Jimmie and All,

I agree with 1-4. I have already addressed Number 5 and 6 as problems for my
institution. Problems so bad that most of the catalogers don't propose
subjects at all so for Number 5: I think we need to establish what is
reasonable turn-around time for SACO. (I have had proposals go for as much as
a year and disappear with little or no feedback). I think the expected
turn-around should be posted with the proposal forms on the Website and as
responsbilities or backlogs change the turn-around should too.  I don't think
that No. 6... the full responsibility for good relationships relies with the
participating libraries.  Coop needs to take some responsibility too so I
think we should leave it out of membership  "responsibilities" ... it sounds
too much like we must "obey" and that is not how I see the PCC.

Mary Charles


>===== Original Message From Program for Cooperative Cataloging
<[log in to unmask]> =====
>Dear SACO Task Group,
>        I've been enoying your comments and I think we've been doing an
>excellent job of bringing out the various benefits associated with SACO.
>        The second part of this two-week topic is responsibilities of SACO.
>What are our duties as members of SACO and as contributors of headings? I
>can think of a few of these riight off, and I bet you know a few more and
>can help me to round out or better express some of these.
>        1. I feel in SACO we are responsible for identifying when a new
>heading is needed and submitting it. Realistically, we don't always have
>time to follow through on this, but I do think of it as a responsibility,
>and regret the times I don't submit the heading. I know there are others who
>probably need the same heading but who may not be in SACO.
>        2. We're responsible for understanding LCSH well enough to know how
>the new heading should be structured to be as consistent as possible with
>the decisions of CPSO and with other headings. Of course, this requires
>training as well as experience and diligent study and application.
>        3. We're responsible for researching the subject and finding
>sufficient documentation to justify the heading and properly relate it to
>other terms if relevant. It is also good to be objective and unattached
>about the choice of term. While I do my best to propose terms as I expect
>them to be approved, I am generally almost as happy if one of my proposed
>x-ref's is chosen as the term, as long as we get good access for the topic.
>
>        4. We're responsible for preparation and submission of the proposal
>according to the established form and procedures (careful paperwork).
>        5. We're responsible for recognizing that there will sometimes be
>delays in the handling of our proposals by coop staff due to other factors
>in their schedules or the need to consult other subject experts. Speed of
>subject approval has greatly improved with the use of the web form, etc.,
>but high expectations regarding turnaround time don't really help in
>achieving it.
>        6. We're responsible for trying to establish good working
>relationships with our coop liaisons. I was fortunate in that my predecesor
>had already established a good relationship with a member of the coop staff
>who was unfailingly helpful, encouraging and wonderful to work with. When we
>were shifted to other liaisons, they never quite lived up to his example,
>but were still quite helpful and satisfactory.
>        Do you agree? What else? Thanks,
>Jimmie