Latest From All Groups
The Collection Management and E-Resource Interest Group held a 1-hour session at the 2016 ALA Midwinter Conference in Boston on Sunday, January 10 from 3-4 pm. Chair Jennifer Bazeley (Interim Head, Technical Services at Miami University Libraries) and Vice-Chair Sunshine Carter (Electronic Resources Librarian at the University of Minnesota Libraries) co-moderated the session. The session topic was troubleshooting workflows for e-resources and had approximately 60 attendees. An announcement was made in regard to getting volunteers for the CMERIG vice-chair position to begin after ALA Annual 2016 in Orlando.
The session format included a short 15-minute presentation by the vice-chair of CMERIG, Sunshine Carter, followed by a 30-minute facilitated discussion session where we asked the attendees to divide into three groups to discuss one of three discussion questions. In the final 15 minutes of the session, each of the three groups reported back to the entire group to share discussion points and solutions.
The 15 minute introductory presentation by Sunshine Carter looked at existing troubleshooting workflows in libraries, both at the University of Minnesota Libraries and in the library literature. The slides for this presentation can be viewed at https://docs.google.com/a/miamioh.edu/presentation/d/1cKV2DM_tVJEV0oABWo2ycuTuQrepGRPVBGK5-yQuqNA/edit?usp=sharing.
The attendees then divided into three discussion groups to focus on three questions posed by the CMERIG co-chairs. Each group was assigned a facilitator who led the discussion and took notes.
Pro-active troubleshooting (facilitator: Jennifer Bazeley)
Reported, unreported and undiscovered e-access issues exist. Broken access is a waste of acquisitions dollars. How is your institution proactively checking access? What steps can your institution take to increase proactive troubleshooting?
Participants in this group generally agreed that proactively checking access is difficult, even at institutions with large staff, due to the sheer volume of e-resources. Participants noted that checking access was often comprised of checking several things: that an e-resource link is going to a valid page, that the institution actually has access to the material at the link, and that coverage dates for continuing resources were actually representative of what could be accessed.
Solutions for checking access included a wide variety of strategies. Many institutions agreed that checking access for discrete packages during e-resource transition times like annual renewal season or publisher platform changes (e.g., when the University of Chicago Press journals changed platforms from JSTOR to Atypon in winter 2015, most institutions checked access for the titles in this package) was a common occurrence. Schools with student workers reported using those student workers to check access in an annual or semi-annual process, or on a small project basis. One school reported using a random number checker to test access for e-resources for approximately one hour per week. A few schools had employed open source or commercial link checker products to locate links that were completely broken, especially for open access materials. The only issue with using these tools is that if they hit a commercial site numerous times to check access, the commercial publisher may mistake those hits for systematic downloading, and shut down access. All participants agreed that while automated solutions are helpful, the work of proactively checking access generally always requires human intervention. Many schools also reported checking access at the point of purchase and cataloging. Some participants found tools like the Project Transfer database (http://www.niso.org/workrooms/transfer/), which can be used to track what journals are changing platforms at any given time, to be helpful in tracking access issues. For libraries that utilize LibGuides version 2.0, it was noted that the link checking capabilities of version 2 of the software were quite powerful and an improvement over the functionality of this feature in version 1. One librarian at the University of Kentucky had written a program to check for access to electronic books at her institution. This solution generated a lot of interest among participants, and the librarian who wrote the program noted that the only issue was that the program had to be customized for each individual vendor, due to the disparity in how e-book vendors code their e-book platforms.
Increasing troubleshooting staff (facilitator: Jessica Brangiel, Electronic Resources Management Librarian, McCabe Library, Swarthmore College)
The number of staff troubleshooting access issues is low, but access issues are aplenty. We will need more staff to handle proactive troubleshooting. What does your institution do to combat having few troubleshooting staff? How can your institution incorporate non-technical service staff into the troubleshooting workflow?
Increasing troubleshooting staff:
Most attendees agreed that no one has enough staff for e-resource troubleshooting. ILL staff are key in helping to troubleshoot e-resource issues and it can be helpful for e-resources staff to spend time with ILL staff to discuss common problems. All group members commented that cross-training and collaboration across public services and/or circulation staff was key in order to expand troubleshooting of electronic resource issues.
How is training for other departments done?
Some libraries reported doing one on one training, some provided basic handouts or workflow diagrams to help walk front line staff through the process of troubleshooting e-resource problems. Documentation can be challenging because front line staff don’t want detailed descriptions of technological issues when they’re trying to help patrons.
Google forms was mentioned as a tool that can help to funnel an access problem through a workflow so it reaches the correct person. Project management tools like Trello were also reported as being used to track e-resource problems.
Having good documentation is key, however it is a challenge to keep documentation up to date with limited staff, especially with the number of changes that occur in the world of e-resources.
The group discussed methods of troubleshooting e-resource problems at the point of need. Wouldn’t it be great if a form was available to report an access problem at the moment the user encounters it, rather than the user having to know to go back to a librarian or a separate link to report a problem? This question led to the mention of an e-resources troubleshooting LibGuide created by Rachel Erb (Electronic Resources Management Librarian, Colorado State University Libraries) which has helped staff at Colorado State University Libraries. The LibGuide is available at http://libguides.colostate.edu/eresources.
One library reported utilizing EZProxy logs to respond to users when they encounter EZProxy error messages. The group also discussed how small libraries can get started with training in e-resource troubleshooting. A simple FAQ was suggested that could be linked from the library website.
The conversation evolved to comment on how many e-resource issues are actually vendor usability issues. Participants reported seeing more dedicated staff for user experience and/or usability in libraries. Many electronic resource librarians and staff work closely or collaborate with these positions in their institutions.
What’s the best way to track in person reported problems? Some libraries use IT ticketing systems or Google Docs.
Troubleshooting metrics (facilitator: Amy Dumouchel, Electronic Resources Librarian, O’Neill Library, Boston College)
Few libraries collect troubleshooting metrics beyond issue counts. To analyze staffing capacity, efficiency and workflows, metrics will be necessary. What statistics, beyond counts, does your institution utilize or desire to analyze troubleshooting? How can you increase the diversity of metrics coming from troubleshooting?
The group began by discussing use cases for why we might want to classify troubleshooting statistics. Some of the ideas that came up included justifying additional staffing or requirements to choose a new system. There were additional ideas discussed in greater length. For example, the ability to report to vendors if they seem to have particularly egregious numbers of access issues. Additionally, it can help allow us to provide feedback regarding usability of resources, if patrons encounter difficulties. Finally, categorizing statistics could help to identify additional training needs. If users encounter what seem to be problems, but the resource is actually working as expected, it can lead to targeted instruction, the creation of FAQs, or usability feedback to vendors. As well as patron education, problems reported to the wrong department can identify areas for increased staff training, so that they can identify when an issue should be reported to the metadata or systems departments instead of to the acquisitions or e-resources departments.
Another issue that came up was the ability of ticketing systems to allow for the creation of categories to apply to tickets. While there was some discussion of recent presentations done about LibAnswers or LibAnalytics that seemed to be able to do this, it was observed that many libraries use systems provided either by a broader IT department or intended for use by multiple departments in the library. Of the individuals in the discussion, roughly half used a ticketing system of some sort. While these systems have the benefits of often coming at no cost to our departments, and also in allowing us to pass tickets on to other departments in the library, they do not necessarily allow for the granularity of categories that might be desirable within the department for the use cases that we discussed.
The act of referring a ticket to another department also raised another question. When a ticket is transferred, who receives credit for the statisti? Some of the ticketing systems used, like ServiceNow, are unable to track statistics that have been transferred to another department. As one of the use cases we had discussed was the ability to track how many tickets transferred to other departments, this was particularly problematic.
It was noted that many of the individuals using ticketing systems were from larger, research-level institutions. One piece of advice given by these larger libraries to smaller libraries was that the cost for many of these ticketing systems is based on the number of seats needed, which means that these ticketing products might be more affordable than expected for smaller libraries.
Finally, the discussion directed toward questions of response time. One of the most difficult issues is that it can be hard to judge when a ticket is complete and can be closed. This uncertainty can happen for several reasons, including that at a certain point it might be referred to a vendor, and is out of the library‘s hands, or because the reporting patron does not reply. Often, a patron will not reply to subsequent follow ups or of requests to test because they perceive the problem as resolved on their end. For instance, when a user reports being unable to access an article, it is common practice to send a copy of the article while still troubleshooting the issue. Once the user has the article, there is less incentive to reply.
Best practices for efforts of response time were also discussed. One idea was to send an alarm similar to vendor CRMs that would force an open ticket will close if there is no further response. While the time to resolve an issue can vary, based on its cause, it is ideal to follow up as soon as possible, so that the user is aware of our efforts to resolve the problem. This can help clarify to other departments that while time to resolution can vary, our departments place high priority on troubleshooting access.
A final issue brought up is that often the most urgent access problems are not sent through a ticketing system. Instead of opening a ticket (especially for urgent access problems, such as a major platform outage) a user might instead make a phone call, send an email, or appear at the office of an e-resources librarian. This is because tickets can be perceived as time consuming to create, and slower to receive a response. Unfortunately, these major outages are the occurrences that we most want to capture and categorize in our ticketing systems.
The Proactive Challenge:
Dissecting the recent
ALA's State of American Libraries 2015 Report
in conjunction with the proposed
Resolution Considering the Creation of the Deaf Culture Digital Library
as prepared by
Alec C. McFarlane, President
National Literary Society of the Deaf, Inc.
The enclosed ALA report gives way to the proposed Resolution (the Resolution) by first outlining the role and duty of the library and the role that the ALA plays in the larger system. The proposed Resolution itself, then, gives away to the role and duty of the library under a specific and particular creation; henceforth known as the Deaf Culture Digital Library (DCDL). And finally, the combined roles of ALA, DCDL, National Deaf History Month (NDHM), the many NPO's and Organizations Serving the Deaf (OSD's) and the American Library system as it may be, are the things that the NLSD seeks to harness under a Public-Private Partnership (PPP); where literature, reading, and writing are pathways to governmental participation and the emancipation of citizens.
Consider this a two part piece where the proposed Resolution is a stand-alone, single-page document, that can be submitted to your state librarian, your legislative representatives, and your local Organization or Association for immediate action. The Resolution summarizes the purpose of the DCDL and provides the document sets necessary to justify and understand the law, its intent, and the process of its creation; the links enclosed provide a full and searchable history. Your legislator, if they agree to sponsor the idea, will craft state, commonwealth, or territory-specific law.
This proactive challenge is intended for professionals, as well as the grassroots membership, this is for people. leaders, and organizations that want to effect change. In order to illustrate the concept of how we can effect change, we use the ALA system and the ALA 2015 report as an example. The NLSD has a role and a duty to use these platforms to effect proactive change.
NLSD Plan of Action:
The whole point of NLSD's, as well as ALA's, existence is one of proactive and procreative means. Where the problem --whatever it may be-- has a solution that must somehow be found, we are the seekers. We seek solutions. In the modern sense of complex systems, simplicity is often lost to overwhelming power, enormity and complexity --in this instance-- of the deaf community set adrift, and apart from, the larger community. We contend that this drift is caused by the lack of true understanding and true discourse, a battle for information & credibility, if you will. We often forget the simple basis upon which we all stand, we forget the simple foundations that open, public, and free information and resources provide.
Managing complexity often comes in the form of a librarian, archivist, historian, or the like,... but also in the form of architects, engineers, and builders. In the latter, as builders, we manage complex projects by foundational basis; focusing on the first subset of components that give way to the next all the while understanding the relationships of each. So plain and obvious, right? Well, then, in this case we go to the problem of note; the disaffected deaf community. The long running institutional failure of the NAD and the many state associations for the deaf have given birth to things like DGM or Deaf Grassroots Movement. The disaffect has given rise to as many as 85 individual Hunger Strikers across the nation --in 2015 alone-- protesting the lack of ASL language access in deaf schools situated in --but not limited to-- Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Illinois. The disaffect includes the creation, in recent years, of aspirational organizations like the National Deaf Freedom Association (NDFA), and We The Deaf People (WTDP). This is not to single anyone out, but to ask, what has caused this proliferation? What do later-forming organizations have that earlier formations do not?
More importantly how do we address causation? How do --or do not-- these new formations answer causation? How do these formations --new and old-- answer to membership and civil rights? Our proactive plan has always considered the power of the larger library system, and its role in effecting understanding, but what is that? How can we answer causation? How can we answer to our rights? We begin by answering the question; What is an Anchor Institution?
We will let the ALA speak for itself, all the while we will demonstrate the NLSD's role in the scheme...
ALA Website :http://www.ala.org/news/state-americas-libraries-report-2015
PDF link: http://www.ala.org/news/sites/ala.org.news/files/content/0415_StateAmLib_0.pdf (31 pages; 21 page multimedia report and 10 pages w/resource links)
All boldface italics are direct quotations. All Highlights and commentary by ACM.
ALA's State of American Libraries 2015 Report:
"Libraries provide people of all ages and backgrounds with
unlimited possibilities to participate in a media- and technology enriched
society. As community anchors, libraries touch people’s
lives in many ways and stand as protectorates of the tenets of a
democratic government. This report discusses current issues,
developments, and practices of academic, school, and public libraries."
Highlighted portion: Literally, 'the protectors of a democratic government'. When we speak of having a fulcrum, or of having the ability to leverage the power of something, we are talking about the literal levers of government, of democratic representative government of, by, and for, the people. Consider that the Library of Congress was created in 1800, American Library Association in 1876, National Association of the Deaf in 1880, NLS in 1931, and DCDL --in Maryland-- in 2014. We know that hopscotching through history does not really help us here, anchor institutions, as explained on page 5, do help us here --in part-- by maintaining continuity. The problem, of course, is that no one is maintaining the continuum of the deaf, for this we want the DCDL. We are not talking about your democratic right to vote, we are talking about the democratic right to information.
We begin with Anchor Institutions and the concept behind the same where, in addition to the economic benefits, "the mission of anchor institutions includes creating a more democratic, just, and equitable society." Now let us be clear, "community anchors include libraries, museums, faith-based institutions, community foundations, municipal entities, and other nonprofit organizations."
And the piece closes out, at the bottom of page 5, saying; "In this report, we celebrate the importance of academic, school, and public libraries as proactive community anchors. Libraries are democratic community anchors with unlimited possibilities to promote education, equity, social and racial justice, place, and community."
Words often become blurred and meaningless, but consider again; Libraries are democratic community anchors with unlimited possibilities to promote education, equity, social and racial justice, place, and community. These are all words of obligation, and it follows that this is another word of obligation: "public". The obligations of public institutions are also the obligations of (to and for) the public; this means that people must participate in order to effect change for themselves and the larger community. The balance of responsibility of a public institution --an Anchor Institution-- thereby counter balances the responsibility of the many private organizations (other Anchor Institutions) in order to hold them in account the rights of the people, of the membership of their organizations. There are, for instance, practical requirements of an organization working in partnership with a public library or museum.
Diversity in children’s literature. Last year there was an upswing in conversations and a groundswell toward activism to address the dearth of diversity reflected in children’s literature— both in content and among writers and illustrators. In his April 2014 white paper, The Importance of Diversity in Library Programs and Material Collections for Children, Jamie Campbell Naidoo explores the critical role libraries play in helping children make cross-cultural connections. He calls on libraries to include diversity in programming and materials for children as an important step in meeting the needs of their communities.
After "children", the keywords 'diversity' and 'inclusion' are inherent to good governance, and good governance comes from grassroots that band together to form organizations. The organization is where the grassroots grow in a membership-based organization, where people grow in understanding, in sharing, in opportunity created by meetings, associations, and common need. Common needs come from cross-cultural connections, and this is where the deaf need to be present in order to contribute.
Without follow-up, without follow through with new people, new connections, and new members, things simply will not happen, or will be very slow to happen. And without knowledgeable people or sources to carry and follow through, your chances of success are further minimized. This justifies a professional class, but at the same time we know that proactive success depends on the true masses, on grassroots, of participatory government of the people. The professional class represents the leadership class, but leadership seems to be a lost art. A shepherd without sheep, or sheep without a shepherd; it is the same difference, and especially where the larger deaf community and its many OSD's are more akin to cats --or crabs-- than sheep.
Here we note the organizational structure of grassroots is important because grassroots (people) need soil (organizations) and water (structure, money, power) in order to prosper, to grow. The proactive element of a NLSD consultancy is to put water where it is needed; to the membership, to governance; to member-driven action & participation. The most important thing an organization can do is train, empower, and enable its people to act.
"Public Programs. The breadth, variety, and number of programs presented in all types of libraries are growing tremendously. In 2012, there were 92.6 million attendees at the 4 million programs offered by US public libraries, according to Public Libraries in the United States Survey: Fiscal Year 2012. This represents an increase of 54.4% in attendance from 10 years ago."
What this means --to give some context to the numbers-- is that out of about 123,000 libraries in America, there were 4 million programs and almost 93 million people who went to these programs! We call that impact! Social and cultural impact. We are saying at the NLSD that the deaf community and OSD's can impact this metric significantly with programs taken up by, and hosted by, the many OSD's on a regular basis. Assuming a once-a-month regimen, it would still take years and years before a single OSD would be able to reach every library in their state, or even every library in their city! Many OSD's do have programming, but beyond some major once a year, or 'special' type-things, there is no regular or consistent programming interface for the larger community.
People of the 'outside world' do not know our story, they do not know deafness, and thus the story must be told. The point often lost is that these "platforms" --public libraries and museums, when utilized-- have far greater impact than any protest, rally, hunger strike, or petition could have for the simple reason that they are proactive; they bring forth solutions.
Suppose you don't know ASL or Deaf Culture? Who is going to be teaching whom? The Deafhood Foundation is for the Deaf only? Ok, so... Next? We need people who go out and engage the community in a open and public forum. We will achieve little speaking to each-other as closed societies; we will achieve little speaking in rarefied and specialized forums aka NAD, RID, Gallaudet, CEASD, unless we radically expand the audience. The National Deaf History Month is a months-long celebration, running from March 13 to April 15, that gives all OSD's (anybody, in fact) in America a public platform to celebrate deaf history, deaf culture, deaf linguistics; to highlight artistic creations, to launch programs, even to launch drives for the creation of ASL as a recognized language in America, not as a political campaign but as an educational campaign.. Regular, consistent. and dedicated programming, mentoring, and community/governmental involvement is proactive advocacy.
"Equitable access. The library’s role of promoting equitable access to information, and being a welcoming place to all who enter its doors, continues to be critical to our communities. According to the 2013 Program for the International Assessment for Adult Competencies (PIAAC), one in six American adults struggle with basic English literacy. This amounts to a staggering 36 million people ages 16–65 who struggle on a daily basis to perform such basic tasks as completing a job application, understanding a medication label, or reading a simple story to their children."
One in Six is 18%. This statement says that about 18% of our entire adult population is functionally illiterate. This is not about the deaf. nor blind, nor the disabled, just regular folks who cannot read. Take special note of the age brackets: "...a staggering 36 million people ages 16-65..." The dropout age is 16 and the retirement age is 65 and this means, simply, that the public library and other public anchor institutions are the go-to resource for this class of people who are no longer in the school system. This is about the public means of taking care of the public masses, taking care of ourselves, and we cannot forget how we are part of the system. The most important point we want to emphasize here is that illiteracy is not a problem based on hearing or speech, and further that as a public-policy matter this is relevant to all NPO's and our larger arguments for education, communications access, employment opportunities, and more.
On page 15 the ALA's Office of Intellectual Freedom (OIF) , the ALA demonstrates its support for diverse communities and among those include the disability community. Under law --under the ADA-- deafness is defined as a disability and for better or worse that is the fact under which we operate. That said, the DCDL in conjunction with the NDHM can help modify the perception by removing the disabling elements and focusing on the diverse --and enabling-- elements. Reframing. The NLSD's job, encapsulated, is reframing the library for the organization, the grassroots, the consumer, and the citizen, one book at a time.
National Issues and Trends
"In March 2014, ALA and the Internet Archive, a nonprofit digital library, joined forces to file a friend of the court brief in Riley v. California and United States v. Brima Wurie, two appellate cases consolidated by the US Supreme Court to permit it to examine the constitutionality of warrantless cellphone searches after police arrests. In the amicus brief, both organizations argued that such searches violate the Fourth Amendment. In June, the US Supreme Court agreed, unanimously ruling that the Fourth Amendment requires police officers to obtain a warrant before they can lawfully search an arrestee’s cellphone."
This outtake is a simple way to illustrate the depths of the ALA's involvement in the everyday matters of public interest. The ALA took the time to argue for the Fourth Amendment on behalf of the citizens of this country (not just ALA members), and their arguments carry weight in that they use the full force and power of the information held in their networks and the Library of Congress. This is also an illustration of the lobbying and advocacy efforts of a 501(c)(3) organization --just one of many. Another important element we cannot overlook is the 'joined forces with' part; the PPP element of working with other organizations with similar interests. We, as part of the larger deaf community, want to attract the kind of support that the ALA and other national social-interest, social-action, NPO's offer. Finally, cellphones are communications devices of modern prevalence, and of notable benefit to the deaf in terms of both text and video capacity.
Associations and affiliations of the years past, for example between the NAD and the AGB, are largely symbolic; essentially these are associations where 'you do your thing and I will do mine', and where the result creates special spheres of interest that are maintained, separately. What these symbolic affiliations fail to grasp is the larger common ground among not only the deaf, but society at large --refer back to the 18% illiteracy rate. This entire divide among those otherwise deaf represents cognitive dissonance. The library, unlike private NPO's, does not have the luxury of choice in whether or not to maintain a proprietary database. The public library, as such, has a duty to maintain open, non-proprietary information systems. Nonprofits, such as the JSTOR databases (http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2013/01/library-services/many-jstor-journal-archives-now-free-to-public/), represent other private sources that do not always have the duty or obligation to share data, and this can be counterproductive. NLSD advocates to make information accessible; with the DCDL being the primary vehicle for this solution.
"Workforce bill passes. In July, President Obama signed the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), a law that authorizes public libraries to be eligible providers with access to federal funding for effective job training and job search programs. In a statement, ALA President Courtney Young applauded the presidential signing of the act and thanked Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Representative Rush D. Holt Jr. (D-N.J.) for their efforts to include libraries in the legislation. ALA will keep a close watch on the Department of Labor’s implementation of WIOA over the next year. In October, ALA hosted a webinar on “$2.2 Billion Reasons to Pay Attention to WIOA,” an interactive event that focused on how public libraries can make use of the act’s provisions."
The thing here, as was noted some time ago with Indiana's case (IND-HB 1367 c.2012 Hear Indiana and the Outreach Services for the deaf - then situated at ISD) is that the Library can function in many educational, medical, outreach, and even occupational functions, including things like job training, and job searches. This fits squarely with the needs of the larger deaf community because this is an enabler. DGM's platform of demands, for instance, includes job opportunities, job training/education, and communications access. The library has a basic obligation to provide all three, and more.
The DCDL's specific role in the larger picture should be clear; the DCDL can enable specific training. When the DCDL is created under the authority of the State Librarian and as part of the State Library, there is a built-in capacity to develop, create, or otherwise accept program-specific grants. These grants are often community driven, where a NPO or OSD works in partnership with the Library to develop a program or service and then seek grant or other special funding to enable the same. The partnership also makes possible funding, and even fundraising, opportunities for both the OSD, the Library Friends Groups, and the library itself. This is considered an all-around win.
Back to the specific case at hand, the libraries providing job training and search, the DCDL --as set up under the state library system-- would basically be responsible for setting up and maintaining a dedicated office with personnel to provide specific job service support. Whatever functions the library itself may be limited, it can and will always refer to the other OSD's who are part of the resource directory listing that the library is obligated to develop... and where the library knows better than anyone the power of PPP's. The DCDL creates a specific area of expertise that will often the require the services that the many OSD's provide. In other words, the many OSD's in America have roles to play in creation and content development of the DCDL.
"E-Rate. The big win occurred at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) through the adoption of two landmark orders to improve the E-Rate program, which provide financial support to libraries and K–12 schools for advanced telecommunications services. The FCC increased the total E-Rate fund from $2.4 billion to $3.9 billion annually and made important policy changes to make it easier for libraries and schools to deploy high-speed broadband technologies and develop the network infrastructure inside their facilities.
The American Library Association spent a considerable amount of time on E-Rate policy advocacy in 2014, working with several partners in the library sector and beyond."
This is a significant bump in funding --$1.5 Billion-- that goes to libraries and schools, and this has wide-ranging implications for several industries tied, but not limited to, telecommunications for the deaf. This means that advanced telecommunications are a big element of what the ALA and the larger Library System are part of; as user, consumer, content curator, content creator, and as protector. Any technology or IT related endeavor has an ever-growing place and role in this evolution of information management and retrieval programs, and businesses in both for-profit and non-profit endeavors are part of the equation.
"ALA Policy Revolution. ALA launched the Policy Revolution! initiative in 2013 to reposition the library community in its national public policy advocacy. Decision makers and influencers do not have a good understanding of how contemporary libraries contribute to the array of national policy goals such as education, employment, entrepreneurship, community engagement, and individual empowerment—The E’s of Libraries. Thus the first goal of the initiative is to develop a national public policy agenda for the library community. A draft agenda was circulated in January 2015 for public comment."
Some things bear repeating, and this I will: "Decision makers and influencers do not have a good understanding of how contemporary libraries contribute to the array of national policy goals such as education, employment, entrepreneurship, community engagement, and individual empowerment --The E's of Libraries." I've been saying this for the last 7 years, Alice L. Hagemeyer has been saying this for the last 40. We can say it again for another 47 years into the future and nothing will have changed. The fact will remain that the library and its related institutions have had a long running place in our government and they maintain a central role to play. This means that the DCDL represents a huge part of an untapped source. The NLSD aims to change that, to change the dynamic between the many organizations serving the deaf and the larger PPP ecosystem by enabling the DCDL, NDHM, and then by riding the wave we --and the proactive laws-- create..
*** *** ***
The second element of this package is the proposed Resolution for the DCDL made to the American Library Association. The proposed resolution outlines the objectives of DCDL which align with NDHM and the mission of the NLSD. Our work moving forward concerns all that the public-private partnership offers, the NLSD seeks to enable legislation, enable organizations, enable grassroots, and enable literature; the literal keys to creation.
*** *** ***
Proposed Resolution Concerning the Creation of the Deaf Culture Digital Library
As submitted January 7, 2016 to ASCLA and United for Libraries;
Two Divisions of the American Library Association
Whereas the 1979 White House Conference on Libraries and Information Services delegation voted to support the concept of a deaf-oriented Library under the auspices of the Library of Congress;
Whereas the American Library Association passed a resolution in 2005 calling for a presidential proclamation for the National Deaf History Month (NDHM) - March 13 - April 15;
Whereas the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) Council of Representatives (COR) passed a resolution in 2006 recognizing creation of the National Deaf History Month;
Whereas the State of Maryland has created, by legislation in 2012 and 2014, a state-level Public Library known as the Deaf Culture Digital Library (DCDL) that is about the deaf and for everyone;
Whereas DCDL, as implemented in Maryland, is a state-level Public Library that serves all four types of libraries, Public, Special, School, and Academic, thereby touching all four corners of the American Library System as it be;
Whereas the record makes clear the specialized and relative needs of the larger deaf community and the culture, language, education, employment, and life opportunities of socio-economic and governmental participation, we believe that the already-developed schema paves the way for the creation of a national library system under the auspices of the Library of Congress.
Points of Reference:
1. 1979 White House Conference on Library and Information Services
2. 2005 ALA Resolutions on the NDHM
3. 2006 NAD COR Resolutions on the NDHM
4. 2012 & 2014 Legislation creating the DCDL
Now, Therefore be it Resolved
That the American Library Association;
1. Endorse the conceptual creation of a central Deaf Culture Digital Library under the auspices of the Library of Congress, and as Resolved at the 1979 White House Conference, to be administered and carried out on the basic model given by the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped.
2. Draft national model legislation for national and state level creations under the many State Libraries and under the authority of the State Librarian.
3. Enable the process of procreation by way of the association and its members, beginning in the states and working out to the International Community.
Mover: Alec C. McFarlane
Seconder: Alice L. Hagemeyer
*** *** ***
--This package is put together as a Public Service--
Content may be shared as long as source credit is given to the American Library Association, the National Literary Society of the Deaf, Inc.,
Alice L. Hagemeyer and/or Alec C. McFarlane as may be appropriate. Please share the same via cc:to firstname.lastname@example.org & email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org
Alec C. McFarlane
President - NLSD
National Literary Society of the Deaf, Inc.
2930 Craiglawn Road
Silver Spring, MD 20904
301-563-9062 MD Office
818-643-3690 CA Office
ALA Member #2004704
ASCLA SIG: Bridging Deaf Cultures @ Your Library
United for Libraries Member
Alice L. Hagemeyer
ALA Honorary Member
American Library Association
ALA The American Library Association (ALA), the voice of America’s libraries, is the oldest, largest and most influential library association in the world. Its approximately 56,000 members are primarily librarians but also trustees, publishers and other library supporters. The Association represents all types of libraries; its mission is to promote the highest quality library and information services and public access to information. See: www.ala.org
ASCLA Association of Speiclaized and Cooperative Library Agencies
Mision: The Association for Specialized and Cooperative Library Agencies (ASCLA) enhances the effectiveness of library service by advocating for and providing high quality networking, enrichment and educational opportunities for its diverse members, who represent state library agencies, libraries serving special populations, library cooperatives, and library consultants. See: www.ala.org/ascla
United for Libraries
United for Libraries is a national network of enthusiastic library supporters who believe in the importance of libraries as the social and intellectual centers of communities and campuses. No one has a stronger voice for libraries than those who use them, raise money for them, and govern them. By uniting these voices, library supporters everywhere will become a real force to be reckoned with at the local, state, and national levels. See: www.ala.org/united
National Literary Society of the Deaf, Inc.
The National Literary Society of the Deaf (NLSD) was founded in 1907 by a troupe of Kendall students out of Gallaudet University Campus who wanted to promote literature & books, reading & debate. The NLSD is a Center for the Book Partner at the Library of Congress (LOC). Originating NLSD documentation including original founding membership rolls and several versions of the Bylaws can be found at Gallaudet University Archives.
Alice L. Hagemeyer
Alice L. Hagemeyer is an Honorary ALA member and lifelong NAD member and recognized as one of the 15 visionary leaders from Gallaudet University. Hagemeyer is the founder of the FOLDA (Friends of Libraries for Deaf Action) a public service arm of her private publishing and programming company, Library for Deaf Action (LDA). FOLDA published the Red Notebook, still found in some libraries today, see: www.folda.net. Ms. Hagemeyer was a graduate of Gallaudet University in 1957 and earned her MLS from the University of Maryland in 1976. She was the first Deaf librarian at the DC Public Library (1976-1991). When not advocating something, somewhere, Ms. Hagemeyer dedicates her time to writing books.
Alec C. McFarlane
Alec C. McFarlane is a master builder & remodeler of more than 30 years and has been the principal of New Image Associates , a private construction consulting firm since 1993. More recently he was president of DFL:PR or the Deaf Library Friends of Puerto Rico from 2009-2010 and this work would spur the next seven years of advocacy work; including stints as the president of LDA or Libraries for Deaf Action and a role as the vice president of the board at FOLDA, and then as president of the NLSD in 2013. Besides the ALA, McFarlane is a member of CML or Citizens for Maryland's Libraries (http://www.citizensformarylandlibraries.org/) and he serves on the Administrative Board of ASL Access, a 501c3 service organization (www.aslaccess.org)
Glossary of Abbreviations:
ACM - Alec C. McFarlane - Author
ALA - American Library Association
ASCLA - Association of Specialized and Cooperative Library Agencies, a division of the ALA
United _ United for Libraries, a division of the ALA
NGO - Non Governmental Organization
NAD - National Association of the Deaf
COR - NAD's legislative body; Council of Representatives
PPP - Public-Private Partnership
NLS - National library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped
DGM - Deaf Grassroots Movement (Loose alliance of Facebook groups)
NDFA - National Deaf Freedom Association (Pending 501c4 PAC)
WTDP - We The Deaf People (Pending 501c4 PAC)
OSD - Organizations Serving the Deaf
NLSD - National Literary Society of the Deaf
RID - Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf
CEASD - Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools & Programs for the Deaf
ASL - American Sign Language
DCDL - Deaf Culture Digital Library
OIF - American Library Association's Office of Intellectual Freedom
ADA - American's with Disabilities Act
NPO - Non Profit Organization
AGB - Alexander Graham Bell Association
WIOA - Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
PDF - Public Document Format
FOLDA - Friends of Libraries for Deaf Action
LDA - Library Friends for Deaf Action
NDHM - National Deaf History Month
ASLA - ASL Access Organization
CML - Citizens for Maryland's Libraries