ACQNET v3n079 (October 3, 1993) URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/serials/stacks/acqnet/acqnet-v3n079 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 3, No. 79, October 3 1993 ======================================= (1) FROM: Christian Boissonnas SUBJECT: The ALCTS Bylaws vote (120 lines) (2) FROM: Ann Ford SUBJECT: Russian approval vendors (24 lines) (3) FROM: James Baldwin SUBJECT: Collection development, Edwin Mellen Press (16 lines) (1)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Christian Boissonnas (Cornell Univ.) Subject: ALCTS Bylaws vote Date: October 3, 1993 [Before you read this you should know that I am Vice Chair/Chair Elect of the ALCTS Acquisitions Section, one of the sections that will be eliminated by a "yes" vote on the proposed ALCTS bylaws. -- C.] "... there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fears of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favour; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it." Machiavelli, _The Prince_, (New York: Modern Library, 1950), p. 21. It is too bad that more of us are not choosing to participate in the ALCTS Bylaws debate. This tells us something about ourselves, something which I fear is not good. Either we are so turned off by our major professional organization that we want nothing to do with it or, notwithstanding our protestations to the contrary, we are as socially and politically uninvolved as mainstream America. In either case it is too bad. Being able to associate with colleagues and give direction to our profession, and therefore to our lives, is important. Presumably these have been reasons to have ALCTS in the first place. But our professional world is changing and ALCTS must change with it, even if it doesn't have to mirror it exactly. If it doesn't change it will surely die. Assuming that the first choice above (that we are turned off) is true, one could make a persuasive argument that ALCTS, so far, has not evolved enough to remain relevant in our changing world. That's why the ALCTS leadership has been at work so hard in the past two years, to produce the proposal now before us. There is much to like about this proposal. It addresses the right problems: ALCTS is multi-layered, very rigid, things take too long to get accomplished, the membership is removed from the leadership, and the current structure has got to be impossible for the staff. I will not repeat the arguments advanced by others, both pro and con, on whether the proposed bylaws solve these problems. I will briefly bring up some points about three issues, points that should have been discussed but which either were not or were skirted around. The issues are loss of identity, membership empowerment, and the process of change. Eliminating the sections, opponents say, will result in a loss of community or identity for the members. I believe we could do with less community and a different identity. The sections, and their committees and discussion groups which focus on increasingly small areas of librarianship, pigeon- hole us in a way that is inconsistent with the concept of the librarian as a professional. I want to be known as the best librarian I can be, not the best foreign documents and CD-ROM acquisitions librarian I can be. My areas of interest, as an information professional, transcend section boundaries. ALCTS, as it now stands, forces me to specialize at a time when I need to expand my horizons. I am perpetually having to choose between equally legitimate programs, meetings, and discussions. I would like to work toward a structure which recognizes the interdisciplinary nature of my involvement in librarianship, and supports me by making it easier for me to work with people who are not like me, who do other things. If doing away with the sections can be a first step toward that goal, and it can only be a first step, then I am for it. Empowerment is the second issue that I want to address. Empowerment, Arnold Hirshon says, "occurs when individuals or groups have opportunity and authority to take action." (_ALCTS Newsletter_ 4:6/7, 1993, p. 68.) It means that individuals at or near the base of the organization can make important decisions or spend money. I do not see clearly how the new structure would accomplish this since the important decisions (what groups get formed, what they do, and what money they spend) are all subject to approval by the Board of Directors. In theory the elimination of middle management levels forces the leadership either to expand or to distribute decision-making authority, i.e. power, (that's what empowerment really is) but this is not theory; this is politics. In the history of man we can probably count very quickly the instances when a ruling class has willingly, without pressure, surrendered power to those it rules. Assuming that this were one of those rare instances, it might in fact be a mistake. The degree to which most of us are uninvolved suggests, not only that we are not ready to act responsibly with that power, but also that we ought to thank our leadership for managing things for us. This cry for empowerment is not coming from the membership, but from the leadership partly in response to the overwhelming indifference of the membership. That is the opposite of what should happen. Let us now turn to the process of change. People are naturally hesitant to change and they do not always trust the people who propose change. Even when the process is open--that is, when the need for change is recognized and agreed-upon changes are implemented openly-- people resist it. While it is true that we have had ample opportunities to express ourselves about these proposals, we haven't had enough time to really digest them. The original Organizational Structure Task Force recommendations were roundly criticized, so much in fact that the more important ones were scrapped and replaced by the current ones. What we have to vote on now has received nowhere near the public scrutiny given to the previous recommendations and is a product of the ALCTS leadership, not the ALCTS membership. The contrast between the deliberate approach of the past two years and the frantic flip flops of the past six months couldn't be more obvious and inevitably raise the following question: What's the rush? The fact that it can be raised at all leads to one of two conclusions: Either the leadership doesn't know what it's doing but wants to be seen as having completed something, or a railroading is in progress. Neither has to be true. But in politics, and this very much is politics, the mere suggestion that a leadership tries to speed the natural rhythm of an organization to get change decided fast must be viewed suspiciously. In this instance it would have been natural to let the proposals advanced this summer mature throughout the fall, be discussed and further refined at the next midwinter meeting, to be voted upon in late winter or early spring. The fact is that there is no compelling reason to finish this now except to cut the debate and make a decision. Given my uncertainty about whether the decision is good or bad I must vote no. I prefer to stick with the current structure which I know, rather than buy into the promise of a future that I cannot understand, especially since there is no compelling urgency for doing otherwise. (2)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Ann Ford (University of Iowa) Subject: Russian approval vendor Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 17:50:42 -0400 At the University of Iowa Libraries we recently started an approval plan for Russian titles and it seems to be working very well. The Russian Press Service Inc. (1805 Crain St, Evanston IL 60202, ph 708-491-9851, fax 708-491-1440) is run by Kristine and John Bushnell and supplies titles published in Russia. The Bushnells maintain an office in Moscow and hope to open a Kiev office soon. We have ordered from their lists for about two years; they cover many publishers and subjects and offer titles from many publishers; they do RAN (formerly Akad.Nauk.SSSR) very well & Soc Sci Inst. They accept firm orders but they prefer to set up approval plans since the supply of books is limited and with approval plans their agents know how many copies to purchase on the spot. Their prices are good (average ca. $12./book) and we set up our plan for about $1000 per month and subject areas. We've received quite a few books; we're very pleased though it's only been a couple of months. It's much less frustrating than our previous efforts to identify/order/acquire Russian titles, and the Bushnells are easy to work with. (3)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: James A. Baldwin (IUPUI University) Subject: Collection development, Edwin Mellen Press Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 10:50:13 -0400 Acquisitions librarians might be interested in the following recently published article: Warren St.John, "Vanity's Fare," _Lingua Franca: The Review of Academic Life_. Vol. 3, no. 6 (Sept-Oct 1993), pp. 1, 22-25, 62. The author describes, not unsympathetically, the difficulties libraries face in deciding what to add to their collections. He focuses on the academic quality of books issued by the Edwin Mellen Press (Lewiston, N.Y.). The article makes for very interesting reading, and might help acquisitions librarians explain what we do and why we do what we do to our library and faculty colleagues. It also has some good background material about the Mellen operation. ****** END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 3, No. 79 ****** END OF FILE ******