Access Strategy Team Report

USER ACCESS TO LIBRARY INFORMATION RESOURCES:

A Report from the Access Strategy Team

March 14, 2005

ADDENDUM 3: Cataloging Policy Committee Response

DATE: February 17, 2005

TO: Peggy Steele, Lisa German

FROM: Richard Burbank

SUBJECT: Cataloging Policy Committee response

Dear Peggy & Lisa:

Thanks for sharing the revised document with the Cataloging Policy Committee and for meeting with us on February 2^nd to discuss the proposal. The committee concurs that there are many fine things in the document that should be given the opportunity to develop, particularly with regard to non-MARC forms of metadata. The "umbrella" concept of re-organization also makes a good sense, given the importance of the Technical Services Division, the work done there and in other units.

There are some critical thoughts and observations, however, that came up after the February 2^nd meeting. These are:

1) No matter how many organizational models are superimposed on the Technical Services Division and connected to corresponding work in other units, none of them stands much chance of being successful without considerable augmentation of human resources – both professional catalogers and support staff – who would be performing most of the work described in the document. Regardless of the metadata standard used, additional human resources are needed to process the backlogs that the document proposes to identify; the library administration needs to recognize that if success is to be achieved. The proposed model also seems topheavy – loaded with administrators.

2) Some members of the CPC think that the Head of CAM (Content Access Management Group) and the OPAC Records Management Coordinator should be tenured library faculty, given the degree of responsibility and oversight, without the pressures of being in the tenure track. A different view was expressed by other members of the CPC, who think tenure status should not be a consideration. And there was a third opinion on this issue that there should be national searches for one or both of these positions because of affirmative action and equal opportunity laws, and because the library administration is not limiting other Divisions of the library to internal searches.

3) The rationale for having the Coordinator of Information Literacy and Instruction as a member of the CAPP (Content Access Principles & Policy Group) is unclear.

4) Some proposed members of the Content Access Principles & Policy Group (CAPP) seem to have had little experience in and/or little knowledge of cataloging in any MARC format or other metadata form.

5) The proposed OPAC Records Working Group (ORWG) would replace the Cataloging Policy Committee and the ISSC Training Team. Currently, the CPC establishes policy while ISSC is more of a working group that deals with practical issues. With ORWG having "all Library faculty (regardless of administrative unit) who regularly perform MARC cataloging," a relatively much larger group than the CPC will need to function efficiently in decision-making for practical policies. Once the new model is fully operative (perhaps even in the stages of implementation) a smaller group, similar to the CPC, may again be needed.

6) Metadata Training: The document states "The Head of CAM (Content Access Management) and the Head of DSD (Digital Services Development) will ensure that training programs are developed for all Library personnel involved in metadata creation." (p.7) Experts from outside, such as the recent OCLC Connexion training session led by an Illinet representative, should be invited to train as well. Combining outside talent with our own excellent human resources can only enrich the program.

Overall, the Cataloging Policy Committee endorses the document with the reservations and other comments expressed above. Bear in mind that not every member of the Cataloging Policy Committee agreed with every point submitted by other members of the committee. While the reservations may have been individual or from a majority of members, the consensus was that the proposal should go forward. The Cataloging Policy Committee makes this recommendation with the knowledge that it will cease to exist, should your model become reality.

Thanks again for consulting the Cataloging Policy Committee and for seeking our advice and comments.