The Task Force on Review of NRMC Structure is charged with

1. Reviewing the existing structure of NRMC, which is organized as a main Committee with six standing subcommittees: Copyright/Legislation/Fair Use; Human-Machine Interface; Outreach; Preservation/Storage/Authentication; Programs; and Standards;

2. Assessing this existing organization for its usefulness and effectiveness in helping the main Committee achieve its charge and goals in light of other forms of organization, such as the more typical ALCTS Committee structure which utilizes “Task Force(s)” to basically do the work of NRMC’s subcommittees (e.g., compile program topics for anticipated program; report on specific issues, address particular problems, etc.) However, in contrast to NRMC’s standing subcommittees, task forces exist for a stated time, normally the time that the Committee Chair determines is needed to accomplish the particular charge.

3. Preparing a report listing findings and recommendations which shall be submitted to the Chair of NRMC by May 5, 2000.

On March 2, 2000 the ALCTS Networked Resources and Metadata Committee (NRMC) Task Force on Review of NRMC Structure was formed consisting of members Kay Flowers, Arlene Klair, and Keith Powell, as Chair. The task force was charged with reviewing the current subcommittee structure within the NRMC and providing recommendations on whether to retain the current subcommittee structure of the committee or disband it and use task forces in their stead.

The full charge for the appointed task force appears above.


Methodology

The task force, as constituted by its three members, decided to approach its established charge by interviewing chairs of each NRMC subcommittee, and reviewing the general policy manuals and bylaws for the American Library Association (ALA) as well as any relevant policies and bylaws of ALTCS. In addition, a review of those pertinent bylaws and policies of the Library and Information Technology Association (LITA) division would be reviewed. Additional input from leadership within ALCTS and LITA was also sought.

Communication between the task force members as well as their communication with others was conducted via email and phone. Communicating with others, such as subcommittee chairs, was divided among the three task force members. Reports of communication were sent to the task force chair for compiling.

Subcommittee chairs were questioned on how effective they felt their subcommittees were being in meeting their respective charges and how any change in organization might effect those efforts.


Perspectives/Findings …

… within NRMC

The task force found that responses among NRMC subcommittee chairs were mixed on whether a subcommittee or task force structure would better serve their efforts. Differences in perspectives can be attributed to the differing charges for each subcommittee and the types of activities their charges require of those committees. While one could argue that each subcommittee as charged has duties and activities that could continue indefinitely into the future, there are some differences that can be outlined accordingly by subcommittee.

Interest and participation in the Copyright/Legislation/Fair Use subcommittee has been minimal. Although programs coordinated by the subcommittee have been well received, continued participation in the subcommittee has been difficult to maintain. A task force status might allow for more focused efforts in the future as needs or issues arise with possibly an annual report on copyright issues being provided.

The Human-Machine Interface (HMI) subcommittee, like the Copyright subcommittee, has had minimal participation and also a change in chair. Currently, a program is being co-sponsored with the LITA HMI Interest Group at the Chicago 2000 conference. This type of activity could be coordinated under the auspices of a task force just as well as within a subcommittee. Like Copyright, HMI as a topic might be better served within a task force structure. Again, this would allow focus on specific issues or activities as charged rather than attempting to maintain ongoing and overly broad perspectives on a complex topic.

The Outreach subcommittee has the ongoing challenge of maintaining communication both within the NRMC and outwardly to ALCTS as a whole. Once again, the charge of the subcommittee requires ongoing activities that, in this case, seem best served within a subcommittee structure. Nevertheless, certain projects might be best served by utilizing a task force.

The Preservation/Storage/Authentication subcommittee also is broadly charged with investigating and reporting on complex, important, and ongoing issues. Whether the subcommittee’s activities would best be served by a subcommittee or task force structure needs additional review and discussion.

The Programs subcommittee is unique in that its charge of program planning requires a high level of expertise only gained through previous participation in the ALA programming process. While the programs subcommittee has natural overlap with other subcommittees, frequent changes in leadership and member participation would be detrimental to the NRMC as a whole in its program planning.

The Standards subcommittee has a charge of staying on top of changes/developments in standards. This necessitates a permanent structure like a subcommittee rather than a temporary task force. Nevertheless, overlap exists in its functions with other ALA and ALCTS committees. If ALCTS were to establish a standards committee similar to the LITA Technical Standards for Library Automation (TESLA) committee, the NRMC standards subcommittee could be disbanded. This would assist in eliminating duplication of effort to some degree although increased communication should be promoted between ALA divisions as well.

In discussion with subcommittee chairs as well as other senior officers of ALCTS, the greatest concern seems to be overlap and duplication of efforts. The actual structure may be significant in some cases but areas of responsibility seem more important.

… within ALA and its Divisions

In looking further at the roles of subcommittees and task forces existing within current divisional and committee structures, a review of policies and bylaws within ALA, ALCTS, and LITA was conducted. Upon review, there does not seem to be a particular prejudice toward subcommittees or task forces as a structure, although subcommittees seemed to be addressed more fully than task forces.

The ALA Policy Manual states in Section 6.7 that “subcommittees may be formed by a parent group to carry out specific duties. Such subcommittees are appointed by the chair of the parent committee” and “can be abolished by decision of the parent committee.”

In turn, the ALA Policy Manual, in Section 6.9, defines a task force as “an action-oriented membership group whose charge is to address specific goals, complete a specific task, or to consider a specific issues.” It is also stated that “there may be a designated time frame defined by the nature of the task or set forth in the function statement.” Furthermore, “any parent body may establish a task force, determine its duration, monitor its progress, and terminate its function.”

No mention of subcommittees or task forces could be found in the ALA Bylaws except in respect to committees of the Council.

The ALCTS Policy and Procedures Manual discusses subcommittees under ALCTS Appointments, Subcommittees. According to policy, “a committee chair may appoint subcommittees for the purpose of undertaking special projects and may prepare function statements for the subcommittees.” It is further stated that “when the work of the subcommittee is completed, the committee chair disbands it.”

No mention of task forces could be located in the ALCTS Policy and Procedures Manual.

The ALCTS Bylaws discusses committees in Article IX but apparently proceeds no further down the organizational chain. No mention of task forces or subcommittees was located.

The LITA Committee Policies document defines two types of committees: standing; and, special or ad hoc. Task forces are considered a type of ad hoc committee. No discussion was found of task forces being established within a committee structure. There is a discussion of subcommittees and their establishment at the discretion of a majority of committee members.

It would appear that the current structure of subcommittees within the NRMC is in accordance with ALA and ALCTS policy and not significantly different from other divisions. Nevertheless, it seems important to engage in further discussion of the NRMC structure in terms of areas of responsibility and duration of function.


Conclusions/Recommendations

Further committee discussion is needed on the current structure of the NRMC. It is clearly at the discretion of the committee chair and other members how to structure the committee. The distinctions between subcommittee and task force are mainly related to specificity and duration of the assigned task. It should be noted, however, that there is no scientific approach to making these distinctions. Those distinctions can be determined by the committee as it sees appropriate.

With direct regard to the NRMC, it appears some subcommittees should be disbanded, others turned into task forces as needed, and others left as subcommittees. These decisions, although articulated by some subcommittee chairs to this task force, should be reached in an open forum of the entire committee.

Having stated that, this task force believes that an equally important discussion must be initiated on whether the current missions/charges of the subcommittees are still appropriate, given activities of other committees in ALA, both in ALCTS and in other divisions. Are we duplicating efforts? Should joint efforts be established between committees/divisions? Are new task forces/subcommittees now necessary?


In summary:

1. The current subcommittee structure of the NRMC is in accordance with ALA and ALCTS policy.
2. After reviewing areas of responsibilities, some subcommittees probably should be disbanded, with certain activities picked up by appointed task forces as needed. The subcommittees in this group are:
   1. Copyright
   2. Human-Machine Interface
   3. Preservation
3. These subcommittees probably should remain as subcommittees:
   1. Outreach
   2. Programs
   3. Standards
4. Greater efforts should be made to coordinate NRMC activities with other ALCTS committees and ALA divisions. With a consideration of possible duplication of efforts between NRMC and other ALA committees, NRMC may determine some of the remaining subcommittees should be eliminated with their activities transferred to appropriate task forces.

A heartfelt thank you to all who contributed to this task force with their comments and ideas.


Task Force Roster

Keith Powell, Chair
Kay Flowers, Member
Arlene Klair, Member