Library Juice 5:27 - August 22, 2002

Contents:

  1. "Speaking With One Voice" policy and SRRT: Documents
  2. The Quiet Storm
  3. GATS and Libraries web page update
  4. Proposed Closure of PubScience
  5. MONEYTALKS - New ALA discussion list for salaries issue
  6. Information/Library Science Internship - Fairness.com
  7. Victory at LC
  8. Reviewers Needed for Library Journal
  9. Links


Quote(s) for the week:

"I'm a voracious reader. You have to read to survive. People
who read for pleasure are wasting their time. Reading isn't fun;
it's indispensable." -- Woody Allen

"Reading is my favorite pastime!" -- First Lady Laura Bush


Homepage of the week: Halsted M. Bernard
http://www.cygnoir.net

________________________________________________________________________top


1. "Speaking With One Voice" policy and SRRT: Documents

Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 08:04:07 -0700
From: Rory Litwin <rlitwin[at]earthlink.net>
To: SRRT Membership List <SRRTMEM[at]ala.org>

SRRT Members,

There is an ongoing conflict between SRRT Action Council and ALA staff
regarding what staff refers to as the "Speaking With One Voice Policy,"
although unlike actual ALA policies, it was never passed by Council, but was
issued by a subcommittee of the Executive Board as an "information item."

The "Speaking With One Voice Policy," as it has been explained to us, would
prohibit SRRT from issuing any kind of position statements or resolutions,
on the basis that in doing so SRRT is speaking for the Association as a
whole.  We feel when we communicate our resolutions to the outside world we
are scrupulously clear that we are not speaking for the Association as a
whole but just for a small part of it.

This issue came up recently regarding ALA's controversial "Resolution of the
Destruction of Palestinian Libraries, Archives, and Other Cultural
Resources," which was passed by ALA Council at annual but which was
initiated by SRRT member Tom Twiss of the International Responsibilities
Task Force.  A pro-Israel news service ran a story about the ALA resolution
and included information on its SRRT origins, including information about
Tom's original, stronger resolution.  At ALA this was seen as evidence that
SRRT was communicating its resolutions to the press.  In fact, we did intend
to communicate our resolution to the press, but hadn't yet at this time.
Ironically, the news service learned of Tom's resolution by picking up a
copy at the ALA membership meeting, where it had been photocopied and
distributed by ALA staff to anyone in attendance who wanted it, as any item
on the agenda at an open meeting would be.

Nevertheless, because this proved to be such a controversial action on ALA's
part, which created some serious headaches for some, it became an occassion
for laying down the law.  I received a memo from Satia Orange, SRRT's staff
liason at ALA, telling us in no uncertain terms that in communicating our
position statements to the outside world we were in violation of ALA policy.

I asked for and received the Executive Board Document laying out this
supposed policy, analyzed it, and wrote a memo to Satia in response to hers,
expressing the position of the SRRT leadership on the "One Voice" policy.
(SRRT Action Council has addressed this issue many times at Action Council
meetings and has always decided, either unanimously or by a wide margin,
that this "policy" is not legitimate ALA policy, and that we should continue
communicating SRRT resolutions to the world at large.)

My memo to Satia, dated yesterday; Satia's memo to me, dated July 11th; and
Executive Board Document #1.6 (1999-2000), "Who Speaks for ALA?", are now
available on the SRRT website:

http://libr.org/SRRT/docs/

Rory Litwin
SRRT Coordinator

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


Memo
DATE: August 17, 2002
TO: Satia Orange, ALA Liason to SRRT
FROM: Rory Litwin, SRRT Coordinator
CC: Keith Michael Fiels, ALA Executive Director

This memo is my response to your memo of July 11th, regarding the so-called
"dissemination of a recent SRRT resolution to the press."

First I will address the specific events in question. Following that, I
will state, for the record, my own views and my understanding, as SRRT
Coordinator, of the consensus among the SRRT leadership regarding the
"Speaking with One Voice Policy."

I am CC-ing the Executive Director after first consulting you about the
appropriateness of doing this. I understand that it is not the Executive
Director's responsibility to set or interpret policy, and that any actions
taken by ALA regarding SRRT's alleged failure to abide by ALA policies
would not be the Executive Director's to take. However, it is part of my
charge as SRRT Coordinator to "maintain a working relationship with the
ALA Executive Director." As we in SRRT regard this as one of the more
important issues facing us, I feel that it is incumbent upon me to inform
Mr. Fiels of our perspective. You acknowledged that this is reasonable.

Regarding the events following the passage of the ALA Council Resolution
"Resolution on the Destruction of Palestinian Libraries, Archives, and
Other Cultural Institutions," I would first like to correct a significant
factual error in your memo. Your memo began by explaining that your
earlier telephone call to me was to register your concern "re: the
dissemination of a recent SRRT resolution to the press." It may turn out
to be a minor detail, but in fact Tom Twiss, the author of the original
draft of the ALA Council resolution and the SRRT resolution in question,
did not disseminate the SRRT resolution to the press, nor had anyone else
in SRRT by the time of your call. The JTA news service had obtained a
copy of his resolution at the membership meeting, where it was distributed
by ALA. Tom later provided the news service with a copy of the ALA
Council resolution, faxed to him by an ALA Councilor, and further advised
them to approach ALA directly for an official copy. According to Tom, he
did NOT provide the JTA with the SRRT resolution nor the almost identical
version which he brought to the ALA Membership Meeting and the Near East
and South Asia Subcommittee of the International Relations Committee. The
JTA obtained it because of ALA's open meeting policy.

Shortly after the conference, Tom put the SRRT resolution on the website of
SRRT's International Responsibilities Task Force, which he manages. This
website also contained the text of the ALA resolution and clearly
distinguished between the two. The SRRT resolution was identified as a
SRRT resolution at the top, and additionally had a clear disclaimer at the
bottom. The links to these resolutions, side by side, made it clear to
anyone visiting the site that one was an ALA resolution and one was a
resolution of a subgroup of ALA.

Clearly, the JTA news service, whatever else it may have misunderstood
about the resolution and the process of its development, understood the
difference between a SRRT and an ALA resolution, and did not mistake one
for the other, as some ALA staffers and Executive Board members seem to
fear.

After your telephone call, we further clarified the wording of the
disclaimer, an action SRRT felt was unnecessary but which we felt nothing
would be lost by doing, and moved the disclaimer to the top of the web
page, as you suggested.

Following the instructions your memo, Tom did replace the page containing
the text of the ALA resolution as passed with a link to the same text on
the ALA site. It remains unclear to me why we were asked to make this
change. The issue of copyright has not been invoked, and to my knowledge
no-one in the library press or in the library website world has been asked
not to publish official ALA resolutions in the past.

Referring to web pages falling under SRRT, you stated in your memo:

"You indicated intent to provide better wording for the disclaimer, and
suggested that its movement to a space directly under the title would be
considered. Publication of the SRRT resolution noted above, even with the
revised disclaimer, would still violate ALA policy."

This brings us to the topic of the "Speaking with One Voice Policy" in
general. This statement indicates that it is ALA's view that SRRT is not
allowed to publish its resolutions on its website. I want to make it
clearly known that this rule has nowhere been officially communicated in
the past, and is nowhere to be found in the document that I take to have
established the "Speaking with One Voice Policy" in the first place,
Executive Board Document #1.6 (1999-2000), "Who Speaks for ALA- Issues
Document." That document's clear statement of what it considers to be
"speaking for the Association" is as follows:

Both general practice within organizations and legal opinion indicate that
units or individuals may reasonably be construed to be speaking for the
Association when they do either of the following:

This statement alarmed us enough when it was released, and I will state the
SRRT leadership's position on it momentarily. As far as communication of
official SRRT resolutions is concerned, however, it clearly only prohibits
the use of round table letterhead for the purpose. It says nothing about
publication on websites or in the library press. (I should note here that
wherever else we might want to publish our positions there is no place
more appropriate for the communication of official SRRT resolutions than
the SRRT Newsletter, and the SRRT Newsletter has been freely available on
the web since 1997, and has been freely available in libraries since the
founding of the Round Table.) The basis for (and official existence of)
this apparent new rule that SRRT is not allowed to publish its official
positions anywhere at all is extremely murky, and something which we wish
to have addressed as soon as possible. (While I find it important to note
that our recent instructions from ALA do not have any basis in EBD #16,
this should not be taken as acceptance of the position expressed in that
document.)

It is worth noting that SRRT resolutions are arrived at in our mandated
open meetings, and thus cannot in principle be withheld from publication.
This is as it should be. As the original drafts of many resolutions that
are finally passed by ALA Council, they often provide the evidence of not
only what ALA Council affirms, but what it, by a conscious process,
chooses not to affirm. They are thus often a part of the public record of
the path of development of Council resolutions. ALA Councilors who are
happy with Council resolutions that are much changed from their original
SRRT-related forms should be happy to see a public record of how a
resolution's radical elements were filtered out. SRRT members are
interested in seeing the same information existing in the published
record, especially concerning the SRRT-based origin of a resolution in
question.

I should mention at this point in my discussion of the "Speaking with One
Voice Policy" as stated in EBD #1.6 (1999-2000) that it claims to be based
on principles with which the SRRT leadership entirely agrees. SRRT's
leadership completely accepts and affirms the Constitution, Bylaws and
Policy Manual (which SRRT has helped to shape over the past three decades)
as the basis of SRRT's existence and all of its activities, and does not
wish to violate any policies that truly are contained in any of these
documents. Consideration of ALA policy has been central to our
decision-making; accordingly, we do not believe we have violated any
actual ALA policies.

We recognize that the four members of the Executive Board subcommittee who
drafted this document (for informational purposes only, I should add - not
for a vote) consider us to be violating ALA Policy when we send out our
SRRT resolutions on SRRT letterhead. They cite eight sections of the ALA
Constitution, Bylaws and Policy Manual as the basis for their "Information
Item," all of which the SRRT leadership agrees with. However, we do not
find anything in any of these cited passages that would prohibit us from
speaking clearly on our own behalf.

The subcommittee of the Executive Board lays the actual foundation for this
rule in "general practice within organizations and legal opinion,"
without, however, citing any evidence of actual research into general
practice or legal opinion or justifying this claim in any way. We
question the statement that either general practice or legal opinion could
possibly result in any prohibition of a sub-group of ALA from speaking
strictly on its own behalf.

SRRT representatives raised this question at a 2000 meeting of the Round
Table Coordinating Committee meeting, where ALA lawyer Paula Goedert
presented a report laying down the new "policy." Our representatives
asked about the legal basis that she was referring to. The answer they
received, as I understand it, was that sending out a position statement on
round table letterhead would violate the tax law provisions that prohibit
501(c)3 non-profit organizations from lobbying on behalf of or against
political candidates. Pressed on the relevance of this law, Goedert was,
I am told, unable to answer. This evidences a flimsy basis indeed for
such an interpretation of ALA policy, and sorely tempts debate.

ALA does have a concern which I feel is understandable, however, and which
I believe we in SRRT respect and take into consideration. That ALA is one
legal and actual entity is true, and certain things do follow from this.
SRRT would not commit ALA to a contract without authorization, for
example, and SRRT would not claim to speak for the Association as a whole.
You have expressed concern about confusion of ALA's membership and the
public about ALA's policies and positions. We feel strongly, however,
that communicating our positions to the public and to the membership,
rather than creating confusion, enhances the membership's understanding of
issues within ALA and informs the public about realities they might
otherwise be unaware. Our position is simply, "The answer to speech we
don't like is more and better speech."

In any event, we are, I believe, scrupulous in avoiding confusion as to
whom we speak for and what a SRRT resolution is. No matter what policies
are set and followed, it is impossible to completely avoid confusion among
the public, and impossible to completely control the speech of (and the
interpretation of the speech of) ALA members. Furthermore, such
restrictions on speech would be, we believe, in fact antithetical to the
spirit of librarianship as ALA has so soundly established it over the past
century.

Aside from the issue of Intellectual Freedom, however, central to our
concerns about the "Speaking with One Voice Policy," is the question "Who
Sets Policy for ALA?" ALA has a set of actual policies, determined by
representatives of the membership, which the SRRT leadership regards as
entirely legitimate and as the basis for the existence of our round table,
and which we follow. Now, additionally, we have a supposed policy,
referred to as the "Speaking with One Voice Policy," created as an
"information item" by a subcommittee of the Executive Board, that
prohibits our round table from officially communicating on its own behalf
using its own letterhead, and is now apparently being interpreted to mean
that we are prohibited from communicating any position statements at all.
We assert that it requires a rather wild interpretation of the
Constitution, Bylaws and Policy Manual to find the existence of this
policy in ALA's official documents, as well as a break from thirty years
of past practice. The "Speaking with One Voice Policy," as it has been
communicated to us is an ideosyncratic and politically-charged
interpretation of legitimate ALA policies, which the Executive Board,
exceeding its powers in acting for Council "in the administration of
established policies and programs," (ALA Constitution, Article VII) has
attempted to render into a new policy.

The supposed "Speaking With One Voice Policy" raises an important question
for us, which, in answering, we find the reasons for our rejection of it:

What has SRRT done in the past 33 years which would today be permitted by
the "Speaking with One Voice Policy" as we understand it? We say, "Not
much."

Rory Litwin
SRRT Coordinator

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


American Library Association
50 East Huron Street
Chicago, Illinois 60611-2795
USA
Telephone 312 280 4294
800 545 2433 #4294
Fax 312 280 3256
TDD 312 944 7298

http://www.ala.org/olos
http//www.ala.org/literacy
ALA /OLOS Memorandum
Equal access to information in libraries for all of America's populations

Office for Literacy and Outreach Services (OLOS)

DATE: July 11, 2002
TO: Rory Litwin, Coordinators, ALA Social Responsibilities Round Table
(SRRT)
FROM: Satia Orange, ALA Liaison to SRRT

Dear Rory:

Thanks for getting back with me earlier this week. As agreed, I am sending
this message as confirmation of our conversation.

My call, as the ALA staff liaison to the Social Responsibilities Round
Table, was to register my concern re: the dissemination of a recent SRRT
resolution to the press. As you and I discussed, the American Library
Association's policy is clear about adherence to its policies by its round
tables. You are aware that ALA's policy is that round tables and their
members do not speak with the press on behalf of the Association.

To be specific, a member of the SRRT International Relations Task Force
provided the resolution, "Destruction of Palestinian Libraries, Archives,
and Other Cultural Institutions" to JTA, the Global News Service of the
Jewish Community. You indicated that the decision to decimate this
resolution to the press was unanimous at the SRRT Action Council in
Atlanta a few weeks ago.

Issuing unofficial documents regarding ALA resolutions and decisions can
confuse Association membership and the public's awareness of ALA policies.
Also, such actions may undermine ALA's credibility and its ability to
implement meaningful actions on behalf of the organization.

Please ask the task force website manager to link to the ALA
Council-approved resolution of the same name at
http://www.ala.org/work/international/resolutiononpalestinianlibraries.html,
instead of to a SRRT web page. Again, the resolution on the identified
website confirms ALA's official resolution.

Lastly, your consideration of the suggestion to place the disclaimer at the
top of the SRRT resolution, rather than at the bottom, may help to
eliminate confusion for some readers. You indicated intent to provide
better wording for the disclaimer, and suggested that its movement to a
space directly under the title would be considered. Publication of the
SRRT resolution noted above, even with the revised disclaimer, would still
violate ALA policy.

Furthermore, ALA policy has been ignored with full knowledge of the SRRT
Action Council. Such action causes concern for Association members and
leadership.

The role of the Social Responsibilities Round Table, as with other ALA
units, is respected and valued. Round tables "provide an additional avenue
for membership discussion, opinion, and response." It is the intent of the
Association leadership, through its policies on structure and governance,
to allow the voices of all of its members to be heard, as prescribed by
its Council-approved procedures. It is important that the policies of the
ALA Council, made up of elected representatives of the Association, be
followed.

As always, your consideration and cooperation is appreciated. I look
forward to continuing this dialogue with you, as SRRT coordinator, and
supporting the work of the round table as always. SMO

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

Executive Board Document#1.6 (1999-2000) is on the web at:
http://www.libr.org/SRRT/docs/EBD_1.6_1999-2000.PDF
________________________________________________________________________top


2. The Quiet Storm

From:
The Big Issue, August 12 - 16, 2002

Jane Mackenzie
News Reporter

Imagine living in a country where anti-capitalist books are
banned from libraries, the only reading materials available
are fluffy novels, and librarians are anarchist outcasts. If
the privatisation of libraries continues, writes Jane Mackenzie,
that is where we are heading...

***

The library of the future smells of coffee. Not surprising since
there's a coffee bar inside. Customers queue to pay their
borrowing fee for books at the automated date-stamping machines.
A frustrated student gives up his computerised search for a history
reference book, but not before fending off several adverts based
on his previous reading habits. There are no seats which means
no old or homeless people hanging around. There are no librarians.

Poor old librarians. The hob carries a stereotype of dowdy, meek people
with an unhealthy interest in card indexing who 'shush' noisy readers.
These days, however, librarians are having to become a far more radical
breed.

Around 3,000 library workers from all over the world arrive in Scotland
next week for a conference of the International Federation of
Library Associations (IFLA). Ruth Rikowski is organising a fringe meeting
entitled 'The Profit Virus: Globalisation, Libraries and Education.'

Rikowski is a chartered librarian who used to work in Newham and currently
lectures on information at the University of Greenwich. She is also a leading
light of Information for Social Change, an activist group for library
workers. "There can be no place where a sense of sharing is more powerful -
borrowing books, returning books, the community sharing books, stories,
information and knowledge," she says.

Rikowski's main concern is that libraries are next on the hit-list
for the big corporations which are gradually taking over public services.
She's not alone in her fears. "It's not the case that all library and
information workers agree with happily swimming along in the tide.
There are a considerable number of library organisations showing grave
concern," she adds.

GATS, the general agreement on trade in services, opens up many public
services
to competitive markets. Only services in which there is no competition,
such as national security, can be excluded.

IFLA's official position is that GATS will eventually undermine the
tax-supported status of public sector libraries everywhere. "Without
tax support, the library's role as a democractic institution that makes
available the widest range of material reflecting the diversity of
society, will be compromised," says their official policy statement.

In the London Borough of Haringey the libraries are already privately
run. After inspectors found a "poor service and no possible improvement"
in 1999, the council hired Instant Library Ltd. as contractors to run
the service.

Mick Martin, who works for Book Aid International, a charity that
helps create libraries in the developing world, lives in Haringey.
"Where I live, no one seems to know about the takeover. Library
staff are waiting to see what will develop." He says staff are worried
that in order to increase short-term borrowing the firm may buy trendy
titles of little use in a year's time.

"As with all privatisation, profits will be the bottom line. Railway
track maintenance is appalling, but small sub-contractors make record
profits.
Will library jobs go? Will more charges be introduced?
Will we just get shafted as usual? Probably yes," he says.

Even those who are opposed to the privatisation agenda say Instant Library
Ltd. is a "nice" company with the skills to help the failing north
London service pull its socks up. But they fear it is a Trojan horse.
The next takeover is just as likely to be by Group 4, Capita,
Serco or ITNet - some of the main players in the contracted-out public
service industry, and all have been criticised by unions for downgrading
public services in profit-driven, cheapest-wins competitive market places.
Meanwhile, there's already been one row in Haringey after a playgroup was
asked by new bosses to leave the library room it had been using for more
than a decade.

A spokeswoman for Instant Library Ltd. says, "Instant Library does
not see private sector involvement as a threat. In Haringey, service
is still provided by librarians, regardless of who employs them. Public
libraries have a long track record of involvement with the private
sector and have often outsourced some functions, such as IT systems
and infrastructure support. Outsourcing is becoming common in
areas that were once exclusively public-run, such as hospitals and
environmental services.

"The 'Best Value' process requires local authorities to consider the most
appropriate means of delivering services, including outsourcing, so
opportunities
for private sector involvement may increase in the future. If they do,
Instant Library would be delighted to be involved."

Public services union Unison has fought battles against privatisation in
numerous services already. A spokeswoman says: "Only a very small number
of councils have taken the privatisation route for libraries. But we
wouldn't want to be complacent about it."

Public libraries have been around in Britain since the Public Library Act
in 1850 allowed councils to set up lending libraries. These had to be free
to visit but many charged a penny for borrowing. There was moral panic.
The Victorian middle classes feared giving workers access to free reading
rooms would create hotbeds of revolution. Others saw libraries as an
opportunity to "improve" the masses but wanted to control what the poor
were allowed to read, with restrictions on 'radical' works. In time,
public libraries became the amazing resource that allowed generations of
Britons free access to books.

An Audit Commission report this May found that a third of the population
uses libraries, making a total of 290 million visits a year. Despite
the explosion of cheap bookshops and a steep decline in library use
in the past decade, more books are still borrowed than bought.

Things are changing in the library world. Like Blue Peter not being
allowed to namedrop Sellotape, libraries have been free from the
dirty world of business for over a hundred years. Now cash-strapped
services are introducing coffee-shops, competing with video rental
stores and entering into sponsorship agreements. As computers
and Internet access are shoehorned into every library, Microsoft logos
are ubiquitous.

Jonathan Rutherford ran in local elections in Islington as the
'Save Arthur Simpson Library' candidate. The library in the Finsbury
Park area still faces the planned closure, although the council says it
is not shutting it, just moving it to another location three-quarters
of a mile away. Rutherford says, "Libraries are part of people's
feelings about where they live. They're a public service and doing away
with them feels like an act of vandalism."

He says library staff backed his anti-closure campaign behind the
scenes, but were gagged by their council employer. He adds that
compared to fighting for hospitals or schools, campaigns for libraries
might seem irrelevant. "Yes, health is about life or death. But libraries
are about hopes for the future. They are about what kind of culture we
want to live in. People do feel pretty strongly about them."

He says professional librarians are gradually being edged out and replaced
with cheaper, less qualified staff. "There's no children's librarian in
Islington now," he says. "Children get a poorer service because of that."

Some librarians fear the drive to be 'competitive' will lead to an explosion
of populism, with 10 copies of the latest blockbuster novel made available
at the expense of one useful but expensive reference book. Others fear
more disturbing levels of censorship as mega-corporations remove
from the shelves of their privatised libraries any books critical of their
behaviour. "The social control that the Victorians dreamed of could become
a reality.

In Hackney, librarians are now on strike every Saturday. The row began over
pay, but the protesting staff are also unhappy over council plans to
close four our of seven libraries to cut costs. A University College London
library attendant was jailed for protesting at last year's Gothenberg
summit.

Around the world, librarians are becoming so active that internet
search engine Yahoo has a special category for librarian activism. IFLA
and Information for Social Change are listed alongside angry library
workers from other countries where libraries face the same threats. These
include Warrior Librarian, Radical Librarian, Avenging Librarian, Anarchist
Librarian and even Snarky Librarian.

Warrior Librarian is preparing for battle. Everyone else who wants to defend
public libraries should wake up and smell the coffee.

_____________________________________________
attac-london-gats mailing list
attac-london-gats[at]lists.southspace.net
http://lists.southspace.net/listinfo/attac-london-gats
________________________________________________________________________top


3. GATS and Libraries update

Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 11:38:51 -0700
From: Rory Litwin <rlitwin[at]earthlink.net>

The webpage at Libr.org on "GATS and Libraries" now contains 27 items and
has just been reorganized by me and Fiona Hunt. It is the definitive study
resource on the GATS and Libraries. It will continue to be expanded in the
coming months.

GATS may seem like a somewhat esoteric issue to those with more immediate
concerns, but I think it is very much worth learning about.

The page is at http://libr.org/GATS/

Thanks for your attention.

Rory Litwin
Libr.org
________________________________________________________________________top


4. Proposed Closure of PubScience

ALAWON: American Library Association Washington Office Newsline
Volume 11, Number 67
August 20, 2002

In This Issue: PROPOSED CLOSURE OF PubSCIENCE -- COMMENTS DUE by
September 8th

Since its inception in 1999, PubSCIENCE has provided researchers
and science-attentive citizens access to bibliographic records of
peer-reviewed journal literature relating to DOE-supported work,
addressing the need for a searchable gateway for the Department's
Web patrons. Based on an extensive public/private sector
collaboration, PubSCIENCE has covered journals of participating
science publishers, including hyperlinks to the full text on
publishers' servers.

DOE is proposing to discontinue PubSCIENCE, because -- it says --
private sector information products have emerged that freely offer
bibliographic records to Web patrons. According to DOE, "A recent
comparison of the content between PubSCIENCE and Scirus and
Infotrieve showed that 90% of the journal literature in the scope
of PubSCIENCE was covered by these two products. Taken as a whole,
they provide coverage of information for DOE Web patrons."

Comments on this proposed action will be collected using the
comment form at http://pubsci.osti.gov/psfeedbk.html for a 30-day
comment period to END September 8, 2002. Comments received will be
considered in the final decision process for the future of
PubSCIENCE.

******
ALAWON (ISSN 1069-7799) is a free, irregular publication of the
American Library Association Washington Office. All materials
subject to copyright by the American Library Association may be
reprinted or redistributed for noncommercial purposes with
appropriate credits.

To subscribe to ALAWON, send the message: subscribe ala-wo
[your_firstname] [your_lastname] to listproc[at]ala.org or go to
http://www.ala.org/washoff/alawon. To unsubscribe to ALAWON, send
the message: unsubscribe ala-wo to listproc[at]ala.org. ALAWON
archives at http://www.ala.org/washoff/alawon.

ALA Washington Office, 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 403,
Washington, D.C. 20004-1701; phone: 202.628.8410 or 800.941.8478
toll-free; fax: 202.628.8419; e-mail: alawash[at]alawash.org; Web
site: http://www.ala.org/washoff. Executive Director: Emily
Sheketoff. Office of Government Relations: Lynne Bradley,
Director; Camille Bowman, Mary Costabile, Don Essex, Patrice
McDermott and Miriam Nisbet. Office for Information Technology
Policy: Rick Weingarten, Director; Jennifer Hendrix, Carrie
Russell, Claudette Tennant. ALAWON Editor: Bernadette Murphy.

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

PubScience in light of your concern on WTO services treaty
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:26:50 -0700
From: anonymous
To: Rory Litwin <rlitwin[at]earthlink.net>

Seems clear that a British or Canadian firm could sue DOE PubScience under
the services treaty.
In the case of Canada, could allege future loss of earnings under NAFTA.
What is next might well be MedLine, certainly the Journal section of ERIC.

What am I talking about?

read the article at http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb020819-2.htm
________________________________________________________________________top


5. MONEYTALKS - New ALA discussion list for salaries issue

The ALA Special Presidential Task Force on Better Salaries and Pay
Equity invites you to subscribe to its new, open discussion list,
MONEYTALKS. Discussion addresses topics relating to better salaries and
pay equity and provides a forum for library workers to share their
experiences. The list is monitored by members of the Better Salaries and
Pay Equity Task Force, and ideas presented will be considered for
follow-up by the Task Force. Participants are also encouraged to plan
their own activities, author Council proposals, etc. You do not need to
be an ALA member to post and read.

Sign up for MONEYTALKS by sending an email to:

subscribe-moneytalks[at]ala.org

and then putting your name as the subject of the message.
________________________________________________________________________top


6. Information/Library Science Internship - Fairness.com


Fall 2002 Library & Information Science Internships

Company Description

Fairness.com is a non-commercial information clearinghouse
website covering the gamut of fairness-related issues: public
policy, business and professional ethics, consumer protection,
family and workplace relationships, international relations,
etc.

Our company offers unpaid internships (academic credit may be
offered by your school) for students seeking practical
experience organizing online information resources (our site's
evolving content taxonomy is at
http://www.fairness.com/resources/by-metacategory).

Intern Duties

  1. Categorize newspaper and magazine articles already
    abstracted by other contributors within Fairness.com's content
    taxonomy (and suggest new categories as necessary).
  2. Maintain the Fairness.com databases of persons and
    organizations (which involves selection of descriptive
    information for new entries).

"Virtual Office" Environment

The program is structured for email, phone, and web
communications; interns work from school or home and need not be
in Charlottesville, VA during the internship.

Qualifications

Additional details on the internships are at:
http://www.fairness.com/library-infosci-internships.adp .

Our Internship Application is at:
http://www.fairness.com/internship-application.adp .

If you have questions not answered by these documents, please
email: interns[at]fairness.com .

=================================================== 

     Dan Doernberg
     dan[at]fairness.com
     President, Fairness.com LLC
     http://www.fairness.com/
     "Life isn't Fair... but we're working on it."

===================================================
________________________________________________________________________top


7. Victory at LC

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:46:58 -0400
From: Steve Fesenmaier <fesenms[at]wvlc.lib.wv.us> [vCard]
To: rlitwin[at]earthlink.net

Sanford Berman, using documentation provided by me, wrote the Library of
Congress. Mr. Yee has acted quickly and within a few weeks - is this a
record?- will create an important new subject heading. Filmmakers,
authors, and others around WV and the country also wrote Mr. Yee.
Congrats to all - and to Mr. Yee - for acting so quickly. The recent Pa.
coal mine disaster may have helped our cause - disasters often cause
change in Appalachcia. Here is Mr. Yee's letter -

Dear Steve Fesenmaier:

In response to documentation received from Sandy Berman and you, a
Cataloging Policy and Support Office subject cataloging policy
specialist has proposed the subject heading MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL MINING
on August 6, 2002. Subject to review by a subject heading editorial
process, I fully expect that this subject heading will become an
approved LCSH subject term in a couple of weeks.

Many thanks for writing us!

Tom Yee
Assistant chief
Cataloging Policy and Support Office
Library of Congress
Washington, DC 20540
_______________________________________________________________________top


8. Reviewers Needed for Library Journal

Librarians interested in reviewing books in PHOTOGRAPHY, especially art
photo and how-to, and SOCIAL SCIENCE, particularly women's, African
American, and urban studies, please send a r=E9sum=E9 and two sample
reviews to Carolyn Kuebler, e-mail ckuebler[at]reedbusiness.com
Library Journal, 360 Park Ave. S., New York, NY 10010;
FAX 646-746-6699. Thank you!
________________________________________________________________________top


9. Links

-----

First, a very hot link:

Librarian X ...deep in the stacks
http://www.deepinthestacks.com
It's the inside scoop on the Library of Congress from an anonymous
employee there...

-----

Stealth Librarian Message Board
http://pluto.beseen.com/boardroom/p/57707/Date

-----

Lawrence Lessing <free culture>
http://lessig.org/freeculture/

[ Thanks Alison Lewis ]

-----

Turning Taboo Into Titles
Feral House's catalog reflects owner's penchant for the bizarre
http://www.latimes.com/features/lifestyle/la-lv-parfrey13aug13002041.story

{ Thanks Dan Tsang ]

-----

Rewriting Texas Texts
http://www.motherjones.com/magazine/JA02/texas_texts.html

[ Thanks Don Wood ]

-----

Light and Dust Anthology of Poetry
http://www.thing.net/~grist/l&d/lighthom.htm

[ Thanks LII ]

-----

EBLIDA - European Bureau of Library, Information and Documentation Association
Page on GATS & Libraries:
http://www.eblida.org/topics/wto/wto.htm

-----

OCLC White Paper on the Information Habits of College Students: How
Academic Librarians Can Influence Students' Web-Based Information Choices
[.pdf]
http://www2.oclc.org/oclc/pdf/printondemand/informationhabits.pdf

[ Thanks Scout Report ]

-----

Fox's Bill O'Reilly wants oreilly-sucks.com to cease and desist
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/images/foxletter.jpg

[ Thanks Declan McCullough's Politech list ]

-----

THE INTERNET DEBACLE - AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW BY JANIS IAN
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html

[ Thanks Don Wood ]

-----

Scholarly Reviews Through the Web
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/12/technology/12NECO.html

[ Thanks Gerry Mckiernan ]

-----

A Selective Time Line of Censorship in the U.S.A.
http://www.ncac.org/timeline/1989.htm

[ Thanks Don Wood ]

________________________________________________________________________top


L I B R A R Y J U I C E

-
| http://libr.org/Juice/
|
| Library Juice is supported by a voluntary subscription
| fee of $10 per year, variable based on ability and
| desire to pay. You may send a check payable in US funds
| to Rory Litwin, at 1821 'O' St. Apt. 9, Sacramento, CA 95814,
| or, alternatively, you may use PayPal, by going to:
| https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=rlitwin%40earthlink.net
|
| To subscribe, email majordomo[at]libr.org with the message
| "subscribe juice".
|
| To unsubscribe, email majordomo[at]libr.org with the message
| "unsubscribe juice".
|
| Other majordomo commands are available in the help file,
| which you can get by emailing majordomo[at]libr.org with the
| message "help".
|
| Original material and added value in Library Juice
| are dedicated to the public domain and may be copied
| freely with appropriate attribution; beyond that the
| publisher makes no guarantees. Library Juice is a
| free weekly publication edited and published by
| Rory Litwin. Original senders are credited wherever
| possible; opinions are theirs. If you are the author
| of some email in Library Juice which you want removed
| from the web, please write to me and I will remove it.
|
| Your comments and suggestions are welcome.
|
| Rory[at]libr.org