ACQNET v2n092 (September 28, 1992) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acq-v2n092 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 92, September 28, 1992 ========================================== (1) FROM: Christian SUBJECT: Who's new on ACQNET (8 lines) (2) FROM: October Ivins SUBJECT: ALCTS reorganization (56 lines) (3) FROM: Richard Jasper SUBJECT: Reorganization (114 lines) (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: September 28, 1992 From: Christian Subject: Who's new on ACQNET today Lynne Norris Baird John Earl Keeth Head, Acquisitions and Serials Acquisitions Librarian University of Idaho Library University of South Florida Library E-mail: LIBRDEAN@IDUI1.BITNET E-mail: DGD11GA@CFRVM.BITNET (2) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 09:11:20 CDT From: October Ivins (Louisiana State University) Subject: ALCTS Reorganization Many thanks to all who have contributed to this discussion. I agree with Richard Jasper and Joe Barker: don't get rid of the sections! They are the most vital and active part of the division. ALCTS needs to streamline require- ments and communicate them clearly, thus empowering sections and members, not enhance it's own authority and control at the expense of the sections. Several respondents have questioned why reorganization is being considered. Arnold Hirshon's answer addresses positioning the division for the future. While I agree that we should be shaping the future rather than reacting to it, I doubt that reorganization is key to achieving this goal. I support Joe Barker's suggestion that the ALCTS Board concern itself with policy setting rather than micro-managing, which would in turn shift responsibility for decision-making to the sections and allow more timely and more dynamic respons- es to issues and concerns. I also think the fact that many libraries are reorganizing is a poor reason to reorganize ALCTS. Other possible problems that reorganization might be intended to address have been raised. Some have speculated that declining membership and attendance at ALA conferences may be involved. Last year the Society for Scholarly Publish- ing faced the same declines. I was on the Membership Committee, and we decided we needed more information about why people were leaving before we could decide how to respond. The members and some volunteers each called ten lapsed members and interviewed them about why they had dropped SSP membership. The most prevalent response was financial concerns-- exactly what Mark Braden told us. To extrapolate this idea to ALCTS-- I believe these concerns continue to grow. There's a recession on and higher education has been hit hard. Travel budgets are being cut; on the one hand, some members are covering more than one position at work as a result of hiring freezes or deliberate prolonging of vacancies; on the other hand, new librarians are facing the tightest job market I can remember. ALA membership plus ALCTS plus additional divisions is expensive, particularly compared to leaner and more focused organizations. I would be glad to pay more for ALCTS and less for my "peripheral" divisions, ACRL and LITA. (Can ALCTS pursue a dues restructuring so people can declare a primary division?) But the expense of membership is minor compared to the cost of conference attendance. I think there has been an ongoing trend for people to attend ALA when it is geographically closer (i.e. cheaper) for them, so the old distinctions between Midwinter as a working meeting for those with committee, etc., appointments and Annual as the program meeting have long since eroded. At the same time, state and regional organizations are gaining members. I suggest that ALCTS survey lapsed members and those who are eligible but have not joined before designing plans to encourage membership and attendance. To conclude, I think many current problems of the division can be addressed in a positive manner instead of by something as destructive as the "amputation" characterized by Joe Barker. In my opinion, the single biggest problem is a need for communication; to make responsibilities clear to all involved and to get information out on a timely basis. I have a list of proposals for action, but since they do not involve reorganization I'll save them for another discussion. (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 11:55:57 EDT From: Richard P. Jasper (Emory University) Subject: MORE & DIFFERENT ON ALCTS I think October in her comments on ALCTS reorganization has made some very positive suggestions and I look forward to seeing her list of possible action items. Which, in conjunction with Christian's recent comments about the Society of Scholarly Publishing meeting, raises a couple of interesting points. Over the past five years we have heard repeated calls for ALCTS and ALA to take "action," however that's defined, regarding the materials pricing "crisis." Thus far, action from ALA or ALCTS has been very slow in coming. What are the things that really stand out in terms of actions taken regarding materials pricing over the past five years? My list includes: 1. The establishment of the _Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues_. NSPI, more than anything else, provided both an outlet for expressing ideas and means for galvanizing the library community at large, both in its early informal stages and today in its more formal maturity. The main point is that through NSPI people have been able to share ideas, and, more importantly, have taken ideas gleaned from NSPI back to their home institutions and applied them. You can rightly argue that NSPI originated in ALA. It's a point of personal pride on my part that the subcommittee that developed the idea for the newsletter came about as a suggestion on the part of the ALCTS Publisher/Vendor-Library Relations Committee. But, NSPI, as we all know, is no longer an ALA-related publication. It was a messy divorce, and I will offend people by saying that there was, as in all messy divorces, a good deal of blame to be shared by both sides. The main concern for those of us who were on the sidelines was the seemingly mindless bureaucratism that contributed to the impasse. 2. The establishment of the Coalition for Networked Information (the consortium of ARL, EDUCOM, and CAUSE) and, within ARL, the Office of Scientific and Academic Publishing. I really believe that CNI and OSAP are having a significant impact on the key policy-makers both within academic institutions and the federal public policy arena, as well as expanding our individual understanding of the many factors associated with the emerging networked scholarly communication environment. 3. The development of the Aqueduct Agenda, which grew out of NSPI; this latest indication that additional "action agendas" may be emerging from SSP; and the bold action that individual institutions have begun to take, e.g., Princeton's blanket publisher-based cancellations and the draft copyright statement being developed by the Triangle University Libraries. 4. The emergence of additional discussion lists such as ACQNET, COLLDEV-L, and CNI-COPYRIGHT, which hold the promise for increased understanding and awareness of the issues that need to be resolved. Where is ALCTS in all of this? On the margins, I suspect, although there is the potential for some very worthwhile contributions. What can I recall? * The Task Force on the Equality of Access to Library Services, aka EALS, aka the Wedgeworth Task Force, so called because it was chaired by former ALA Executive Director Bob Wedgeworth. This task force, whose final report was never been disseminated within an official ALA publication as far as I know, was created at the same time (early 1988) as the PVLR subcommittee that resulted in NSPI. After two years of work, the Task Force issued a final report (summer 1990) with broad and actually quite useful general recommendations regarding how ALA and the profession in general might address the crisis in materials pricing. What's ever become of these recommendations? Not a whole lot, as far as I can tell. A suggestion that some group be appointed to develop a strategic plan for implementing the Wedgeworth Task Force recommendations was shelved in early 1991, although the following developments are in some ways lineal descendants of the Wedgeworth effort. * In the fall of 1991, ALCTS sponsored a Serials Management Institute in Chicago, which sought to combine the type of futurecasting exercised by CNI with practical day-to-day applications of managing serials budgets and some basic instruction in strategic planning and coalition- building. Despite its small size, the institute was generally well-rec- eived. But has there been any follow up? * Also in 1991, ALCTS established the Scholarly Communication Committee, whose first report we read on _ALCTS Network News_ early this past spring. * At the last midwinter meeting, ALCTS established the Electronic Publications Discussion Group, which, despite an unfortunate scheduling mishap in San Francisco, should provide an excellent forum for librarians from across collections and technical services to discuss the implications of the emerging electronic information environment. Still, relative to the progress that has been made relative to that of ARL, CNI, NSPI, the Aqueduct Agenda, Princeton, and the Triangle University Libraries, I would have to say that ALCTS has lagged behind. It pains me to have to say so. Those of you who know me well know that in my seven years as a librarian I have been an absolute "wonk" (the term so-often used in conjunction with Messrs. Clinton and Gore) as far as ALCTS is concerned. It is the beginning and the end of my professional involvement outside my own library. If ALCTS didn't exist, I would have to invent it somewhere else, because I need it and the interaction I can get with my peers the same way I need that morning cup of coffee and that after-dinner mint--I really, really need it! For all that, I really can't believe that the relatively small amount of progress that has been made within ALCTS regarding materials pricing issues is attributable to structural difficulties. Far more cogent, from my point of view, are Joe's and October's analyses regarding micro-management (a term, I believe, with which Linda Crismond is exceptionally familiar) and empowerment. Arnold Hirshon's statement to the contrary, I don't believe that the structure IS the decision-making process. It may be HALF of it, but the other half is attitude. That's the half that we who are ALCTS need to fix. ******* END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 92 ****** END OF FILE *******