A couple of additional comments. As the reviewer at my site I do
check the submissions... as I know others of  you do. It does help
the quality to have another pair of eyes looking at the proposals
and it does help to have some experience, particularly in the
subject area. I suppose most, if not all of the over 200 proposals
that were credited to COOP were this type of work? It might be
helpful to know the source of those proposals as we think about
membership and what avenues may be needed.  I hoped that the
SACO list would serve as a means of asking questions... I know
Autocat does for some people. So if I'm looking at, correcting, and
helping with the few that my institution sends... what happens to
the single librarian out there with a great proposal?  Is COOP doing
those? I know that I have had lots of help from CPSO, for the
challenging things that I attempt to submit.

I guess what I am trying to ramble on about is that I want to include
everyone but I also think it is important that we have a quick,
reliable and  cheap mechanism for making sure that the proposals
are as good as possible. I vote for training being a requirement. The
training sessions I have attended have been excellent and they
have certainly been cheap. I would really like to see lots of online
training... since travelling to training is not cheap.

All for now,

Mary Charles

Mary Charles Lasater
Authorities Coordinator
Vanderbilt University
21st Avenue South
Nashville, TN  37240
(615) 343-2085