Home2000 Midwinter Meeting CCS Executive Committee Minutes
ALCTS CCS Executive Committee
Midwinter Meeting 2000
San Antonio, Texas
January 14-January 18, 2000
I. First Session 1/14/00 6:00-8:00 PM
Attendance
Jay Lambrecht, Chair
Paul J. Weiss, Past Chair
Bill Garrison, Vice-Chair/Chair Elect
Sherry Kelley, Member-at-Large
Mary Dabney Wilson, Member-at-Large
Carol Hixson, Member-at-Large
Adam Schiff, Member-at-Large
Michael Kaplan
Absent
Tim Carstens, Secretary
[NOTE: minutes of meeting recorded by Carstens from a tape recording]
Guests
Jane Gilchrist, Chair, Cataloging of Children's Materials Committee
Kit Herlihy, Chair, CETRC
Lori Robare, Chair, SAC
Hideyuki Morimoto, Chair, Committee on Cataloging, Asian and African Materials
Ruth Bogan, Chair SAC TF on LC Subject Heading Revisions Relating to Poor Peoples Policy
D. Whitney Coe
Barbara Rapport
1.1 Approval of minutes
There was one editorial change to the minutes. July 29 on page 12 should be June 29th. The minutes were approved with that correction.
1.2 2000 programs, preconferences and institutes
1.2.1 CC:AAM
Hideyuki Morimoto reported that he knew that CCS had suggested a title change but that he had not received the suggestion and so he was using the title that had originally been suggested. The title remains, "The Year of the Dragon, a Mandate to Change: Challenges of the Pinyin Conversion in the Online Environment." The date will be Sunday, July 9, 2000, from 9:30 am to 12:30 pm. Five speakers have been recruited. Philip Melzer from the Library of Congress will give a presentation entitled, "Status Report on the Pinyin Conversion Project from the Library of Congress." Peter Chou from the University of Pittsburgh, who is also on the Council of East Asian Libraries Pinyin Task Force, will give a presentation entitled, "Pinyin Conversion and its Impact on East Asian Collections." Carol Hixson from the University of Oregon has not yet given the title of her presentation. Graham Patton, from OCLC, will give a presentation entitled, "OCLC and the Pinyin Conversion Effort." Karen Smith Yoshimura will give a report on pinyin conversion at RLG. She has not yet given her presentation a title. The first three speakers will get 13 minutes each. The representative from the two bibliographic utilities will each get 15 minutes. There will be ample time for discussion. The program is cosponsored by the Asian, African and Middle Eastern section of ACRL.
Paul Weiss said that the committee should be sure to market to more than just the East Asian community. Morimoto noted that the primary target audience for the program was generalists rather than East Asia specialists and that this was included in the description of the program. He said that CC:AAM would try to market to this group. It was also suggested that the Public Library Association Cataloging Needs of Public Libraries Committee be notified of the program.
1.2.2 CCCM
Jane Gilchrist reported that their program, "How Children Search, How Savvy Librarians Respond" had been approved for a Sunday afternoon slot, which was the slot that the committee had really wanted. Virginia Walter, an Associate Professor at UCLA and President Elect of the Association for Library Services to Children will be the lead speaker. She will speak on the research that she has done on how children search. The Editor to the Readers Guide to Periodical Literature will speak on the tools currently available to help subject searching. A third speaker that had been lined up to speak on designing an OPAC and preparing vendor profiles has had to withdraw. Sharon Zuiderveld from Bound to Stay Bound Books has been approached to replace this speaker. Gail Junion-Metz, a columnist for School Library Journal, will talk about how children search and use the INTERNET and what librarians need to know about this. One or two people are coming from CARL to talk about Kids Catalog. They are Sharon Morris and Michelle Gerks. There is a blurb on the ALA homepage.
Paul Weiss mentioned that ASL has just published "Cataloging Nonbook Materials with AACR2 and MARC: a Guide for the School Media Specialist." CCS was never consulted. It is possible this could overlap with the "Cataloging Correctly for Kids" publication. He suggested that Jay Lambrecht should write ASL a letter reminding them that any cataloging activity should come through CCS. CCS should have known about it. Weiss said that it was his understanding that "type of library" divisions were supposed to defer to "activity" divisions concerning "activity" subjects.
1.3 Committee on Education, Training, and Recruitment for Cataloging
Kit Herlihy reported that CETRC is ready to move forward with the mentoring program proposal. At their Saturday meeting CETRC plans to work on any revisions suggested by the CCS Executive Committee and to discuss how to assess their pilot project. They would like to start a pilot project very quickly since they feel that they have momentum. Paul Weiss suggested that the letters would have to be approved by the ALCTS Board since they would be on ALCTS stationary. The liaisons will probably be committee members, but they have not yet been identified because the committee was waiting for approval to move ahead. The CCS Executive Committee asked if the mentor/mentees needed to be in close physical proximity. Herlihy replied that CETRC thought that might be too stiff a requirement but that they did hope that they could physically meet. If not, e-mail and phone contact would have to do. They could also meet at a state conference. The list of mentors is old and people's situations may have changed. CETRC is still looking for people. Herlihy was asked what the scope of the assessment would be. Herlihy said that the liaisons would not be able to report enough about how well the program had gone. The committee needs to hear directly from both the mentor and the mentees. She said that a discussion of some theories of assessment was on their Saturday agenda. She said that they wanted to use the pilot project to either formalize what they were doing or to shift and add to it. Paul Weiss suggested that the letters would have to be approved by the ALCTS Board since they would be on ALCTS stationary.
1.4 SAC
1.4.1 Task Force on LC Subject Headings Related to the Poor Peoples Policy
ALCTS Board will review the document on Saturday and the Council as soon as possible after this. (The CCS Executive Committee had already approved the document by e-mail.) Paul Weiss commended the subcommittee for its good work and noted that, whatever ALA Council does with it, it is something that the Library of Congress should be able to use. Others on the CCS Executive Committee agreed.
Most likely, Ross Atkinson (the ALCTS Councilor) will present the motion to Council, and then questions may be referred to a "technical expert." Weiss suggested that someone from the subcommittee should be at the meeting when Council discusses it. Various strategies for handling possible questions that might come up in Council were discussed.
It was pointed out that there are many subject headings that do not get into the catalog and that we all need to do a better job of establishing them regardless of their subject. It was also noted that because so much material just goes through the regular LC cataloging fast production workflow, many items do not really undergo subject analysis by the libraries that acquire them.
1.5 CC:AAM
Hideyuki Morimoto reported that CC:DA referred the issue of nonroman access points to CC:AAM for further study. Last year CC:AAM established a subcommittee to study the situation. The subcommittee made a report at the summer meeting in New Orleans (1999). The proposal was tabled at that meeting. The reasons were that because of technology advancements, we do not have to be concerned with the inclusion of nonroman characters in the headings themselves. Instead, users can have access with nonroman characters through cross-references. It was thought that the timing for the proposal was not good. However, the issue is still being worked on. The subcommittee chair will present an interim report at the midwinter meeting, the CC:AAM members will react to it, and the report will be finalized and submitted to CC:DA.
Three draft romanization tables were submitted to the CCS Chair by CC:AAM. They were for Mongolian, Oirat, and Manchu. The Mongolian was a revision. These drafts were published in CSB 83. The Oirat and Manchu tables (as they appeared in CSB 83) will appear in the LC/ALA romanization tables the next time they are published. The latest version of the Mongolian table did not get into CSB 83. A cleaner copy of the latest version will be published in the Cataloging Service Bulletin as a draft.
1.6 Vote confirmations
The e-mail vote regarding the report of the SAC Task Force on LC Subject Heading Revisions Relating to the Poor Peoples Policy was confirmed. The vote in favor of accepting the report was unanimous.
The CCS Executive Committee formally accepted the reports of the CC:AAM subcommittee on the Mongolian, Oirat and Manchu romanization tables and the report on Dewey 540 Chemistry.
Executive session:
ALCTS representatives to IFLA Committees and IFLA funding were discussed. Appointments for 2001 were discussed.
II. Second Session 1/16/00 12:00-1:30 PM
Attendance
Jay Lambrecht, Chair
Paul J. Weiss, Past Chair
Bill Garrison, Vice-Chair/Chair Elect Tim Carstens, Secretary
Sherry Kelley, Member-at-Large
Mary Dabney Wilson, Member-at-Large
Carol Hixson, Member-at-Large
Adam Schiff, Member-at-Large
Absent
Michael Kaplan
Guests Bernie Karon, ALCTS Budget & Finance
Carlen Ruschoff, ALCTS President-Elect
Brian Schottlaender, ALA/ALCTS Rep. to the JSC
Dale Swensen, ALCTS Newsletter Editor
Lori Robare, SAC Chair
2.1 ALA/ALCTS Representative to the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR2 report
Brian Schottlaender reported the JSC had received all of the reports that they had requested and that this had created a large amount of work for that body. To deal with this, they agreed that they would meet twice in the next year instead of just once. They will meet in San Diego in March and in London in September.
In regard to these reports, the Seriality report was reviewed and largely endorsed. Jean Hirons is preparing specific rule revision proposals for JSC review. There is some question about whether or not the constituent bodies will have a chance to review the revisions before they are considered by the JSC. Assuming the regular procedure of constituent review is followed, the revisions will be presented to the JSC in March. JSC will then distribute them to the constituent bodies for review and CC:DA would review them at their July meeting. JSC plans to vote on the recommendations at their September meeting. The CCS Executive Committee strongly advised Schottlaender that the constituent bodies should have a chance to review the proposed revisions.
The 024 Report was also received and recommendations 1 and 3 were endorsed by JSC. Recommendation 2 is being circulated for additional comment (including from CC:DA) before JSC action is taken. Recommendation 2 is related to multiple versions (or format variations). The JSC wanted to give the constituent bodies time to consider whether, of all of recommendations that have been put forward in regard to multiple versions, that this is the best one. Both the Seriality Report and the 024 report recommended that an Appendix be added to AACR2 which would define changes to bibliographic records that are minor and which do not require the creation of a new record and changes that are major which do. JSC is asking CC:DA to draft such an Appendix.
Except for recommendation 1, the Delsey Report was largely unattended to by JSC. Recommendation 1 requested that AACR2 be recast in ISBD area of description form. At the request of JSC, Bruce Johnson has created a “proof-of-concept” electronic prototype of AACR2 so arranged. JSC will discuss this in depth in March. It seems clear that recasting the rules in ISBD order is not as easy as just reorganizing the rules.
The 1999 rule revision packet of AACR2 has been endorsed by JSC. It is still not certain how it will be released by ALA Publications. It will probably be distributed on the Web. The question of whether CCS Executive Committee should do anything "proactively" about the distribution came up. Brian Schottlaender suggested that any action by CCS would probably not be politically expedient at this time.
The initial articles Appendix that Glen Patton drafted and which then went through a series of reviews by the JSC has finally been approved. Glen Patton and probably Bob Ewald at the Library of Congress are going to polish that document off and it will be passed on to ALA Editions, again as a new Appendix to the Code.
There were a number of proposals put forward by the British Library having to do with British terms of address, almost all of which have been taken back for further work. The first 4 of the 6 proposals have been taken back. It was clear that they had not realized the implications or the magnitude of what they were proposing.
The (ER) harmonization report was reviewed in considerable detail. The JSC decided to stop distinguishing between the two spellings of the word disk (disc) and begin using only the spelling "disk." The other thing that the JSC decided was to begin using specific descriptive terms to describe an item (like CDR) instead of using those terms as parenthetical qualifiers. Other than that, the JSC pretty much approved what CC:DA had recommended with one or two minor modifications. The JSC still feels strongly that the glossary of AACR2 should be confined to nongeneral use terms. Some of the proposed glossary definitions in the (ER) report and the Seriality report were not approved by the JSC for this reason.
There are a couple of proposals that the JSC has been considering for some time that had resulted from the PCC's review of LC rule interpretations. It had been proposed that a number of LC rule interpretations be moved into the rule revisions. The Library of Congress has finally withdrawn those proposals because agreement could not be reached within the JSC. The understanding was that LC was to do more work on it but they declined to so. They were tired of continuing requests for justification from the other constituent bodies.
2.2 ALCTS Newsletter discussion
Dale Swensen noted that brief instructions on how to submit articles to the Newsletter and deadlines for submission can be pulled up by clicking on the masthead. He also said that he welcomed any submissions or questions sent via e-mail. He also noted that his term as ALCTS editor was almost over and that the applicants for the position were now being considered. He will continue as editor until the Annual Conference in Chicago.
Swensen also noted that feedback about the new electronic form of the newsletter had tapered off. A lot of the input was positive. There were also some negative reactions. These came not from people who not have access to the web but from people who felt more comfortable with the paper format. Some suggestions for improvement were implemented.
2.3 Chair Report
2.3.1 ALCTS Board of Directors
Jay Lambrecht reported that Piercy Award criteria were discussed at the Board meeting. The Board voted to approve the addition of the statement that "eligibility for the award is not limited by country, citizenship, or membership in a specific organization" of the recipient. The vote was 6 to 4 in favor of the amendment. However, people had strong opinions about the amendment with some asserting that the sentence saying that the recipient should show "continuing leadership" meant that they had to be a member of ALCTS.
A discussion paper on ALCTS continuing education initiatives was presented at the ALCTS Board meeting. There was considerable discussion on about doing regional institutes that are shorter, more frequent, with a predictable schedule, and, perhaps, with honorarium for the instructors. Various models that might be used were discussed.
People are not clear about what continuing education is for the division. Are we trying to develop programs like the Institute for Acquisition that can be continually redone or are we trying to give "one shot deals" throughout a region. Are the current hot topics that we would like to pursue over the period of a year? For example, the PPC is constantly looking at ways to upgrade skills and to offer NACO training. Is that something that ALCTS should be co-sponsoring?
It was noted that the CCS Executive Committee came up with a list of possible topics several meetings ago.
The consensus at the Board meeting was that both short hot-topic programs and longer full blown, multi-topic institutes should be pursued. ALA Headquarters was concerned that there were people could not afford multi-day programs. On the other hand, they also were concerned that short hot-topic programs did not make money.
The 2001 skeleton schedules have been issued. Although there was much opposition to tracks, a form of tracks will still be part of the program. Tracks will be determined by the content of programs that have been planned; programs will not be determined by the content of the tracks. Room assignments and scheduling will be determined by the tracks. Each track will have a time for the exhibits. We will no longer be allowed to request a time slot for a program and programs may run through Tuesday afternoon. There will not be tracks for business meetings, but they may still try to cluster the business meetings of each section or roundtable in nearby hotels. Theoretically, midwinter will not be affected at all. A conference committee will plan each conference.
Divisions will appoint members to this committee.
2.3.2 SAC TF on LC Subject Heading Revision Relating to the Poor Peoples Policy
The ALCTS Board considered the SAC report. Unfortunately, due to a mix-up in the ALCTS office, they did not get to see a print copy of the report until after the meeting had begun. They were able to see it posted on the web. The ALCTS Board was very positively impressed with the report. Sheila Inter composed a resolution praising the task force for its work. The report was 48 pages long. It wasn't clear whether or not the whole report should be presented to the Council. In the end it was decided to present the entire document to Council on the theory that the length of the report would show that the Task Force had taken its charge seriously. The report will be discussed in Council on Tuesday morning. A resolution to approve the report and pass it on to the Library of Congress will be presented to Council.
2.4 Other business
Bill Garrison reported on the CC:DA preconference on metadata report. He reported that the preconference schedule was very full with very little "slippage" time. This was considered to be a potential problem. The preconference planning committee is hoping to use timekeepers to keep the speakers on schedule. They have sponsorship from OCLC for coffee breaks. All of the speakers have already been lined up.
Lori Robare expressed a concern that not much related to subject analysis was included in the preconference. This was not a problem except that the Subject Analysis Committee had agreed to co-sponsor the pre-conference. This will be discussed at the next SAC meeting.
The CCS Executive Committee agreed to communicate these concerns about the inclusion of subject analysis in the preconference to Mary Larsgaard on Tuesday. Co-sponsorship can still be withdrawn up until March 1st.
III. Third Session 1/16/00 12:00-1:30 PM
Attendance
Jay Lambrecht, Chair
Paul J. Weiss, Past Chair
Bill Garrison, Vice-Chair/Chair Elect
Tim Carstens, Secretary
Sherry Kelley, Member-at-Large
Mary Dabney Wilson, Member-at-Large
Carol Hixson, Member-at-Large
Adam Schiff, Member-at-Large
Michael Kaplan, Member-at-Large
Karen Muller, ex-officio, Executive Director ALCTS
Guests
Bernie Karon, ALCTS Budget & Finance
Lori Robare, SAC Chair
Tony Olson, CCS Representative, Publications Committee
Mary Larsgaard, CC:DA Preconference Task Force
Daniel Kinney, Chair, CC:DA, ALCTS Program Committee
Gregory New
John Attig
3.1 Chair report
The ALCTS Board of Directors approved a contribution of $5,000 from ALCTS to the "Continuing Education 2005 a Proposal." This is to create an ALA fund to support the development of continuing education web delivery software that all ALA Divisions could benefit from.
3.2 Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access
Dan Kinney reported that CC:DA has received a letter from the JSC commending the committee for its work in preparation for the meeting in Brisbane in October and thanking the committee for handling some of the more thorny issues in AACR.
The Committee heard the usual reports from LC, JSC, and MARBI. During the JSC report CC:DA supported a number of LC responses to proposals from the Canadian Committee on Cataloging. CC:DA and LC disagreed with CCC proposal to require the addition of the larger place of publication under 1.4C3. CC:DA also agreed with a LC decision to defer a glossary definition for main entry until the JSC completes its work on the recommendations in the Delsey report. A CCC recommendation to add the phrase, "including that of a conference entered subordinately" in 24.7B1 was supported. CC:DA also responded to JSC's response to the report of the CC:DA Task Force on Harmonization of ISBD (ER). These will be sent back to JSC. Two new task forces were formed. One was a task force to draft an appendix to AACR2 on major and minor changes to records. The other new task force will review ISBD (M). A number of proposals for rule revisions and proposals for new rules dealing with cartographic materials were also acted on by CC:DA. These proposals had originated from MAGERT.
Don Chatham discussed the publication of the amendments and the publication process for the concise AACR with CC:DA. The plan is to distribute the amendments over the web in pdf format at no charge. Libraries may also request an on-demand print copy for $15.00. The Library of Congress is prepared to distribute the Cataloger's Desktop revisions as soon as the web/print version is made available.
3.3 ALCTS Program Committee
Dan Kinney reported that the Program Committee was still considering ways to work with the sections to generate more programs. The only section that has a formal mechanism is PARS. They have a programming committee. CCS and PARS are the ALCTS sections that produce the most programs. It is not certain that formal program committees are the best way to produce more programming. CCS and PARS both have one preconference and two programs. There are two programs from the Acquisitions Section and one program from the Collection Management and Development Section. The rest of the programs are from divisional level committees. The preconferences are the CCS metadata preconference and a PARS preconference entitled "Saving a Century, Preserving the Golden Age of Publishing 1830 -1900." The Research and Statistics Committee is presenting a preconference on "Systematic Study." It will be about how to take a work problem and develop it into a research project. 3.4 Preconference on Metadata for Web Resources Task Force
Mary Larsgaard reported that the preconference would take place before the Chicago Conference. The speakers have been selected since early fall. The task force met on Friday afternoon and had two major points of discussion. One was the publication of the papers that come out of the preconference. Since the topic of metadata "ages" extremely quickly, the task force hopes to publish the papers as soon as possible. They would like to have it out by the end of summer, though fall is probably more realistic. The editor of the papers is Wayne Jones; he is a CC:DA member and a member of the task force. The papers are to be published as part of the ALCTS Papers series. Deadlines for the publication process are rapidly approaching and a list of the deadlines has been sent to each of the faculty members.
The other point of discussion was finding vendor support for the food events. OCLC will sponsor the coffees. They are trying to get sponsorship for both lunches. (Lunch for both days is $13,000. For one day it is $6,500.) They are also trying to get sponsorship for a cash bar reception on Thursday evening. A continental breakfast will be part of the registration fee. Karen Muller estimates that there will be approximately 200 to 275 attendees. The preconference is expected to cost $235.00. A number of people expressed the wish that the preconference NOT be held in McCormick Place. That wish will be transmitted to the appropriate person on the ALA staff.
A question came up about the reason for breaking the preconference into smaller groups on the second afternoon even though all of the groups will hear the same thing. The reason for this is to allow for more small group interaction. Another question concerned the number of presentations in the preconference and whether or not things would stay on schedule. The preconference task force hopes to avoid these problems by imposing time limits on the presenters and by having timekeepers who will enforce those limits. Presenters will also be reminded that they can take as much time as they want-- but only in their published papers. Their actual presentations will have to adhere to the time limits. A third question was whether or not subject analysis was a topic that would be covered in any of the preconference presentations. Larsgaard responded that she didn't see how that topic could be avoided in a number of the presentations that have been planned; but nothing specifically on subject analysis has been planned. It was suggested that Larsgaard should ask the presenters to be sure that subject analysis did get covered in their presentations.
There was a brief discussion of whether or not the conference papers could be published on the web. They could probably not be made available for free since this would cut into ALA profits. ALA has been contemplating publication on the web but is apparently not ready for this quite yet.
3.5 Subject Analysis
Lori Robare reported that the Council had received copies of the SAC TF on LC Subject Heading Revision Relating to the Poor Peoples Policy report. They were expected to consider it at the Tuesday meeting that was schedule for the same time as the CCS Executive Committee meeting. Ross Atkinson prepared a resolution calling for the Council to accept and endorse the report and transmit it to the Library of Congress. [Council passed the resolution without amendment. A motion to delay approval of the report until the Chicago meeting was voted down. Yeahhh! ]
Lori Robare said that if the report were submitted to the Library of Congress she expected that they would receive a response. She didn't know if they would choose to act on the report. If LC did not choose to act of the recommendations they could also be addressed through the SACO process.
Robare reported that SAC had recommended that the CCS Executive Committee review and approve the report of the SAC Subcommittee on Metadata and Subject Analysis. This is not a final report, but an initial report on subject data in the metadata record. CCS Executive Committee was also asked to review and accept the report of the SAC Subcommittee on Form Subdivision Implementation. The SAC Subcommittee to review DDC 540 Chemistry was dismissed with thanks.
A forum was held on the draft of the report of the SAC Subcommittee on Metadata and Subject Analysis (it was labeled draft since it had not gone through all channels yet). About 80 people attended this forum which featured the rationale and the recommendations in the report, as well as a description of subject access in the CORC project and of FAST which is experimental implementation of some of the recommendations in the report. SAC might have a potential role in helping to define the Dublin Core type element. A forum will be held in Chicago to discuss the findings of SAC Subcommittee on Metadata and Classification (which has already been dismissed). A program is also being planned for ALA Annual 2001, probably on analyzing subject access in various metadata schemes.
At the SAC meeting, Mary C. Larsgaard presented the final report of the SAC Form Headings/Subdivision Implementation, which included a recommendation that SAC continue to monitor developments as a committee of the whole. SAC approved the report and dismissed the committee with thanks.
Gregory Wool reported that about 40 people attended the discussion forum held by the SAC Subcommittee to promote Subject Relationships/Reference Structures on the topic of subject referencing in online databases. Several topics are under consideration for another forum at Annual 2000. The Subcommittee plans to draft a letter to the Library of Congress expressing concern about the loss of the thesaural view of LCSH with the implementation of the Library of Congress's new ILS and to present that letter to SAC at Annual 2000.
At the SAC meeting, Ruth Bogan summarized the work of the SAC Task Force on LC Subject Heading Revisions Relating to the Poor Peoples Policy. The Task Force was not dismissed pending receipt and discussion of the report by the ALA Council. If all goes well in the Council discussion, they will probably by be dismissed by e-mail.
At the SAC meeting, Tony Olson reported that the manuscript of the revised Guidelines on Subject Access to Individual Works of Fiction is at ALA Editions and that there is interest in creating a machine-readable file of authority records for the headings in the publication. He relayed questions from ALA about creation, maintenance and distribution of the records in the file. ALA Editions is especially concerned about how the existence of file will affect the print version of the publication. After much discussion, SAC voted to appoint a subcommittee to investigate these issues. The subcommittee is also supposed to determine, in an informal way, if there is a real demand for such a file. The charge of the subcommittee will be discussed and approved on the SAC list and subcommittee members appointed before Annual 2000.
3.6 Publication Committee
Tony Olson reported that the publication coming out of the 1998 preconference, "What in the World, Cataloging on an International Scale" will not be published by ALA Editions. Karen Muller is going to see if she can get it published, either by the Division or by an outside publisher. It was suggested that the conference papers should be posted on the web if no other publication option turns out to be economically viable for ALCTS. It was also suggested that Jay Lambrecht should be sure to ask about the status of the publication in public forums such as the ALCTS Board Meeting.
As noted in the SAC report, the Guidelines on Subject Access to Individual Works of Fiction is at ALA Editions. Olson did not know when that publication might come out of ALA Editions.
Olson reported that the ALCTS Publication Committee approved the final draft of the Publication Committee Operating Guidelines but that he didn't know how it had been received by the ALCTS Executive Committee. Lambrecht reported that the Executive Committee had a discussion on whether or not reports of ALCTS sponsored meetings, programs and discussions (particularly discussion group presentations) had to go through the publication approval process. The following sentence was the subject of the Committees discussion: "Publications resulting from reports of, or presentations made to discussion groups are exempt from this policy since discussion groups do not conduct program meetings." It had been suggested that this sentence be dropped, instead, the sentence was rewritten to read, "Publications resulting from reports on ALCTS sponsored meetings, programs and discussion groups are exempt from this policy." The rewritten sentence is an attempt to maintain the right of reportage (used in the journalistic sense). It is also an attempt to officially codify the answer to a question that has repeatedly come up. Many members of the CCS Executive Committee believed that both the earlier and the later version of the sentence should be considered valid. In other words, not only should "reports" of ALA programs and discussion groups be valid, but also that presenters should have a right to publish their presentations in article form without ALA approval. It was agreed that the language was still confusing and that Jay Lambrecht should ask for clarification. It was also noted that the publication policy was not perfect but that it was better than what was before and therefore should be accepted with the idea that further changes could be made later.
Another document, "Guidelines for the Placement of Informal Publications on the ALCTS Web site" is still in draft. Lambrecht read a few lines from the draft that might be relevant to the discussion: "Presentations are defined as the text given by a speaker at a program or meeting sponsored by an ALCTS unit. The oral text may be accompanied by audio-visual displays. Presentations are considered the property of the individual speaker and not of the organization at which the presentation is given nor of the organization that employs the speaker unless he or she is speaking as an official representative of that organization." Lambrecht pointed out that the questions under discussion would be raised again.
Olson reported that the Concise AACR2 was reviewed by the JSC and that Brian Schottlaender was satisfied with the results. In the future, this publication will come under the aegis of JSC.
3.7 LRTS Editorial Board
Lambrecht reported that the Board was looking for a new editor. They are also considering changing their size, changing their name, and changing their frequency.
3.8 Budget and Finance Committee
Bernie Karon reported that there was a possibility of a dues increase. A small task force has been appointed to look into the indicators.
Karon also reported that membership was down by one and a half percent. ALCTS has a large number of student members. It has the same percentage of life members as other divisions. It is has a lower percentage of continuing members. There is concern that ALCTS membership will decline when the older generation of catalogers retires. It was noted that over fifty percent of the Library Congress would be able to retire by 2002.
Karon reported that ALCTS should finish in the black this year. This is largely due to vacancies in the ALCTS staff. It is expected that the Division will be $22,000 in the red next year. He also reported that the honorarium for the Newsletter Editor will be raised from $1,800 to $2,000 and the honorarium of the ALCTS Editor will be raised from $4,000 to $5,000. The book review editor honorarium will be $500.
The Budget and Finance Committee continues to meet with the Planning Committee. It is now agreed that a strategic plan must be developed before a budget can be created. A strategic planning retreat will be held before the Annual Conference in Chicago. Section Chairs, Planning Committee members, members of the Board will be invited. Those who could not make it could send a proxy. It is expected that about 20 people will be able to come which would be workable for planning purposes.
3.9 Membership Committee
Bill Garrison noted that Bernie Karon had already reported most of what he knew about membership. The committee had not received membership statistics for a year. Right now the membership statistics that are being recorded are flawed because of problems with the computer program. Because of these problems, letters thanking members for joining or saying that ALCTS was sorry if they had left have not been sent out.
There was some discussion at the Membership Committee about what could be done for student and paraprofessional members. It was thought that some continuing education could be aimed at paraprofessionals. Some kind of special dues category would have to be set up for them because they are not likely not get funded to go to ALA conferences.
A membership booth will again be set up at the Annual Conference, hopefully, in front of the exhibit area. A targeted mailing is to ALA members who are not ALCTS members but who checked technical services or collection development as an area of interest on their membership forms. A letter will also be sent to library schools on ALCTS letterhead to encourage library school students to join. A letter will also be sent to vendors who offer technical services products asking that they become personal members. The membership committee has also asked committee chairs, discussion group chairs and program chairs to distribute membership brochures and to announce that their event was sponsored by ALCTS. In general the Chairs have done this. They are also trying to get it written into the instructions to Program Chairs. In informal liaison in both directions has been established with the New Members Round Table. Experienced member can sign up to mentor new members at the Annual Conference. This involves meeting them at the beginning of the conference and helping them decide where they need to go.
3.10 2001 programs, preconferences, and institutes
Bill Garrison reported that Carlen Ruschoff is interested in doing some continuing education programs at the conference for cataloging or authority work that would not require numerous faculty, might be revenue producing, and could be repeated. The CCS Executive Committee reacted positively to the idea of short sessions on basic cataloging topics. It was felt that there would a great market for this and that it would a great service to the profession.
Garrison also said that Lori Robare had let him know about the program that will be coming from SAC and that his preliminary read on that is that it will be pretty good. There may be another proposal on a metadata topic that would follow up on the preconference.
3.11 Unfinished Business
The CETRC documents have been reproduced for the ALCTS Board and will be put before them for approval, at which point, CETRC is prepared to issue them.
3.12 Executive Session
IFLA appointments were discussed.
Click here to go to the CCS Executive Committee
|
