ACRL Standards Committee Association of College and Research Libraries

last person joined: 9 months ago 

Charge: Responsible for overseeing the development of standards and guidelines adopted and promoted by the Association.

Respond and approve ACRL-RBMS/SAA Guidelines on Access to Research Materials in Archives and Special Collections Libraries

  • 1.  Respond and approve ACRL-RBMS/SAA Guidelines on Access to Research Materials in Archives and Special Collections Libraries

    Posted Oct 17, 2019 08:20 PM
      |   view attached
    The transmittal form used for ACRL-RBMS/SAA Guidelines on Access to Research Materials in Archives and Special Collections Libraries is different from the regular Transmittal Form for Draft ACRL Standards, Guidelines, and Frameworks, available from http://www.ala.org/acrl/resources/forms.

    As a result, means to provide ample opportunity for comments from all interested parties is not enough and specific.  The regular Transmittal Form inquires list names, e.g. RBMS-L, SAA Archives & Archivists Listserv and dates when the proposed standard was disseminated on email distribution lists (listservs), letters to "experts" requesting comments, etc.  It is important to follow the steps listed in the regular Transmittal Form.  Attached please find the regular Transmittal Form.  Please forward it to the committee chairperson.

    Thank you so much indeed!

    Sincerely yours,

    Amanda Xu






    ------------------------------
    [Amanda] [Xu]
    [Metadata Librarian]
    [LAC Group on Assignment at National Agricultural Library][Beltsville][Maryland]
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Respond and approve ACRL-RBMS/SAA Guidelines on Access to Research Materials in Archives and Special Collections Libraries

    Posted Oct 18, 2019 10:11 AM
    I reviewed the ACRL-RBMS/SAA Guidelines on Access to Research Materials in Archives and Special Collections Libraries and agree with Amanda that they should use the actual transmittal form. Much of the information is included, but we need more details of how they gathered and incorporated feedback as they developed the guidelines.

    ------------------------------
    Nancy Fawley
    Director of Information & Instruction Services
    University of Vermont
    Burlington VT
    nfawley@uvm.edu
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: Respond and approve ACRL-RBMS/SAA Guidelines on Access to Research Materials in Archives and Special Collections Libraries

    Posted Oct 18, 2019 10:41 AM
    Hi Willie,
    I guess we should wait until we get additional information before we vote on this guideline.
    Binh






  • 4.  RE: Respond and approve ACRL-RBMS/SAA Guidelines on Access to Research Materials in Archives and Special Collections Libraries

    Posted Oct 18, 2019 10:47 AM

    Hi all, 

    I understand the need for the appropriate transmittal form but wanted to register my concern that the high threshold for administrative compliance around these kinds of things works against a desire to engage the processes we're asking folks to engage in. From my time on the ILFSC I know that they've been working on getting these guidelines done for literally years. Asking for yet another form is surely procedurally important (I defer to folks with more experience!), but I sometimes wonder if we get in our own way when we ask for even more administrative work from each other.


    Best,

    Emily



    Emily Drabinski
    Critical Pedagogy Librarian
    Graduate Center, CUNY
    365 Fifth Avenue
    New York, NY 10016
    212-817-7068






  • 5.  RE: Respond and approve ACRL-RBMS/SAA Guidelines on Access to Research Materials in Archives and Special Collections Libraries

    Posted Oct 18, 2019 04:45 PM
    Hello, all!

    I agree that we should delay the vote, if only to build consensus on whether the information submitted on the transmittal sheet is sufficient.  As Amanda Xu indicates, the fields on the transmittal sheet for the RBMS / SAA Guidelines have been changed.  They appear to have been modified (probably by Veronica Reyes-Escudero) to reflect the steps that were actually taken to solicit comment on this revised standard, rather than the 'ideal steps' as listed in the transmittal form.

    I'm not sure how old the transmittal sheet itself is, or when it was last revised, in order to know whether the steps listed thereon (such as 'Published in C&RL News' and 'Letters to experts') are still those recommended in all or most cases.  RBMS / SAA appears to have followed a slightly different process (Twitter, Google Doc, conference call) than that laid out in the form.  I can see why Reyes-Escudero modified the form to suit what was actually undertaken to garner commentary on the standard.

    Nancy and David, you affirmed in the virtual Standards Meeting on October 9 that our charge as a committee was to 'make sure the proper protocol was observed' in the creation / review of Standards.  Therefore, I have some questions for Nancy, David, and the rest of the committee:

    a. Do you feel that the process undertaken by RBMS / SAA was completed according to protocol, even though it's clear the process differed from what's listed on the transmittal form?  If yes, would this be a simple matter of Escudero-Reyes finding a way to fit the committee's actual activities somewhere in the pre-made categories of the transmittal form? Or can you not tell since insufficient detail has been provided?
    b. Or am I focusing on the wrong aspect: Is the protocol we're judging whether: 1) The RBMS / SAA revision committee followed appropriate steps in getting feedback; 2) They properly negotiated the paperwork to forward on the revised standards?

    If we're judging the *steps*, it seems as though Escudero-Reyes just needs to re-tool the form and resubmit it to us so we can determine for certain if the correct amounts and types of feedback were solicited, including dates.  (If the process for proper solicitation of feedback has changed a great deal but the form has not, the transmittal itself needs to be revised, it would appear).  If we're voting on whether RBMS / SAA properly negotiated the paperwork, the modification of the form alone appears to indicate that they did not.

    Apologies if the answers to my questions should be glaringly obvious.  As a newer member of the committee, I want to ensure that I provide an educated vote, and I'm not clear on exactly what I'm asked to evaluate here.

    Thanks,
    Kari

    ------------------------------
    Kari Garman
    Access Services / Education Librarian
    Bradley University
    ------------------------------



  • 6.  RE: Respond and approve ACRL-RBMS/SAA Guidelines on Access to Research Materials in Archives and Special Collections Libraries

    Posted Oct 21, 2019 09:49 AM
    We are not voting on whether or not they submitted the proper paperwork, but using the transmittal form is required in the ACRL Guide to Policies & Procedures 14.5. I think the form would help us to understand their processes better, as well.

    Also, and I apologize for not thinking of this sooner, but it is a joint guideline between ACRL-RBMS and SAA and there is a specific process that must be gone through to develop this. (See 14.1 pasted below.) We have run into this before with RBMS/SAA documents. We will want to ask them if they went through the proper procedure of getting the ACRL Board's approval prior to developing this joint guideline.

    14.10 Procedures for Joint Statements with Other Organizations or Groups

    ACRL or ACRL committees and sections may wish to collaborate with outside organizations and groups to develop and/or revise standards, guidelines, or frameworks.

    In the case of ACRL itself, the ACRL Board or the ACRL Executive Director initiates the connection with the other organization or group. An ACRL committee or section wishing to develop standards, guidelines, or frameworks in concert with another organization or group must first contact the ACRL Executive Director in order to seek approval from the ACRL Board before formalizing a collaboration with an outside organization or group. In such cases, the ACRL Board refers the process to the SC chair, who will designate a SC liaison to work with both parties. For new standards, guidelines, or frameworks, relevant procedures from Section 14.5 will apply.



    ------------------------------
    Nancy Fawley
    Director of Information & Instruction Services
    University of Vermont
    Burlington VT
    nfawley@uvm.edu
    ------------------------------



  • 7.  RE: Respond and approve ACRL-RBMS/SAA Guidelines on Access to Research Materials in Archives and Special Collections Libraries

    Posted Oct 21, 2019 11:25 AM
      |   view attached

    Thank you all for weighing in on this. I would like to backtrack, because I think that RBMS used a correct version of the transmittal form.

    The Transmittal Form for Draft ACRL Standards, Guidelines, and Frameworks is available in two places:
    1. In a list of ACRL related forms here: http://www.ala.org/acrl/resources/forms 
    2. Also, as an HTML version here: http://www.ala.org/acrl/resources/policies/draftform 

    The two forms have the same question prompts and sections. It appears that RBMS used the 2nd version of the form and put it into a Word document. I have attached their document to this message for reference. Looking between the documents and the original forms, as far as I can see, they have addressed all of the sections of the form.

    For those who think we should delay vote, what are the specific areas that are unaddressed?


    Thanks,

    Willie



    ------------------------------
    Willie Miller
    Associate Librarian
    IUPUI University Library
    ------------------------------



  • 8.  RE: Respond and approve ACRL-RBMS/SAA Guidelines on Access to Research Materials in Archives and Special Collections Libraries

    Posted Oct 28, 2019 11:36 AM

    Hi all,

    Just checking back in on this. Are we ready to vote on the Guidelines up for discussion? Or should we discuss further?

    Thanks,

    Willie



    ------------------------------
    Willie Miller
    Associate Librarian
    IUPUI University Library
    ------------------------------



  • 9.  RE: Respond and approve ACRL-RBMS/SAA Guidelines on Access to Research Materials in Archives and Special Collections Libraries

    Posted Oct 29, 2019 07:07 PM
    I checked the link to the Transmittal Form for Draft ACRL Standards, Guidelines, and Frameworks in two places:

    1. In a list of ACRL related forms here: www.ala.org/acrl/resources/forms
    2. Also, as an HTML version here: www.ala.org/acrl/resources/policies/draftform

    They are identical.  There is no second version of the document.  I recommend the Committee refine the proposed guideline according to the steps listed in the transmittal form.  Thank you so much indeed!

    Amanda

    ------------------------------
    [Amanda] [Xu]
    [Metadata Librarian]
    [LAC Group on Assignment at National Agricultural Library][Beltsville][Maryland]
    ------------------------------



  • 10.  RE: Respond and approve ACRL-RBMS/SAA Guidelines on Access to Research Materials in Archives and Special Collections Libraries

    Posted Nov 01, 2019 09:56 AM
    I agree with Amanda that we should ask them to resubmit the transmission information using the proper form. The ACRL Board might kick it back to us if the proper documentation is not used. Also, another thing we need to know, as I mentioned previously, is whether RBMS had the Board's approval to proceed with a joint statement with SAA. The two groups have written many group statements in the past, so this may not be a big deal, but it is information we should have before we send the document forward.

    ------------------------------
    Nancy Fawley
    Director of Information & Instruction Services
    University of Vermont
    Burlington VT
    nfawley@uvm.edu
    ------------------------------



  • 11.  RE: Respond and approve ACRL-RBMS/SAA Guidelines on Access to Research Materials in Archives and Special Collections Libraries

    Posted Nov 01, 2019 10:08 AM

    I agree that verification of ACRL agreement for the joint statement could be important.

     

                            Jack

     

    Jack Fritts

    University Librarian

    Benedictine University

    5700 College Road

    Lisle, Il 60532

    630-829-6060

    630-839-7192 (fax)

    jfritts@ben.edu