A year ago, in his article "Momentum 95: Sculpting Law Internet," (Automatome,Vol. 13, no. 2, Summer 1995), Mark Folmsbee sketched an ambitious plan for the role that the Automation and Scientific Development SIS could play in the future of legal information and the Internet. Mark and his colleagues at Washburn have led the SIS in accomplishing many of his goals (linking up sites, promoting communication by creating listservs and experimenting with the use of chat rooms, and offering frequent training opportunities). In other areas (developing "publishing standards," encouraging quality control of legal information published on the Internet, and promoting realization of the responsibility of Internet publishers to keep information current), the SIS and its members have given their support in aid of the efforts of others.
The first goal and primary mission of the SIS, as proposed by Mark, was to "[e]xplore ways that the SIS can operate as a technical service and support unit of other SIS's, Chapters, as well as the AALL itself. In short, the SIS mission would be to facilitate the individual *technical* (automation?) success of AALL members on Internet."
In this goal providing support to AALL the SIS may have succeeded almost too well, so well that people barely remember we're here. Around the same time as Mark's newsletter article, a newer law librarian posted a message to law-lib proposing a meeting of computer services librarians at the Pittsburgh conference. My immediate reaction was dismay that the ASD SIS had not properly publicized itself: surely our business meeting was the meeting of computer services librarians that our colleague sought, but people did not realize it. Further reflection, however, left me with an even more unsettling notion: perhaps the ASD SIS was not meeting the needs of what should be our primary membership group. Conversations with law firm and academic librarians (sorry, I didn't meet any computer services librarians from state, court, or county law libraries) further deepened my fear that in our chosen, self-effacing role of servants, we had failed to attract many of the members who could best provide the strengths that the SIS needs to maintain a leadership role.
To some extent, the Automation and Scientific Development SIS has long suffered an identity crisis. The SIS was founded and named, in an almost visionary way, long before anyone could have anticipated the extent to which we all would use technology in our day-to-day work lives. Today, however, the ASD SIS has no monopoly on technology-related programming, either at AALL meetings or in its regular activities throughout the year; all the other SIS' represent groups or interests where technology has daily impact, as a review of the programs to be offered in Indianapolis this year will show.
It is essential that the ASD SIS redefine and refocus itself. AALL members join special interest sections for many reasons; if we fail to offer members a reason to join the ASD SIS, we will be unable to continue to attract the most talented, technologically expert law librarians, or to draw on that talent and expertise to achieve the goals the SIS sets for itself.
As program coordinator for the SIS for the 1996 AALL annual meeting, I tried to focus on programs that respond to the professional needs of computer services librarians. Two of our programs directly address these concerns: "Are We All Becoming Electronic Services Librarians" (Sheri Lewis, coordinator) and "Career Paths for Computer Services Librarians: Where Do We Go From Here" (Darin Fox and Leslie Loar, co-coordinators). Another program, "Are We Speaking the Same Language: Working with Law Firm MIS and Law School Computing Departments" (Maria Brummel-Schutte, coordinator) deals with the relationships between law librarians and information professionals, and the special qualifications that computer services librarians bring to the profession. Two others, "Really Delivering the Message: Wide-Area Networking of CD-ROMs" (Mark Folmsbee, coordinator) and "Delivering the Message Visually: A Review and Demonstration of Graphic Presentation Software Packages" (James Milles, coordinator) reflect the value of computer services librarians in information delivery and in classroom instruction.
Although service to the Association is an important goal, I fear that it undervalues our SIS and what we should really be doing. We need to reposition ourselves more in parallel with the Reader Services and Technical Services SIS', as a "type of job classification" SIS on a par with the traditional library organizational categories. In order to successfully reposition ourselves, though, we need to attract and keep active members for the SIS. We can do that by listening and responding to the needs of computer services librarians. Unless we first build a strong SIS, we cannot hope to achieve all the goals Mark has laid out for us. Computer services librarians are becoming ever more important to law libraries although I'm not sure that all library directors realize this yet. Every law school library, for instance, either has a computer services librarian, is advertising for one, or is drawing up a job description for one. It's important to show - and to remember - that what we do is going to be crucial to the future of our library organizations and to the profession at large.
As a first step toward this redefinition, I would like us to reconsider what we call ourselves. It may be that our current name Automation and Scientific Development SIS has outlived its usefulness. At last year's business meeting I raised the idea of a name change. I like the sound of "Computer Services" or "Electronic Services;" this reflects who most of us are, what we do and, together with the existing Reader Services and Technical Services SIS', reflects the three-part structure evolving in some libraries to replace the old "public/technical" split. Computer services librarians are rapidly becoming a distinct professional category, with purposes, functions, objectives, skills, and professional development requirements quite different from their colleagues in the two traditional segments of the library organization. However, the names "Electronic Development" and "Computer and Information Technology" were also suggested. Our rather informal bylaws permit amendment by a majority of the members present and voting at the annual meeting; there is no requirement for a quorum. At this year's business meeting in Indianapolis, I will propose an amendment to the bylaws to change the name of the SIS.
Beyond this, I hope to continue to explore ways that the ASD SIS can be more responsive to the
professional needs of its present and potential members. I look forward to talking and working
with many of you in the coming year. See you in Indianapolis!