writing to voice my concern regarding the new ALCTS structure proposed by the Organizational Structure Task Force. My concern is as a personal member of ALCTS and does not necessarily reflect any similar concern on the part of groups in ALCTS with which I am associated. My main concern is that by adopting a flattened hierarchy and by eliminat- ing the sections the real effect will be to concentrate power in the hands of a few, thereby alienating large segments of the membership from meaningful participation, and to prolong further the often painfully slow decision-making process employed by the Association. Think about it. Unless the proposal envisions the wholesale elimination of most current section-level committees, a very large number of standing commit- tees, joint committees, task forces and study groups will be reporting directly to the Executive Board. Do proponents of this plan really think that the Board of Directors and the Executive Board, which only barely manage to make appoint- ments to association-level committees currently, will be able to handle in a timelier fashion the many additional dozens of decisions resulting from this direct communication? Do proponents of this plan really believe that members of the Executive Board and the Board of Directors will be more responsive to the concerns of hundreds of individuals of many dozens of committees? Right now, the sections' executive committees must try to respond to the needs of a relatively small number of committees and groups representing only dozens of individuals. If the major objective of the reorganization is to encourage member participation, I don't see how flattening the structure is going to help. Through the years there were numerous complaints about the lack of opportuni- ties to serve on the Collection Management and Development Committee, such that the Reference and Adult Services Division saw fit to create a new section that has been extremely successful in drawing new members and increasing member participation. ALCTS's response was first too slow, then too fast, and rather excruciating to watch all the way around. Even so, it seems to be working, at least as far as the Acquisitions Committee is concerned. New committees have been created, new committees that are oriented towards programs, products and service to the profession--not to promote bureaucracy. Personally, I think encouraging member participation should be a major objective. But I don't think people are likely to participate unless they can tell the folks back home, "Look, I've been appointed to a committee!" It may be our version of "publish or perish," with all the attendant problems that creates, but I beg to differ with anyone who suggests the committees are deadwood. People want to serve and the committees are an outlet in that regard. If the major objective of the reorganization is encourage more action on the part of ALCTS, I don't think that eliminating the centers which encourage productivity and action is going to help. The problem with getting things done in ALCTS is not that so many layers of hierarchy have to be scaled. The problem is attitudinal. The attitude that every single committee and every single layer of hierarchy and every single collateral interest has to be polled, queried, made to see the light and so forth for every single issue is the problem. Frankly, Liz, I think you have made a great dent in this particular problem by suggesting to section chairs and committee chairs that they don't have to ask permission for everything. Encouraging an attitude of responsibility, authori- ty, autonomy and accountability is likely to have a much more salubrious effect on "getting things done" than eliminating the level of hierarchy closest to the user level. But what are we really trying to accomplish? Are we trying to increase membership participation? Are we trying to project a sense of activism and accomplishment? Maybe we need to be look at the length of terms of office. Would more issues receive action if you and your successors had a two-year term in which to deal with them? Would organizational issues affecting the Associa- tion receive more attention if there was less turnover on the Organization & Bylaws Committee? In the end, I am still left with the feeling that the Task Force document represents an over-engineered response to an ill-defined problem. I don't think the 70 individuals (I was one of them) were suggesting that the positive features of the organization be discarded in favor of a radical restructuring. I don't think we all agreed that the structure in and of itself militated against member participation or timely action. There are some people who would just as soon see ALCTS go away altogether. Why not, they ask, merge ALCTS and ACRL? After all, they say, most ALCTS members (at least the active ones) are college and research librarians. I disagree with the people who propose such a restructuring. I think ALCTS has a special role of its own to play, one that is different than ACRL's. Marriage with ACRL would likely prompt a clash of agendas even more so than a clash of personalities. Even so, I would rather see a merger with ACRL than the elimination of the structure that encourages the good and productive work the ALCTS sections are doing. The trick, as always, is to retain what is good, special, different and useful, while identifying a positive change and the means for achieving such change. It is time for ALCTS to go back to the drawing board.... (2) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 14:13:22 CDT From: Beth Shapiro Subject: ALCTs Reorganization To: Richard Jasper cc: Bill Gosling , Mark Roosa , Carolyn Mueller , Arnold Hirshon , Liz Bishoff , KAREN MULLER , Jennifer Younger Richard -- Your comments were forwarded to me by Karen Muller. Thanks for committing your thoughts to writing -- as well as having attended the hearings. As I'm sure you know, you are not alone in your concerns. The task force will be reconvening in early October and we will address all of the concerns that have been raised. Whether or not all of the concerns raised by all of the people can be effectively reflected in a revised organizational structure is an unknown -- but we will give it our best shot. We are glad that our skeletal proposal has generated so much heat -- comments such as yours have (and I hope will continue to) provided us with much needed specifics. Please rest assured that in proposing a new organizational structure, our shared goals include the following: 1. increase opportunities for meaningful participation for ALCTS members 2. reduce bureaucracy 3. improve communication While we are sympathetic to members' needs to have professional participation occur officially for tenure or financial support reasons, that was not an area of primary concern as we thought about the organizational structure. While I can't speak for everyone on the task force, I do think that all of us share a sense that ALCTS (and more broadly ALA) is suffering from some signifi- cant problems. We also see an association that is unable to respond quickly to the changing world/profession within which we live. Also, please rest assured, that the reason we put out such a skeletal plan initially was to get exactly the kind of feedback we have received. We felt that broad-based general discussion about ALCTS was necessary before we proceeded any further. As a result, we have received important information that we hope will contribute to the development of a first rate plan for the Association to consider. Again -- thanks for your comments and please feel free to call me or others on the task force.... Beth (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 From: RICHARD P. JASPER Subject: ALCTS reorganization Dear Beth: Thanks for your incredibly prompt response and while I'm at it let me apologize for not having forwarded you a copy immediately--the next thing we all need is a national e-mail directory! I find your comments very reassuring. Also, I would like to add that aside from the question of the sections I don't think we're terribly far apart. That may be rather like saying, "Aside from the Pacific Ocean...," but I don't think so. In the end, it is a very important issue and you and the other members of the Task Force are to be commended for giving it your thoughtful time and atten- tion. I hope you will consider sharing your comments with Christian Boissonnas for inclusion in Acqnet. I think people are ready to begin talking about this and your positive "we're looking for input" statements will help facilitate (and maybe tone down) the discussion. Thanks again... ******* END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 72 ****** END OF FILE *******