A few follow-up comments to Jimmie's six points sent on March 24:

Regarding point 4 -- We're responsible for preparation and submission of the
proposal according to the established form and procedures (careful paperwork) :

We could amplify this to say that this includes thorough understanding and use
of the Subject Cataloging Manual, the SACO Participants' Manual and
relevant reference
sources.  We need to realize and let our staff and administrators know that
can be a time consuming task.  The time aspect should be covered in training
sessions as well.  I often see people deflated when I return something with
about further research that is needed or when we get a similar instruction
from LC.
Putting a bit more emphasis on this aspect of the work and the corresponding
benefit to other catalogers, public services, etc. would be helpful.

Related to this we might note that we are responsible for trying to do as many
SACO proposals as possible but realizing our own limitations, especially
for subject
or language expertise that might be needed in a proposal.

We are also responsible for realizing when a proposal or an update may
changes to other headings already in the file and making proposals for
these updates
as well.  We have had a number of such cases and staff really feel good
when they
see they've improved a few related headings.

Regarding point 5 -- concerning possible delays, etc.

We are responsible for "tracking" our proposal through to the SAF.  I have
had a
number of occasions when the heading didn't get distributed and needed an extra
'push' of some sort.  I agree that the speed of subject proposals has greatly


Susan Cook Summer
Original and Special Materials Cataloging
102 Butler Library
Columbia University
New York NY 10027
voice: 212 854-1436
fax:    212 854-5167
email: [log in to unmask]