RUSA Structure Task Force Recommendations
Presented to RUSA Board 14 December 2011
Committee Members:
Kate Kosturski, Chair
Greg Fleming
Sarah Jane Hammill
Geneva R. Holliday
Edward Kownslar
Mary K. Mannix
Donna Scanlon
Joseph A. Thompson, Jr
Gary W. White
Staff Liaison: Susan Hornung
Introduction
As part of the development of the 2012 – 2015 RUSA Strategic Plan, the board charged a
task force, comprised of representatives from each RUSA section and several other
members appointed by RUSA president Gary White, to make recommendations to reform
RUSA, with the goal of aligning it with current issues and concerns in reference services
and member needs.
According to the charge from the RUSA board to the Task Force dated August 2011:
The taskforce will review the recommendations of the RUSA Electronic
Participation taskforce as part of its work, but will go beyond simply looking at
electronic participation. The taskforce will make recommendations for structural
changes that RUSA can implement that can help to: 1) Increase membership, 2)
Better meet member needs and interests, 3) Facilitate member participation, and
4) Make the best use of RUSA committee and board meeting time.
With these goals in mind, the RUSA Structure Task Force proposes the following five
recommendations for reform within the Strategic Plan:
1) Attract more non-academic librarians to RUSA
2) Provide Suggestions and Guidelines for Divisions and Committees to Transition
from In-Person to Virtual Meetings
3) Build and maintain support resources on the RUSA Website/ALA Connect to
foster electronic participation
4) Explore joint programming and other collaborative efforts with other ALA
divisions and roundtables
5) Increase efficiencies and eliminate duplication across RUSA divisions
Recommendation #1: Attract More Non-Academic Librarians to RUSA
Based on review of membership data provided by the RUSA Office, approximately half
of RUSA membership (as of August 2010) does not identify as a an academic librarian.
Public and government librarians make up the majority of non-academic librarian RUSA
membership. Additionally, many RUSA members belong to more than one ALA
division, with the Public Library Association (PLA) and Library Leadership and
Management Association (LLAMA) among the top three. This data shows an untapped,
untouched member base of RUSA that may have been neglected in programming and
committee membership. Thus, the first recommendation of the task force is to reach out
to, and grow, this non-academic librarian presence.
The first step in implementing this recommendation is preparing (or revising, if one exists
already) a value proposition statement outlining the benefits of membership for a nonacademic librarian. This value statement is necessary as it will form the cornerstone of
any marketing or outreach plan to non-academic librarians, and should include the
following items:





RUSA Mission
RUSA membership goals, both general and specific to non-academic librarians.
Facts about non-librarian RUSA membership (percentage of members who are
not academic librarians, percentage of RUSA members who are members of nonacademic ALA Divisions/Roundtables)
Myth v. Fact statements about RUSA membership for non-academic librarians
Testimony of value of membership from active non-academic librarians
This value statement can be written by the RUSA office, another task force, or be
proposed as a RUSA Emerging Leaders project.
Once that value statement is in place, action items can include any or all of the following:





Survey to non-academic librarians (RUSA members and non-RUSA members)
about the organization and their expectations from membership. This can also be
done in conjunction with preparation of the value statement.
Targeted marketing from the RUSA office to those members who are also
members of non-academic ALA divisions and roundtables. This could take the
form of a specific marketing campaign or part of an overall marketing campaign.
Reform of RUSA’s committee structure to incorporate committees and
roundtables that meet reference needs of non-academic librarians. (This was
proposed as a 2012 Emerging Leaders project.)
Collaboration on programming with other ALA divisions/roundtables at ALA
Midwinter, ALA Annual, other division/roundtable meetings such as the
upcoming PLA conference in Philadelphia, and/or other continuing education
opportunities. This would not be new ground to break within ALA; the Library
and Information Technology Association (LITA) and LLAMA hosted a very
successful joint conference in 1996.
Use of RUSA “ambassadors” to visit library schools and state/regional library
association meetings to talk about the organization and its benefits to nonacademic librarians.
Recommendation #2: Provide Suggestions and Guidelines for Divisions and
Committees to Transition from In-Person to Virtual Meetings
Conducting virtual meetings sounds easy in theory, but can be quite difficult in practice.
The Task Force also recognizes that making such a decision is highly individual and will
vary from group to group. While we suggest that groups highly consider virtual
participation, we will let each final decision reside within the group and each meeting.
To assist in this decision making process, the Task Force identified 5 areas of
concern/potential issue for groups considering the transition from in-person to virtual:
1. Tools
2. Access
3. Timing
4. Chair Responsibility
5. Commitment
1. Tools: What’s available for use? What is free vs. cost or available from
ALA/RUSA?
There are a number of tools on the market – some freely available, some not. Each may
provide their own access issues for committees considering virtual. Some tools the Task
Force proposes include:
Tool
ALA Connect
Free/Cost
Provided by ALA
Pros
Available to all ALA
members
GoToMeeting/Webinar
Provided by
ALA/RUSA
Skype
Free
Allows for
phone/computer
voice access
Allows Chat
16 attendees
(webinar may be
higher)
Allows for video
Computer required
Adobe Connect
WebEx
Free Conference Call
Cost
Cost
Free
Cons/Issues
Not easy to use /
training may be
required
May need to
download
software for
meeting
Software
download
required
The Task Force is aware of the recommendations of the RUSA/ASCLA Web
Conferencing Software Task Force and their suggestion of Blackboard/Elluminate for
conferencing software, but provide these options for further consideration for those
members who may not find Blackboard convenient for their needs.
2. Access
Not all computers and access options are created equal. Some institutions manage what
software may be installed on staff computers – this may hinder/prevent access to some of
the tools mentioned above. If participation is “work sanctioned” participants may not
want to use personal time for committee work. It is also important to consider the
operating systems in use for each committee member. Although Macintosh computers
continue to rise in popularity, many web conferencing tools are not currently compatible
with the latest operating system, OS X Lion, preventing participation. The Task Force
strongly encourages committees to take access under strong advisement.
3. Timing
Timing is crucial in planning effective virtual participation. The Task Force recommends
that committees carefully consider the best times that will work for committee members.
Things for committees to take under advisement here include the following:






Meetings on the weekend (Saturday/Sunday) vs. meetings on a normal workday
(Monday – Friday)
What is defined as a “normal workday” for committee members? Members may
work weekend shifts
Time of the year when meetings are hosted. There may be busy periods
depending on the type of library (start of the academic semester/quarter, summer
reading v. school year programming for public librarians)
Time of the day to host a meeting (morning, afternoon, evening)
Varying time zones to accommodate members spread out across the United States
and around the world.
Technology accessibility (computer, phone, etc.) – this may differ depending on
the time of day and day of the week
4. Chair Responsibility
For virtual meetings to be successful we feel there will be an increased responsibility on
committee chairs. Recommendations for effective virtual chair participation include:




More frequent communication with committee members, including action items
and meeting reminders
Setting of goals for committee
Set schedule for regular meetings upfront (put on committee calendars from
beginning)
Increased attention to deadlines
An effective model for virtual chair participation is the Reference Services Section
(RSS). RSS found that by setting specific goals for the committees and method for
updates and communication helped the groups to keep on task and keep focus on the
work of the committee. Such simple recommendations are vital to any kind of meeting,
but more so when members do not meet face-to-face and the temptation to multitask
and/or remain less engaged in virtual meetings runs high.
5.
Commitment from participants
As with chair responsibility, participation responsibility will change with this transition.
Committees should reflect on the following factors that play into this virtual transition:


Participants may get funding to attend conferences, and would be more likely to
attend in person. Funding may not be permitted for virtual participation.
Off-site schedules are more easily disrupted by immediate, in-person concerns.


The ease and temptation of multitasking while in a virtual meeting, where the
chair and colleagues cannot see you are not 100 percent engaged, is high.
More frequent reminders can come across as annoying, turning people off from
participation
The Task Force encourages members to weigh the benefits/risks for each type of librarian
for virtual participation?

Academic librarians may have requirements for professional development. Virtual
allows for increased participation in professional organizations without incurring
additional costs for travel and conference registrations

Public/corporate/special librarians may or may not have a requirement for
professional development. Additional marketing and value proposition
statements on the benefits of virtual participation may be necessary.
Recommendation #3: Building and Maintaining a Support Page on RUSA Website
and ALA Connect
The Task Force is happy to report that current electronic tools (RUSA website, RUSA
groups on ALA Connect) provide the support we need. On the RUSA Orientation page
under “Keeping Everyone in the Loop: Communication Tools and Practices” it is stated:
ALA Connect (connect.ala.org) is the official communication tool of RUSA; all
RUSA volunteer leaders are expected to learn to use it to enhance clear
communication at all levels.
We suggest using RUSA’s website and ALA Connect space in tandem. General
information is best put on the RUSA website with links to the detailed documents,
instructions, calendars, committee work, etc. located on ALA Connect. With the
December 2011 Drupal migration, this appears to be in effect for most committee
information, including this Task Force.
It is very important to ensure that information on both these spaces remains current and
useful. For the RUSA web site, this is an easy task. Andrea Hill is the Manager of Web
Services for RUSA and is responsible for the website and provides technical support. She
does the coding for the pages and makes corrections when they are reported, but the
content is from RUSA. Members and chairs have a single portal to provide
additions/changes to information.
The difficulty lies in the ALA Connect page. The ALA Connect site isn’t really
“managed.” Members of the ALA Connect Groups create and maintain these pages. This
(in theory) allows current information to get online and updated quickly. Jenny Levine
maintains the “Help” and “User Guidelines” pages and replies to comments (questions)
made on these pages. There is help available (even some videos) but it varies in quality
and it isn’t complete. As ALA Connect grows in acceptance throughout the organization,
we hope that its training resources develop in kind.
There are still places for improvement:
1) Cleanup from December 2011 Drupal Migration
The recent migration of the RUSA website to the new content management system
Drupal has improved the look of the website. It can still be difficult to find what you
need. Several pages are also in need of additional information for them to be truly
effective. For example, the “Rally Round RUSA” page
(http://www.ala.org/rusa/rallyroundrusa) has a section on “E-Participation,” which links
to a LITA page on the same topic (and when accessed on 12 December 2011, brought a
404 Error message). The “Virtual Meeting Spaces” links to ALA Connect, with other
links and text appearing to be nothing more than placeholders. These would be good
landing places for information on setting up and attending a virtual meeting.
2) Calendaring Options
Members and chairs need easy scheduling options that sync well with Google Calendar,
Outlook Calendars and other calendar software. The “Committee Tools-Orientation for
new RUSA leaders” menu option on the RUSA site includes a generic calendar with
events, dates, and responsible party(ies). This option has room for expansion. However,
the Task Force also wants a current calendar with events, deadlines, etc. indicated, and
options to download events to import into calendaring software. We may be able to host
this in ALA Connect with their calendar feature.
Recommendation #4: Explore Joint Programming and Other Collaborative Efforts
with Other ALA Divisions and Roundtables
The Task Force recognizes that RUSA members are often members of at least one other
division or roundtable. We also recognize the breadth and depth of our key interest –
reference and user services – and the ease with which it translates to other ALA divisions
and roundtables. As such, we strongly recommend collaboration between RUSA
committees/divisions and closely related brethren in other ALA Divisions and
Roundtables. This is not without precedent; LITA and LLAMA hosted a very successful
joint conference in 1996.
To sow the seeds of community, the Task Force contacted several ALA units to discuss
whether they might be interested in collaborative programs with RUSA. As of 12
December 2011, we have received statements of interest from the following
organizations:


American Association of School Librarians (AASL): Carl Harvey, President
Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS): Betsy
Simpson, President



Association for Library Services for Children (ALSC): Mary Fellows, President
LLAMA (Janine Golden)
Public Library Association (PLA): Marcia Warner, President
The committee has already forwarded the comments from several of these groups to the
RUSA Conference Program Coordinating Committee.
Reply from AASL (Carl Harvey):
When I was reviewing the idea sent from the RUSA committee, it struck me as that
particular topic is one AASL has been working on and providing programming and
resources for years. We have a Jt. Committee with ACRL on that topic as well as it is the
end goal of our Standards for 21st Century Learners to make sure students are prepared
for college. In our Learning 4 Life plan, you'll find this a very prevalent topic. I'm not
sure what new we could bring with a session from AASL and RUSA.
As I tried to think in terms of RUSA and AASL, here were a couple of topics that came
to mind:
** How about a joint list of recommended homework help or reference resources for
parents of school age kids?
** How are reference materials changing in today's school in the digital age?
I think these could be of great interest to our members. I hope that is helpful to you as we
continue to talk about ways to work together! :)
Reply from ALCTS (Betsy Simpson):
ALCTS welcomes the opportunity to partner with RUSA. Two longstanding examples of
collaboration that come to mind are the Machine Readable Bibliographic Information
Committee (MARBI), a joint ALCTS/RUSA/LITA group, and the ALCTS Collection
Management Section’s Collection Management in Public Libraries Interest Group, which
is affiliated with RUSA CODES.
We’d be glad to discuss particular course and program ideas that RUSA thinks would be
of interest to members in both divisions. For a look at ALCTS’ current offerings, please
see http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alcts/confevents/index.cfm. ALCTS recognizes
the value of co-sponsoring events and instructs program planners to consider cosponsorship. Of course, the impetus to work with other divisions is dependent on the
content of the particular program or course.
We appreciate RUSA’s interest in working with ALCTS and look forward to a
continuing dialogue.
Reply from ALSC (Mary Fellows):
ALSC is always interested in opportunities to collaborate within our abilities to be an
effective partner on a useful project. We're collaborating with two other divisions on
programs for Annual 2012, which brings us to our capacity.
ALSC requests collaboration from partners based on projects that fulfill our strategic
plan. Perhaps that's an approach for RUSA to take as you seek to identify meaningful
collaborations and useful partners.
Reply from the Public Library Association (Marcia Warner):
Congratulations to you and RUSA on tackling this issue. I know there is no better time to
do things like this that the moment of most financial pressure and future ambiguity! Has
your task force has considered partnership ideas in specific? PLA has several
collaborative initiatives with divisions and offices (ALSC and Every Child Ready to
Read; ALA Office for Advocacy and LibrariUs and Toolkit for Privatization, etc.) We
would welcome a specific proposal from RUSA and I feel confident that we could find
some common ground but have no suggestions myself at this time. Our plate is pretty full
with technology benchmark development/training and other grant funded projects but we
always welcome new innovative ideas.
The Task Force knows collaboration does not just have to come from large players,
smaller groups within ALA may provide viable partnerships for joint efforts. Of
particular interest is the Government Documents Round Table (GODORT) for their keen
interest in virtual participation, creative programming initiatives, and diverse member
base. We encourage creativity in all levels of cooperative work.
Recommendation #5: Increase Efficiencies and Eliminate Duplication Across RUSA
Divisions
The Task Force recognizes that in order for RUSA to truly reform and meet members’
21st century needs, change to the organizational structure may be necessary. However,
this work is partially out of scope of this task force, perhaps best left to larger strategic
planning. RUSA has proposed a 2012 ALA Emerging Leaders project that allows
Emerging Leaders to work alongside seasoned members to start drafting such proposed
changes. As of 12 December, we are waiting to hear if the project is selected.
It is important to begin considering high level questions relating to organizational change.
The Task Force proposes the following questions to be taken under advisement by those
responsible for developing a new RUSA matrix:
1. Are the sections appropriately supporting the larger RUSA mission and goals?
2. When all committees are considered, including those within sections, is there a
need for each? Could some committees be combined? Should some committees
be eliminated? The answer to this question will help RUSA meet the goals of cost
and membership efficiency.
3. When all sections are considered, is there a need for each? Could some sections
be combined?
4. Does the RUSA membership at large have needs that are not being met, but could
be addressed through the creation of new committees or sections? Examples of
areas of interest that RUSA could address in the future include Health/Medical
Reference, Legal Reference, and Circulation.
5. Is the section-based organizational model working for RUSA? What other
models exist within other ALA divisions and other associations? Could an
improved organizational model help RUSA be more responsive to member needs?
6. Do RUSA level committees have the appropriate roles in relation to section
committees?
7. Is RUSA Board providing appropriate and enough direction to the sections so that
the direction of the association overall is synchronized?
8. Is there an appropriate degree of coordination among the six sections?
9. How can RUSA and its sections more quickly eliminate committees that are no
longer needed?
10. How can we increase the accountability of all committees across RUSA,
including RUSA level committees, considering that there is not a regular review
of RUSA itself that is analogous to the section reviews?
11. What does RUSA do with the section reviews now? Should the information
generated from the section reviews be applied in some way differently than it is
now? The Task Force recommends that RUSA complete a section
review/organization audit every five years.
12. Is there existing bureaucracy that is inhibiting our ability to be productive? Are
there useless procedures that can be reduced or eliminated?
13. Are there roles that could be performed by RUSA Board instead of RUSA
Committees?
14. Does a new recommendation regarding the present structure of RUSA
preconferences need to be made by RUSA to the sections, in light of ALA
policies that make it very difficult for preconferences to make a profit? How can
good ideas for programs and preconferences now be encouraged and
implemented?
15. Who is responsible for updating the RUSA Guide to Policies and Procedures on
the RUSA web site? It badly needs updated. For one example, it links to the
2006-2009 strategic plan. The revised Guide should also include a calendar of
RUSA deadlines throughout the year, including everything from program
proposals to the section of spectrum scholars and Emerging Leaders. This would
help ensure that deadlines are met, and would make the work of RUSA more
transparent to the membership.
16. Does the RUSA web site appropriately address the needs of potential new
members? Does it address how RUSA membership provides them a direct and
tangible benefit? Does it also address the needs of current members? A thorough
review of the content and its organization on the RUSA web site are necessary so
that irrelevant material is removed and priority material is made easier to find.
17. Is there a need for a calendar of everything that can go on the RUSA web site?
Selecting spectrum scholars, selecting Emerging Leaders, program deadlines, etc.
18. Once the RUSA Structure Task Force presents recommendations to RUSA Board,
how will these be implemented?