Jimmie & All,

I'll try to answer your questions. First, I'm not sure whether my
institution would sign on. We had layoffs this Spring and people
voluntarily cut their hours. Those cuts kept the layoffs low, but
we all have too much to do. I'm not sure I am willing to argue the
benefits of participating in SACO, when we know how much research
and time a proposal can take. I'm not sure the Cataloging and
Authorities Team would be willing to take on another quota.

We participate in some way in all aspects of the PCC, but were
thankful that there was not a quota for BIBCO this year since we
were not able to do the limited amount we did in previous years. On
the other hand our "maintenance" participation in CONSER is much
higher since the librarian working on that is working with our
Serial Solutions provided records and doing lots of cleanup. Our
NACO participation remains particularly strong, meeting our yearly
quota nearly every month.

Hopefully you can understand my position a little better,

Mary Charles

--On Monday, September 29, 2003 8:39 AM -0400 Jimmie Lundgren
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Mary Charles and All,
>         Thank you for your message. I am sorry if you feel you
> library would not respond positively to a letter requesting their
> explicit choice to be a SACO member, but glad to hear about the
> increase in proposals this year. There are no penalties
> associated with not becoming a SACO member under the proposed
> plan, although we attempt to designate some very small rewards as
> enticement for those who do. If your library declined to sign on
> you would still have the opportunity to propose headings. Is it
> the conscious choice to become SACO members that you think would
> be unacceptable to your administration or something else in
> particular like the quota? I don't know at this point if we have
> any acceptable alternative method for initiating SACO membership
> under a new system besides letters to and from the library
> administration formally stating desire to be members. This
> parallels the NACO and BIBCO membership methodology and has not
> that I know of been a strong deterrent. Are there any other
> members of the task force that object to the letter as proposed
> in our preliminary report? Do you have an alternative proposals
> that you could detail for our consideration?         It is part
> of our purpose here in my understanding to raise awareness of and
> additional support for SACO participation through defining
> institutional membership. Does anyone feel that it is a mistake
> to define institutional membership for SACO? What specific
> alternatives would you propose? How can additional support and
> awareness be achieved under the alternative?
>         I do not know of any reason to suspect that use of the
> utilities should slow down the process of LC receiving and
> approving new SACO headings, and I think most of us are convinced
> that the advantages will be significant. We did recommend in the
> draft report that the use of the web form continue to be
> available for use by either members or other SACO contributors as
> well as the old stand-by of faxing proposals.         I was very
> happy with the recent activity on the SACO list. Joining that
> list is now open to anyone; does everyone agree it should stay
> that way or should it become limited to SACO members? The webpage
> for the list says, "The SACO Program welcomes all interested
> parties to subscribe to the SACO listserv. This listserv was
> established first and foremost to facilitate communication with
> SACO contributors throughout the world. The Summaries of the
> Weekly Subject Editorial Review Meeting are posted weekly to
> enable SACO contributors to keep abreast of changes and know if
> proposed headings have been approved or not. The listserv may
> also be used as a vehicle to foster discussions on the
> construction, use, and application of subject headings. Questions
> posted may be answered by any list member and not necessarily by
> staff from the Coop Team or CPSO. Furthermore, participants are
> encouraged to provide comments, share examples, experiences,
> etc." So, as of now it is clearly open to everyone and intended
> to address "use" as well as development of LCSH.
>         I would appreciate hearing soon of any other negative
> reactions to ideas in our preliminary report so that we can have
> a little time to deal with them before our deadline, so please
> take some time now to look it over and send your thoughts. I am
> thinking it may be helpful to develop a list of concepts and ask
> for a vote of the task group members on them before proceding
> with the draft final report. What do you think? Thanks and best
> regards,
> Jimmie

Mary Charles Lasater
Vanderbilt University
Email: [log in to unmask]