ACQNET v7n034 (Sept 7, 1997) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acqnet-v7n034 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 7, No. 34, Sept. 7, 1997 ======================================== (1) FROM: P. Wallace SUBJECT: RE: Hawaii outsourcing controversy: Reply to Chamberlain, Intner, Bloss (168 lines) PART 2 OF 2 (1)---------------------------------------------------------------- [continued from ACQNET 7:33] Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 01:05:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Pat Wallace Subject: Response to Intner, Chamberlain, & Bloss ALCTS Councilor Alex Bloss runs away from this very important debate by saying, in his recent post to both ALA Council's listserve and ACQNET: "ALA has never identified "core professional values" and fundamental principles. It was a bad precedent to start to establish core values in this fashion. Perhaps it would be a good thing for ALA to identify what librarianship's core values and fundamental principles are, but a resolution pertaining to the"Hawaii model" of outsourcing was not the place to start." This is a statement with which not only I, but others would disagree. Karen Schneider, Councilor-elect, recently posted to Council listserve: "After observing contracting across an entire agency for a year and a half, I am now convinced that outsourcing library services is not good. The problem is not simply the company I work for; it's a systemic problem related to turning a service and its practitioners into a simple commodity. The analogies to total outsourcing of book purchases (or any other wholesale contracting-out) are obvious and, to a bibliophile, particularly poignant." (August 8, 1997) In her June letter to _Library Journal_, ALCTS President Carol Chamberlain says: "Clearly, outsourcing is one of the most important issues in our profession today." In a message to the ALA Council Listserve on August 17th, I asked: "Why is it such an important issue and what has ALCTS done to help the leaders of our profession on ALA Council understand just what issues Hawaii and Riverside raise? It seems to me that ALCTS is a bit behind the curve in that they wish to rest on their laurels for involvement in developing approval plans, centralized selection, resource sharing, etc. but they are resisting head-on, clear-eyed assessment of a whole new paradigm, i.e. implementation of "TOTAL outsourcing" (not just value-added this, and value-added that)." On August 19th, this exchange between me and Karen Schneider was sent to Council: Karen Schneider said in her recent post to ALA Council list: "When an operation is completely outsourced, the accountability shifts to the profit-oriented company that person works for. It is impossible to work for two bosses, and the boss that butters the contractor's bread is a boss whose interests are not public service but bottom-line profit." "Focusing on one aspect of outsourcing--what happens when all collection development is outsourced--will be the clearest for the body politic to grasp. That does NOT make the issue of outsourced libraries less important; I just think very focused battles can be won more easily." I replied to Karen's comments as follows: "By golly, Miss Molly ... I think somebody finally "got it." These are exactly two points that the Hawaii Working Group has tried to communicate in our approaches to Council all along ... or would have had we ever had a chance to speak. But people kept failing to focus and wanted to use the term "outsourcing" in some generic way to refer to practices other than total outsourcing of materials selection and, yes, collection development (in the case of Hawaii). They kept reading things into our resolutions which were not there. We tried to focus, but it didn't work. Maybe Council is more ready to focus now. I hope so." Intner's recent reply to Willett continues the incomprehensible line of argument that to disapprove of "The Hawaii Model" of total outsourcing of materials selection to a for-profit vendor is to remove the availability of subscriptions services, outsourced technical processing, outsourced cataloging records, consultation with faculty on choices for University libraries, and so forth and so on. This is patently ridiculous! Perhaps some analogies will bring the point home. Outsourcing materials selection in public libraries is like: *doctors outsourcing decisions about medical treatment to Walmart drug stores. *outsourcing decisions over curriculum content in public schools to Harper & Row. *outsourcing school lunches to MacDonalds. This eloquent plea was forwarded to Council listserve on August 16th from Stephanie Strickland, Manager of Waikiki-Kapahulu Public Library in Honolulu, Hawaii, and a member of the Hawaii Working Group: "What do we want from ALA? Recognition of the tragedy that happened 2500 miles on six islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Realization that if it can happen here, it can happen anywhere. I think that ALA must put in black and white what it considers "core values" for librarians. SLA has. If library schools are accredited by ALA, why does ALA abandon professionals in the field? If we can stand behind the library Bill of Rights and the Right to Read, why can't we establish policies or standards for professional job skills? I particularly abhor any mention of a vendor being my "partner." Baker & Taylor, "my partner," never faced patrons on a daily basis to explain their poor choices. What the librarians in Hawaii would like ALA to do is something for our profession. We took care of the problem here. We have a state law that guarantees that librarians employed by the state will select materials. Why can't ALA provide leadership in giving librarians a leg to stand on when outsourcing comes knocking on their doors? Many people have questioned whether collections can erode in one year. I wish you could pay us a visit right now and see the devastation in the reference and youth services collections. I bet we are the only state in the union that has no Dun & Bradstreet publications. Why do we need those in paradise?" ALCTS leaders have yet to respond to Stephanie's statement. ALCTS representative on Council, Alex Bloss, has assured us: "ALCTS and Council are not 'enemies' of the Hawaiian librarians." However, ALCTS led a refusal within Council to even consider a statement of "tribute" to Hawaii librarians in San Francisco. ALCTS President Chamberlain states in her June letter to _Library Journal_: "As the Hawaii story broke, members acted quickly and appropriately to gather the best of our profession--including librarians, vendors, and publishers ... to explore all perspectives on the topic." As I pointed out in comments forwarded to ALA Council on August 17th: "ALCTS has NEVER INVITED, as far as I know, any librarian from Hawaii to be on any of their outsourcing panels. It did not, as the Hawaii Working Group did, gradually win the trust of library staff in Hawaii and offer to provide facilitation of communications with ALA and with mainland librarians. It did not, as the Hawaii Working Group did, directly monitor the Hawaii press and directly correspond with a wide network of librarians in Hawaii. They also never invited anyone from the Hawaii Working Group to participate in any of their panels in any way, as we did extend co-sponsorship to them. So, by default, Chamberlain is saying that the Hawaii Working Group and all the librarians in Hawaii are not worthy of the accolade of "best of the profession." Could close cooperation between Hawaii librarians and other mainland members of the Hawaii Working Group and our proposed tribute to Hawaii librarians be what Intner is referring to when she says: "Mr. Willett and AIP still don't seem to want ALCTS to help craft better wordings. He and they seem to prefer testimonials for those whom they designate the "good guys" & against those they designate the "bad guys." All of this represents pretty shoddy response to library staff and patrons in Hawaii on the part of ALCTS. ALCTS wants to maintain a fiction of impartiality toward issues of outsourcing, and yet every panel they have mounted to supposedly "examine all aspects of the issue" has been disporportionately weighted with executives from major vendors and publishing companies whom, they point out, are members of ALA Council and ALA in general. This is a fact which some library professionals believe compromises the ability of ALA to provide objective consideration to the legality and ethics of "the Hawaii Model" of total outsourcing. AIP and the Hawaii Working Group are not playing "good guy" - "bad guy" games here. To charge us with that is to disrespect the tremendous effort we have put into bringing reams of information about what actually occurred in Hawaii to as many different segments of the library profession, including ALCTS leaders, as we could practically reach. Let's stop playing semantic games, please. We have work to do. Sincerely, Patricia Wallace Head Librarian, Mt. Auburn School, Dallas Public Schools Chair, Hawaii Working Group of the Alternatives in Print Task Force of the Social Responsibility Round Table of ALA ****** END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 7, No. 34 ****** END OF FILE ******