Library Juice 3:41

Library Juice 3:41 - November 1, 2000 Contents: Cool Dutch "Librarians Rule" page Libdex Hennen's American Public Library Ratings 2000 Chronicle of Higher Ed article on LC and DMCA "Librarian" of Congress betrays America's libraries Another Cuban Library tour, and some commentary Quirky Google OR ELITE Project New SACS accreditation criteria concerning libraries Background on "Open Secrets Act" Quote for the week: "You are not hearts to them, hearts that feel, feel and understand what others feel; you are not brains to them, hearts and brains that hate injustice and wrongs, so that time after time people act to change what is not right, you are only hands and bodies, farm hands, work hands, etc... that the powers that be will not and even the schools may not repect... Give to our children what their hearts and brains need to grow, feed upon... Take them to the library, where the great world of books will open up to them." -Eugene Victor Debs, as remembered by Tillie Olsen Homepage of the week: Miranda http://www.cybercomm.nl/~miranda/ _________________________________________________________________________top 1. Cool Dutch "Librarians Rule" page http://www.cybercomm.nl/~miranda/lib.html This Miranda person is a talented web designer. If you are interested in artistic and interesting web design, check out the rest of her site at http://www.cybercomm.nl/~miranda/ Her "Librarians Rule" page is the best compilation on library culture (the hip, rad kind) that I've seen. Unnecessary at this point but worth seeing just because it is so well done. And there are links to amusing pages that I hadn't seen before. So is Miranda a librarian? Miranda, if you are reading this, let us know. _________________________________________________________________________top 2. Libdex http://www.libdex.com/ Edited by Peter Scott, Internet Projects Manager at the University of Saskatchewan Libraries, this new directory indexes library homepages, Web-OPACs, Friends of Libraries pages, and library e-commerce affiliate links. The index is browseable by country, OPAC vendor, and Friends of the Libraries, or keyword searchable for libraries. Library entries include name, city, country, library type, and links to the library homepage and Web catalog. The site is advertiser-supported, but banner ads are limited to one per page. [MD] From The Scout Report, Copyright Internet Scout Project 1994-2000. http://scout.cs.wisc.edu/ _________________________________________________________________________top 3. Hennen's American Public Library Ratings 2000 The newly revised and completely re-designed HAPLR Web site was re-opened with new data today announced Thomas J. Hennen Jr., its author. HAPLR 2000 is featured in the November 2000 issue of American Libraries magazine, a publication of the American Libraries Association. The previous edition was featured in the September 1999 issue. For the complete text of the articles see: http://www.ala.org/alonline/news/special.html For ratings and further information see: http://www.haplr-index.com Hennen's American Public Library Rating system, HAPLR (tm), attempts to identify the best public libraries in America. Statistics cannot do it alone, but they are part of the answer. The HAPLR Index uses six input and nine output measures. The author added the scores for each library within a population category to develop a weighted score. The population categories change at 1,000, 2,500, 5,000, 10,000, 25,000, 50,000, 100,000, 250,000, and 500,000. The HAPLR Index is similar to an ACT or SAT score with a theoretical minimum of 1 and a maximum of 1,000, although most libraries score between 260 and 730. The HAPLR Index web site expands on the information in American Libraries articles. The site provides a method for obtaining score cards and rating sheets for individual public libraries. It also provides further information on the rating index and other services provided by the author. The first two editions saw extensive media attention. This edition is expected to receive even more attention. The American Library Association has issued press releases on the ratings to hundreds of newspapers and periodicals. The top 10 public libraries nationally are: Denver Public Library Santa Clara County Free Library, San Jose, Calif. Naperville (Ill.) Public Libraries Lower Merion Library System, Ardmore, Pa. Washington-Centerville (Ohio) Public Library Hays (Kans.) Public Library Morris (Minn.) Public Library Hagerstown (Ind.)–Jefferson Township Public Library Hazel L. Meyer Memorial Library, De Smet, S. Dak. Lynnville (Iowa) Public Library Thomas J. Hennen Jr. thennen[at]haplr-index.com http://www.haplr-index.com Voice: 262-886-1625 Fax: 262-886-5424 6014 Spring Street Racine, WI 53406 "Share knowledge, seek wisdom." _________________________________________________________________________top 4. Chronicle of Higher Ed article on LC and DMCA New Interpretation of Digital-Copyright Provision Disappoints Scholars By ANDREA L. FOSTER Chronicle of Higher Education Scholars are denouncing a Library of Congress rule that sharply limits when people can sidestep technological devices designed to restrict the use of online material protected under copyright law. The final rule, which took effect Saturday, clarifies a vaguely worded provision in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The provision allows people to circumvent the blocking devices under limited circumstances, but doesn't spell out what those circumstances are. Full story at: http://chronicle.com/free/2000/10/2000103101t.htm _________________________________________________________________________ 5. "Librarian" of Congress betrays America's libraries Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 18:03:33 -0400 From: Mark Rosenzweig <iskra[at]earthlink.net> To: srrtac-l[at]ala.org, plgnet-l[at]listproc.sjsu.edu Cc: member-forum[at]ala.org, alacoun[at]ala.org Reply to: iskra[at]earthlink.net I think I should bring this to your attention if you haven't read it already or highlight it if you have. This is about a legal development which brings us to the brink of the completely "pay-per-view/pay-per-use" information environment in libraries which 'radicals' in the library field have been warning about. The below item from the ALA Washington Office reveals that James Billington, "Librarian" of Congress, has sold out libraries of all kinds and their patrons by denying the rights of "fair use" of digital information. Please read this carefully and, if possible, examine the linked documents. Maybe I'm naive, but I think that if ALA mobilized librarians and their communities by educating them about this kind of thing, instead of depending ENTIRELY on back-room lobbying, popular pressure could have been exerted to stay Billington's hand. It is also an excellent illustration of why we need a real LIBRARIAN as Librarian of Congress! I think we need, as well,to understand that public campaigns by ALA on issues of public information policy are needed , campaigns where librarianship joins with other sectors to raise public conscioousness about matters of the most serious concern to all those who have an interest in protecting the rights of citizens to freely access information. Things are moving quickly and I anticipate being told after the fact that all means were exhausted when these means have been restricted to legal briefs and lobbying efforts, with no effort to create mass suppport or concern (even among librarians, never mind the public we serve!). Mark Rosenzweig ALA Councilor at large >Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:15:00 -0500 >From: "Don Wood" <dwood[at]ala.org> >Subject: [MEMBER-FORUM:1908] NEW DIGITAL COPYRIGHT RULES BAD FOR THE >AMERICAN PUBLIC >Reply-To: member-forum[at]ala.org >Sender: owner-member-forum[at]ala.org > >ALAWON: American Library Association Washington Office Newsline >Volume 9, Number 85 >October 26, 2000 > >In this issue: > >NEW DIGITAL COPYRIGHT RULES BAD FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC > >The Librarian of Congress James Billington has ruled against the >American public and library users by negating fair use in the >digital arena. Billington allowed only two exceptions in the fair >use proceeding involving the 1201 anticircumvention provision of >the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). > >A preliminary review of the ruling reveals that Billington adopted >recommendations by Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, to >provide exemptions only for malfunctions and to determine which >sites are blocked by filtering software. The exemption related to >circumventing filtering software may be useful although >problematic. > >The library community as well as members of Congress, the U.S. >Department of Commerce, the K-12 and higher education communities, >and many others have argued in the 1201 proceeding and elsewhere, >that the longstanding principle of fair use must continue in the >digital era. Because of this decision users of digital information >will have fewer rights and opportunities than users of print >information. In fact, the pay-for-use scenario that librarians >have feared appears to have now become a reality with this rule. > >"The Copyright Office has issued a misguided ruling taking away >from students, researchers, teachers and librarians the long >standing basic right of "fair use" to our Nation's digital >resources," said Nancy Kranich, ALA president. "All library users >will be impacted." > >ALA, in conjunction with the American Association of Law >Libraries, the Association of Research Libraries, the Medical >Library Association and the Special Libraries, submitted strong >filings and testimony in the proceeding arguing that there should >be exemptions from the Copyright Act's new restrictions against >accessing copyright works that are protected by technological >measures. > >Peters' conclusion in her recommendations to the Librarian of >Congress reads as follows: > >CONCLUSION >Pursuant to the mandate of 17 U.S.C. 1201 (b) and having >considered the evidence in the record, the contentions of the >parties, and the statutory objectives, the Register of Copyrights >recommends that the Librarian of Congress publish two classes of >copyrighted works where the Register has found that non-infringing >uses by users of such copyrighted works are, or are likely to be, >adversely affected, and the prohibition found in 17 U.S.C., 1201 >(a) should not apply to such users with respect to such class of >work for the ensuing 3-year period. The classes of work so >identified are: > >1. Compilations consisting of lists of Websites blocked by >filtering software applications; and > >2. Literary works, including computer programs and databases, >protected by access control mechanisms that fail to permit >access because of malfunction, damage or obsoleteness. > >The Register notes that any exemption of classes of copyrighted >works published by the Librarian will be effective only until >October 28, 2003. Before the period expires, the Register will >initiate a new rulemaking to consider de novo what classes of >copyright works, if any, should be exempt from 1201 (a)(1)(A) >commencing October 28, 2003. > >ALA is reviewing the ruling in great detail. Options now include >requesting a reconsideration of the ruling as well as litigation. > >For background see ALAWON volume 9, number 16: >(http://www.ala.org/washoff/alawon/alwn9016.html) >and volume 9, number 33: >(http://www.ala.org/washoff/alawon/alwn9033.html) >and the ALA Issue Brief: >http://www.ala.org/washoff/Rulemaking.PDF > >The Librarian's ruling is expected to be published in the Federal >Register on October 27th or 30th. For information about the >rulemaking process, see the Library of Congress web site: >http://www.loc.gov/copyright/1201/anticirc.html > >****** >ALAWON (ISSN 1069-7799) is a free, irregular publication of the >American Library Association Washington Office. All materials >subject to copyright by the American Library Association may be >reprinted or redistributed for noncommercial purposes with >appropriate credits. > >To subscribe to ALAWON, send the message: subscribe ala-wo >[your_firstname] [your_lastname] to listproc[at]ala.org or go to >http://www.ala.org/washoff/alawon. To unsubscribe to ALAWON, send >the message: unsubscribe ala-wo to listproc[at]ala.org. ALAWON >archives at http://www.ala.org/washoff/alawon. > >ALA Washington Office, 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 403, >Washington, D.C. 20004-1701; phone: 202.628.8410 or 800.941.8478 >toll-free; fax: 202.628.8419; e-mail: alawash[at]alawash.org; Web >site: http://www.ala.org/washoff. Executive Director: Emily >Sheketoff. Office of Government Relations: Lynne Bradley, >Director; Mary Costabile, Peter Kaplan, Miriam Nisbet and >Claudette Tennant. Office for Information Technology Policy: Rick >Weingarten, Director; Jennifer Hendrix, Carrie Russell and Saundra >Shirley. ALAWON Editor: Bernadette Murphy. > "De omnibus dubitandem" _________________________________________________________________________top 6. Another Cuban Library tour, and some commentary Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 21:29:34 -0500 (EST) From: Susan Weber <susanaquerida[at]yahoo.ca> To: SRRT Action Council <srrtac-l[at]ala.org> Reply to: srrtac-l[at]ala.org After reading the allegations made by Robert Kent and discovering the sources of funds for his group, the Friends of Cuban Libraries(FCL) to be Freedom House, an anti-Castro organization which receives US government funding, and the Centre for a Free Cuba, funded by the US Agency for International Development, it becomes very apparent Mr. Kent is simply acting as a spokesperson for the Cuban-American anti-Castro lobby and the U.S. Government, both of which finance his efforts to slander the Cuban library system and government, in general. Librarians who have traveled in the rest of Latin America can attest to how poor and heavily censored this public service can be especially outside the national capitals. In contrast, Cuba's libraries arewell-stocked, can be found in any town or city, lend books, have extended hours of operation, and are open to the public at large. Cubans are very proud of their achievements in this sector, even as the U.S. economic blockade affects their ability to purchase and stock American published books. It is then not surprising that the U.S. Government, through its spin doctors would try to find some way to attack Cuba's best accomplishments in order to demonize the Castro government. We could not think of a better response than to organize a tour of Cuba for North American Librarians so that they can see for themselves what an excellent service their Cuban colleagues offer the people of this island nation. Towards this purpose, the Cuban Arts Project is offering a 2-week escorted tour departing on February 19th, 2001, which will include one week of professional activities and one week of sightseeing and fun in the sun. There will be library tours, interviews with Cuban government officials, informal meetings with Cuban librarians, we well as sightseeing excursions and plenty of free time to enjoy Cuba individually. If you are interested, please reply to Susan Weber, email: susanaquerida[at]yahoo.ca and include your e-mail address or other contact information. Itinerary details and costs will be sent in a separate message. We would also like to comment on the so-called investigation by FAIFE, which limited itself to telephoning the parties who claimed harassment and confirming that they had made such allegations. It is ridiculous to think that this is any sort of reasonable inquiry. Confirming that they made such claims does not confirm that the events actually took place. For FAIFE to have taken the step of publicizing and thus drawing attention to these alleged incidents could be passed off as naivete; to criticize the Cuban Library system and Government on the basis of such one-sided accusations made by faceless voices over the phone is not only unfair and irresponsible, it also plays into the hands of the enemies of Cuba. I respectfully demand that FAIFE review their so-called investigation, reprimand the officials involved, and issue an apology to the Cuban Government and people. The C.L.A. letter, on the other hand, was a carefully worded natural response to the bogus information provided by FAIFE. However, CLA's letter was also careful to acknowledge the many gains and accomplishments made by the Cuban government in literacy and education. Sincerely, Roberto Carrasco, M.A. Founding Director, Cuban Arts Project Susan Weber, MLS Media Librarian .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Cuba Library Tour for librarians and their friends An invitation to join the First organized tour of Cuba's libraries direct from Canada leaving Feb. 19th, 2001 for 2 weeks Join Cuban colleagues, visit Public libraries, the National Library, the National Medical Library, the University of Havana, and tour schools. Visit four distinct regions of this Island paradise: * the beach at Varadero, * the restored colonial city of Trinidad, * the capital of Havana, * the lush agricultural valley of Vinales. See a Farmers' Coop, a Botanical Garden, the natural caves of Vinales and other sites. Learn how the Cuban people have access to free public libraries, free education, and have a very high literacy rate. Meet Government officials from the Ministry of Education. Talk with Cubans in their neighbourhood about their community. Enjoy the music, the dance, and the enthusiasm of Cuba! Experience firsthand the warmth of Cuba! Cost: Can$2500 (US$1675) from Vancouver, B.C. or Calgary or Edmonton or Can$2300 (US$1565) from Toronto or Halifax. Includes airfare, all hotels, ground transportation on air-conditioned buses, modified meal plan (all breakfasts, most suppers), tourist visa, translator and guides, admission to organized tours and cultural events. Canadian taxes and single supplement extra. A deposit of $250 is required by December 1st. For more information, call Roberto Carrasco, M.A., Cuban Arts Project, (604) 736-0931 or Susan Weber, MLS (604) 876-6917 email: Susanaquerida[at]yahoo.ca Travel arrangements made by Joyce Holmes, Friendship Tours The Cuban Arts Project is a non-profit organization promoting cultural and education exchanges. Susan Weber, MLS email: susanaquerida[at]yahoo.ca - _________________________________________________________________________top 7. Quirky Google OR >From Tara Calishain's Research Buzz A couple of readers tried Google's new OR support and found that the results were not what they expected. One reader tried using the OR operand in conjunction with a phrase. Try it yourself; here's one that works well: "sour persimmons cousin" OR cat That only gets about 16 results. "sour persimmons cousin" gets about 20, so it looks like OR is instead acting as AND. Enclosing the phrase in parens doesn't work, unfortunately: ("sour persimmons cousin") OR cat Now, here's what's interesting. sour persimmons cousin OR cat doesn't work either. Neither does (sour persimmons cousin) OR cat .. This DOES work, however: sour OR persimmons OR cousin OR cat It looks like this OR is very limited function. I'm kicking myself for not doing this kind of searching before. (Thanks to reader EO who did try it and sent me these results.) Playing with this a little bit more shows that special syntaxes don't appear to work. The query snipsville OR link:www.yahoo.com gives you zero results, meaning that the search didn't work. OR for single-word query elements appears to work fine, but get much more complicated than that and it breaks. Maybe that's the reason Google hasn't made any noise about it. (They also haven't made any noise about the new index page count on the front of their site: 1,247,340,000. Wonder how they got that count?) _________________________________________________________________________top 8. ELITE Project http://www.le.ac.uk/li/distance/eliteproject/index.htm Excellent information about distance access to libraries. There is up-to-date information about, and links to, libraries using conferencing, chat, MOOs, e-mail and Web forms, and "MyLibrary" interfaces. Maintained by the Electronic Library, IT and staff Education Project (ELITE) at the University of Leicester. Resources include examples of libraries using the various ways of providing remote access to users, articles on the topic, and companies providing the hardware/software. See also LiveRef(sm): A Registry of Real-Time Digital Reference Services, maintained by librarian Gerry McKiernan at Iowa State University. - cl >From Librarians' Index to the Internet - http://lii.org _________________________________________________________________________ 9. New SACS accreditation criteria concerning libraries Subject: Texline 92-IMMEDIATE CALL TO ACTION ON HIGHER EDUCATION ACCREDITATION Posted: October 9, 2000 TLA TEXLINE NO. 92 - TEXAS LIBRARY ASSOCIATION LEGISLATIVE ISSUES NETWORK In this issue: SOUTHERN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS COMMISSION ON COLLEGES PROPOSES NEW PRINCIPLES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCREDITATION THAT INCLUDE NO MENTION OF LIBRARIES OR LIBRARIANS The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges has proposed a new draft of Principles and Requirements for Accreditation. This proposed draft is intended to replace the current Commission's handbook, Criteria for Accreditation. Periodically reviewed and revised by the College Delegate Assembly, this document provides consistent guidelines for peer review and forms the basis of the accreditation process. The new draft has significantly shortened the description regarding all key accreditation areas. However, this shortening has resulted in a vague statement regarding the need for librarians with graduate degrees in library science or related areas. In fact, the proposed requirements do not even use the words library or librarian. TLA members are urged send comments to the Commission requesting that the new requirements contain specific language regarding the need librarians with graduate degrees in library and information science. CRITERIA LANGUAGE Language on staffing related to learning resources from proposed 2000 Principles and Requirements for Accreditation (Section V): "The institution ensures a sufficient number of qualified staff with appropriate education or experiences both in learning resources and in information technology." Proposed guidelines: http://www.sacscoc.org/COC/accrdoc.PDF Language on library staff from 1998 Principles and Requirements for Accreditation (Section 5.1.6): Libraries and other learning resources must be adequately staffed by professionals who hold graduate degrees in library science or in related fields such as learning resources or information technology. In exceptional cases, outstanding professional experience and demonstrated competence may substitute for this academic preparation; however, in such cases, the institution must justify the exceptions on an individual basis. Because professional or technical training in specialized areas is increasingly important in meeting user needs, professionals with specialized non-library degrees may be employed, where appropriate, to supervise these areas. The number of library support staff members must be adequate. Qualifications or skills needed for these support positions should be defined by the institution. Organizational relationships, both external and internal to the library, should be clearly specified. Institutional policies concerning faculty status, salary and contractual security for library personnel must be clearly defined and made known to all personnel at the time of employment. 1998 guidelines: http://www.sacscoc.org/COC/SectV.htm . The current accreditation handbook contains several pages of information regarding the role of libraries and information resources. BACKGROUND The Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools is the recognized regional accrediting body in the eleven U.S. Southern states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. The Commission on Colleges is the representative body of the College Delegate Assembly and is charged with carrying out the accreditation process. The College Delegate Assembly, which consists of one voting representative for each of approximately 800 member institutions, elects the 77-member Commission (http://www.sacscoc.org/COC/commissioners1.htm ). The U.S. Secretary of Education recognizes accreditation by the Commission on Colleges in establishing eligibility of higher education institutions to participate in programs authorized under Title IV of the 1998 Higher Education Amendments and other federal programs. CALL TO ACTION Librarians and library supporters are asked to send comments to the Commission on Colleges by October 16, 2000. Library supporters should ask the Commission to reinstate language that specifies that libraries and other learning resources must be adequately staffed by professionals who hold graduate degrees in library science or related fields. Talking points: · Libraries contain the vast majority of the informational resources of institutions of higher education. Libraries are the primary mechanism in colleges and universities to administer, organize, and disseminate those learning resources. · Librarians are professionals who hold graduate degrees in library science or related fields. They are uniquely qualified to administer the complexity of information resources and provide needed instruction on the effective use of those resources. · A librarian, knowledgeable in the identification, location, and evaluation of information resources, must be available to guide students in the use of the library, whether it is in print or in digital formats. Given the rise of distance education programs and the availability of electronic resources, it is more important than ever to insure that students can rely on the professional guidance of librarians in the use and evaluation of information. · Maintaining quality libraries and developing information services to help meet the needs of students requires the adherence to professionally established standards for service. In the area of information resources and training, the library professional has a long tradition of setting and meeting meaningful benchmarks for institutions of higher education. The Association of College and Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association, has established both qualitative and quantitative standards, which help provide a basis for successful library programs. These standards are disseminated primarily through professional associations and graduate programs for professional librarians. Without this connection, institutions of higher education will not have access to the standards, programs, and resources of the broader library community. Contact information: The Accreditation Review Project, Commission on Colleges, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, 1866 Southern Lane, Decatur, GA 30033-4397, (fax) 404/679-4517, (email) ARP[at]sacscoc.org. For additional information on submitting comments, go to http://www.sacscoc.org/COC/accrinstr.PDF. ******************************************************* TLA-Texline is an irregular publication of the Texas Library Association mailed directly to members interested in legislative and governmental issues affecting libraries. To subscribe--or to offer comments or suggestions contact Gloria Meraz, Director of Communications, Texas Library Association, gloriam[at]txla.org. Previous issues of TLA-Texline are available on the TLA web page at http://www.txla.org ********************************************************* .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. October 9, 2000 The Accreditation Review Project Commission on Colleges Southern Association of Colleges and Schools 1866 Southern Lane Decatur, GA 30033-4397 Dear Members of the Commission on Colleges: Absence of word "librarian" The Texas Library Association is gravely concerned about the proposed draft, Principles and Requirements for Accreditation. While we recognize that the updated document shortens the description of all key accreditation areas, we were dismayed to find that Section V made absolutely no mention of the need for professional librarians to administer learning resources. Under Section IV of the same draft, the professional requirements for faculty are clearly stated. In fact, at many colleges and universities, librarians are faculty members and must meet the same rigorous standards as faculty teaching in other subject disciplines. At institutions of higher learning where librarians do not have "faculty status", they, nevertheless, have appropriate graduate level degrees. It is just as important; therefore, that librarians' credentials be specified in the new Principles being reviewed as it is to continue to spell out credentials for faculty in Section IV. Librarians play a pivotal role in higher education. Like faculty members in other disciplines, librarians teach, develop courses, interact with students, evaluate materials, and prepare educational guides. In additional to these duties, librarians must be knowledgeable in the identification, location, and evaluation of information resources. Given the rise of distance education programs and the availability of electronic resources, it is more important than ever to insure that students can rely on the professional guidance of librarians in the use and evaluation of information in both digital and print formats. Not everyone can perform library work. In fact, it takes particular expertise to do so. The requirements in the current draft, unfortunately however, would allow institutions to hire just about anyone to administer libraries and maintain library services. Librarians are professionals who hold graduate degrees in library science or related fields. They are uniquely qualified to administer the complexity of information resources and provide needed instruction on the effective use of those resources. Descriptors and identifiers not rigorous enough Another concern with the current draft was the use of general or vague language such as "adequate," "appropriate," and "sufficient." Frankly, librarians across Texas have long welcomed a SACS visit as it has provided them with an opportunity for self-assessment, identifying gaps and challenges, and then offered them "must" statements to use for growth and change. While we understand that the trend is away from purely quantitative standards, there are ways to insure a "minimum but acceptable" up to "exemplary" support for students. In fact, definitions describing what "appropriate" means for example, would be a way to begin to describe what a common ground would be. While it is important to realize that what is appropriate for a rural Louisiana college would NOT be appropriate for an inner city college in Texas, there are ways we can measure given definitions. I recently chaired a two-year statewide project for the development of standards for the 6,000 K-12 schools in Texas. We struggled with words but felt - as did the principals and superintendents on the committee - that "less" was NOT more and specificity was required when talking about staff, resources and access to both. Maintaining quality and meeting the needs of students require adherence to professionally established standards for service. In the area of information resources and training, the library profession has a long tradition of setting and meeting meaningful benchmarks for institutions of higher education. The Association of College and Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association, has established both qualitative and quantitative standards, which help provide a basis for successful library programs. These standards are disseminated primarily through professional associations and graduate programs for professional librarians. Without this connection, institutions of higher education will not have access to and substantive knowledge of the standards, programs, and resources of the broader library community. On behalf of the 7,500 members and Executive Board of the Texas Library Association, we ask you to reinstate language in the proposed guidelines that specifies the need for librarians with a graduate degree in library science or a related field such as information or information science to administer at institutions of higher education. We also urge you to increase language specificity for more rigorous assessment. Sincerely, Dr. Julie Todaro President of the Texas Library Association and Dean of Library Services, Austin Community College .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. -----Original Message----- From: COLLIB-L [mailto:COLLIB-L[at]acs.wooster.edu] On Behalf Of Dr. Alice Bahr Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 5:41 AM To: COLLIB-L[at]acs.wooster.edu Subject: SACs: Proposed Requirements Nothing new here, just another voice in the chorus. Here are the comments I've sent to SACs regarding their proposed requirements for what is now a phrase I'm learning to hate: Learning Resources. RE: Section V. Learning Resources The new comprehensive requirements in this section ensure flexibility, but fail to help achieve a more important goal of an accrediting system: effective self-governance. It is impossible to regulate and evaluate without a clear statement of expectations. I might tell my child to be good, but if I dont explain what that means there is no way to be good, to understand what good means, or to excel. There is no need to be totally prescriptive, but phrases such as "learning resources" and "instructional support services" are so vague that they undermine an understanding of the challenges that all universitiesvirtual and physicalface trying to provide adequate learning resources in the 21st Century. Some of these follow: forging collaborative partnerships with entities on/off campus developing integrated, staged instructional support programs with levels of instruction appropriate to need (which goes beyond the vagaries of "regular and timely instruction" in the proposed guidelines) assessing the effectiveness of programs and resources in a consistent fashion outlining responsibilities for defining and acquiring the resources needed to support course and programs assessing the effective organization/presentation of acquired/developed resources Adding the word library to learning resources (using the language of the current criteria, "library and learning resources") would better ground the proposed requirements. No longer solely a synonym for a physical building, the word "library," and by extension "librarian," have powerful, stable connotations. They imply access to a coherently identified range of specific information resources (collections) selected by those with an investment in the content of those courses, an understanding of the needs of all curricula, sufficient expertise in the use of these tools to evaluate their effectiveness and appropriateness, an intimate knowledge of disciplines different pedagogical objectives, and an ability to develop programs and services for faculty and students that integrate these resources into the classroom and into life long learning. Without more specificity, the proposed requirement are sure to perplex and frustrate accreditors, accreditees, and the accrediting process. Dr. Alice Harrison Bahr Director of the Library Spring Hill College 4000 Dauphin Street Mobile, Alabama 36608 Tel: 334/380-3871 Fax: 334/460-2086 E-mail: bahr[at]azalea.shc.edu _________________________________________________________________________top 10. Background on "Open Secrets Act" [ALACOUN:5185] (Fwd) (Fwd) Background for Letter to White House on "Open Secret Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:37:58 EST From: "NANCY KRANICH" <kranich[at]elmer4.bobst.nyu.edu> To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org> Cc: leb[at]alawash.org, es[at]alawash.org Reply to: kranich[at]elmer4.bobst.nyu.edu This is background on the "open secrets act". ALA has signed onto the letter. Individuals are encouraged to act as well. Thanks. --Nancy Kranich Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:20:56 -0400 From: Patrice McDermott <patricem[at]ombwatch.org> Subject: (Fwd) Background for Letter to WH sign-on ALERT To: Federal information policy listserv <gov-info-access[at]lyris.ombwatch.org> Reply-to: Federal information policy listserv <gov-info-access[at]lyris.ombwatch.org> Priority: normal I realized -- as I was sending the message below out -- that I was presuming that everyone on the list had been following this issue. Which is not necessarily the case, of course. My apologies. The issue -- in capsule -- is: legislation was attached to the Intelligence Authorization Act -- and the language passed on a voice vote with never a single hearing or any consideration -- that makes it a felony for a government employee to disclose any and all information that the government says is classified -- or "classifiable" -- even if it is not properly marked. Two efforts are moving forward simultaneously. One is in the Congress, to get a rider attached to an appropriations bill to delay implementation of this section of the Act for a year -- to allow time for hearings. The initial effort was to get a rider attached to the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill. That has not happened, but the President has said that he will veto the bill that _has been_ put forward -- so there will still be time to get one on the next version. There is a growing bi-partisan effort to attach such language. A related effort is aimed at the White House -- to get them to support the delay of implementation. There is no real anticipation that the WH would veto the Intelligence Authorization bill. The letter that was circulated yesterday -- and is below -- is directed to the John Podesta, White House Chief of Staff. Sorry for any confusion that I may have created yesterday. There is still plenty of time to sign on. Thanks. Patrice __________________________________________ ------- Forwarded message follows ------- From: Patrice McDermott <patricem[at]ombwatch.org> To: Subject: Letter to WH sign-on ALERT Send reply to: patricem[at]ombwatch.org Date sent: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 16:04:15 -0400 Folks, An effort to engage with the White House on this issue has been strongly encouraged. With the help of others, I have drafted a onepager with bullets to send to John Podesta. We have been urged to keep it to this length -- so it can be easily circulated in the White House. Obviously, such a document will not meet everyone's concerns, but I have tried to highlight the ones I think will have an impact. I am amenable to some changes -- but adding one thing will mean deleting something else. Please -- if you can -- sign on to this. The sense is that one letter signed by many groups will have greater impact than many separate letters. Of course, you should also send a letter addressing your key concerns, if they are not covered here. And keep writing, calling the relevant Members. Please have your _organizational_ sign-on to me by Close of Business on Wednesday, 1 November.(Names of individuals, with their organization affiliiation are appropriate, but not individuals signing just for themselves -- unless you are a big contributor, in which case CALL the White House) I will "pretty this up" before I fax it. Please excuse duplicate postings. Thanks. Patrice ___________________________________________ John Podesta We are writing to encourage the President to take the strongest possible action to prevent – or at the very minimum delay – the implementation of Section 304 of the Intelligence Authorization Act (H.R. 4392), “Prohibition on Unauthorized Disclosure of Classified Information.” As you know, Current law already bans classified leaks, and national security threats can be prosecuted. There are sufficient protections in place that guard against the release of specific classified information that could impact an individual's safety, national security or national defense. [See 18 U.S.C. §793 (disclosure of information that would injure national defense); 18 U.S.C. §794 (disclosure of information to aid foreign governments to the detriment of the United States); 18 U.S.C. §798 (disclosure of cryptographic information or communication intelligence activity); 15 U.S.C. §421 (disclosure of information on covert agents). The fine print in the bill removes all requirements that classified information be clearly marked to indicate its status. Under the new law, information could be classified even if there are no markings or other warning. That revives a discredited concept from the 1980's know as "classifiable" information, which means virtually anything." It forces whistleblowers to seek advance permission before exposing nearly any evidence of bureaucratic misconduct, or risk criminal liability. Identifying specific information that deserves special attention in the manner employed by these statutes represents better public policy than the broad sweep of Section 304 as it appropriately balances the public's right to know with legitimate national security and defense concerns. The bill creates three strikes against the public's right to know – a principle that this Administration has publicly supported – by: realistically ending anonymous dissent; requiring advance permission to exercise free speech rights; and encouraging the over-classification of information and a draconian interpretation of existing classification regulations. By labeling information as classified or interpreting it as such, the governmental agency involved can obtain substantial leverage over even the best-motivated and most publicly-minded of its employees - even when information should be released. If such a provision had been law, the public may never have seen or known about the Pentagon Papers, the status of arms control negotiations between the US and Russia in 1996, or the evidence demonstrating that – contrary to public comments that it was neutral – the Nixon administration was pro-Pakistani in the 1971 war between India and Pakistan. As you also know, there is opposition to this bill developing rapidly in Congress. But time is very short to accomplish any effort to attach language to appropriations bills to delay its implementation. The Intelligence Authorization Act has not yet been signed by the President, who could veto it -- which we urge. Alternatively, before adjourning, Congress could move back a year the effective date for the law to take effect, through an amendment to this year's spending bills. This would allow the House and Senate Judiciary Committees – which normally review all changes in law – to hold hearings on the consequences, before Americans lose freedom of speech through a fait accompli. At a minimum, we strongly urge the President to support this growing bi-partisan effort in Congress. Thank you. _________________________________________________________________________top L I B R A R Y J U I C E | http://libr.org/Juice/ | | Library Juice is supported by a voluntary subscription | fee of $10 per year, variable based on ability and | desire to pay. You may send a check payable in US funds | to Rory Litwin, at PO Box 720511, San Jose, CA 95172 | | Original material and added value in Library Juice | is copyright-free; beyond that the publisher makes | no guarantees. Library Juice is a free weekly | publication edited and published by Rory Litwin. | Original senders are credited wherever possible; | opinions are theirs. If you are the author of some | email in Library Juice which you want removed from | the web, please write to me and I will remove it. | | Your comments and suggestions are welcome. | | Rory[at]libr.org g">Rory[at]libr.org