GODORT (Government Documents Round Table)

Folks, 

GODORT Steering has been actively working through implementation of the recommendations on virtual participation and reorganization.  

Keeping with our value of transparency, we would like to provide GODORT members an opportunity for public comment on a motion, Internal Liaisons:  GODORT Task Forces and Standing Committees. that Steering will be voting on at our next meeting May 6 from 2-3 est.

The text, including pros and cons, can be found here: https://psu.box.com/s/ztccwt1wvtqhdq4n300r3bcylf4b5kcd

If you have comments/concerns about the motion please write those in the comments field provide with this post.  If you want to send your comments directly to me (swoods@psu.edu) that is fine as well.  However, keep in mind that I will post them unless you indicate this is a private comment.  

Just so there is no confusion this is not a Bylaw change that requires a vote of membership.  However, as our organization continues to move forward and to identify its priorities there will be plenty of opportunities for our members to vote on important issues related to our future directions.   

Stephen Woods, GODORT Chair

p.s. members are welcome to join the Steering meeting as an observer.  I will be sending out an open meeting announcement soon with the details about how to connect.

I support eliminating the internal liaisons within GODORT and replacing it with a monthly call of the chairs. It seems to be an easy way to start streamlining GODORT. - Daniel Cornwall, Alaska State Library

I think the elimination of internal GODORT liaisons is a good idea.   It’s much easier for committees and taskforces to share information and get input virtually with the entire GODORT membership than it was in the days when these internal liaison positions were created.  The liaisons aren’t any more “leadership” positions than simple members of committees.  There are still plenty of “entry” level leadership positions in GODORT.  Eliminating these unnecessary positions will allow the Nominating Committee and Chair-elect to concentrate on more crucial positions.

(Full Disclosure – I was a member of the Reorg Committee)

Barbie

Barbie Selby

This sounds workable. I share the belief that replacement of internal liaison positions with conference calls between unit leaders will help GODORT. The internal liaison role was likely more useful for conveying information a few decades ago, when communications were commonly face to face or by mail.

John Stevenson

I think "leadership" is the incorrect word for these internal liaison positions.  I always think of them as the connectors.  They are the people who keep the two sides of GODORT together: the committee structure which is rather rigid and the Task Forces which are free form.

By removing the internal liaisons, I wonder if what is the purpose of the task forces. It seems to me that even though technology should allow for greater freedom for liaisons to communicate between the task force and the committee in order to effectively liaise, the opposite appears to happen.  Frequently the report from liaisons is they have no report as the meeting has not occurred even though there may have been conference calls between Annual conference and Midwinter or webinars, etc.

That said, much of the membership of GODORT identify through their Task Force (s) rather than by the committee they may serve.  There is so much to consider with this proposal and it needs much thoughtful discussion by membership.  I spent at least half of my career serving as an internal liaison and continue to serve as one today.  I get great satisfaction serving as one as I learn things I did not know.

Can I do better as one.  Of course.  I always can improve yet I do it to the best of my ability.  I have to email a report both to my committee chair and to my Task Force coordinator.  One of the things GODORT as an organization has failed to do is to keep membership aware of all the things a member serving should do and that failing is incumbent on all us old timers including myself. 

I need to think through this proposal more.  I respect what is being offered here and urge my colleagues to think about the ramifications of removing many of the positions.  I fully understand the unwieldy nature of the organizational structure of our overall task force. 

After more pondering I find I am in agreement with the proposal.  Thanks for allowing me to think through this aloud!

If we eliminate liaisons who currently are members of the committees and vote will the chair be appointing members since we will still need members of the committee?  If so will there be an effort to appoint members with expertise on all levels of government information.  I found as chair of leg com that without active liaisons we did not address international and local issues.

I'm generally in favor of streamlining the communication structure of GODORT and think monthly calls with TF/Comm chairs would allow all GODORT members to know ALL of what's going on.

My question is similar to what's been mentioned by Bernadine and others. That is, if there are no liaisons, how will committees and task forces be arranged so as to have enough voting members to do their business? And how will committees and task forces have enough different perspectives to make their work viable? Could there still be liaisons but do away with the reporting aspect of their responsibilities at committee meetings? Could their reporting be limited to action items?

I think there's a larger question here. That is, What is the role of committees and task forces? Are they, as David Utz wrote, "discussion groups and facilitators of webinars and programs"? It seems that the task forces have that role, but Bylaws, Nominating, Publications, and Legislation are more action- or work-oriented. I think we need to have a larger discussion about what kind of structure is needed for GODORT to be an information-sharing AND action-oriented group. In fact, I'd like us to find a way for GODORT to be more action- or task-oriented and less about information-sharing. 

First, let me say how much I appreciate the thoughtful responses so far.  

Second, sorry for the long winded response.  I wasn't planning on responding myself, because much of what I have to say I've said elsewhere (smile).  

That said, for those who have heard feel free to skip this post and for those who are curious read on.  

James question "What is the role of ..." hits at the heart of where we are at as an organization.  From my perspective the elimination of the liaisons forces us to take this question seriously.  It just so happens that based on our current organizational structure and resource allocation that the Taskforces merit our first consideration in implementing the recommendations for reorganization.

If the Taskforce's are reduced to 2 leadership roles each [chair and incoming chair] then what should their role be?  

What we are proposing is that they serve as "information sharing" [great distinction James] units through physical and online discussion groups.  Leveraging our online presence through AdobeConnect or other technologies.

Also, these leaders would also serve a duel function as members of the Program Committee [incoming Chair of GODORT and incoming Chairs of each of the Taskforces] to solicit and facilitate Programs for our conference meetings as well as possible online programming.     

What is the impact on the "size" of the "action oriented" committees?  As Chair of GODORT, Sarah will still need to appoint members to the following committees [good question Bernadine].  Even with the reduction of liaisons the committees will still have the following numbers:    

• Legislation - 5 members
• Education - 6 members
• REGP - 6 members
• Cataloging - 5 members
• GIC - 5 members
• Publications - 7 members

Does this mean that we shouldn't add more members to these units?  I would argue, that it all depends on "what we determine the role will be for each of these units".  What encourages me is that all of you are essentially asking that same question about "role".  As we move forward we will certainly have to make sure that we bring clarity and focus for each of these units.  I'm confident that we can do that.  

Just so you don't think I've forgotten them, but there are several other units that have an equally if not more important role in our organization.  These happen to not be impacted by the "liaison decision".   

• Nomination - 5 members
• Membership - 5 members
• Awards - 6 members
• Bylaws - 4 members [although there is some discussion about reducing this to 1]
• Development - 5 members
• Conference - 5 members

A final thought ... if in the grand scheme we decide as an organization that it was foolish to discontinue the liaison system.  We need to keep in mind that its not that difficult to put this back in place.  If we begin to grow as an organization, because we have successfully transitioned into an organization that can function effectively "anywhere, anytime, anyplace".  We may decide that a "anywhere, anytime, anyplace" liaison is a great solution.

Just a few thoughts, Stephen 

p.s. membership, please keep your thoughts coming ...

I support the proposed elimination of the internal liaisons positions. GODORT is a relatively small ALA unit and doesn’t need the complications arising from excess infrastructure to get its work done.  - Karen

Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this issue.  

Having a more direct link to committee communications (by eliminating the liaison layer) definitely makes sense.

As we move forward with the reorganization, I hope there will be clearer guidelines on how new members are added and what the recommended term cycle should be. 

As a committee chair, I can tell you there is interest from new GODORT members to participate; however, I am often at a loss as to what information to provide them relative to appointment terms and conditions.

Thanks.

Tom

Tom Adamich, MLS

President

Visiting Librarian Service

224 Chauncey Ave. N.W.

P.O. Box 932

New Philadelphia, OH 44663

330-364-4410

vls@tusco.net

I feel strongly that we do not eliminate these positions at this time. At this point in the reorg process we have not determined what our committees will be or do, particularly the fate of "task forces" for which liaisons served.

A. In light of our reorg direction, which give committees more responsibilities, shrinks their sizes, seeks to reach out to new and virtual participants, and be open to new models of Gov doc/info librarianship, liaisons have the potential to offer better communication, documentation, collaboration, outreach, participation, positions for new members and feedback. Plus, relying on informal communication between committee chairs consolidates power and limits voices. Further, while committee chairs currently know each other, if we do expand (especially virtually), a more formal system like liaisons might be necessary.

B. In general, I feel that this question is more numbers-driven than mission-driven. We have not considered what these position _can_ do, simply what they haven't done.

1. As co-chair of Membership, I need to keep up/promote what all the committees are doing; talking with the liaisons (who focus on collaboration) might be more useful than talking with committee chairs. Plus, I'd get a perspective not heard in Steering.

2. Outreach was a key theme in the DLC conference. Perhaps if we don't keep internal liaisons, we can use the liaisons "externally" to reach other ALA groups and document activities and collaborations. (After all, many of us already participate in other groups; the "title" could be a formality, but with prestige and funding opportunities.)

C. Even if we eventually eliminate the liaison positions, I feel that they could serve us in the reorganization process. Liaisons could help negotiate the responsibilities of new committees and offer an overview that we focused on our own work can not provide.