Dear SACO Task Group,
It is now October, and our final report is due by the end of this
month. In the preliminary report we outlined the following basic
recommendations. I have inserted questions and comments after each point.
Summary of Preliminary Recommendations
Briefly, the group recommends the following basic changes.
a. That a utility-based submission and distribution option be
developed through both RLIN and OCLC in order to facilitate subject
proposals for LCSH. If in addition the currently used web-form could be
improved to allow for entering data, saving and later submission that would
also facilitate the process. It would be the role of the Coop Staff at LC to
negotiate the specifics of this option with the utilities..
Comments: This point seems to be well accepted except for Mary
Charles misgivings about speed. The part about negotiating the details may
need to be presented by the PCC Policy Committee rather than Coop Staff?
Does anyone think we should reconsider this recommendation at this point?
b. That a letter outlining the responsibilities for SACO
institutional membership be sent to both NACO and SACO participants and
request an official commitment from those who chose to be members in this
new context. These should include acceptance of LCSH policies as outlined in
the Subject Cataloging Manual, LCSH itself, and the SACO Contributors
Manual; contributing at least 5 subjects or changes to subjects each year;
and use of the utilities as a mechanism of contribution and distribution.
Other institutions would be able to continue contributing in the manner they
presently do using methods such as fax or the web form, but would be listed
as "SACO Contributors" rather than "SACO Members."
Comments: While most of us seem to be OK with this proposal, there
has been a concern voiced that some libraries would choose to drop their
SACO participation rather than commit themselves as members. Maybe we could
reconsider the part about sending the letter indiscriminately to all SACO
and NACO participants and instead send it upon request after making an
announcement of the new "SACO Member" option in which we would also make it
clear that the existing "SACO Participant" option would continue to be
available? That would sort of ease in the new option without forcing the
choice. How do you like this idea?
c. That the Coop agrees to participate in training of SACO
members and in expediting of the proposals as they perceive they can do so
most effectively. One promising avenue for enhancing SACO members' skills
would be to develop a web-based training program that could benefit all of
us, including those who may not attend the ALA conferences where training
programs are offered.
Comments: We need to leave this less specific about Coop
participating in the training, etc. Lori has offered some suggestions about
training that I will include in a separate message.
d. That the SACO discussion list be employed to a greater
extent than it has been for sharing and peer-consultation among SACO
members. It will be up to the SACO members to make this happen on an
everyday basis, as this capability already exists.
Comments: Thanks to those who have started making this happen.
Please keep it up.
e. That a provision be developed for the on-going update of the
SACO Participants' Manual. This should be referred to the Training
Comments: Cool that there is now a Spanish translation available!
In addition we need to supply more details than before on some of
these points, as well as make the point clearly that more specific support
is needed in order for SACO to perform in a more timely and efficient manner
and thus encourage participation. Suggestions are welcome for phrasing and
details to be incorporated in the draft I hope to provide early next week.
Thanks for all your help so far. Especially thanks to Mary Charles
for making things harder but hopefully better in the end :-) and to Hugh for
his many forthright comments.
Looking forward to hearing from each of you. Best regards,