FCIL Newsletter / October 1995
REPORTS FROM PITTSBURGH: EDUCATION COMMITTEE
Programs Approved for 1996
Marci Hoffman, co-chair
University of Minnesota Law Library
Here is a summary of the programs requested and approved for
1996 AALL Annual Meeting.
The FCIL SIS submitted five original program requests to the
Education Committee in August. The programs were:
- Human Rights Worldwide: When the Message is Hard to Deliver
Refugees, Women, and Sexual Minorities (a three-part program);
- Doing Business in Africa;
- New Developments in French Law;
- Filtering the Net; and
- Fashion/Style and the Law.
Two of the five were accepted: Human Rights
and Filtering the Net.
The Education Committee had fewer open slots this year, since
each SIS had been given two automatic program slots. So, all in
all, we did pretty well this year.
We co-sponsored three programs, and all of the co-sponsored
programs were selected:
- The Global Harmonization of Copyright Laws (with Copyright
- Solving Foreign and International Requests with Sources in
Library (with Reader Services SIS); and
- Hong Kong 1997 (with Asian/American Law Librarians Caucus).
We are proposing two programs for the "SIS-Selected Programs":
Human Rights Worldwide -- Women, and Doing Business in Africa.
Since the three-part human rights program was co-sponsored by
Social Responsibilities SIS, we asked them to submit the last
of this program on sexual minorities as one of their SIS-selected
programs. They agreed to do so.
Therefore, barring any unforeseen circumstances (or a veto
the Education Committee), we will be sponsoring all three parts
the human rights worldwide program (with the co-sponsorship of
Social Responsibilities and Diversity Committee).
We will have a total of four programs and three co-sponsored
programs at the 1996 annual meeting.
Some Observations on Practice and Issues in Program
by Jolande Goldberg, co-chair
Library of Congress
For the 1995 convention in Pittsburgh, we had quite a number
good ideas collected -- some during the convention, some phoned
faxed in. This time around, we had worked out a format or formula
for preparing the programs more fully for acceptance to avoid the
disappointments of the two previous years, when we had offered
good program proposals which in some instances were not accepted
because they lacked full development. This had been emphasized by
the AALL program chair in Seattle and should be observed under
circumstances. Several points should be restated here:
a. Objectives have to be stated clearly by the
proposing party. It is quite a lot of work for the co-chairs to
supplement, or "massage," information into the shape,
and otherwise, needed to make a program succeed. Observing the
given dateline and deadlines is a must and is an obligation not
only of the co-chairs, but also of the proposing party. It was
again very difficult to get the programs all cleaned up and faxed
in time to Headquarters.
b. The ranking process was again under fire. We had a
clear ranking established, but it was not followed through at the
1994/95 final program selection by the AALL Education Committee.
c. Merle Slyhoff's 1995 newly introduced device that
SISes have automatically two slots, has raised the following
- How do we want to work the evaluation?
- Are there new procedures needed?
- Do we want to continue with the old ranking process?
- How do we deal with proposals above the two?
d. Program planning should be started earlier. We have
bring program ideas to the convention. I have found that it is
necessary to get on speakers' calendars early, particularly if a
top gun is wanted (e.g., the Director of Oceans at the State
Department has a one year calendar; this means that, according to
our dateline, he would have to be contacted in May the year
the Annual Meeting of the following year!). This will take very
inventive maneuvering, given the way AALL is operating at
We should explore whether the "new way" of two fixed slots per
gives us the flexibility to work on at least one long-range
e. The 1995 final official AALL program did not
the proposing SIS or the sponsoring SIS. We have to insist that
AALL return to its previous practice. This would help us
a list of accepted or only proposed programs for future
I would like to disseminate some other good news: the
establishment, or rather re-institution, of the FCIL SIS
International and Intergovernmental Documents Issues Working
under the stewardship of Ellen Schaffer as chair. It is intended
a forum for discussion and cooperation by international documents
specialists, especially on IGO documents. I am hoping that this
committee will attract our IGO documents experts, since its
would be of great importance for the final, still missing
of the new schedules KZ (Law of Nations) and JZ (International
Relations): a proper treatment for the document sets of major
International Organizations, such as the UN System, OAS, EC, and
other regional organizations.
FORWARD to next article: Report
the Working Group on Teaching Foreign and International Legal
BACK to Index page.