Aaron the Librarian

Just feeling the need to vent a little at my fellow ALA members…

Remember how we were *all* invited to review the look and feel, visual appeal, and all that jazz of the proposed new
ALA.org (<- link is to current sad state of affairs)
website?

Guess how many people (of the tens of thousands at Annual as well as the tens of thousands not at Annual, but on the web) submitted comments?

Go ahead.  Pick a Three. Digit. Number.

I’ll give you the first one: “1″

Did you guess higher than that?  Me, too; silly us.

The total number of survey responses received was One Hundred. Ninty. Four.  (yes, 194)

/vent

(aside: this number gives me a flashback to Snape in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: “Turn to page three-hundred-and-ninety-four.” But, nevermind)

If you’re an ALA member, watch your inbox for another email from ALA with links to a revised (per those 194 comments) mock-up.  If you have suggestions (such as fixing those horrible URLs) make sure to include them in your responses to this opportunity.

If you have nothing else to say about this iteration of new site, please do the survey anyway *and mention that the URL structure needs fixed as often as it seems relevant in the survey*

Those of us who care about that sort of thing (like me) will thank you.

As alluded to in previous posts, the ALA Office for Information Technology Policy has released a magnum opus, the Public Library Connectivity Project: Findings and Recommendations, (153 pages long, 57 pages of report and 96 pages of appendicies) which was commissioned by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (I hope this will help guide their future library funding efforts). The report builds upon the findings of the Public Libraries & the Internet Reports (PLIP) and numerous site visits, interviews, and questionnaires conducted over the course of this project.

Grab a beverage, this summary/teaser is long enough to warrant it.  If you plan on digging through the full report, you may want to order in some sustenance, too!
Spoiler alert!
Highlights from the Public Library Connectivity Project: Findings and Recommendations below the fold… (more…)

The ALA Washington Office, Office for Information Technology Policy is looking for a few good volunteers to learn and earn the moniker “Copyright Scholar” on the Copyright Advisory Network.

Here is their announcement (pasted from email and re-formatted)
[begin quoted text]
Call for Copyright Scholar Nominations

The ALA Office for Information Technology Policy is seeking individuals interested in serving as a Copyright Scholar for the Copyright Advisory Network.

The Copyright Advisory Network (CAN) is a Web site (www.librarycopyright.net) and network forum where librarians discuss copyright dilemmas and concerns online. Since 2005, eight librarians have served as Copyright Scholars on the forum. It is time to recruit a new batch of librarians who are keenly interested in copyright and want to volunteer their time to the Network.

Selected individuals will attend an all expenses paid 2-day orientation meeting in Washington, DC, train with the Copyright Scholar class of 2005, and help craft new improvements to the Network. Once you become a Scholar, you agree to devote a small amount of your time (estimated 2 hours a week) responding to copyright queries posted to the Network.  You can decide how long your commitment to the Network will last but it must be for at least one year.

Qualifications for interested applicants:

Expertise in US copyright law and its application in libraries and educational institutions
Excellent writing skills
Flexibility in scheduling time to serve on the Network
Experience working in teams
Permission from your institution to participate

All applicants must be ALA members.

To be considered, send a letter expressing your interest in becoming a Copyright Scholar. Tell us of any special training or expertise you already have that would make you a good candidate for the job.  The Copyright Advisory Committee will select the lucky applicants from the pool of letters received.

Send your letter or any questions you have to Carrie Russell via email at [crussell @ alawash.org].  Deadline for applications is August 31, 2007 (deadline extended).

[End copied text]

If you regularly work with or are at all interested in copyright, please consider submitting yourself for consideration.

Well, lookit what I found!

While searching for ALA pages about the Graduated Dues Study Task Force, to flesh out my upcoming post about it, I found a page which references a page I wish I’d seen a long time ago: [ ALA | Council Actions ] lists ALA Council actions from 1997 thru the present.

Lots of data in there, no time to peruse at leisure and pull out juicy tidbits.  Anyone else want to have a go at finding good stuff in there?

Hi, Blogging from your ALA Council II Session - on trying to make Our Association better.

For those readers who are not aware, I have been an ALA Councilor at Large Candidate for the last two years (I got 2901 votes and lost by ~100 votes last year [2006] and got 2458(?) votes and lost by ~250 votes this year [2007]). I attended Council II, as is my usual practice; while there, I found I had something substantive to add to a long discussion about the format of the Membership Meetings.

Councilor-at-Large Heidi Dolamore stood for me (with coaching on parliamentary procedure by Councilor-at-Large Michael Golrick) and asked the moderator to suspend the normal rules of debate to allow me to address Council on this issue being discussed.

The moderator asked for the indulgence of Council to allow me to speak and a bunch of councilors shouted “Why?!” A fair few hands went up to support my opportunity to address council; however, a larger portion of voting councilors chose to
Shush me.

I do not know why a majority of ALA Councilors would not want to hear from a Member on the subject of the format of the Membership Meeting — however, that majority succeeded in shutting out the individual voice of an Interested Member from direct involvement.

Which leads me to my Wiki effort to Improve ALA from the ground up, http://improveala.pbwiki.com

In addition to my efforts to improve ALA from the grassroots, I have been nominated to run for Councilor-at-Large (again) on the Spring 2008 Ballot. In addition to running for Council and trying to improve ALA from the grassroots, I am looking for like-minded people to run as a slate dedicated to moving ALA forward. If you are interested in joining me in trying to implement possible suggestions many of which are on the Improve ALA Wiki, please add yourself to the Improve ALA Slate.
Thank you for your efforts and may I please have your vote for ALA Councilor at Large?

OITP/OGR Telecommunications SubCommittee
Sunday 24, 2007 @ 4-6pm
WCC 209A

1. Welcome and Comments
Bob Bocher, Lynne Bradley, Rick Weingarten

Rick:  Gave overview of OITP efforts
(link to oitp & telecom pages & atl posts)

2. Gates Connectivity Project Update (will blog it when I get a copy)
Rick Weingarten

The research part is done and the report is mostly written - OITP will release in a few weeks.

3. State Telecommunications Policy preconference
Report and next steps

Educate some state-level actors or interested parties to watch for and advocate for library inclusions in telecom discussions

4. Discussion of Telecommunications
John Windhausen

– Rural Utilities Service in the Department of Agriculture is a loan program to develop broadband in rural areas.  The funds are not being disbursed, as many applicants don’t show financial ability to pay back loan.  Plus broadband providers are squaking that too much money is being disbursed which fund their competitors.  Language is being proposed by ALA to modify this program to enable libraries to participate in this program.

– Universal Service Fund in FCC is a grant program funded by traditional telecom companies. ~65% goes to hich-cost rural telecom companies, ~35% to E-rate.  Many wireless companies are recipients of this funding.  Wireless satrtups oppose proposed caps, established, traditional telecom companies want the caps.  FCC Chairman is likely to approve the caps, to protect the Universal Service Fund.

Poo, I have to go if I’m going to be able to get to everything else today - I should have driven in this morning (sorry)

5. Legislative / Regulatory Update (OGR)
Current legislation
Key Issues
Recent FCC filings

6. Update on Public Library Net Survey and State Data Tool
Mark Bard

7. Pending Agenda for 2007-08

Had to leave 2/3rds oif the way through

I was late to this, because I dropped “Girl Scout the younger” at GS day camp on the way to DC.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
9:00 - 4:00pm
Washington Convention Center, Room 147 A/B
Agenda

9:00-9:30 Welcome and introduction
Lynne Bradley, Director, ALA/OGR
Rick Weingarten, Director, ALA/OITP
Michael Dowling, Director, ALA Chapter Relations

9:30-12:00 Issues exploration
Christopher McLean, e-Copernicus
John Windhausen, Telepoly

—I arrived here—

Mark Lloyd, Center for American Progress

Mark was speaking about the necessity of urban library support for the rural libraries provisions in this year’s Farm Bill. Please say to your Senators and Representatives: “Please support the rural library provisions in this year’s Farm Bill.”
12:00-1:00 lunch and keynote
Gloria Tristani, Spiegel & McDiarmid (former FCC Commissioner)

Gloria spoke about the importance of sufficient bandwidth for public libraries, wherever they are. She spoke about ALA WO efforts to simplify the E-rate for libraries, modify “poverty calculations” to bring libraries into parity with school districts and respond to “Notices of Inquiry” from the FCC.

(I got to review three Telcom-related responses in my positions on the OITP Advisory Committee or the OITP/COL Telcom Subcommittee)

Though FCC comment periods may say they are “closed,” if you have a comment you should send it in anyway (up until a decision is made). Grassroots advocacy and grassroots comments count with the FCC when they come in significant numbers.

While we are all here in DC, we should take the opportunity to drop in on the FCC Commissioners — we are competing with many other players and a massive drop by of interested parties. Take the time to have a few relevant statistics about library connectivity to hand and encourage the FCC. Wisconsin specific data here for example.

1:00-2:30 Broadband deployment models that work

Bob Bocher Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
Described development of BadgerNet and follow-on departments. Partners: between state gov’t, K-20, libraries, tribes, telcos. Funding: costs are “postalized” same cost anywhere — benefits rurals *big time* T-1=~$100/month, higher=~$250/month. Centralized purchase of access and divvied internally. Services: Video distance Ed, 24/7/365 Tech Support. Statewide VoIP soon, internet via WiSCnet, shared ILS in ~90% of WI libraries for resource sharing etc. Challenges: WAN circuts insufficient, State USF has had 6 years of no growth, Web 2.0 interactions loading network, working to improve funding, general sys admin stuff (security, spam, remote mgmt, etc) Success because: strong state network office, strong legislative and executive support, governor support, collaboraive environment (inclusive), state-wide funding of connections.

Steven Hedges OPLIN

Discussed Ohio’s path to a working state-wide network INFOhio, OSCnet, OhioLink, MORE. OPLIN also provides “postalized” pricing, same anywhere. All 3 agencies are now working together as Libraries Connect Ohio.
Policy issues about funding of bandwidth for gaming may crop up if legislators ask about what kinds of trafic are being funded.

William Giddings MOREnet

MOREnet started in 1986, REAL started in 1994, now 131 libraries with 107 branches. Connection depends on tax revenues for service area — you get the connection speeds you need (smaller libraries pay ~$300/year, largest pays ~$12,000 per year) no questions asked. T-1 to 45 MBps. Partners: Governor, State library, Dept of Ed, Dept of Higher Ed, U Missouri One network to rule them all (wait, no, There can be only one) in Missouri. Funding: Dept of Higehr Ed, Sec of State via State Library, participant fees, E-rate reimbursements. Services: Network Svcs, Video, Securoty, Resources, Training, more Challenges: growing demand for bandwidth, term limits, site visits by MOREnet (to keep issues tied to local issues), Techies resistant to loosening local control Successful because: Shared Leadership, program manager, single state-wide network, level playing field, public procurement.

Andrew McNeill Connect Kentucky

Am having a hard time note-taking (handout being read out loud), will have to scan & post the handout (sorry)

2:30-4:00 You can do it! Concrete approaches to tackling the most important telecommunications issues at the state level

Find out what is important to the person to whom you’re speaking.
Find solid examples to support what you’re saying.
Find a compelling story to share.
“Fiber to the Library” will also benefit the local community, nearby businesses, students doing homework. This initiative (or it should be an initiative) may be a great way to get fiber to the home rolled out. I think the Rural Libraries provisions in this year’s Farm Bill may have more on funding this?
Aim to get something scalable without huge new capital outlay

See ALA WO / Public Libraries and the Internet 2006: Study Results and Findings handout for more suggestions.
Quotes:

• “We are what we share” (from Jessamyn on Twitter earlier today) seems very appropriate.
• Way to think about libraries and information technology: “Libraries: Universal Service Providers” (quote from Nancy Kranich)

For what it’s worth, I think there are several Task Forces considering stuff at the ALA level.

The one I am most familiar with (I’m on its Reactor Panel) is the ALA Graduated Dues Task Force.  This task force will be reporting about the likely costs the association would incur if the decision were made to do a comprehensive study on a salary-based dues structure.  The numbers I saw in the report are, to me, pretty optimistic, lowball figures. (in the range of about half a million dollars)

Anyone know of other task forces? I only find Division-level task force pages when I search the ALA site.

HUH!

Actually, more than nothing - to refute the song I’m hearing in my head as I read the post title.

The Annual 2007 Wiki has a page about the membership meeting, what it is, what it does, *and implies what a group of interested members could do while attending.*

Specifically, I note “ALA members present at the meeting can change the proposed agendas at any time. Any discussion topics suggested by the committee, or others, are given second place to resolutions proposed by the ALA members”

I’ll admit to having a very short event horizon (my wife says ~2 days) and I’ll admit I realize this is very short notice, but parties interested in Improving ALA (a worthy goal, which needs discussion) could use Membership I and/or II to advance discussion about what might need improvements and how to go about said improvements.

ACRL Blog had some good insights from their recent member focus groups in some recent posts;  I’d like to see similar efforts in an association-wide effort.

The alacoun list had a recent thread on the mechanics of introducing council resolutions; it doesn’t seem that hard, 16 points to consider and a quick run by the Resolutions Committee (oh and a Councilor-sponsor and -second to get it to the floor)

Woohoo, wireless available at “ALA2007″ in convention center, as twitted a mere moment ago.
(as is only right, of course)