RUSA Committee Report

Date: 7-7-2011

Please check one:

x Annual Conference q Midwinter Meeting

Name of Committee: Standards and Guidelines Committee (referred to throughout as S&G)

Name of Section:

Chairperson: Larayne Dallas

Dates of Meetings: June 25 & 26, 2011

Your e-mail:

For Committees:

Members present: Bryan Coonin (MARS representative), Larayne Dallas (chair), Linda Friend (member), Mary Parker (member), Rebecca Smith (BRASS representative), Candice Perry Townsend (STARS representative), Charles Thurston (HS representative), and Susan Ware (RSS representative).

Members absent: Steve Alleman (CODES Representative), Janice Fryer (member), Meredith McCarthy (member).

Visitors: John Gottfried (in-coming BRASS representative) at the 6/26/2011 meeting and William Weare (chair of the RUSA/RSS Management of Reference Committee) at the 6/25/2011 meeting.

Objectives of committee for this conference year: As always: To advise the RUSA Board of Directors on guidelines “for the delivery of reference information services and of general library services and materials to adults.” Also, to work with RUSA members and committees in the preparation and review of guidelines. For this year especially: To clear up uncertainties about some old guidelines and to improve the information provided on the RUSA website about preparing guidelines.

Summary of Meeting (summarize discussions, decision reached, follow-up action decided):
1. William Weare, chair of the RUSA/RSS Management of Reference (MOR) Committee, met with S&G members to discuss review of the “Guidelines for Behavioral Performance of Reference and Information Providers.” William Weare had previously (in May) supplied S&G members with a draft revision of the guideline, updated the draft with suggestions from S&G members and from MOR members), and provided a second draft to S&G. As this is a widely used guideline, posting for public comment was recommended by S&G and already planned for by MOR. Posting for three to four weeks seemed a good idea.

2. “Professional Competencies for Reference and User Services Librarians” is also being reviewed by members of the Management of Reference Committee. As William Weare explained, this review is still at the stage of the reviewers trying to get a clear focus on the task. The document is big and may be better divided into two parts, such as – 1. Reference management and 2. Frontline reference practice. S&G members offered suggestions for working towards a goal with the guideline. When William Weare expressed an interest in seeing the charge to the task force which produced the original 2003 guideline, the names of still active RUSA members were fortunately noted. Larayne Dallas offered to pursue this and was able to report at the second meeting that Kathleen Klugel, one of the original task force members, was optimistic about having the information in her files. (S&G members were glad to have MOR continuing as a committee and working on these reviews, and William Weare continuing as chair of MOR.)

3. Becky Smith spoke on behalf of the ALA archives, noting the importance of having archival material to which to refer and lamenting the reality of many gaps in the files.

4. “Guidelines for Information Services” was due for review in 2007 and has lingered. Its last update was in 2000 by the RUSA Access to Information (AIC) Committee. But, as reported by Linda Friend – a member of both AIC and S&G, AIC members had not felt a close connection with the guideline. When AIC suggested a pass to RSS, the RSS Executive Committee apparently hesitated long enough that momentum was lost. Since the guideline was now well past the eight year mark, as stated in RUSA policy, it was time to recommend for sunsetting to the RUSA Board. Members agreed to do so.**

5. Charles Thurston, History Section Representative, reported on the continuing work of the Instruction and Research Services Committee, under the leadership of Sara Morris, in preparing a new guideline. The working title is “Information Literacy Standard for History” and the focus is research/information guidelines for undergraduate history students. Charles Thurston understood that the draft had gone to the education committee of the American Historical Association. Also, with some concern, he noted the high expectations of the guidelines. Following RUSA policy, Sara Morris had indicated a willingness to meet with S&G at Midwinter 2012. Some discussion followed among S&G members, wondering if that was a necessary step.

6. Larayne Dallas gave an update on the up-coming review of “Guidelines for Establishing Local History Collections.” At Midwinter, Charles Thurston explained that the chair of the committee -- the History Section Local History Committee -- expected to shepherd the guideline through its review had declined the duty. Following Mary Parker’s suggestion, Larayne Dallas contacted members of the History Section Executive Committee between conferences. They were immediately understanding of the situation and planned to appoint a subcommittee or task force to guide the review.

7. Steve Alleman, CODES Representative, sent a written report on his efforts to update “Guide for Written Collection Policy Statements” (1996) by bringing in the support of CODES to work with ALCTS – the previous sponsor. At the New Orleans conference, Steve Alleman expected the CODES Collection Development Planning and Assessment Committee (CDPAC) to be discussing the project and the CODES Executive Committee approving CODES participation. Steve Alleman hoped that the CODES Executive Committee would appoint a task force for the project, if CDPAC members were not interested. An additional part of the puzzle is getting an ALCTS – Collection Management Section person appointed to the committee or task force.

8. “Guidelines for Medical, Legal and Business Responses at General Reference Desks” (2001) and the closely associated “Guidelines for Business Information Service Responses” (Draft 4/2008) were next for discussion. Becky Smith, as BRASS Representative, and Larayne Dallas led discussion. The new guideline was to have replaced – in part – the old one. Record keeping problems meant confusion over the status of the new guideline so that the best course had seemed to be reconfirmation. Members of the BRASS Education Committee had not taken up the cause of the draft guideline after S&G had encouraged them to do so. Regret was express all around – over the lack of a guideline for medical, legal, and business responses and the path of the business guideline.

S&G members agreed to recommend to the RUSA Board sunsetting of the “Guidelines for Medical, Legal and Business Responses at General Reference Desks.”** Becky Smith suggested additional work with the BRASS Executive Committee in support of the draft business guideline. S&G members expressed concern about having no guideline for medical, legal, and business reference. Becky Smith also mentioned increased interest in veterinary medicine and the same kind of need for guidance. Susan Ware noted the value of linking from the RUSA guidelines to appropriate sources, including committee information and updated versions of publications.

9. Larayne Dallas summarized background information for “Guidelines for Interlibrary Loan Operations Management,” from the STARS Codes, Guidelines, and Technical Standards Committee. Following approval by the STARS Executive Committee, the guideline was discussed by S&G members at Annual 2010, with a general feeling of reservation about recommending approval of the guideline. After the conference, Bryna Coonin, for S&G, gathered comments on the guideline from other committee members. Those were shared with STARS representatives soon after Annual 2010. We had not heard back and Candice Townsend, new as STARS Representative, was not aware of the draft guideline. She planned to check with STARS contacts on the situation with the guideline.

10. Our goal of improving information for those writing guidelines focuses on revising the Chapter 4: “Guidelines – Procedures for Developing Guidelines” in RUSA Guide to Policies and Procedures. Larayne Dallas apologized for not setting a clear course on the project to follow up on work done by Susan Ware. Discussion about how to proceed with the revision benefitted from topics at S&G’s meetings at the conference. For example, though S&G members knew the value of early S&G involvement with a new guideline, they wondered if a representative for the new guideline needed to meet in person with S&G. Members also wondered if the RUSA Executive Director needed to be notified that work was beginning on a new guideline.

Members decided to set a September 1, 2011 deadline for comments to Susan Ware, who was willing to continue working on revisions. She noted, however, that her first attempts with revision were to bring order to a not so orderly document, rather than to revise policy. Comments could be on ALA Connect or by e-mail. Comments could be about structure, procedure, or any part of the policy.

11. Miscellaneous updates included: Thanks to RUSA staff, collection development guidelines are more appropriately categorized on the RUSA web site. Saturday at 4:00 pm was recognized as NOT a great time to meet, though Sunday at 10:30 am was thought to be okay.

Evaluate the committee’s effectiveness in accomplishing its objectives: S&G is (we think) doing a fairly good job staying in contact with those working on new or revised guidelines. With turnover in representatives and in membership of all the various committees, this can be hard. We were slow to make recommendations to sunset guidelines but had been reluctant to give up on the possibility of revision. Revising the information provided to members about how to prepare guidelines is an important job and it is slow work. We all wish that we knew more about guidelines.

What problems did you encounter? There were several incidents of inability to answer questions we thought we ought to be able to answer about guidelines. There were the usual problems of things forgotten between conferences and, as Becky Smith reminded us, the very big problem of inadequate record keeping and lack of archiving.

List any recommendations you have for action by the RUSA Board of Directors: Members of the Standards and Guidelines Committee have two important recommendations for the RUSA Board of Directors. As directed by RUSA policy (see: http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/rusa/about/policies/developingguidelines/4developingguidelines.cfm ), we recommend sunsetting of two guidelines which have not been reviewed by the end of the eighth year:

1.“Guidelines for Information Services” (2000). See: http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/rusa/resources/guidelines/guidelinesinformation.cfm

2.“Guidelines for Medical, Legal and Business Responses at General Reference Desks” (2001). See: http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/rusa/resources/guidelines/guidelinesmedical.cfm


Larayne Dallas, Chair of the RUSA Standards and Guidelines Committee – 7/13/2011

______

Signature of person reporting date