librarygrist

One perspective on the ALA Traditional Cultural Expressions statement

The following are some potential questions and answers developed during correspondence regarding the ALA Traditional Cultural Expressions document posted as of 5/5/2010:

http://wo.ala.org/tce/

Specifically (in case the information at that link should change), here is the document version addressed in this review:

Download 26224547-Librarianship-and-Traditional-Cultural-Expressions

[© 2010 American Library Association Office for Information Technology Policy]

Question: What is a Traditional Cultural Expression?

Answer: There seems to be no concise, legal definition. According to a brief by Janice T. Pilch:

The term TCEs is sometimes interchangeable with expressions of folklore. The term folklore was used in early discussions, but was replaced by the broader and more neutral term TCE in the international arena. Some nations, however, still prefer the term folklore or folk works, and use these terms in national copyright legislation.

TCEs are tangible and intangible forms in which traditional culture and knowledge are expressed,
communicated, appear, or are manifested. They include:

• Verbal expressions or symbols (stories, epics, legends, tales, poetry, riddles, etc.)
• Musical expressions (songs, instrumental music)
• Expressions by action (dances, plays, ceremonies, rituals, other performances)
• Tangible expressions (drawings, designs, paintings, including body painting,
carvings, sculptures, pottery, terracotta, mosaic, woodwork, metalware, jewelry,
baskets, needlework, textiles, glassware, carpets, costumes, musical instruments)
• Intangible expressions reflecting traditional thought forms
• Architectural forms

Question:

Does it create a First Amendment/Library Bill of Rights conflict to officialize a document asserting that libraries should participate in the restriction of content when a cultural or religious group asks us to, whether by actually restricting the content in-house, or by returning it to the group so that they may do so themselves?

Answer:

The current document states:

"Indigenous communities understand that some traditional cultural expressions are private or sacred knowledge and share this insight with libraries that may have these works in their collections. Libraries that hold private or sacred knowledge should consider returning those materials to the indigenous communities or to institutions in which such restrictions are appropriate."

While some assert that the call to return materials in response to the cultural or religious beliefs of a particular group is not intended to be a "backdoor means of restricting access," that is nevertheless the end result. We are participating in the restriction of library materials because of someone's belief system--something we have until now pledged not to do. Consider what it would sound like if we were to substitute some other group:

"Devout Ones understand that depictions of the Ultimate Spirit are sacred, and share this insight with libraries that may have these depictions in their collections. Libraries that hold sacred knowledge should consider returning those materials to Devout Ones institutions in which restrictions are appropriate."

The proposition that "sacredness" should become a reason to treat some material differently should be subject to serious scrutiny.  The next example really isn't too far off the mark from actual situations that have occurred:

"Devout Ones of the Ultimate Spirit understand that anatomically correct illustrations are an abomination to Him, and share this insight with libraries who may have these abominations in their collections, thereby helping the poor misguided librarians to understand that exposing children to these depictions will condemn the poor little innocents to eternal brimstone. Libraries that hold religious abominations should be sensitive to their communities and send all such materials to Ask Alice, where everyone has already lost their souls."

"X understands that Y is so." This implies that the group in question has the real and most important truth about the material in question. In other words, the group's perception of sacredness trumps the responsibility of the library to maintain access.  It is not clear how this response to considerations of "sacredness" could fairly or reasonably confined to indigenous peoples.

Question:

Isn't this a justice issue? If some ethnic group claims that the material is rightfully theirs, there might be legal and ethical reasons to return it.

Answer:

If it is a legal ownership issue, then we shouldn't issue a blanket statement--we should get legal advice for each particular assertion of ownership. Furthermore, it may be perfectly appropriate to return an original artifact, but inappropriate to remove all copies of it; the two issues should be addressed separately. Finally, if it is in fact important for intellectual property laws to be overhauled so as to allow ethnic or cultural groups to assert ownership rights to things previously considered "folklore," then that assertion should be made clear in the document.

Question: I would rather expand, rather than shrink, the public domain.  If we start copyrighting folklore and pulling things out of the public domain, mightn't this result in even further restrictions to fair use and knowledge growth?

Answer: That would seem to be one logical outcome. 

Question:

Don't libraries already discriminate against some beliefs by cataloging and housing them separately from "religion"?

Answer:

If so, then let's pass a resolution calling for all beliefs to be cataloged and arranged together; this document doesn't do that.

Question: Has any other unit of the Association developed any guidelines?

Answer: ARL has posted a document entitled Special Collections in ARL Libraries here:

http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/scwg-report.pdf  (aka Download Scwg-report )

which says, in part:

Restrictions on AccessPotential use is a vital consideration when the decision is made to acquire a collection. The goal of acquisition should be access. The Society of American Archivists’ Code of Ethics asserts that, "archivists recognize their responsibility to promote the use of records as a fundamental purpose of the keeping of archives."5 In an era when convenient access can trump quality of content as far as the user is concerned, delaying access to collections—particularly digital collections—can have a deleterious effect on an institution’s ability to manage that material over time. As part of their commitment to developing a culture of stewardship and respect for cultural records in our society, one task for archivists, curators, and librarians is to educate donors to the dangers and consequences of lengthy restrictions on access to materials. They have to develop means for expediting access that balance donors’ rights, privacy concerns, and scholarly use.

At a minimum, the acquiring organization should require a timetable for access—including the possibility of staged access to portions of the collection—and the removal of restrictions as part of its negotiations with donors. The conditions of acceptance and use of a collection need to be clearly understood by both parties and shared with the research community. This is an area where professional organizations could help by providing accessible guidelines for use in negotiations with donors.

There are probably others; this is one example.

Question:

Indigenous peoples have suffered terribly. Isn't this document an important step toward addressing these historical inequities?

Answer:

That dreadful things have been done to oppressed indigenous peoples is abhorrent. The fact that humankind perpetuates such inhumanity upon humankind daily throughout history should be of concern to us all. However, if we move forward with this TCE document, we will have taken a new, subjective position toward a particular set of religious and cultural beliefs, and we must, IMO, be prepared to explain our actions to people who usually partner with us:

-------------------

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4673908.stm

"The row intensified on Wednesday when France Soir, alongside the 12 original cartoons, printed a new drawing on its front page showing Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim and Christian holy figures sitting on a cloud, with the caption "Don't worry Muhammad, we've all been caricatured here."

Publications in Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain also re-ran the Danish cartoons to show support for free speech.

Islamic tradition bans depictions of the Prophet or Allah."

____________

In other words, we should be clear about the fact that we will be putting our social responsibility toward a cultural group ahead of our professed objective treatment of a vast quantity of other content that that is (and will continue to be) considered sacred cultural expressions. It seems very likely that other groups will demand equal treatment.

If that's where we need to go in this postmodern world, then of course, we must. We should really think about it first, though, and be clear about what we are doing and why.

Question:

How can you tell us not to negotiate with community groups or make special arrangements for special collections?

Answer:

This critique does not suggest that libraries shouldn't negotiate or make special arrangements.

Question:

Isn't it really impossible to live up to the LBOR anyway?

Answer

Practically speaking, probably not 100%. However, we undermine the LBOR's effectiveness if we pass policy documents that contradict it.

Question:

Isn't it ok to restrict access to sacred documents to members of a particular cultural, ethnic, or religious community?

Answer:

Only if we are abandoning our historic stance that the only appropriate restrictions to content are those of "time place and manner." 

Remaining Questions

• If ALA approves this statement, how is it *not* setting a dangerous precedent calling upon libraries and librarians to treat a particular category of information differently because of" . . the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation"? In other words, might the TCE statement in any way undercut the assertion that"Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues"?
• If we are to accept the argument that TCEs constitute PII, what should we do with similar requests for people wanting us to restrict access to documents for similar reasons, public or otherwise?
• If we are to be concerned about the laws and rules of a particular culture when it comes to treatment of information by or about that culture, how can we refuse to provide that same respect and service to other cultural groups when it comes to information they deem equally critical to the preservation and protection of their own cultural norms, standards, or identities?
• Is the TCE document that was not passed being used as an official document anyway?
• How would we respond to other religious and cultural groups if they were to say that they wanted equal treatment for the expressions they find sacred? Does anyone have a response that would clear that up or show it to be a misguided concern?
• Isn't one person's Bible another person's textbook?

References:

The American Library Association Library Bill of Rights: Download Librarybillofrights

　

Ethical Dilemmas and the Library Bill of Rights

Every now and again, librarians struggle with some group's strong gut feeling that we should restrict access to a category of information because it upsets them. These groups are convinced that the public availability of this information will cause them harm. This is often (but not always) based in a religious belief or cultural taboo. Wanting to be fair, many librarians will try to be open-minded and seek a compromise position. Anyone who has attended a session put on by a group like Camden, Maine's Institute for Global Ethics has probably heard about how we are often confronted by ethical dilemmas, or a clash between different ethical systems. However, compromise isn't always possible; in some cases, it can be damaging.

Take, for instance, an episode of Law & Order where a priest was presented with a dilemma: either break a central and sacred trust (sanctity of the confessional), or let a criminal go free.

The way that this ethical dilemma was presented, the priest had only two choices:

1. Break the sanctity of the confessional (thereby violating something so central to the priesthood that he would lose his job)

2. Continue to keep confidential a criminal's confession, which would constitute such a violation of his own personal ethics that he couldn't live with himself.

There was no middle ground. There was no third way. There was no compromise position. He had to choose between his professional ethics, or his personal ethics; he had to choose between disclosing the information, or not.

This is the sort of position that censorship places us in. There is no "little bit of censorship" any more than there is any "little bit of confidentiality of the confessional." Either one censors, or one does not. Either one breaks confidentiality, or one doesn't.

The very first thing that the  American Library Association Handbook says about its Intellectual Freedom Committee is that it shall: "  . . . recommend such steps as may be necessary to safeguard the rights of library users, libraries, and librarians, in accordance with the First Amendment to the United States Consitution and the Library Bill of Rights as adopted by the ALA Council."

In safeguarding the Library Bill of Rights, the IFC protects the very existence of a crucial professional statement that supports any librarian seeking to uphold the First Amendment and the Library Bill of Rights. A librarian facing a censorship challenge can say "Look, my professional association has this central, profession-defining standard; I am committed to upholding it."

The librarian who is placed in a position where s/he believes it's necessary to place a restriction on content almost certainly doesn't need any particular support from ALA in order to do so. S/he is probably conforming to some local, unique condition. The librarian will not be disbarred, have his/her professional credentials suspended, etc.  In other words, unlike our situation with the Law & Order priest, there are no definite negative consequences for violating a librarian's professional ethic to fight censorship; there are arguably more often negative consequences for refusing to give in to the pressure to do so.

There may not be many outside of our profession who understand this committee's work well--but everyone in this country benefits from it in ways that are not always apparent. There are so many factors working to restrict information, and relatively few working to maintain openness and democracy. We very much need the American Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee to unequivocally and with clear focus safeguard the Library Bill of Rights.

What Amazon, Verizon, and Apple have in common, and why it matters to libraries and readers

Once not too long ago, I had a cell phone that used a sim card.  (No, no relation to the digital life-simulation game). With some small caveats,  I could basically buy a phone that used a sim card, plop my card into that phone, and like magic, it would work; all of my account information was essentially portable.

Then, Verizon bought Unicel, shut down Unicel's GSM (sim-card-using) network, and put all of us former Unicel  customers onto its very-proprietary-and-locked-down CDMA network.

The result:

1. Verizon has the technology to force all of its customers to buy its phones. (A little more about how they do that is http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235602,00.html , among other places)

2. Since you are forced to buy their phones if you are their customer, they can force all smartphone users to add a $29.99 data plan, whether you want to do anything except synch your Outlook calendar or not.

3. If you want to buy a "multimedia" phone, they can require you to purchase a $9.99 data plan (again, whether you just want to synch music ripped from CDs you own, or not.)

4. Of the very few phones left, you can only get an "upgrade" price if you give up your old (cheaper, simpler) plan.  Otherwise, you have to spend at least $159 on a phone that doesn't get very good reviews.

Amazon does similar things with its Kindle; Apple does similar things with its iPod.  If you want to use the service, they have "security" features built into their proprietary software that makes use of the service contingent upon buying services their way or the highway.

In other words, they manage to "secure" revenue for themselves by locking down equipment that we purchase.

This matters to all of us in libraries because while magazines/journals/periodicals have gone digital but have ultimately wound up in standard formats that can be shared and used (to some extent--PDFs can be pretty limiting), ebooks--somewhat like digital films--have thus far appeared more often in Kindle's digitally locked-down and proprietary format than they have in standard, sharable formats.

Those of us in libraries who think--as Unity College President Mitch Thomashow asserted at a meeting I attended yesterday--that ebooks are coming sooner rather than later anxiously look at the Verizon/Apple/Amazon example and wonder how we'll continue to provide information through libraries. At a recent Maine Northeastern Library District Meeting, we heard from a public librarian who'd been circulating a Kindle experimentally; she  had to do backbends to make it so that the borrower couldn't put books on her personal credit card. 

"Free Range Librarian" Karen Schneider wrote in a November 2007 Web4Lib list post:

"The disturbing qualities of Kindle have to do with how it hoses fair use, narrows the world of books and reading to an Amazon-approved collection, and finds ways to charge you for your own content (and conditions you to pay for blogs). It's definitely not a library purchase; it's a library killer, intended to restructure the world around one book, one owner."

When somebody as technologically savvy as Karen says that, it carries a lot of weight.  Perhaps free market forces will render ebook and cell phone services equal and fair; perhaps regulation will democratize e-services as they become more critical to individuals functioning in a free society.

Perhaps not.

ALA Strategic Planning, Midwinter 2010

This morning, those of us at the ALA Council/Executive Board/Membership Information Session here in Boston participated in a strategic planning activity led by Paul Meyer of Tecker Consultants. 

Questions:

• How can we constantly build on our strengths?
• How can we build up to ameliorate weaknesses?
• How do we distinguish ourselves from others?

How long is the plan for?  This is an ongoing process for an organization that includes milestones. We have 5-year goals, 3-5 year objectives, one to two year strategies, and a vision for the future.  There are multiple planning horizons. What's most important is that it's an ongoing process.

We begin with core ideology and organizational values. There is an envisioned future and 3-5 year goals.

Small group activity: We moved into small groups and jointly filled out one worksheet to hand in.  We discussed and commented on the ten-year planning horizon, then goals and objectives.

The draft plan is online at http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/missionhistory/plan/2015/index.cfm

ProQuest-SIRS State Intellectual Freedom Awards: Decades of Dedication Remembered

History

In 1977, Elliot and Eleanor Goldstein founded the Social Issues Resources Series (SIRS), a unique information subscription series that has served many schools and libraries. The SIRS Intellectual Freedom Awards were established in 1981.   By the time of the Midwinter 1999 celebration of the 30th anniversaries of the American Library Association (ALA) Office for Intellectual Freedom and the Freedom to Read Foundation in Philadelphia, the Goldsteins were sponsoring more than 30 national, state, and regional intellectual freedom awards; at that time, longtime intellectual freedom advocate and library leader Gene Lanier reminisced about his conversations with the Goldsteins regarding the establishment in particular of the state awards, noting how unique and valuable they were. 

After ProQuest acquired SIRS in 2003, the awards were continued for several years; according to a 2004 ProQuest press release, for 2003 the company awarded $11,000 in awards in grants and scholarships " . . . presented to 15 state, regional and national prize winners throughout the year." 

However,  when the company was contacted in March 2010, ProQuest Marketing Manger Tim McLain stated that the information on the ProQuest web site has been taken down and the state awards discontinued.  McLain indicated that the company is shifting its focus and continuing to support ALA initiatives; however, he did not say specifically whether or not  that support includes ALA or other national intellectual freedom awards.  Subsequently, on March 17 2010, Jonathan Kelley of the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom confirmed that ProQuest continues to support the ProQuest/SIRS State and Regional Intellectual Freedom Achievement Award sponsored by the ALA Intellectual Freedom Round Table.

When asked about their current funding initiatives, Lynda James-Gilboe, Senior Vice President, Marketing & Customer Care for ProQuest, referred to a list of  company philanthropy highlights:

http://www.proquest.com/en-US/aboutus/advocacy/

Since one of ALA's strategic objectives is to "Increase public awareness of the importance of intellectual freedom and privacy, and the role of libraries in a democracy," it is to be hoped that the national association will seek ways to help fill the gap. As Eric Kidwell, library director at Huntingdon College, noted in a COLLIB list post: "Disappointing news, particularly considering that the majority of these challenges are happening at the local and state levels.  In one respect, I think awards at these levels are more important than at the national level."

ProQuest/SIRS state and regional IF award recipients included:

• Alabama Library Association (ALA)
• Arkansas Library Association (ALA)
• Arizona Library Association (AZLA)
• Colorado Library Association (CLA)/Colorado Educational Media Association (CEMA)
• Delaware Library Association (DLA)
• Florida Association for Media in Education (FAME)
• Florida Association for Media in Education (FAME) Student Scholarship
• Florida Council for the Social Studies (FCSS)
• Florida Library Association (FLA)
• Georgia Library Media Association (GLMA)
• Indiana Library Foundation (ILF) / Assn for Indiana Media Educators (AIME)
• Iowa Educational Media Association (IEMA)
• Kansas Library Association (KLA)
• Louisiana Library Association (LLA)
• Maine Library Assn (MLA) / Maine Association of School Libraries (MASL)
• Massachusetts School Library Media Association (MSLMA)
• Missouri Library Association (MLA)
• New England Library Association (NELA)
• New Hampshire Educational Media Association (NHEMA)
• New Jersey Educational Media Association (EMA/NJ)
• New York Library Association (NYLA)
• New York State Council for the Social Studies (NYSCSS)
• North Carolina Library Association (NCLA)
• Northeast Regional Conference for the Social Studies (NERC)
• Ohio Education Library Media Association (OELMA)
• Oklahoma Library Association (OLA)
• South Carolina Library Assn (SCLA) / South Carolina Assn of Schl Librarians (SCASL)
• Tennessee Library Association (TLA)
• Texas Library Association (TLA)
• Virginia Educational Media Association (VEMA)
• Virginia Library Association (VLA)
• Wisconsin Library Association (WLA)
• Wyoming Library Association (WLA)

SIRS-PROQUEST Maine Intellectual Freedom Awards

January, 2010

Past Recipients

Year: Recipient, Library designated by recipient to receive $500

• 2008: Rick Speer, Lewiston Public Library
• 2004: Anne Davis, Gardiner Public Library
• 2002: Jay Scherma, Thomas Memorial Library
• 2001: Bill Davis, Criminal Justice Committee, Maine Council of Churches
• 2000: Laura Johns, Brooksville Elementary School
• 1999: Deborah M. Locke, Westbrook High School Library
• 1998: Biddle Press, Curtis Memorial Library, Brunswick
• 1997: Molly Sinclair, Mt. Abrams High School Library "Educators in Intellectual Freedom"
• 1994: Nancy E. Crowell, South Portland Public Library
• 1992: Tom Adams, Massabesic High School Library
• 1991: Richard Dyer/Alden Wilson,  Maine State Library
• 1989: David Ingmundson, Morse High School Library
• 1988: Stephen King, Old Town Public Library

Recent Maine Press Releases

06/08/02

Opposition to absolute Internet filtering earns library director Intellectual Freedom Award

The Trustees of the Thomas Memorial Library have announced that Jay Scherma, director of the Thomas Memorial Library, has received the SIRS Intellectual Freedom Award for 2002.

Each year, the Intellectual Freedom Committee of the Maine Library Association (MLA) and Maine Association of School Librarians (MASL) presents the award to an individual or individuals whose actions exemplify First Amendment rights, particularly as they pertain to freedom of speech and press in the pursuit of intellectual endeavors.

Scherma was recognized by his peers as having provided exemplary leadership and representation of the Maine Library Association (MLA) in its position opposing the federal legislation known as the Children's Internet Protection Act (CHIPA.) This legislation would require libraries to use blocking software on all Internet access computers-including those used by adults and staff-in order to receive federal assistance vital to providing patrons with Internet access.

In his acceptance speech, Scherma talked about the quest for knowledge that is so fundamental to all human beings. "It is my belief," he said, "that central to the very definition of librarianship is a charge to serve our patrons by facilitating this curiosity and thirst for knowledge … As a consequence, it is our duty to resist any effort to stand between the public and their attempts to find the answers they need."

SIRS Publishing, Inc., which supports the award, is a leading provider of print, CD-ROM and online reference databases to more than 50,000 libraries. Their stated mission is to provide "information that is reliable and credible in order to encourage dialogue about the major issues of society…." The SIRS Award includes a $500.00 gift to the Thomas Memorial Library. 

http://www.capeelizabeth.com/news/2002/scherma.html  

Lewiston's Speer Receives 2008 Intellectual Freedom Award

PRESS RELEASE: November 12, 2008

Lewiston Library Director Richard A. Speer was recently presented with the ProQuest/SIRS 2008 Intellectual Freedom Award for Maine at the October Maine Libraries Conference.

The selection criteria for the esteemed award is an individual or organization actively promoting intellectual freedom in Maine defined by the American Library Association (ALA) and the Association for Education Communications and Technology (AECT) as"the freedom to express one's beliefs or ideas through any mode of communication and the right of unrestricted access to all information and ideas regardless of the medium of communication."

The Intellectual Freedom Committee (IFC) of the Maine Library Association/Maine Association of School Libraries annually seeks nominations for the Maine Intellectual Freedom Award. The award is donated by SIRS, Inc., and consists of $500 for material to the library of the recipient's choice and a commemorative plaque.

Speer was selected this year due to actively promoting intellectual freedom through efforts to "protect First Amendment rights, challenge censorship, or otherwise resist abridgement of free expression and free access to ideas."

Melora Ranney Norman, the Intellectual Freedom Officer for the Maine Library Association and Co-chair, Joint Intellectual Freedom Committee of the Maine Association of School Libraries and the Maine Library Association, commended Speer for strongly advocating "the principle that information is meaningful, powerful, and all-encompassing in a democratic free society." Norman is also the Director of the Dorothy Webb Quimby Library at Unity College.

Upon receiving the award, Speer responded: "On behalf of the Staff and Board of LPL, I was very proud to accept this Statewide award."

http://www.ci.lewiston.me.us/news/2008/11-12-08a.htm

Judith Krug: Reflections

Judith always made it look easy.

Contemplating a Facebook picture of the longtime director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom standing with OIF staffer Nanette Perez, I'm struck by how slight Judith was in person; her personality was tremendous, so much bigger than her physical stature.  My husband, Steve, says he will always remember her in sneakers, dashing from meeting to hearing to conference program, ever composed and smiling.

I met Judith in the mid 1990s, when she accepted an invitation to speak to some 150 Maine librarians at our annual conference.  At the time, I was feeling besieged by blocking software advocates on an unmoderated discussion list hosted by the ALA-OIF. 

Judith's response left no room for self-pity.  "Come to ALA," she declared with a confident smile; "And come to all the meetings," she commanded.

In the process of obeying her, I internalized a powerful image: Judith, standing during hours of ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee meetings and walking over, one by one, to greet and hug each of the many people she friended and mentored over the years as they came into the room.   It is hard to believe that someone could be so full of integrity, so determined, so firm, so honest, so savvy, yet also so warm, loving, and funny. 

For a while, I made it a point to bring Judith chocolates at every ALA meeting or conference. Once, when I gave her a particularly big box, she rolled her eyes and said "It's a good thing you aren't in Chicago!" 

One Christmas, I bought her an inexpensive replica of the Bill of Rights at the Maine State Museum; I got busy, and kept forgetting to bring it to her.  Then I learned of her illness.  I immediately sent it off in the mail, along with a note telling her what an inspiration she was.  Ever gracious, she immediately wrote back, saying she had always wanted exactly that.

What a woman. 

Judith was an adept, articulate, and brilliant spokesperson. As a mentor, she was without peer: she had the amazing ability to guide, direct, and nurture a dedicated community. She made every one of her friends, colleagues, and admirers feel unique, valued, worthy, and effective.  Even when she disagreed with you, and let you know in spades.

And honestly, nobody could make you work harder than Judith.

The most fitting tribute I could give her, however, comes from a waitress  I met on the train to ALA's Midwinter meeting in Denver, 2008:  "Thank goodness for librarians," she said "All we have left of intellectual freedom in this country, we owe to you."

So much of this, we owe to Judith.

Cheryl Bryan @ Maine Public Library Directors' Institute

I've always enjoyed Cheryl Bryan, so when the opportunity came to see her at the 12th Annual Public Library Directors' Institute today at the Augusta Civic Center, I grabbed it (since my academic library at Unity College also serves as the community's public library).

Unity is in the middle of a master planning process, so I've been doing a lot of thinking about buildings.  Cheryl' presentations were about space reallocation and building assessment.  Some of the points she touched on included:

• Library as commons: the importance and value of gathering spaces that are functional, inspirational, motivational
• Computer training labs: we need to teach people how to use our databases
• Get small tables, get rid of the large ones, people don't like/want them
• Cafés or coffee hours & comfy seating: the importance of welcoming spaces
• Multi-use meeting rooms
• Wifi & electrical outlets & importance off keeping up with technology and such basics as adequate bandwidth as usage increases
• Mobile reference: walk around and interact with people
• Laptop-friendly seating
• Accommodate cell phone users, don't try to ban them: focus on noise level not how the conversation is happening (a loud, intrusive conversation is disruptive regardless of format)
• Zone for different kinds of sound needs/usages
• The importance of having a long-range plan

Creating a Learning 2.0 List for Unity College

Here are some Learning 2.0 activities suggested for people to check out at Unity College in Maine!  For the 2008-09 school year, Quimby Library is offering pilot project areas in Wikispaces and Moodle. We are trying to include only sites that can be accessed without installing software, due to campus security restrictions. 

Check out Minerva, Quimby Library's new shared catalog: https://minerva.maine.edu/

• Use your Unity College ID barcode (excluding letters) to view your account and request items online!

Blogs: Blogger https://www.blogger.com/start or try Edublogs http://edublogs.org/

• Set up a blog!
• Comment on this blog about your experience.

RSS: Google Reader http://www.google.com/reader/

• Create an account or log in
• Choose *Discover* and search for interesting feeds
• Subscribe to some
• Click on the feed links to read what's new!
• Check out "RSS: A Quick Start Guide for Educators"

Photos: Flickr http://www.flickr.com/

• Search for interesting photos
• Set up an account
• Put up some of your own photos

Social Network-builder: Ning http://www.ning.com/

• Create your own online community
• Invite people to join

Podcasts: Check out some sample podcasts, and read a little about how to create and use them in education:

• YouTube (general) www.youtube.com/
• Environment:YalePodcast (specialized)  http://environment.yale.edu/multimedia/EnvironmentYale-Podcast/
• Educause-- ELI Discovery Tool: Guide to Podcasting http://www.educause.edu/guidetopodcasting
• Educause-- Broadcasting in Education article: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0561.pdf

Learn about online conferenceware at OPAL: http://www.opal-online.org/

• Unity College, Quimby Library is a member of OPAL (Online Programming for All Libraries), which offers online programs in conference rooms that include VoIP (voiceover IP, a way for people to talk with each other online) with presentations, web co-browswing, and chat!  The conferenceware is called iVocalize http://www.ivocalize.com/ , easy-to-use and accessible. [note: may require installed plug-in]

Online Courseware: Moodle

• Explore Moodle courseware: http://moodle.org/
• Like what you see? Want to try it? The Unity College test area is located at http://unityelearn.net/

Wiki: WikiSpaces http://www.unitycollege.wikispaces.net/

• Subscribe
• Visit the sandbox
• Explore!
• Resource: Using Wikis for Collaborative Group Work  http://connect.educause.edu/Library/Abstract/UsingWikisforCollaborativ/46420

Melora Ranney Norman, director, Quimby Library

The Endless Search for Light (@ the end of the digital tunnel)

I recently posted a query to some of the lists I frequent (Web4Lib, Collib-L, ACRL-frm), asking if some smaller colleges (like the one I now work for) had created digital plans they'd be willing to share.  Results were mostly:

1. When you get some responses, will you please share?

2. We're digitizing a little of this and a little of that; can't really say we're crazy about what we're doing, nor could we recommend it, and neither do we have what you'd call *A Plan*

Web searching mostly reveals:

1) Descriptions of special digitization projects--

http://units.sla.org/division/dbio/events/conf_past/Toronto/paper3.pdf

2) Descriptions of consortial, state or regional efforts--

http://www.cclaflorida.org/info/cclagoals.asp

http://www.texasheritageonline.com/documents/InterimNarrative2-2006.pdf

http://dalnetconsortium.wordpress.com/dalnet-digital-projects/

http://www.nmrls.org/digitalcommonwealth/Digital_Commonwealth_Conference.htm

(Although this last is a Massachusetts effort, several of us non-Commonwealth New Englanders attended)

Educause has some nice material:

http://connect.educause.edu/browse/content/node/553/list/feed

There are some pretty interesting conference and symposia proceedings:

http://califa.org/digitizationsymposium/CalifaDS2007.htm

I'm about to attend a Nelinet program on digitization, and am hopeful that a proposed consortium through them will provide some useful opportunities!

NLS Resolution, passed unanimously by the Council of the American Library Association, June, 2007

Resolution on Funding for the National Library Service

WHEREAS, Since 1931, the United States Congress has supported a national library accessible to people who are blind, and

WHEREAS, In 1966, Congress authorized the Library of Congress' National Library Service to provide Talking Books services to all persons who could not read standard print because of visual or physical disability, and

WHEREAS the National Library Service's current audiocassette technology, which was introduced in 1971, is obsolete, and

WHEREAS, the current audiocassette machines are no longer being manufactured, and

WHEREAS The National Library Service has developed a plan to convert to up-to-date digital technology, and

WHEREAS, The National Library Service needs the $19.1 million it requested for the first year of this multi-year project in order to obtain this goal, and

WHEREAS, There have been congressional proposals to allocate only some of the funds needed toward the project, and

WHEREAS, any shortfall jeopardizes library service to the more than 750,000 people in the United States who rely upon this service for access to reading material, and

WHEREAS veterans who have been injured and are returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will need this service, and

WHEREAS, the American Library Association has adopted a statement of core values and that Access (for all) and Democracy (the need for an informed citizenry), are two of these values,

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the American Library Association calls upon Congress to fund the $19.1 million needed for the first year of the National Library Service's multi-year digitization project to convert to up-to-date digital technology, thereby preserving Talking Books services to people with visual or physical disability.

Moved by Melora Ranney Norman
Maine Chapter Councilor

Seconded by Michael A. Golrick
Councilor-at-Large