ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries C&RL News ■ A p r il 2002 / 291 CONFERENCE CIRCUIT University Libraries Section at Midwinter A wrap-up of activities T he ra p id p a c e o f c h a n g e in th e library w orld is b o th th e m ost exhilarating and th e m ost stressful a sp e c t o f p ro fessio n al life for m e an d , I w o u ld su sp ec t, for o th e r librarians, as w ell. N either w e as in fo rm a­ tio n p ro fe ssio n a ls n o r o u r p a re n t o rg an i­ zations can afford to sit still for e v e n a m om ent. And o u r p ro fe ssio n a l o rg an iz a ­ tions m ust c h a n g e, too, if th ey are to s u p ­ p o rt us in to th e future. It w as this train of thought that led m e to invite a trained facilitator, Sue B aughm an of the University of Maryland, to a University Libraries Section (ULS) Executive Commit­ tee m eeting at Midwinter. B aughm an’s tal­ en t and w ell-tested techniques resulted in the generation of dozens of insights a nd ideas for m aking ULS a stronger, m ore m em ber- oriented, responsive, a n d effective organi­ zation. The w ork w e did tog eth er at M idwinter will undou b ted ly m ake it possible for us to m ove forw ard in creative ways. Not only will it enable us to improve ULS and provide more opportunities for o ur m em bers, but w e will also be able to m ake a m ore substantial c o n ­ tribution to the w ork of ACRL a n d ALA. I w elcom e your ideas on ho w ULS can serve its m em bers, our libraries, and our pro ­ fession m ore effectively.—-Julia Zim m erm an, Ohio University, Julia .Zim m erm an @oh io. edit C o m m itte e s a n d d is c u s s io n g r o u p s The ULS Executive Committee m et twice dur­ ing Midwinter and has begun examining roles a n d potential directions for ULS. The first m eeting included a special session, facilitated by Sue Baughm an, to help the Executive Committee identify future directions for ULS. A large n u m b er of issues w ere identified, but several key areas w ere seen as especially relevant for ULS, given the section’s prim ary focus o n university libraries. The group ulti­ m ately identified four areas of special im­ p ortance for ULS to address in the next sev­ eral years. These areas were: 1) standards and guidelines and how w e m easure ourselves, 2) scholarly communication issues, 3) changes in h igher ed u c atio n a n d the concom itant changes in the role of libraries, and 4) in­ volvem ent in accreditation processes. The results of the facilitated m eeting w ere referred to ULS’s Policy and Planning Com­ mittee. This com m ittee resp o n d ed at the sec­ o n d m eeting of Executive Committee with an initial reco m m en d atio n to e x p a n d the n u m b er of ULS com m ittees and b ro ad e n in­ volvem ent of the section’s m em bership. The reco m m en d atio n included the creation of n e w c o m m ittee s o n service asse ssm e n t, scholarly com m unication, and accreditation, as well as exam ining recruitm ent a n d rete n ­ tion of ULS m em bers and a review of the ULS mission. The Standards and G uidelines Commit­ tee has contin u ed to pursue new standards for university libraries that are m ore oriented to outcom es and assessm ent, similar to the standards for college libraries. Lori G oetsch (University of Maryland), this com m ittee’s chair, received the Executive Committee’s e n ­ dorsem ent to continue collaboration with the 292 / C&RL News ■ A p ril 2002 College Libraries Section and the Com m u­ nity a n d J u n io r C ollege Libraries Section to c o n s id e r a single, u n ifie d set o f s ta n d a rd s for all a c ad e m ic libraries. T h e ULS P u b lic S ervice D ire c to rs o f Large R esearch Libraries D iscussion G ro u p a d d r e s s e d p r o p o s a ls f o r e x p a n d in g its m e m b e rsh ip , as w ell as sev eral s u b s ta n ­ tive issues. T he n e w re c o m m e n d a tio n o n m e m b e rs h ip in clu d e s all c u rre n t m em b e rs as o f 2000. T h e to p 33 ARL libraries, by v o lu m e c o u n t, u p to a m axim um o f 50 in ­ stitu tio n s, w o u ld also b e in clu d e d . D iane Strauss (U niversity o f N orth C arolina), th e g r o u p ’s co n v e n o r, re p o r te d th at th e y will b e v o tin g o n this p r o p o s a l b y th e ALA A nnual C onference in Ju n e . The g ro u p also d isc u s s e d library secu rity issues a n d Web site usability studies during its regular m ee t­ ing. T h e ULS C u r r e n t T o p ic s D is c u s s io n G ro u p o rg a n iz e d its se ss io n a ro u n d th e to p ic o f w h a t a c a d e m ic lib raries c a n d o to e n h a n c e th e ro le o f th e library as a “p la c e ” o n c a m p u s. B etsy B a k e r ( N o rth w e s te rn U niversity), th e g ro u p ’s covenor, p re s e n te d a n e w ly c o in e d te rm “in re a c h ”— th a t is, ( “Library-sponsored...” co n tin u e d fr o m p a g e 266) faculty book-buying trips far outw eighs the issue of final say. The retail trips are, after all, only o n e o f four acquisition channels. In another article, Buis2 proposes com plex “departmental selection param eters” for acquir­ ing new books. The am ount of effort by both librarians and faculty in this system appears to be extensive. The cost of acquiring a book in terms of staff time is a big factor in small higher education libraries. At both the university and comm unity college, investing in materials ver­ sus process must receive a high priority. A later article by Dittemore3 reports on how Tulane University is bringing the responsibil­ ity for bo o k selection back to the library. Fac­ ulty politics a n d better use of resources w ere cited as a driving force for making this change. C o n c lu s io n Changes in the inform ation flows o f the late 1990s suggest that n e w players are joining the patro n ’s information channels. In the fore­ seeable future, libraries will have even m ore establishing facilities a n d services that d raw o u r lib rary u se rs b a c k in to th e p h y sical p la c e o f th e library. T h e C u rre n t T o p ic s s e s s io n in c lu d e d p re s e n ta tio n s from th re e in stitu tio n s w ith in n o v ativ e n e w facilities in p lac e , o r a n ­ tic ip a te d . R uth K ifer d e s c r ib e d G e o rg e M ason U n iv ersity ’s u n iq u e J o h n s o n C en ­ ter, a m u ltiu se facility th at p ro v id e s a w id e ra n g e o f se rv ic es to stu d e n ts , in c lu d in g som e library a n d inform ation services. Lynn S utton d e s c rib e d W ayne State U niv ersity ’s n e w u n d e rg ra d u a te library a n d so m e o f its n o n tra d itio n a l p ro g ram s. T he last p r e s e n ­ ta tio n w a s by R ichard M eyer, w h o p r e ­ s e n te d p lan s for th e n e w in fo rm a tio n c o m ­ m o n s at G eo rg ia In stitu te o f T echnology, as w ell as lo n g -ra n g e p lan s for a n e w in ­ n o v ativ e L earning R esource Center. In a d ­ d ition to th e se p ro g re ssiv e facilities, he d e ­ sc rib e d sev eral in n o v ativ e library in re a ch p ro g ram s, su c h as lu n c h a n d in stru ctio n a l se ssio n s for s e n io r a d m in is tra to rs ’ s e c re ­ taries. T h e d isc u ssio n g r o u p ’s se ssio n w as w ell re c e iv e d w ith m o re th a n 80 a tte n d e e s p re s e n t.—J o h n Lehner, U niversity o f H o u s ­ ton, jle h n e r @ u h .e d u ■ com petition for m aterials budgets with other library-like inform ation providers and com ­ pu ter departm ents. I believe it is crucial for the library to take a twofold approach to providing students and faculty with books. First, w e m ust take ad­ vantage of the electronic advances in order to be efficient a n d functional. Secondly, w e sh o u ld n ’t turn o u r backs o n spending quality time w ith our faculty and should use super bookstores to gain an advantage over our li­ brary-like com petition. N o te s 1. K. Strauch, “Librarian versus faculty se ­ lection: the good meets the bad and the ugly,” Collection M a n a g em en t 12 (1990): 37-41. 2. E. Buis, “Collection developm ent poli­ cies: coordinating teaching faculty and library staff interest at Southeast Missouri State Uni­ versity,” Collection M a n a g em en t 13 (1990): 11-25. 3. M. Dittemore, “Changing Patterns of fac­ ulty participation in collection developm ent,” Collection M anagem ent 16 (1992), 79—89- ■ mailto:jlehner@uh.edu