ACQNET v1n017 (January 30, 1991) URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/serials/stacks/acqnet/acq-v1n017 ACQNET, Vol 1, No. 17, January 30, 1991 ======================================= (1) FROM: Vicky Reich SUBJECT: Splitting acquisitions and collection development in ALCTS (16 lines) (2) FROM: Richard Jasper SUBJECT: Splitting acquisitions and collection development in ALCTS (66 lines) (3) FROM: Michael Gorman SUBJECT: Splitting acquisitions and collection development in ALCTS (17 lines) (1) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 20:27:05 PST From: "VICKY REICH" SUBJECT: Splitting acquisitions and collection development in ALCTS I am and have been a member of the Policy and Planning Committee, and was involved in the discussions of splitting CMDC from the rest of RS Section. I remember that CMDC was pushing hard for the split and that the size and number of activities of that group warranted serious consideration of that action. (This all happened right after the RASD discussion group for folks who did reference and collection development was established.) However, what the Policy and Planning Committee recommended is not what is now being put into place. We tried hard to not have overlap or duplication between RS, SS or CMDC. Indeed we recommended that RS and SS be merged. I admit that if I had the opportunity to vote on this organizational structure, I'd vote "no". I don't think there are good ways to split the functions of these groups. (2) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 1991 15:39 EST From: Richard Jasper Subject: Out on a limb I've tried to write this four of five times and been distracted each time, so I'll try to be succinct: I think a new Collection Management and Development Section is a good idea for ALCTS. And, yes, I hear all that "boo, hiss, wince, sigh, off with his head," you're thinking, Christian. [Boo, hiss, wince, sigh! :) C.] Elevating CMDC to section level status will, I suppose, cost some money and may result in more meetings for all of us to attend, but I think it may result in greater, not less, participation in CM&D discussions, AND I think it will provide the folks already thus involved more opportunity to discuss/act on a wider range of issues. I think it's pretty clear that CMDC's current structure pretty much limits active participation to folks who fall into the chief collection development officer and/or mainline bibliographer role. If there had been more opportuni- ties for active participation by a greater number of people, especially those in dual collection manager/something else roles, I don't think we would have seen the burgeoning, explosive growth of the RASD Collection Development & Evaluation Section. It also seems to me that in addition to limiting participation the current CMDC structure limits the variety and kinds of topics that can be addressed. The current "subcommittees ad infinitum" set up has definite limits and the idea of having subgroups of subcommittees working on major issues just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. As you will recall from out meetings in Chicago, PVLR (the Publisher/Vendor Library Relations Committee of ALCTS) has decided to use a task force approach to dealing actively with ideas like Fred Lynden's proposal for a publish- er/librarian internship program. [See ACQNET, Vol. 1, No. 18 -- Ed.] It's a way, of course, to extend the reach of the committee beyond its current membership. Making CMDC a section is the same thing. It's a ratcheting up that will allow for greater flexibility in addressing an ever widening array of issues. As for the question of duplication... You're right. It will be silly, if not downright stupid, to have an Acquisi- tions Committee in the new CM&D Section and/or a Collection Management Commit- tee in the Acquisitions Section ("ALMS" is the first acronym I've every met that I absolutely *don't* like--we're not beggars!). But I don't think that's the purpose of having two sections. The purpose of having two sections is to allow for a more in-depth look (i.e., by a committee) into specific acquisi- tions and/or collection management issues. It's splintering, yes. And it's splintering at a time when technology is allowing, in fact necessitating, some degree of reconvergence of acquisitions and collection management functions. As we all agree, acquisitions and collec- tion management are two sides of the same coin. But we're also growing up, in a lot of ways, and there are more and more issues that need to be addressed. The present structure DOES NOT facilitate the additional amount of discussion we need to address to more and more issues. The proposed structure has its drawbacks, but it will facilitate the needed additional discussion. Unless we want to disband CMDC altogether and hand it over to CODES?? I didn't think so. After all, another section membership has got to be cheaper than an extra divisional membership. Time to break out the brickbats? (3) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Gorman Subject: Two sections in ALCTS Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 8:31:11 PST I think splitting acquisitions and collection development as ALCTS has done (is proposing to do?) is a perfectly frightful idea on several counts. What librarianship needs is more coming together NOT more fragmentation. This is just the latest manifestation of the tendency toward exclusivist cliques that has bedevilled us for years. Specifically, there is the practical problem of demarcation between the two pursuits (which I believe to be, in fact, an indivisible range of activities). It is inevitable that the two groups will end up discussing the same or overlapping topics. Another bad thing about this artificial distinction is that it will reinforce the increasing "class" distinctions between collection development types and acquisitions types - a subject upon which I have strong views that I will refrain from rehearsing here. I believe Karen Muller is an ACQNET reader and may be able to take the concerns expressed in ACQNET communications back to the ALCTS Board. ***** END OF FILE ***** END OF FILE ***** END OF FILE ***** END OF FILE *****