[PADG:1147] Re: PARS--why it works the way it does

[Joan Gatewood <joangate@xxxxxxxxx>]

Lorraine and all who were at the PARS DG: Monday morning I followed through 
by asking the Policy and Planning Committee to explore the idea of changing 
the discussion group format.   Revisiting the discussion on the listserv 
offers an opportunity for the committee to understand where people were 
coming from  Sunday night and that were being offered during the discussion.

The history Lorraine has described in her message is helpful to an 
understanding of the present system.  Hopefully it may help us from going 
backward.    Joan

Joan Gatewood, Head
Reformatting and Replacement Services
University of Michigan
University Libraries
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

--On Thursday, January 18, 2001 3:48 PM -0600 Lorraine Olley 
<l-olley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> At Midwinter, there was discussion at both the Preservation
> Administration and PARS discussion groups concerning the perennial
> problem of scheduling conflicts among discussion groups.  Specifically,
> it was suggested that there be only 2 discussion groups scheduled at
> Annual, on a rotating basis.  As one of many individuals involved in
> putting the current structure in place (along with Bob DeCandido, Bob
> Harriman, Janet Gertz and many other organization wonks), I think that
> some background on why things are the way they are will aid in
> determining what changes, if any, are beneficial to PARS.
>
> It's my recollection that Bob DeCandido, the principal architect of the
> current arrangement, once observed that, "ALA is a beast whose heart
> beats twice a year."  Those of us who date our involvement back to
> membership in PLMS and/or RLMS remember the frustration of working
> through the set procedures of a very large organization.  For example, if
> a great idea for a program came up in a discussion group on a Midwinter
> Sunday night but the related committee had already met Sunday morning,
> then it was too late to pass the idea up the line for fuller development
> and approval at that conference.  Bad timimg created sometimes a 2+ year
> lag between a great idea and its fruition in a program or preconference.
>
> The current structure is a channel by which ideas or concerns from
> discussion groups--the seedbed of the Section's activities--can sprout
> and mature to ALCTS-level approval at just one conference.  This is why
> the discussion groups are scheduled as early in conference as possible.
> Each discussion group is linked to a committee, which is where the idea
> really enters the formal process of development and approval.  For
> example, PADG talks about cafe services in libraries at its session on
> Saturday morning; a couple of people decide a program would be a good
> idea; the outline of a program is submitted to the PARS Management
> Committee at its Monday morning meeting; submitted by the Committee chair
> to PARS Executive Committee in the late morning; approved and referred to
> the ALCTS Conference Planning committee; and voila, in 3 days of
> conference at least 6 months have been shaved off the process!
>
> The current structure, especially having the committees all meet at one
> time, has also greatly broadens participation opportunities for PARS
> membership, because it is now virtually impossible for one person to
> serve on two standing committees.  This new way of working has been
> adopted by ALCTS as a model for all divisions.
>
> Those of you who attended PARS DG know my feelings on changing this
> structure, so I will not give my opinions here.  I do hope that there is
> some discussion on this list of options for change.
>
> At the PARS DG, it also became apparent there is some confusion about
> discussion groups--how they function, how the leadership is chosen.  I
> recommend looking at the appropriate sections in the ALCTS Manual
> http://www.ala.org/alcts/you/manual/index.html, where things are pretty
> clearly spelled out.  Two points that I want to highlight are that:
> discussion group chairs are elected by the group at Annual, rather than
> being appointed by the Section, and; discussion groups are not to present
> programs, since programs rarely leave time for discussion.  It's a
> slippery slope from asking someone to briefly outline a topic in order to
> start a discussion, to giving a very formal and time-consuming
> presentation, but it's much more stimulating to have the time to
> talk--and then to send the idea for a program up to the appropriate
> committee.
>
> Back in the dim past, when we worked out the merger of PLMS and RLMS, we
> had developed a PARS manual and an organization chart.  The draft manual
> is at http://www.indiana.edu/~libpres/PARS/home.html.  I encourage anyone
> else who might have documents to post them.  There was great interest
> specifically in the chart, which doesn't seem to be linked anymore.
> However, the relationship between each discussion group and committee is
> spelled out in the manual.
>
> With apologies for such a long posting, I am
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________
>
> Lorraine Olley
> Head, Preservation Department
> Northwestern University Library
> 1935 Sheridan Road
> Evanston, IL 60208
> USA
> 847-491-4672 v
> 847-491-8306 f
> l-olley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx