Jimmie and others:

A couple of points related to the issues outlined below:

a. I think we should make it clear that we see having a utility-based
submission and
distribution option would have significant advantages for the long
term.  We may also
want to mention specifically that LC would continue to have final editorial
oversight for the
proposals.  We could also emphasize that improving the web-based form to
a save (as well as submit) function would be a very good short-term
And we should mention that other options (such as fax, etc.) should remain

c. I agree with Adam that we could develop a group of SACO
trainers.  (Columbia just
had excellent Integrating Resources training given by Iris Wolley of
Cornell.)  Regarding
the web-based training program -- I realize it would be a big undertaking
but some of
the pieces are already available, such as the Participants' Manual, the
FAQ, and
other tools on the PCC/SACO page.  So perhaps we could mention a number of
components already exist and could be worked into the web-based program.


At 08:35 AM 10/2/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>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,
>         Jimmie


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]