2011-12 Committee Reports

PrintEmail
ALL-SIS logo

See also Most Recent Committee Reports


ABA LIAISON AALS LIAISON ALL-NEW / MEMBERSHIP
ARCHIVES & WEBSITE AWARDS BLUEBOOK
BYLAWS CALI COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT
CONTINUING EDUCATION CONTINUING STATUS / TENURE DIRECTORS' BREAKFAST
eGROUP MANAGER FACULTY SERVICES LEGAL RESEARCH & SOURCEBOOK
LEGAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS' SURVEY TASK FORCE LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS MIDDLE MANAGERS' BREAKFAST
NEWSLETTER NOMINATIONS PROGRAMS
PUBLIC RELATIONS STATISTICS STRATEGIC PLANNING
STUDENT SERVICES TASK FORCE FOR THE REVIEW OF ABA STANDARDS TASK FORCE ON INDENTIFYING SKILLS & KNOWLEDGE FOR LEGAL PRACTICE
TASK FORCE ON LIBRARY MARKETING & OUTREACH TASK FORCE ON SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION AND OPEN ACCESS TASK FORCE ON THE USE OF MOBILE TECHNOLOGY
TASK FORCE TO REVIEW & UPDATE THE ALL-SIS WEB PRESENCE WEBMASTER  





ALL-NEW/Membership

This past year, the ALL-NEW/Membership ALL-SIS Subcommittee, planned and prepared for our annual roundtable at the 2012 conference in Boston. The event will be a "meet–and–greet/discussion" session where newer librarians will be able to speak with experienced academic law librarians. The committee selected the discussion topics and recruited discussion leaders or experts. The experts will host six concurrent discussion groups on topics such as career counseling, law library management, law technology, legal research instruction (two groups) and non-JDs in the academic law library. Each attendee has the option to join whichever discussion(s) he finds interesting. We have also created a brief survey to evaluate the event. The Chair would like to thank all of the members for their hard work this past year.



Awards

2011-2012 ALL-SIS AWARDS COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT

On behalf of the ALL-SIS Awards Committee, it is my great pleasure to announce the following 2011-12 award and grant winners. Congratulations to all the winners who will be recognized at the ALL-SIS Reception and Awards Ceremony to be held on Sunday, July 22, 2012, 6:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m. at the Sheraton-Republic Ballroom AB, during the AALL meeting in Boston.

The winner of this year’s AALL Leadership Academy Grant is Jennifer L. Wondracek of Lawton Chiles Legal Information Center at the University of Florida.

Kathleen Darvil and Aliza B. Kaplan are the winners of the Outstanding Article Award for their article, Think [and Practice] Like a Lawyer: Legal Research for the New Millennials, 8 Legal Communication & Rhetoric: JALWD, 153 (2011), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1917005. Kathleen Darvil is Access Services-Reference Librarian and Adjunct Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School and Aliza B. Kaplan is Associate Professor of Legal Analysis & Writing at Lewis & Clerk Law School.

The Active Member Stimulus Grant winner is Sara Sampson, Deputy Director of the Law Library and Assistant Clinical Professor of Law at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The Regular Member Stimulus Grant is given to Michelle Cosby, Senior Reference and Instructional Services Librarian at North Carolina Central University School of Law.

The recipients of the CONELL Grants are Kelly M. Leong, Reference Librarian at the Goodson Law Library at Duke University School of Law and Jennifer Mart-Rice, Interim Assistant Director for Collection Development, Acquisition, and Serials at Chase College of Law Library at Northern Kentucky University.

Although the Committee made a special effort to solicit nominations, unfortunately there were no nominations received for the Frederick Charles Hicks Award for Outstanding Contributions to Academic Law Librarianship or the Outstanding Service Award.

The ALL-SIS Awards Committee was very active and busy this year. The AALL Leadership Academy Grant was added to the ALL-SIS awards and grants for the first time in the fall. The Committee acted quickly and worked very hard to prepare and process this award on time. There were also a few changes made to existing grants. The amount of grants was doubled, for the two stimulus grants and the two CONELL grants replaced the existing one. The criteria and procedures for awards and grants were revised several times due to additions, changes, and improvements.  

The Committee was an energetic and enthusiastic group this year. I would like to thank each of the committee members for their excellent work.

This year’s Awards Committee members were: Masako Patrum, Chair (Florida International University College of Law Library); Irene Crisci (Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsburg Law Center); Lisa A. Goodman (Texas Wesleyan University School of Law Library); Jane Larrington (University of San Diego Legal Research Center); Matthew M. Morrison (Cornell University Law Library); and Nancy L. Strohmeyer (Barry University School of Law Library).

Additional information on ALL-SIS awards and grants can be found at the ALL-SIS Awards Committee website at http://www.aallnet.org/sis/allsis/committees/awards/index.asp

Masako Patrum,
Chair, Awards Committee



Bylaws

 


CALI

To: Kumar Jayasuriya, Chair
      ALL-SIS Executive Board

From: Kris Niedringhaus, Chair
         ALL-SIS CALI Committee

Re: CALI Committee Annual Report 2011-2012

Date: June 13, 2012

 

This year’s committee members are: Sue Altmeyer, Dragomir Cosanici, Beth DiFelice, Shaun Esposito, Joseph Gerken, Susanna Leers, Kris Niedringhaus (Chair), and Tawnya Plumb. The committee has a strong commitment to the high quality of CALI’s legal research lessons and maintaining a strong relationship with CALI.

Since August 2011, the Legal Research Community Authoring Project Advisory Panel (LRCAP), made up of the ALL-SIS CALI committee members, reviewed approximately 15 new lesson proposals.

Since August 2011, we've added thirteen legal research lessons to the CALI Library.

We have 37 lessons currently in progress.

During 2011-12, 5 lessons were reviewed, and revised as necessary, by either the CALI Author or a CALI Reviser. Another 5 lessons are in the process of being reviewed and revised.

For several years the committee has been working to get lessons on legal research using primary and secondary sources for all 50 states. We now have 42 states that have at least one state specific legal research lesson.

CALI is beginning to focus increased attention on the eLangdell Press and eLangdell Commons projects. Both are designed to provide support for open-access legal publishing. CALI would like to see a legal research text written as part of the eLangdell Press. In addition, there will be a push to populate eLangdell Commons with Legal Research and Advanced Legal Research syllabi and course materials. I believe these are both good efforts for the committee to collaborate with CALI on in the upcoming year. I also believe that this might potentially be a nice point of collaboration between the ALL-SIS Sourcebook for Teaching Legal Research committee, the ALL-SIS CALI committee and the CALI eLangdell Commons.

CALI has continued its Reviser Project which was launched with the help of the committee at the CONELL Marketplace and AALL in July 2010. This project allows a law librarian to adopt an “orphaned” CALI lesson. Lessons may be orphaned because the original author has retired or no longer has the time to review, edit and update the lesson. This is a nice way to learn the CALI Author software and earns the Reviser a shared authoring credit (listed in OCLC). We’ve had an excellent response to the Reviser Project and have found it to be a useful vehicle for involving newer librarians. The ALL-SIS CALI Committee will staff a table at the CONELL Marketplace for a third time in Boston.


Collection Development

2011-2012 ALL-SIS Collection Development Committee Annual Report
Prepared by Lisa Junghahn, Committee Chair
May 29, 2012

     This past year, the ALL-SIS Collection Development Committee had active discussions, which have been interesting and will likely lead to good program plans for the Annual Meeting in 2013.

     At the 2011 Annual Meeting in Philadelphia, the Collection Development Committee hosted a roundtable titled: E-Books, E-Resources, E-Readers, E-Nevitable: Has the Time Come to Officially Prefer Electronic Over Print Resources in Our Collection Development Policies?.

     The topic led to a thought-provoking discussion about how our collection policies may better reflect changes in format preferences and in licensing and access issues across vendors. Some libraries are experimenting with patron-driven access, others are incorporating eReaders, and many are shedding state print materials. There is still a lot of variation among how quickly different libraries are embracing digital content. One thing is certain – students often prefer it – alumni often don’t get access – and not a small number of faculty maintain a preference for print.

     In addition, the Committee has had interesting conversations among itself over what are the most pressing issues for law library collections.  From this, we have gathered the following potential program ideas for 2013:

  • How do different libraries use social media tools to promote collections; and what has been user response?
  • What are different libraries doing to experiment with or fully incorporate the use of eReaders (per Svetlana’s question below)?
  • How do or could collection policies address issues of web archiving?
  • What are best practices for collecting foreign materials – maybe organized by geographic scope?

     The Committee made a few updates to the collection development contacts and policies webpage. Special thanks to the speedy assistance of Creighton Miller, the ALL-SIS Web Administrator, all of the Committee’s webpages have now been updated.

     The Committee is looking forward to the Annual Meeting in Boston. The Committee meeting will be held on Sunday (7/22) from 5:45 pm to 6:45 pm in the Sheraton-Jefferson. Committee members – and anyone looking to become a member – are encouraged to join for a discussion on future programs and projects.

     The Committee will host a Collection Development Roundtable on Monday (7/23) from 5:45 pm to 7:00 pm in HCC-Room 300 on the topic: Managing ejournal subscriptions in a fragmented collecting and licensing world. Everyone is invited to come share their experiences. The discussion can be both broad and specific. Discussion questions may include: unbundled print and online subscriptions, managing IP authentication, workflow successes and licensing language.

     The meeting and roundtable will be promoted in the newsletter, and also added as part of the ALL-SIS table in the Exhibit Hall. The Committee is really open to anyone – and everyone should feel very welcome in sharing ideas on anything – especially collaborations for programs and articles. Contact Lisa at Ljunghahn@law.harvard.edu.

     It’s been a great year. The Committee looks forward to building on our discussions for more activity in 2013. And, we are grateful to all that has been done so far – big thanks especially to Paul Moorman for his contributions and Committee Chair.

Respectfully Submitted,

Lisa Junghahn, Chair
Theo Belniak
Svetlana Kochkina
DR Jones
Eric Parker
Jean Mattimoe
Wendy Moore
Anne Myers
Olivia Weeks
Jane Woldow

 




Directors' Breakfast 

TO:            Kumar Jayasura, Chair, ALL-SIS
FROM:       Betsy McKenzie, Local Arrangements, Directors’ Breakfast


     Because Erica Wayne was appointed to chair the committee for the Middle Managers’ Breakfast, and worked with you on the Business Breakfast, and BNA’s Mike Bernier is really overseeing the ALL-SIS Reception, there was really only the Directors’ Breakfast for the Local Arrangements Committee to take care of.

     The Directors’ Breakfast has a menu chosen after a quick survey on the LawLibDir listserve. We could not, of course, please everyone, but we probably have hit the middle course. I think people at least liked being asked. I chose a speaker I know is interesting and entertaining when speaking about a cutting-edge area of the law. Professor Charles Kindregan specializes in Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Law. The intersection of medical technology and family law produces amazing anecdotes and heart-wrenching dilemmas.

     I am attaching the flier I produced for Public Relations, which includes the details  of the menu and Prof. Kindregan’s selected C.V.



Faculty Services 

2011-2012 Faculty Services Committee – ALL-SIS Annual Report

This year, the focus of the faculty services committee has been to get the Faculty Services Toolkit online, publicize its presence on the ALL-SIS webpage, and encourage other librarians to contribute content to the Toolkit. We have also worked on a few specialized items, as well as have planned our annual meeting roundtable.

Thanks to the hard work of last year’s faculty services committee, this year’s committee had a good draft of the toolkit. Thus, we began the year by looking over the toolkit and making sure it was free of mistakes before submitting it for posting on the website. We additionally considered if other topics should be added to the toolkit. In the fall, we began discussing ways that we might promote the Toolkit among the ALL-SIS membership, and we decided to have a weeklong “rollout” where we would host online discussions highlighting parts of the toolkit. We held this event in late January. Various committee members participated by leading the discussion with topics representing particular sections of the toolkit. Unfortunately, the technical difficulties of working with the AALL Communities posting limited participation by others in the online discussions. This was frustrating for committee members who devoted significant time to planning useful discussion topics, as well as for other members of ALL-SIS leadership, who also experienced difficulty with communication through the AALL Communities system. In spite of these difficulties, the committee still identified ways in which the toolkit can be expanded in the future to include materials from more libraries with faculty services programs.

Aside from working to promote the toolkit, the committee also reviewed and gave suggestions for the ALL-SIS board’s desire to create a Scholarly Communications Task Force. We supplied the Board with four recommendations, as committee member Stephanie Davidson indicated she would like to serve on the Scholarly Communications Task Force as a a liaison to the Faculty Services Committee.

Finally, the committee has also been involved in planning a roundtable session for the AALL Annual Meeting in Boston. We are planning topics and dividing tasks among committee members to lead discussions for the roundtable sessions. The past roundtable sessions like last years have been well attended and we hope to continue this at this year’s meeting. Last year’s notes from the roundtables have been posted on the ALL-SIS website.


Legal Research & Sourcebook

ALL-SIS Legal Research & Sourcebook Committee, 2011-2012

The Legal Research & Sourcebook Committee consists of three subcommittees with unique focuses. The report recounts the substantial accomplishments of these subcommittees during 2011-2012.

Sourcebook for Teaching Legal Research

One subcommittee focused on the Sourcebook for Teaching Legal Research, an online bank of materials used for teaching legal research such as syllabi, exercises, and research problems. First, the subcommittee solicited and obtained contributions for the Sourcebook. Several rounds of requests were sent to law-lib, SIS lists, the Director’s list, AALL’s Members Open Forum, and to the SIS Newsletter. To further encourage future submissions to the Sourcebook, table tents were prepared for display at AALL’s 2012 annual meeting in Boston.

Last year some questions were raised about the language in the ALL-SIS non-exclusive license agreement. In response, the Sourcebook subcommittee reviewed the current agreement as well as the RIPS-SIS copyright release, various general release forms, descriptions of creative commons licenses, a model contract from the Open Access Law Program, and the AALS Model Author/Journal Agreement. After doing so and with the intention of addressing the licensee concerns and maintaining a wide pool of potential contributors, the subcommittee recommended some modifications to the ALL-SIS agreement. Finally, the subcommittee was asked to consider who should have access to the Sourcebook; members recommended that the Sourcebook be opened to all AALL members.

Legal Research Roundtable
                                                     
Another subcommittee focused on the Legal Research Roundtable for the 2012 AALL annual meeting. During the spring, the Roundtable subcommittee generated and finalized a list of discussion topics. Many of the topics related to librarians’ role in helping law students develop research skills for professional practice, librarian support for law school skills programs, and programs for specific student populations. The subcommittee also selected several topics that contemplate the challenging legal environment facing law students and recent graduates. Subcommittee members volunteered to facilitate the discussions, as well as to recruit others to serve as facilitators and note-takers. Subcommittee members also generated a range of ideas to promote the Roundtable both within the ALL-SIS community and among colleagues who work in other types of organizations. These efforts were carried out in the weeks preceding the annual meeting.

Legal Research Survey

In 2010, a group of four volunteers formed a subcommittee of the ALL-SIS Legal Research and Sourcebook Committee. They were charged with developing and administering a survey that would collect data about law librarians teaching legal research at law schools. With the approval of the 2010-2011 ALL-SIS Executive Board, the survey, consisting of 33 questions, was distributed to 240 law school in the United States. The questions were divided into four parts: 1) general overview; 2) first-year legal research; 3) advanced legal research; and 4) other legal research class offerings. Law Schools were asked to submit one response per each law school. The subcommittee received 137 responses. After eliminating duplicate and incomplete responses, the subcommittee members began analyzing the data.

During 2011-2012, the subcommittee examined the collected data and began writing a report. The 36-page report graphically presents results and quantifies open-ended responses, where appropriate, and consists of an introduction, methodology, analysis, conclusion, and recommendation sections. The subcommittee members intend for the report to represent a current snapshot of law librarians teaching legal research in the U.S. law schools.

To present their data to as large of an audience as possible, the subcommittee submitted a poster session proposal for the 2012 AALL meeting, which was accepted. The poster titled, Law Librarians as Educators: A Survey of Our Involvement in Teaching, was on display throughout the annual meeting at the Exhibit Hall, and subcommittee members were available at a question-and-answer period to answer questions and discuss their work. This poster illustrated the process used in identifying the information, creating the survey questions, producing and sending out the survey, and compiling the results. In addition, the poster outlined some of the main conclusions drawn from the obtained data. Eventually, the subcommittee members who worked on the survey hope to publish the report in its entirety. Their intention with the survey was to create a solid base of information about librarians teaching legal research that would also provide a source of ideas and inspiration to law librarians across the country.

Submitted by

Annmarie Zell (NYU Law School), Committee Chair
Nolan Wright (Southern Illinois University Law School), Committee Vice-Chair
David W. Bachman (Boston University Law School), Roundtable Subcommittee Leader
Susan Boland (University of Cincinnati College of Law), Sourcebook Subcomittee Leader
Alissa Black-Dorward (Fordham Law School)
Hays Butler (Camden Rutgers Law School)
Sarah Gotschall (University of Arizona Rogers College of Law)
Tom Heard (Northern Kentucky University)
Julienne Grant (Loyola University–Chicago)
Lucie Olejnikova (Pace Law School)
Colleen Ostiguy (Albany Law School)
Adeen Postar (American University Washington College of Law)
Laura Ross (Touro College /Jacob D. Fuchsburg Law Center)
Christine Ryan (Vermont Law School)
Deborah Schander (Georgia State University College of Law)

 


Legal Research Programs Survey Task Force

 


Local Arrangements

TO:            Kumar Jayasura, Chair, ALL-SIS
FROM:       Betsy McKenzie, Local Arrangements, Directors’ Breakfast


     Because Erica Wayne was appointed to chair the committee for the Middle Managers’ Breakfast, and worked with you on the Business Breakfast, and BNA’s Mike Bernier is really overseeing the ALL-SIS Reception, there was really only the Directors’ Breakfast for the Local Arrangements Committee to take care of.

     The Directors’ Breakfast has a menu chosen after a quick survey on the LawLibDir listserve. We could not, of course, please everyone, but we probably have hit the middle course. I think people at least liked being asked. I chose a speaker I know is interesting and entertaining when speaking about a cutting-edge area of the law. Professor Charles Kindregan specializes in Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Law. The intersection of medical technology and family law produces amazing anecdotes and heart-wrenching dilemmas.

     I am attaching the flier I produced for Public Relations, which includes the details  of the menu and Prof. Kindregan’s selected C.V.



Newsletter

Newsletter Committee Annual Report
2011 - 2012
Barbara Gellis Traub, Chair

The 2011 - 2012 Newsletter Committee consisted of Barbara Gellis Traub, Chair, Rittenberg Law Library, St. John‘s University School of Law; Sue Kelleher, Texas Tech University School of Law Library; Yasmin Sokkar Harker, CUNY Law School Library; Steven Robert Miller, Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis; I-Wei Wang, UC Berkeley School of Law Library; Jacquelyn McCloud, University of Iowa Law Library; Susan Boland, Robert S. Marx Law Library, University of Cincinnati College of Law; and Michele Thomas, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Library. Our Board Liaison was Leah Sandwell-Weiss. Our three regular issues this year were published on December 13, 2011, March 9, 2012, and approximately June 21, 2012; the election issue was published on March 26, 2011.

Highlights of this year’s issues:

  • Committee members and 6 other ALL-SIS members wrote articles covering more than 13 programs and other activities at the 2011 Annual Meeting in Philadelphia (Fall issue);
  • In addition to our regular columns, the Winter issue published 4 articles submitted by non-Committee members. These articles covered “Advising Faculty on Law Journal Publication Agreements” (Benjamin Keele, William & Mary); “A Lesson in Leadership” (Jennifer Wondracek, Fredric Levin College of Law); a comparison of four citators (Pamela Brannon, Georgia State); and a report on a faculty/student/alumni symposium at St. John’s University DLIS (Taryn Rucinski, Pace).
  • Articles on ALL-SIS and other programs, awards, and activities scheduled at the upcoming annual meeting, several committee annual reports, and a report of the teaching showcase held at Harvard Law School during the winter. (Spring/Summer 2012).

Committee members again contributed welcome advice (including much critical proof-reading) and articles:

  • Yasmin continued “Law Librarian in the Dark” (a favorite of mine) in the Fall and Winter issues with reviews of A Passage to India and Conviction. For the latter Yasmin arranged a guest columnist, Sarah Shik Lamdan from CUNY School of Law.
  • I-Wei continued the “Survey Roundup” in the Winter issue.
  • In the Fall issue, Steve Miller reviewed “Legal Research Skills in the Classroom & Firm” program at the 2011 Annual Meeting.
  • Two other reviews of 2011 AM programs were submitted by Jacquelyn McCloud (“Best Practices for Evaluating a New Electronic Resource” and “E-Books and the Future of Legal Publishing”).
  • Susan Boland reviewed “Cutting Beyond the Bone: Managing in an Age of Austerity”.

This year, I am pleased to report we had a good number of articles submitted by librarians who were not on the Newsletter Committee. I hope this trend continues in the future. Reviews of 2011 Annual Meeting programs were written by Karin Johnsrud (2 articles), Judy K. Davis (2 articles), Margaret Schilt, David Lehman, and Lauren Schroeder. Articles published in the Winter issue are highlighted above. Last, but certainly not least, the final issue of the year included an article by Lisa Junghahn reporting on the Teaching Showcase held at Harvard Law School.

Newsletter ‘housekeeping’ included updating the Ulrich’s entry for the ALL-SIS Newsletter, and applying for an ISSN for it.

Thank you to all the authors, whether members of the committee or not. Your work and scholarship is greatly appreciated by colleagues, I am sure. Finally, thanks go to Kumar and the ALL-SIS Board for support and guidance during the 2011-2012 year.

Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Gellis Traub
Chair & Editor, ALL-SIS Newsletter
June 2012

 


Nominations

ALL-SIS Nominations Committee Report 2011-2012

The 2011-2012 ALL-SIS Nominations Committee was comprised of seven members this year. Michele Finerty, Ruth Levor, Joan Stringfellow, Ryan Overdorf, and Lisa Spar were members. Kurt Meyer and Ron Wheeler were Chair and Vice Chair respectively.

The Committee started its work in late November. The Chair made sure all the members were willing to participate. The first task confronting the committee was writing the call for nominations. Drawing from the previous year’s call for nominations, the Committee drafted a new one which included more detailed descriptions of the positions available this year (Vice Chair/Chair Elect and Secretary/Treasurer).

After the call for nominations was sent to the ALL-SIS membership the next step was to pick candidates for this year’s election. Criteria normally considered when selecting candidates include geographic diversity, previous work for ALL-SIS and AALL, how long the person has been an ALL-SIS member, and anything demonstrating the ability to responsibly serve as an officer. People who have recently served as officers are sometimes excluded in the interest of making sure such positions are accessible to others.

The Committee received four nominations for each position. This year was unique to say the least. The collection of nominees was as geographically diverse as possible with no adjustments from the Committee. All nominees were highly qualified and none of them had recently served as ALL-SIS officers. At the same time all the nominees had demonstrated a commitment to serving AALL and ALL-SIS. As a result, weeding nominees was difficult.

The Committee unanimously decided to forward all the names to the Secretary/Treasurer for the election. We reviewed the ALL-SIS Bylaws to make sure this was allowed and consulted the candidates. One dropped out so we ended up sending seven names. While sending several names is allowed under the rules, we learned from the Secretary/Treasurer that it does pose problems for the election process. In the future it would be preferable to send fewer names in the interest of ensuring someone wins by a majority or, at the least, a clear plurality. Nonetheless, the nominations process went very well and we were fortunate to have a uniformly well-qualified list of nominees.

As Chair I would like to take this opportunity to thank the other six members of the Committee for their hard work and, above all else, responsiveness. Your willingness to provide timely input made my job very easy. The nominations process was a success thanks to you and I’m proud to say we made some valuable improvements to it.


Programs

Meg Butler, Georgia State College of Law Library

Programs Committee members Meg Butler (Chair), Shannon Burchard (Vice-Chair), Kate Irwin-Smiler, John Cannan, Yasmin Sokkar Harker, Sara Sampson, Kate McLeod, and Rosemary LaSala worked diligently to review and rank 31 proposed programs and workshops seeking ALL-SIS sponsorship for the 2012 AALL Annual Meeting. Ultimately, the Annual Meeting Program Committee (AMPC) accepted 10 ALL-SIS sponsored programs for the 2011 meeting. Those programs are:

A-5: Be Memorable: Library Advocacy through Compelling Storytelling
B-4: Piercing the Veil of Sovereignty: The Sources of International Human Rights Law: Part I
C-4: Piercing the Veil of Sovereignty: The Sources of International Human Rights Law: Part II
D-5: Law Library Research Assistant Programs: Two Different Models
E-2: Engaging and Educating the Screen Addicts of 2012
G-3: The Best of Both Worlds: Blending Online and Face-to-Face Learning in Teaching Legal Research
H-3: You CAN Handle the Truth: Using Pop Culture to Teach Legal Research
I-4: Pruning the Collection, Growing Services: What‘s New in YOUR Library?
J-1: Asking Hard Questions: Teaching Through Questions and Controversy

The AMPC also accepted two ALL-SIS sponsored workshops:

W-2: Workshop for Newer Academic Law Library Directors
W-3: Legal Research Teaching Academy

Based on the recommendation of the Programs Committee, the ALL-SIS Board voted to independently sponsor the following programs:
  • A Teachable Moment: The Relevance of Results Using Digests and Citators in Westlaw and Lexis
  • Diversify Your Teaching Portfolio with Tutorials! (cosponsored with RIPS-SIS)
  • Riding Solo: Legal Research Competencies for the Sole Practitioner (cosponsored with RIPS-SIS)

The Programs Committee then worked with the ALL-SIS Newsletter, Webmaster, and Public Relations Committee to publicize these programs. The Programs Committee also coordinated the recording of the independently sponsored programs.

Also during the year, the Programs Committee had a few additional projects. The Committee made an initial draft response to the Velvet Chainsaw Consulting Report regarding the Annual Meeting. The ALL-SIS Board revised the response and provided a response to the Association.

The Programs Committee also began work on membership surveys to better guide the 2012-2013 Programs Committee regarding the program interests of the ALL-SIS membership.

Finally, the committee handbook is in revision, particularly to expand the information regarding the selection and other issues related to ALL-SIS sponsored programs.

The 2012-2013 Annual Meeting Program Com-mittee has been in contact with the Programs Com-mittee leadership, indicating that there will be changes to the program solicitation and selection process for the 2013 meeting in Seattle. As more information becomes available, the Programs Com-mittee will share it with ALL-SIS membership.



Statistics

Annual Report

Members:

James M. Donovan (chair)
University of Kentucky

Alissa Black-Dorward
Fordham University

Suzanne Corriell
University of Richmond

E.H. Uwe Beltz
Texas Tech University

The ALL-SIS Statistics Committee completes a productive cycle. It offered technical advice on three questions:

  1. The ALL-SIS Executive Board requested committee reaction to the draft report from the US News & World Report Task Force Report. After discussion on a Sept. 22, 2011, conference all, the following opinions were conveyed:

    The first recommendation and the attached letter did not indicate whether the TF was aware of the work done on this problem by Theodore Seto, who both wrote on the topic and presented at the 2007 AALL meeting. His work is notable among all the previous writings on the US News rankings for parsing out with some specificity the impact the library has on a school’s ranking, based on the then-current criteria: 0.75%. It seems unlikely that this figure has changed much in the intervening years. This committee calls this to your attention for two reasons:

    1. The expert analysis suggested by this first recommendation seems already to exist, and therefore it may be unnecessary for ALL-SIS to do more than update the available conclusions. 
    2. In light of Seto’s work, the problem seems not to be how the library data are reported, but the size of the impact library data will have, whatever form it takes. If ALL-SIS intends to lobby US News for significant changes, the first preference should perhaps be to increase the importance of the library for determining the school’s rank. Otherwise it makes little sense for ALL-SIS to expend much effort worrying about what data are used to calculate a factor that is, in most cases, insignificant to the school’s final rank.

    The second TF recommendation proposes that ALL-SIS search for alternative ways to report library data, beyond volume count. We agree with the TF that volume count is an uninformative statistic in this context, because, as Seto concludes, it reflects the past commitment of the school to the library, and not the current commitment which should be more relevant to assigning rank. The suggestion in the cover letter that this alternative might be found in budget data may be a step in the right direction, but only, in our opinion, were it normed in some way. Rich private schools will always spend more than small public ones, so in that sense the raw numbers would merely reflect that initial reality. Library Expenditures per student+faculty was one suggested alternative, keeping within the context specified by the TF that the data used be from the limited information within the ABA questionnaire. Another possibility is to express expenditures as a function of the student/faculty ratio, a figure US News already includes. We believe that such figures would be more meaningful than either the current volume counts, or a raw expenditures amount. We did not discuss whether better results would be obtained by using different variations of expenditure reports (e.g., materials, materials + supplies and other infrastructural outlays, or whether this should include salaries).

  2. Feedback was also provided to the ALL-SIS Task Force on Identifying Skills and Knowledge for Legal Practice. In order to advance its charge to identity the current and future research skills that law school graduates need to succeed in legal practice, the Task Force decided to create a survey to send out to practitioners and law librarians to assess the research skills of junior associates.  The Task Force initially approached the Statistics Committee in September of 2011, asking the Committee to evaluate the survey questions to identify any potential problems.  The Statistics Committee was able to view a draft of the survey by early December. 

    The Task Force also gave the Statistics Committee a list of law schools to whose alumni they would send the survey.  The Task Force asked for the Statistics Committee’s opinion on whether the geographic research was sufficient to make the results representative of the country as a whole.

    Upon review of the material, the Statistics Committee felt that the plans with respect to geographic distribution of the survey were appropriate given the Task Force’s objectives.  The most populated legal markets would be covered as well as an assortment of smaller legal markets.  The Statistics Committee also commented on the wording of questions, explaining how some questions might be unclear and how the responses to some questions might lead to different conclusions than the Task Force originally thought they might.

    Statistics Committee comments were delivered to the Task Force on December 8, 2011.

  3. The ALL-SIS Executive Board also requested that the Statistics Committee evaluate Qualtrics for a possible ALL-SIS subscription. The following information was conveyed to the Board on February 9:

    According to information collection by committee member Uwe Beltz, (1) ALL-SIS could subscribe; (2) it is unclear thus far whether the basic ($5K) subscription would allow multiple users, or whether, if the intention is to allow several ALL-SIS members to work projects, it would be necessary to have a $10K subscription. Pricing is approximate.

    The product itself earns nothing but raves; the real question would be whether this “Cadillac” service would be utilized sufficiently to warrant the annual cost. It may not be prudent to subscribe to the service in anticipation of its adequate use; it is very possible that even if news of the availability prodded intentions to use, that use, given the project design timelines, would not actually apply the product until late in the subscription. In other words, to subscribe at all may entail a minimum of two years commitment. Alternatively, rather than leading, ALL-SIS could be the follower here, letting a need be established before committing to a financially significant subscription.

In addition to these projects, a subcommittee of Donovan and Black-Dorward continued to explore ways to increase its familiarity with existing data tools through compiling statistics on questions of relevance to law library professionals. The outcome is attached as an appendix.

 

Suggested Goals for next year’s Committee

  1. Update the Committee charge to reflect current projects;
  2. Consider a regular product review contribution similar to the one performed for Qualtrics, and contribute this work to the ALL-SIS newsletter;
  3. Continue to refine and develop the project of an annual statistical overview of issues impacting the practice of law librarianship

 

APPENDIX
Précis of a Statistical Report on Law Librarianship

 

Introduction:

The 2010-2011 Statistics Committee Annual Report, Proposal to the ALL-SIS Executive Board Concerning Long-Term Direction for the Statistics Committee, proposed the exploration of an annual statistical report that would aim to

    generate new tools for the practice of law librarianship, and through participation in these projects cultivate a deeper pool of statistical literacy within the profession. One or more projects of this kind – conceived as an annual statistical report on the profession – in addition to whatever additional short-term assignments it may receive, would require the Committee to identify existing data sources, establish working relationships with external agencies that collect and report such data, mine the data to gather those informing the specific interests of ALL-SIS, and identify relevant gaps in those existing sources and identify reasonable means to fill that void. These are all needed skills that experience has shown must be cultivated within the Committee itself if it is to function adequately.

The two discussions below demonstrate the kind of project envisioned (additional examples may be found in the Proposal). Each addresses a topic thought to be of relevance to current discussions within ALL-SIS by bringing to bear whatever statistical data could be identified. In addition to providing an overview of the question, the exploratory study concludes with some observations on the availability and usefulness of relevant information.

The intention is that, should this be deemed a useful direction, the Executive Board will provide feedback and direction to the new Statistics Committee, and encourage its members to continue to refine the methodology and design of the project.


Topic 1: How Racially Diverse is AALL?

AALL is rightly concerned with the racial diversity of its membership, and has charged a standing committee specifically to address this issue. Unclear, however, is the actual representation of racial minorities with the organization either currently or a function of change over time, and how that representation compares with suitable benchmarks. For example, is AALL more or less racially diverse than the population at large, the legal profession, librarianship, or law school enrollments generally? If there is a perceived shortfall among AALL memberships in absolute terms, comparative rates could help inform where the failure to attract minority law librarians occurs in the professional development pipeline, and allow us to more effectively target remedial solutions.

Study 1: 2011 Snapshot
For many purposes it can be sufficient to have a defensible comparative grasp of AALL diversity relative to appropriate benchmark populations. In order to provide a context for AALL racial diversity statistics, similar data were identified for the United States population, attorney members of the ABA, and librarians with the American Library Association:

US Pop *

Lawyers #

ALA +

AALL @

White (%)

72.4

83.4

89.3

93.6

Racial Minority (%)

27.6

16.6

10.7

6.4

Data sources:
*  U.S. Census Bureau, City and State QuickFacts, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
#  Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employed Persons by Detailed Occupation, Sex, Race,  and Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity, http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.pdf
+  American Library Association, ALA Demographic  Studies (March 2011), http://www.ala.org/research/sites/ala.org.research/files/content/initiatives/membershipsurveys/ ALA_Demographic_Studies_March2011.pdf
@  American Association of Law Library, 2010-2011 Membership Directory

For ease of interpretation, the figures can be represented in the following bar graph. The immediate lesson appears to be that AALL is less racially diverse than similar professional groups, or of the general population.

The number reported here can be compared with discussion from other sources: “In our 1992 study, we cited sources showing that the percentage of minorities in law libraries (8.9%) was lower than the percentage of minorities in libraries in general (12.3%). The situation has changed, however, and now the percentage of minorities in both populations is approximately 12%.” Rhea Ballard-Thrower, Dwight King, and Grace M. Mills, Profiling Minority Law Librarians: An Update, 101 Law Library Journal 267, 270 (2009). Such results reporting higher racial diversity within AALL are perhaps explainable by the differing methodologies used to obtain the data. Ballard-Thrower et al. report on a variety of survey instruments, including the AALL Salary Survey, while the information here used attempts to reflect the entirety of AALL membership rather than a self-selected survey sample.

Racial Diversity of Law Librarianship Compared to Benchmark Populations, 2011 

 

Study 2: Longitudinal AALL Diversity
A different question concerns not simply the bald fact of whether or not AALL is sufficiently racially diverse (it apparently is not), but whether it is improving in this regard. To evaluate that problem, we collect both the raw AALL membership number, as well as the number of minority law librarians.

The first, AALL membership numbers, used to regularly published by the association in the Directory and Handbook, as well as in the Year in Brief. This information no longer appears in either of these publications, and must now be obtained directly from AALL by special request.

AALL #

AALL minority members *

Minority Law Librarians as Percent of Total AALL Membership

2001

5311

193

3.633967238

2002

5447

210

3.855333211

2003

5357

227

4.237446332

2004

5232

223

4.262232416

2005

5290

229

4.328922495

2006

5233

229

4.376074909

2007

5296

251

4.739425982

2008

5354

265

4.949570415

2009

5246

266

5.070529928

Data Sources:
#  Total members May 31 of year): provided by AALL HQ
*  under "minority law librarians" for July 1 of year): provided in AALL Directory

The good news is that for every year in the studied range (2001-2009), racial minorities increased their proportional presence in AALL. Over the decade, that rate has almost doubled. Whether this outcome is the inevitable outcome of increased career opportunities for a historically disadvantaged population, or the direct result of remedial efforts by AALL, we cannot ascertain with certainty. The steady increase over the decade, however, suggests the former.

Critique of the Data:
These analyses depend heavily upon the quality and availability of information from AALL. It would make sense for the association to renew its previous openness about basic membership statistics, to encourage more study. Although the total membership numbers reflect the full universe of AALL members, the data on minority law librarians is presumably drawn from the individually provided demographic data in the Confidential Profile in the online members’ directory. The quality of these data, and many others, could be improved if AALL were able to find additional incentives to encourage members to complete these optional sections of the directory.

Alternatively, we note that the ABA questionnaire does collect race and ethnicity information on library staff. This would presumably be the most complete and accurate data on this topic, with the information from AALL being an indirect proxy measure. Unfortunately the ABA is quite stingy with its collected information. Attempts to open discussion about just what ABA is willing to do (e.g., to get aggregated numbers on this variable would require running a special report which it is not clear ABA is willing to perform, nor at what cost). More influential representatives of ALL-SIS should press this matter further.


Topic 2: The Evolving Role and Status of Law Librarians

Study 1: What percentage of law librarians teach?
Academic law librarians appear to be increasingly involved in the teaching of legal research at law schools.  The implications of librarian teaching are of interest to the profession in several ways.  First, time spent teaching (including curriculum preparation and marking of assignments) is time away from the traditional librarian duties of providing reference, collection development etc.  Are there staffing issues associated with increased teaching?  Second, is the librarian as teacher becoming the norm in the profession?  Is this something that libraries are offering so that they can maintain their relevance?  Finally, how do law librarians feel about increased teaching?  Are they excited about the challenge or are they put off by the challenges of class preparation, grading and public speaking?  Are those librarians who are not interested in teaching able to say “no” or is teaching becoming a job requirement for law librarians?

Most of the issues articulated above can only be explored through in-depth surveys.  In the meantime, it might be interesting to discover whether there has been an increase in librarian teaching.  The AALL Biennial Salary Survey has information, in the academic section, on the teaching status of librarians.  Upon review of the surveys from 1997-2011, there was some variation in survey technique.   Therefore the results of the 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011 surveys only have been included here, as these surveys were consistent over time. 

The AALL survey data is broken down by professional v. non-professional librarians.  As the number of teaching non-professional librarians was always zero, the table below only contains numbers for professional librarians.

Table 1: Number of professional law librarians who teach

 

Teaching

Not Teaching

 

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Number

2003

26.75%

256

73.25%

701

2005

31.78%

232

68.22%

498

2007

30.34%

294

69.66%

675

2009

33.67%

397

66.33%

782

2011

36.38%

366

63.62%

640

Comments:
The above table shows a general increase in teaching by law librarians.  One of the weaknesses of the AALL Salary Survey data is the inability to analyze the answers to the teaching question in relation to certain subsets of the librarian population.  The AALL numbers above relate to professional librarians, as opposed to non-professional.  However, “professional librarian” may include technical services librarians, circulation librarians etc.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that most academic law librarians who teach are reference librarians.  There are also suggestions that most librarians who teach hold law degrees.  It would be interesting to be able to look at the answers to the teaching question with respect to those subsets of librarians.  It may be that we would see greater increases in teaching librarians within those subsets.

Underscoring the previous comments, this is another area in which access to the ABA data would be insightful, as it would allow examination of the entire universe of academic law libraries rather than a self-selected sample.

Conclusion:
While it appears that there is a small but general increase in teaching in academic libraries, it is difficult to formulate any definitive conclusions based on the data that we have from the AALL Biennial Salary Survey.  With respect to future work that could take place in this area, here are some suggestions:

  1. Do a survey to determine teaching involvement amongst subsets of librarian populations including law degree holders, reference librarians, technical services librarians etc.
  2. Do a survey to evaluate how much time is devoted to teaching, as compared with other library work.  This could provide some insight into staffing issues.
  3. Evaluate whether teaching is becoming the standard amongst academic law librarians.  This could be done either by means of a survey or by other ways such as examining job postings to see if teaching is mentioned under job duties.
  4. Do a survey to see how law librarians feel about teaching.

 

Study 2: What percentage of academic law librarians hold tenure-track positions?
Tenure helps ensure freedom of expression and allows librarians to share in the collective responsibility for their institution. There is great variation amongst academic law libraries as to whether librarian positions are tenure-track or not.  The number of librarians that are tenure-track may be of interest to the profession for a number of reasons.  First, it may be that tenure-track positions are a recruitment or retention tool.  There may also be the perception of increased status associated with tenure or tenure-track positions.  Alternatively, some librarians may view tenure-track positions negatively, as an increase in work load without commensurate benefit.

Most of the issues above require more in depth exploration but general knowledge of the number of librarians holding tenure-track positions may start the conversation.  The AALL Biennial Salary Survey includes information on the number of respondents who reported holding tenure-track positions.  The survey is divided into two main groups of professional vs. non-professional librarians.  As there were only two years reporting a total of 6 instances where non-professional librarians held tenure-track positions, the table below contains the numbers for professional librarians only. 

Table 1: The number of professional academic law librarians holding tenure-track positions

 

Tenure-Track

 

 

Yes

No

 

Year

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Total # of Librarians

1999

197

12.8%

1348

87.2%

1545

2001

268

27.1%

722

72.9%

990

2003

239

25.0%

718

75.0%

957

2005

198

27.1%

532

72.9%

730

2007

227

23.4%

742

76.6%

969

2009

279

23.7%

900

76.3%

1179

2011

222

22.1%

784

77.9%

1006

Graph 1: The number of professional academic law librarians holding tenure-track positions# of professional academic law librarians holding tenure-track positions, 1999-2011
    

Comments:
If one looked solely at the percentages in Table 1, this would suggest a big increase in the number of librarians with tenure-track positions.  However, as we can see from Graph 1 and the numeric totals of librarians, it appears to be the case that there was a drastic reduction in the number of respondents that were non-tenure-track, as opposed to a significant increase in the number of tenure-track librarians.   Unfortunately, from the information we have, we cannot know whether this was due a reduction in the number of non-tenure-track librarians in the profession or a reduction in participation in the survey. 
What the data seem to show is that the number of tenure-track positions amongst professional academic law librarians has remained fairly flat, especially when compared with non-tenure track positions.   It appears that somewhere between 22-27% of all professional librarian positions are tenure-track. 

Conclusion:
The AALL Biennial Survey suggests a relatively flat trend with respect to the number of tenure track positions over time.  Although there are increases in certain years, the increases are year to year.  It appears that, for the last ten years, somewhere between 22-27% of all professional librarian positions have been tenure-track.  With respect to future work that could take place in this area, here are some suggestions:

  1. An evaluation of academic law librarian job postings which typically mention whether a position is tenure-track.  This might be useful to obtain other data such as whether tenure-track positions typically require law degrees and whether they require teaching as part of the job description.
  2. A survey of academic law librarians to find out their views on tenure-track positions.  Are these positions viewed as more prestigious or do some librarians avoid them for reasons such as perceived additional work load? 
  3. One other interesting survey would be to see if tenure-track librarians stay in their positions for longer or if they leave at the same rate as other librarians. 

 

 


Strategic Planning 2012-15

The Committee was charged with reviewing and rewriting the ALL-SIS Strategic Plan. We were originally given a very short time span in which to accomplish this task. Since the SIS has been operating without a Strategic Plan since July 2010, we were granted permission to take longer and to do a thorough review and re-write. The completion date was extended to early spring 2013.

Plans were executed to get input from the committees and SIS members. This work was begun this year and will be completed and incorporated into the new draft which will go to the ALL-SIS Board in 2012-13.


Student Services

ALL-SIS Student Services Report 2011-2012

  1. Participated in the 2012 AALL Annual Meeting’s Poster Session. We submitted a proposal, “Starting a Student Library Advisory Board,” which was accepted. The poster will be presented and displayed in the exhibit hall during the Annual Meeting in Boston.
  2. The ALL-SIS Student Services Committee will hold a roundtable session from 12:00-1:00 p.m. on Monday, July 23, 2012, at AALL in Boston. The roundtable will cover three topics and will consist of two thirty minute intervals, effectively allowing participants to choose two of the three discussions to participate in. The following topics will be covered:
    1. Marketing Library Services to Students
    2. Library Services to Student Journals, Organizations, Clinics, and Externships
    3. Student Services Librarian Position

    Each table will have a moderator and note taker and a report will be compiled and available on the ALL-SIS Student Services committee’s website by September 2012.

    There is an alternative plan in case attendance is light.

  3. The ALL-SIS Student Services committee meeting is scheduled for 12:00 p.m., on Sunday, July 22, 2012. We will discuss our poster session, the student services roundtable, and discuss plans for the upcoming year.

Committee Members:

Chris Dykes, Chair
University of Houston

Morgan Stoddard, Vice-chair
Georgetown University

Frances Brillantine
Catholic University

Maureen Cahill
University of Georgia

Heather Casey
University of Richmond

Patricia Dickerson
North Carolina Central University

Ann Hemmens
University of New Mexico

Todd Ito
University of Chicago

Laura Fargo McKinnon
Texas Wesleyan University

Jennifer S. Prilliman
Oklahoma City University

 








Webmaster