ACQNET v3n077 (September 28, 1993) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acqnet-v3n077 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 3, No. 77, September 28, 1993 ========================================== (1) FROM: Marylou Hale SUBJECT: Who's new on ACQNET today (29 lines) (2) FROM: Arnold Hirshon SUBJECT: ALCTS bylaws vote (79 lines) (3) FROM: Richard Jasper SUBJECT: ALCTS bylaws vote (47 lines) (4) FROM: Rosann Bazirjian SUBJECT: Auditing and automated acquisitions (18 lines) (1)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Marylou Hale (Univ. of Nevada - Las Vegas) (mhale@nevada.edu) Subject: Who's new on ACQNET today? Date: Sept. 28, 1993 Susan More Cynthia J. Sherman Collection Development Librarian Product Manager Law Library, Boston University Data Research Associates, Inc. LAWACQ@ACS.BU.EDU CYNTHIA@SDG.DRA.COM Deborah P. Brown Verna Ann Froese Acquisitions Assistant Library Assistant I Community College of Southern Nevada University of Kansas Libraries DBROWN@NEVADA.EDU VFROESE@UKANVM.BITNET Edward E. Asawa Mary Katherine Johnson Acquisitions Manager Acquisitions Technician County of Los Angeles Public Library Colorado College EDWARDA@COLAPL.ORG MKJOHNSON@CCNODE.COLORADO.EDU Bertha Louise Newton Vicky E. Burkholder Eastern Kentucky University Library Acquisitions Coordinator LIBNEWTN@ACS.EKU.EDU Dickinson College Library BURKHOLDER,V@DICKINSON.EDU Anne Anderson Timothy (Tim) Norman Sandham Acquisitions/Govt Documents Librarian Dept. Head: Acquisitions William Mitchell College of Law Library Rand Afrikaans University Library AANDERSON@WMITCHELL.EDU TNS@INFO.RAU.AC.ZA (2)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Arnold Hirshon (Wright State University) Subject: Vote YES on ALCTS Bylaws Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 18:48:29 -0500 (EST) TO: ACQNET subscribers Members of ALCTS (the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services) recently received ballots to vote on new bylaws. On September 26 an issue of ACQNET appeared containing three negative comments about the proposed vote on the ALCTS Bylaws changes. I attempted to send a message to ACQNET last week to provide some background information about the bylaws, but unfortunately the message was misposted. Given the urgency of the issue, I am therefore writing to you directly as someone who has been an ALCTS member for twenty years to encourage you to vote "YES" on the bylaws. As a "past-past-president" of ALCTS, I hold no elective office in ALCTS, have no intention of running for future office, and I have no particular "turf" to protect. But with twenty years of hard work in the division, I certainly want to see ALCTS prosper. This message reflects only my personal opinion, and not that of the ALCTS Board of Directors nor of my institution. It would seem that the major question about the bylaws is whether we need to continue to maintain the section-based structure. Major corporations and the Federal Government today are engaged in efforts to "re-engineer" or "reinvent" themselves. The primary way they seek to re-engineer is through the reduction or elimination of middle management. Within ALCTS, sections reflect that middle-management, which tends to add steps to the process without necessarily adding commensurate value to the process. Library collections and technical services are changing dramatically. We are seeing interdisciplinary and collaborative team-based approaches in our organizations. The tight functional-based sections in ALCTS have begun to prove inflexible to the dynamic changes that our profession is beginning to undergo. Perhaps the most misleading argument in favor of sections is that we need them as a training ground for future leadership. However, the purpose of any organization is to accomplish its mission, not to create leadership positions in which individuals in the profession may serve. When we elect someone to a position of responsibility in ALCTS, we expect that official to possess the requisite expertise to operate fully in that position. Elective office is not the place where a candidate should expect "to acquire the skills necessary to advance in their home institutions." One argument in opposition to forums is that only conference attendees would elect the leadership of "forums." Given that the bylaws are silent on the method of forum elections, such statements should be given little credence. In fact would be quite easy to develop a membership-wide structure if that is deemed desirable or necessary. Will the new bylaws dis-empower the membership or lead to an inbred leadership? In my experience, members who tried to "break into" ALCTS and get involved have found little empowerment and much inbreeding in the current system. While on the Board I often heard complaints from members that about the same people serving on committees, the same people being elected to office, and the same people locking out others from participation. The new bylaws would create a far more open and hospitable structure in which any member could become involved in solving the problems that face our profession. Will only a few people dictate the agenda of the division while leaving many member's needs unmet? Even under the current bylaws, less than 1% of the membership actually holds elective office. But it is not the elected officials who are -- or who should -- "dictate the agenda." The agenda of the division is developed by far more than the elected officials. For example, all members of committees and anyone who writes to the _Newsletter_ or _AN2_ helps to form the ever-changing agenda of the division. The purpose of the Board of Directors is not to dictate the division's agenda, but to expedite the work of the division. I encourage you to vote "yes" on the bylaws. A recent issue of the _ALCTS Network News_ (v. 6, no. 9, September 23, 1993) contained a column that addressed questions about the bylaws changes. I include a copy of excerpts from that article below for the benefit of ALCTS members who may not otherwise have access to _AN2_. [These excerpts are too long to be included in this issue. They will appear as the first item in ACQNET 3:78 which follows immediately. -- C.] (3)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Richard Jasper (Emory University) Subject: ALCTS Bylaws Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 12:52:19 -0400 (EDT) For personal reasons too complicated to explain, I am NOT going to vote on the ALCTS Bylaws revision. Still, that doesn't prevent me from having an opinion, which I offer for the consideration of those who will be voting on the proposed changes. WHY TO VOTE AGAINST IT Early on I said that the Task Force's initial set of proposed changes constituted an over-engineered response to an ill-defined problem. That was when the Task Force was proposing to do away with sections altogether and had not hit upon the idea of forums to retain the "communities of interest" aspect of the old system. Frankly, I think the "forums" idea has only made matters worse. If we need to do away with sections to decrease bureaucracy and increase cross- specialization, why retain the forums? They will turn into sections. On the other hand, if we need the "communities of interest," why provide a structure so vague, so amorphous that no one is going to feel satisfied, everyone is going to feel frustrated. All in all, I think the proposal is a horrible example of trying to satisfy everyone's palate and coming up with sludge when everyone was hoping for cake. WHY TO VOTE FOR IT I'm sick to death of talking about it, mostly. If it goes down in flames, I'm sure we'll be looking at a different proposal next year and the year after. Let's give it a try. Let's make Karen Muller's life a little easier. I'm quick to point out that models that make sense for a volunteer organization aren't necessarily the same as those employed by academic libraries or even the private sector. Who of us is in a position to judge what impact the current structure has on the Headquarters staff? If a change in the organizational structure will increase their productivity and effectiveness, I'm for it. It's not cut in stone. We can change it again if it doesn't work. In fact, I would go so far as to say we ought to mandate changing the organization at least every five years. We change our organization to some degree about every 18 months. Let the brickbats fly... (4)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Rosann Bazirjian (Syracuse University) Subject: Auditing and automated acquisitions Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 13:15:10 -0400 I am working on a topic for the Automated Acquisitions/In-Process Control Systems Discussion Group, along with Jeri Van Goethem, for Midwinter ALA. The topic I have in mind is: "Accommodating Auditing Requirements in the Automated Acquisitions Environment". Libraries working with an automated acquisitions system have had to alter their procedures in order to satisfy auditors' requirements but yet still operate effectively. What arrangements have been worked out, and what practices have been instituted? If anyone feels they can relate to this issue, and may be able to share what they are doing with others, please contact me at the above address. ****** END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 3, No. 77 ****** END OF FILE ******