Library of Congress Conference 2000 Action Plan Forum
January 20, 2002
American Library Association 2002 Midwinter Meeting
New Orleans, La.

Discussion Points and LC Responses

The desired outcome of this meeting was to understand the evolution of the LC Conference Action Plan and its action items in order to help establish a framework for carrying out the Plan.

Accepted at Jan. 20 meeting:

  1. Lead organizations will contact any potential collaborators directly. LC representatives emphasize that the lists of potential collaborators were only suggestions. Organizations that accept lead roles may add to them or subtract as they see fit. LC did not contact all the individuals and organizations in the Potential Collaborators lists. Except for the JSC, RUSA, and the ALCTS organizations contacted by the ALCTS Task Force on the LC Action Plan, the potential collaborators should not be assumed to have accepted a role in the Action Plan.

  2. The date for each lead organization to submit its Work Plan to the Director for Cataloging has been changed to March 31. (Background: LC had originally suggested a timeframe of 30 days from the date of the appointment of the Lead. Attendees at the January 20 meeting suggested that 45-60 days was more realistic.)

  3. Lead organizations will report to their LC Cataloging Management Team liaisons via email each quarter, unless they find that a different schedule makes more sense for their action item. If that is the case, they will let their Cataloging Management Team liaison know what schedule they prefer. (Background: The quarterly reporting schedule was accepted at the January 20 meeting. Director for Cataloging Beacher Wiggins subsequently decided that all reports from lead organizations should be submitted to the Cataloging Management Team liaisons, in response to suggestion no. 8 below.)

  4. The LC Cataloging Directorate will revise public Action Plan on the Conference Web site after all Leads are confirmed.

  5. The LC Cataloging Directorate will keep lead organizations updated about any changes to the Action Plan. The Action Plan will be revised and shared with the Leads as soon as possible after all Leads are confirmed. Thereafter an updated version will be shared with all Leads each quarter. (Background: This task arose from a suggestion at the January 20 meeting.)
Suggestions and Comments Made At Jan. 20 Meeting, with Responses from LC Cataloging Directorate:
  1. Consider developing a formal vetting/reporting/coordinating body in addition to the mechanisms already identified by LC. Especially, consider a “centralized coordinating plan” with regard to funding and funding requests.
    LC response: We are hoping to accomplish much coordination through the system of quarterly reports and regular communication between lead organizations and their Cataloging Management Team liaisons. Since many of the action items in the Action Plan may be accomplished without the necessity of large scale funding, we hope that after the first round or two of quarterly reports we will have enough information to determine whether to establish a formal clearinghouse for funding requests.

  2. Improve communications and ensure a higher presence for the Action Plan. For example, consider developing an electronic discussion group (“listserv”) for action item Leads and convening regular reporting sessions for Leads to share news and progress reports.
    LC response: The Cataloging Directorate will establish a “listserv” for Leads. We will schedule a reporting/updating session for lead and collaborating organizations at every ALA Annual Conference and Midwinter Meeting during the timeframe contemplated by the Action Plan (the next five years).

  3. Consider a “What’s New” or splash page on the Conference Web site to announce new developments related to the Action Plan.
    LC response: We will do this. In general, we’ll try to use the Conference/Action Plan Web site for sharing documents and news with the larger community that has a stake in bibliographic control of Web resources, and use the listserv to communicate with Action Item Leads.

  4. Consider whether and how LC should play a validating role in regard to action items, e.g. in the area of legal implications of Action Item work plans.
    LC response: In general, in seeking lead organizations for each item in the Action Plan, we’ve tried to identify the groups that had the best and most relevant expertise, including knowledge of necessary procedural safeguards and legal obligations. The Cataloging Management Team liaisons are always available to consult, review, and comment on any Action Item Work Plan.

  5. Ensure that interrelated action items don’t move in opposite directions, and monitor how progress on the Action Plan intersects with progress in other initiatives, e.g. OAI, by forming an advisory board or steering committee for the Action Plan.
    LC response: At present we’re trying to avoid imposing another formal layer of review and administration. We intend to post finalized work plans from each lead organization on the Conference/Action Plan Web site, as they come in to us and providing the Leads consent to this.

  6. Consider bringing all principal investigators or Lead individuals together for annual reporting sessions, in the style of the Coalition for Networked Information and the Digital Library Federation.
    LC response: The Cataloging Directorate agrees with this recommendation. In addition to making time for reports on content as well as administrative issues at each Action Plan Forum during ALA, we are considering holding a follow-up one-day conference on the outcomes of “short-term” action items in 2003, about eighteen months into the timeframe of the Action Plan.

  7. Ensure appropriate participation by stakeholders outside the library community.
    LC response: We agree that this is crucial. We will revise the Work Plan Development Guidelines for Action Item Leaders to include this point in the first guideline. We’ll be sending the revised Guidelines to the Action Item Leads.

  8. Clarify role of the Cataloging Management Team liaisons.
    LC response: In discussion after the January 20 meeting, we realized that the role of the Cataloging Management Team liaisons had a lot of potential for confusion. To deal with this, we’ve revised our own communications plans. We are now asking each lead organization to communicate to LC through its Cataloging Management Team liaison, and have eliminated any provision to ask Leads to send reports to the Director. This approach means that Leads will need to remember only one contact name at LC. It will also streamline communications within the LC Cataloging Directorate.

  9. Ensure that interested parties are not left out of the communications loop.
    LC response: We’ll be using LCCN, the Cataloging Directorate’s electronic journal, to present a regular “Action Plan Update” column. The column will be accessible from the Conference/Action Plan and Cataloging Directorate Web pages as well. The first Action Plan Update column in LCCN will include a summary of the Action Plan Forum and direct readers to contact Judy Mansfield for information about the Library's Work Plan Development Guidelines and contact Karen Calhoun for information as to how ALCTS developed its work plan for 5.1 using these Guidelines. Also on the Conference/Action Plan Web page will be the Work Plan for Action Item 5.1, which we recommend as an excellent demonstration of how the work plans for each action item can be developed.

From SAC list, message from Susan Morris at LC via Diane Dates Casey
d-casey@govst.edu