ACQNET v2n093 (October 1, 1992) URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/serials/stacks/acqnet/acq-v2n093 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 93, October 1, 1992 ======================================= (1) FROM: Christian Boissonnas SUBJECT: Who's new on ACQNET today (8 lines) (2) FROM: Keith Stetson SUBJECT: People's Republic of China vendors (10 lines) (3) FROM: Suzanne Freeman SUBJECT: Bidding (12 lines) (4) FROM: Steve Murden SUBJECT: Bidding (27 lines) (5) FROM: Carol Chamberlain SUBJECT: ALCTS reorganization (36 lines) (6) FROM: October Ivins SUBJECT: ALCTS reorganization (15 lines) (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: October 1, 1992 From: Christian Subject: Who's new on ACQNET today Linda Marie Golian Serials Librarian Florida Atlantic University Library E-mail: GOLIAN@FAUVAX.BITNET (2) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 08:29 EDT From: Keith Stetson (Fairfield University) Subject: People's Republic of China Materials The faculty member who is head of our Asian Studies Program, which has endow- ment income for purchasing, believes that English language Chinese monographs can be purchased at considerable savings from the official distributor, China International Book Trading, in Beijing. He is also interested in Tibetan materials in the original. Can anyone comment on the usual service measures regarding this vendor? (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 08:04 EDT From: Suzanne Freeman (Virginia Commonwealth Univ.) Subject: Bidding Christian, I agree with you and with my ex-colleague, Barbara Winters, whole- heartedly about the merits of the bidding process. Another benefit is the fact that it tends to keep our vendors on their toes, aware that their performance is monitored according to set standards to which they agreed. The one thing that bothered me most about the process is the fact that past performance is counted during the ranking of bidders. If one of the hopefuls has never dealt with your institution before, that company's slate is clean, which I fear must skew the ratings in some fashion. (4) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 09:56 EDT From: Steve Murden (Virginia Commonwealth Univ.) Subject: Bidding Christian refers to Barbara Winters as the Queen of Bidding. Since she fled the realm to rule in other domains and left me the heir-presumptive, I feel that I can comment on the bid situation. I agree that the initial process caused a great deal of angst in Virginia. And in some ways, the process under the contracts has accentuated that feeling. Now, instead of constantly worrying about whether or not we are getting the best possible deal for our money, we have a formal document that reinforces that worry. (That's mostly, but not completely, facetious.) The bid process really has forced us to look very closely at not only how we do things, but more importantly, how our contracted vendors do things. In the long term (and we have now been under this process for 4 years), I think that it has improved service to those libraries that negotiated good contracts. I believe that the original question that prompted this discussion was about annual bidding. That really is an excessive situation. Virginia allows us to construct contracts for 2 years, with three one-year renewable options. The RFP process _is_ very time-consuming, and having to do it annually strikes me as a very poor idea for any library. I also agree with Christian that the process may not be beneficial to smaller libraries. That was certainly the case in Virginia, when _all_ public institutions were doing theirs simulta- neously - the smaller colleges and community colleges were just not as impor- tant as the big universities to the competing vendors. The process of _re- sponding_ to the RFPS is, after all, an equally tedious and time-consuming process. (5) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:46 EST From: Carol Chamberlain (Pennsylvania State University) Subject: More on ALCTS As the elected chair of the ALCTS Acquisitions Section and as an ALCTS member who cares deeply about the future of my professional association, I am pleased to read the discussions about ALCTS and the reorganization proposal on ACQNET. While my role is to represent the section membership, not to push my own personal or professional agenda, I would like to make some comments that build on the previous discussion. A professional association must be organized in such a way as to meet the needs of the profession and its members. The Acquisitions Section, newly named by membership vote last year, evolved from the former Resources Section (along with the new Collection Management and Development Section) and is an organiza- tional model that reflects such a need. Our profession is evolving. Clearly a reorganization proposal which suggests abolishing sections should also offer a rationale based on the expressed needs of the membership. On behalf of the Acquisitions Section Executive Committee I made a motion to the ALCTS Board (at the ALA conference) to survey the ALCTS membership on such issues. At the center of the reorganization effort should be an assessment of the mission of ALCTS. The Organizational Structure Task Force has offered a new mission statement for ALCTS. I believe we could benefit from its perspective on this critical issue and I would like to see discussion of it on ACQNET. I hope a task force member would be willing to share the current and proposed statements with us. The Acquisitions Section Executive Committee, which consists of the elected officers and the elected members-at-large, would like to hear from more members. We are YOUR representatives to ALCTS and we need to hear from you. Please contact me directly if you do not wish to comment on ACQNET. We will be discussing your ideas and the ACQNET contributions about the reorganization proposal prior to our ALA Midwinter meetings. (6) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 14:13:42 CDT From: October Ivins (Louisiana State University Subject: ALCTS Reorganization Task Force Meeting Beth Shapiro, who chairs the ALCTS Organizational Structure Task Force, informed me that the Task Force retreat to discuss the responses they have received is this weekend, October 3-4. So-- if some of you are like me and need a deadline to help you negotiate multiple priorities, this seems like a great opportunity. _AN2_ suggested that comments be sent to any Task Force member; I didn't save the complete list but can offer these three: Beth Shapiro, Rice University: shapiro@ricevm1.rice.edu William Gosling, University of Michigan: william.gosling@um.cc.umich.edu Mark Roosa, University of Delaware: mark.roosa@mvs.edel.edu ******* END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 93 ****** END OF FILE *******