Private Law Libraries Special Interest Section
American Association of Law Libraries

CONTENTS

What's New

 

THE PROCESS

 Leaders of the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) and of the Private Law Libraries Special Interest Section (PLL/SIS) met in Dallas, November 9-11, 1996 to decide on activities the SIS should undertake in the next 3-4 years. Specifically, the session had the following objectives:

• Describe and evaluate the environment in which private law librarians and the PLL/SIS are operating
• Ensure all participants were in agreement about the process
• Identify values and criteria for selecting activities
• Select specific activities
• Plan for implementation

Participants included: PLL Executive Committee members Michael Saint-Onge, Chair; Mary Smith Forman, Past Chair; Anne Ellis, Chair-Elect; Joan Jarosek, Treasurer; Jean O'Grady, Secretary; Karl Gruben, Board Member; Frank Houdek, AALL President; Tory Trotta, AALL Board Member; Roger Parent, AALL Executive Director; and JoAn Segal, Facilitator. Local arrangements were handled by Joan Jarosek, PLL Treasurer and hostess for the meeting at Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue. The meeting began at 2:00 p.m.

The first session began with an informal dialogue on the environment in which legal information professionals work. This continued with discussion of PLL and its place within AALL. Some of the challenges mentioned by the participants included: constant change, technological developments, budgetary constraints, Administrators' belief that technology can reduce the need for librarians, the pressure to reduce costs, the threat of outsourcing, and lawyers judging themselves capable of doing their own research using the Internet.

The group members also discussed the unique environment of a law firm or corporate law library. Law librarians are competing with lawyers and other departments for resources. Key issues included the unrealistic expectations of administrations and clients who believe that technology will reduce costs and increase productivity and profitability and that "everything is on the Web." There are wide differences in technological knowledge among clients which impacts how research is done and its cost-effectiveness. Spiraling book costs and the consolidation of the legal publishing industry are also of great concern. It is difficult to communicate to lawyers that the same product in different media may be quite different in content and searching methods. The group concluded that forming partnerships with lawyers and MIS staff is an effective means for implementing new technologies for library services. Librarians offer their unique perspective on print versus online contents.

Although participants agreed library services are in great demand, the resources needed to maintain and expand services come only with marketing and promotion of the library. In addition, librarians feel great pressure to stay abreast of technological developments. It is of great concern that the time to accomplish such is lacking. Further pressure is felt as librarians roles' are expanding with the explosion of information. Librarians struggle to provide quality information services as library staffs may not possess the increasing skills needed to implement such service. The increased work pace and the resulting stress on the library staff must be addressed. Librarians need to examine how to manage these competing forces of work life.

VALUES

To set the stage for the planning activities of the next two days, the group examined the values and criteria that underlie their work. Identifying values was the more difficult task, but the group members agreed upon the following:

• Answering the needs of diverse librarians
• Empowerment of law librarians as professionals
• Quality of work life
• Values consistent with those of AALL
• Proactiveness
• The assurance of jobs and creation of a sense of community, especially for solo librarians
• The prudent use of resources
• Enhancement of value for members

CRITERIA

Participants then addressed criteria which would be used to select the specific activities. After generating a long list of possible criteria, the group decided to give preference to activities that:

• Benefit the largest number of people
• Require resources that are available
• Realize goals within the allotted timeline
• Achieve goals relevant to the members' point of view

On Sunday morning, the group reconvened to discuss ideas for specific activities that might be undertaken. Using the vision statements as the driving stimulus, the participants generated a list of twenty-six activities, many of which had several parts. Each activity was designed to lead to one or more of the vision statements and discussion was very lively and exciting. [See: Possible PLL Activities] Refinement continued as the group identified interested parties outside of PLL and matched up activities with the various vision statements.


Selecting a list of activities consistent with the criteria and setting a priority on the activities occupied the group on Monday. A chart was prepared using the five vision statements mentioned above, with activities pertinent to each. Participants then initialed three top-priority items under each vision statement. As a result of this prioritizing effort, six groups of activities emerged as being of highest priority. [See: The Plan (Overview)] In addition, two activities were identified as ongoing, but requiring prompt attention from the Executive Committee.

Next, the group addressed specific implementation steps for each of the high-priority activities and pinpointed a time frame in which these could be accomplished. This work produced the two most significant documents, Activities of Highest Priority 1997-2000, and Implementation Steps: Activities of Highest Priority 1997-2000.

The last step was to decide how to present the plan to the members and to try to predict some obstacles that might arise and how to overcome them. The planning group was very eager to inform the members about their work and to begin to involve them in implementing the immediate priority activities. In addition to articles in PLL Perspectives, it was decided use of the web page and listserve would facilitate communication of the plan itself. Copies of the report would be made available in a variety of formats. The need for immediate development efforts and securing funding for the various tasks was recognized.

Optimistic at the end of three days' successful work, the group acknowledged that the biggest obstacles were the need for financial and human resources to carry out the complex and difficult tasks. However, the Executive Committee was confident that PLL/SIS would be able to provide even more meaningful services for law librarians.


JoAn Segal
PLL/SIS Strategic Planning Session Facilitator