Print

Print


Dear SACO Task Group,
        Adam has some very good ideas here. Thanks!
        I am taking annual leave tomorrow to try to complete a stained-glass
project, but will be back Monday. Looking forward to hearing from youall.
Thanks,
Jimmie

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Schiff [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 3:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Major points for SACO


>
> 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?

I think this is something that the PCC highest leadership should pursue
with the utilities, rather than specifically Coop.  No doubt Coop will be
involved, as will other entities within LC.

>         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?

I think a letter should be sent to all current participants announcing the
new option/structure and inviting any of the institutions interested to
submit an application form to change their status from participant to full
SACO member, or whatever specific terminology we end up with.  I agree
that the letter should be clear that institutions choosing not to upgrade
their status will still be eligible to submit proposals.  Obviously such a
letter should spell out the benefits of upgrading to the new status so
that each institution can make a choice.


>         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.

I wouldn't put the onus on training entirely on Coop staff.  I think we
could develop a group of SACO trainers both within and outside of Coop
who could provide training.  I think Coop could probably be charged
with facilitating the development of a SACO course/training program
(although what about the various courses that CPSO staff already give
at ALA?  They've developed these outside of Coop).  I'm also very
supportive of the idea of web-based training and again Coop could take the
lead in getting that developed (which could mean commissioning someone
outside of Coop to do it).


>         e.      That a provision be developed for the on-going update of
the
> SACO Participants' Manual. This should be referred to the Training
> Committee.
>         Comments: Cool that there is now a Spanish translation available!

Very!


--Adam

**************************************
* Adam L. Schiff                     *
* Principal Cataloger                *
* University of Washington Libraries *
* Box 352900                         *
* Seattle, WA 98195-2900             *
* (206) 543-8409                     *
* (206) 685-8782 fax                 *
* [log in to unmask]           *
**************************************