FINAL REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE TO STUDY ROUNDTABLES Michelle Koth, Chair Beth Christensen Michael Colby May 1994 (rev. August 1994) FINAL REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE TO STUDY ROUNDTABLES The Committee planned and carried out its activities almost solely through electronic mail, and accomplished the following: o Compiled, distributed, and analyzed questionnaires to a sample of MLA members, to all current and to the most recent past roundtable coordinators, and to two other library organizations (Medical Library Association and American Theological Library Association); o Held an open forum at the 1994 Kansas City MLA meeting; o Solicited ideas, suggestions, concerns, etc. via MLA-L and the MLA Newsletter. Specific recommendations are below, followed by the results of the three questionnaires, and a summary of the open forum. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Do not limit the number of roundtables. REASONS: o MLA members feel very strongly that roundtables serve an important function in MLA. Committees exist to carry out the work of MLA, but it is perceived to be very difficult to get appointed to a committee, subcommittee, or working group. Roundtables are not as rigid as committees, and are open to whomever wishes to attend. They are seen as one way to be involved in MLA. o Roundtables provide a place in the organization for the most current and timely way to discuss an issue, or even to discuss an issue at all. Limiting this outlet may be seen as an attempt to limit certain viewpoints, etc. 2. Limit the length of meeting time for roundtables to one and a half hours. REASON: o Two hours is more than sufficient and perhaps even longer than necessary to accommodate a roundtable discussion or program. Even plenary sessions do not last two hours. Also, two hours is seen as a long time to sit in one session. 3. Do not establish fixed time slots for roundtables, nor schedule roundtable meetings against plenary sessions, nor limit roundtables to every other MLA meeting. REASONS: o Do not establish fixed time slots: although Stephen Fry's straw poll on MLA-L showed 100% approval for this idea, the committee doesn't think it will work. As coordinators change and roundtable membership shifts, a fixed time slot may no longer work for the individuals involved. o Do not schedule roundtable meetings against plenary sessions: Fry's poll showed only 20% of those responding to be in favor of this. The Committee is also against the idea because one of the reasons for the plenary sessions is so that the entire membership can be together at once. o Do not limit roundtable meetings to every other MLA meeting: Again, only 25% of those responding to Fry's poll were in favor of this solution. This would unfairly penalize roundtables, which should not be viewed as the only groups causing congestion in the program. Also, since a roundtable's strong point is immediacy of issues, meeting only every other year would detract from that strength. 4. New coordinators should be recommended by the roundtables to the MLA President for approval. REASON: o Several roundtable coordinators were "elected" by their "members." This may be seen as more democratic than the President's appointing the coordinator without input from the roundtable. At the same time, the Committee believes that the appointment should be made with presidential approval. We suggest that the roundtable members recommend a person to the president, who then will need to approve the choice. 5. Increase to six the number of letters needed to both establish and renew a roundtable. REASON: o Six letters is perceived to be more of a commitment than three. It has been suggested that a letter should presume a commitment of attendance to that roundtable. o Fifteen respondents to the members survey thought that the entire Board should be required to approve new roundtables. Those opposed to this option were adamantly against it, believing that roundtables should remain apart from Board control. 6. Establish a minimum attendance at roundtables to merit both a room assignment and a time slot on the program. REASONS: o One of the concerns about the proliferation of roundtables has been the increased need for meeting space in the hotel. The higher the number of concurrent meetings, the larger the hotel must be to accommodate them. The larger hotel usually means higher lodging costs for those attending the meeting. It seems to be an inefficient use of meeting space to assign a room for a meeting of fewer than X (number to determined by the Board) people. o The problem of fitting all the various committees, subcommittees, working groups, and roundtables into a program, while trying to keep conflicts to a minimum, is difficult enough. Roundtables of X (number to be determined by the Board) people or fewer should not be assigned a time slot, but should determine among themselves when they can all meet. 7. Expand the section of the MLA Handbook dealing with roundtables to include more specific information. Examples: o More clearly define "roundtable"; o Describe what is (and perhaps what isn't) appropriate for the subject of a roundtable and its meetings; o Refine what a "project" is; specifically, is a program for a roundtable's meeting to be considered a project? (VII.C. Meetings and VII.D. Projects); o Clearly outline and specify the expectations for roundtable coordinators; o Include some section on whether roundtables have "members." This has caused a problem with people receiving unsolicited mailings from roundtables they may not have attended for years. Do roundtables have "members"? Can roundtables maintain "membership" lists? 8. The Board should think about, in considering the definition of a roundtable, how large a roundtable can be. REASON: o This Committee makes no recommendations, but is expressing the concerns of some MLA members that the larger roundtables (e.g. Technical Services Roundtable) cease to be roundtables per se (forums for discussion). Discussion in groups as large as 100 people is not really viable. The Committee passes to the Board the idea of a structure somewhere between a roundtable and committee, perhaps following the structure of some of the sections in the two other library organizations studied by the Committee (See pages 10-11). 9. Appoint one Board member to "coordinate" the coordinators. There could be a roundtable coordinators' breakfast each year at MLA, somewhat like the Fiscal Officer's breakfast, at which time all the coordinators can meet, exchange ideas, and become informed about the purpose and scope of roundtables. REASONS: o Most new coordinators begin their term without reading the MLA handbook, particularly the section on roundtables. Some coordinators see the roundtables as being more than they are, feel that the roundtables should have more power within the organization, and even see the Ad Hoc Committee and its charge as a threat to their independence. It is apparent that there is a divergence of opinion among coordinators as to what a roundtable is. o There is an impression that some roundtable programs or discussions overlap with each other. An example of this was the number of Internet programs offered at the 1993 MLA meeting. If the coordinators were to meet once a year and be given the opportunity to exchange ideas, this sort of overlap could be avoided, perhaps even organized into a joint roundtable meeting or plenary session. 10. The Board should consider the concerns about the content and format of roundtable meetings. REASON: o There was enough discussion about "programs" at the open forum to merit investigation. As part of recommendation 7 above, the Board should think about those roundtables that offer a program with a panel of speakers versus those that offer open discussion, with or without a facilitator. The former is by far the most favored by those responding to the MLA member questionnaire, but many also favor the open discussion approach or a combination of the two. Without setting restrictions, the Board should decide whether "programs" are an appropriate format for roundtable meetings. A corollary to this concerns the evaluation of roundtables. At this point, the "programs" are similar to plenary sessions, yet they do not go through the program committee. Roundtable programs are not evaluated in any formal manner, such as the entire MLA meeting used to be. Should there be a formal apparatus for roundtable members to critique the roundtable meeting without having to approach the coordinator personally? 11. The Board should consider how the roundtable coordinators publicize their programs. REASON: o The issue of sending roundtable programs over MLA-L has been raised. It has been seen as one way to attract a larger attendance, as if there is competition for roundtable members. It has also been seen as last minute planning on the part of the coordinators, as if they did not have their programs or discussions planned well enough in advance to be listed in the meeting program booklet. One suggestion was to set a deadline for coordinators to submit their program topics and speakers or facilitators to the program chair for inclusion in the MLA program. [I will respond to this as a roundtable coordinator: First, there will always be conflicts in scheduling and members will have to decide, for example, whether to go the Technical Services Roundtable or the Video Roundtable, which have been scheduled against each other. The truth is that people move in and out of roundtable meetings, so the issue of "competition" is not valid. Second, we were all contacted very early on about our programs and most of them were included in this year's program booklet. I see it as a courtesy to send the program out on MLA-L, to help people decide what to go to in advance. Many of us have our days completely filled with meetings, planned well in advance of actually arriving at the conference. MK] The Committee would like the Board to consider the etiquette of publicizing the programs of roundtables on MLA-L, in the MLA newsletter, or other publications (such as the Music Cataloging Bulletin). One other suggestion was to indicate in the program booklet whether the roundtable meeting will be a panel of speakers, an open discussion (with or without planned topics and facilitators), or a combination of both. The Committee feels that the decision on these matters should come from the Board. 12. The Subject Access to Contemporary Music Roundtable is up for renewal this year. This roundtable should either be retired or made into a working group of the Subject Subcommittee of the Bibliographic Control Committee. REASON: o The roundtable was formed because the promised BCC working group was never formed. The Board should look into how this was allowed to happen. The emphasis of the roundtable is reported to be shifting to contemporary music in general, and thus the existing, more specific roundtable could be retired and a new one with broader focus formed. 13. Clarify how the decision to retire a roundtable is to made. o The Committee suggests that with the consensus of the coordinator and the members and with approval by the President, a roundtable could be dissolved at any point during its regular four-year term. The Committee also suggests that conditions under which the President might dissolve a roundtable even with sufficient letters of support be outlined in the MLA handbook, along with the other suggestions in recommendation 7 above. 14. Publish reports of the roundtable meetings in the MLA Newsletter as part of the annual meeting reports, and not as part of the administrative structure published yearly in the MLA Newsletter. REASONS: o The roundtables play just as important a role in the meeting as the plenary sessions and committee meetings do. The summaries and reports for these groups are published in the newsletter, and, for the same reasons, so should the roundtable reports be: 1. Not everyone can attend all the meetings they would like to (they have to choose, like it or not). With the demise of the wrap-up session, this may be the only way to find out what happened in a roundtable. 2. What happens in the roundtable meetings can be more practical and current than in the plenary sessions or committee meetings. 3. To exclude the roundtable reports would give the message that the roundtable activities are of less importance than the other activities of the Association. 15. Roundtables and committees currently have very little contact with each other. This communication should work both ways, with committees consulting with roundtables, as well as the other way around. The roundtable coordinators questionnaire proved that communication is lacking; however, the Committee can suggest no way to improve the situation. 16. Finally, make this report available to the MLA membership. Results of the MLA members questionnaire Number of questionnaires sent: 30; Number of responses received: 26 Attendance at MLA meetings: 24 1993 San Francisco 20 1992 Baltimore 19 1991 Indianapolis 15 1990 Tucson 16 1989 Cleveland Attendance at roundtable meetings during the last five years: 9 A. American Music 2 K. Organ Music 3 B. Archives 8 L. Research in Music Librarianship 4 C. Band Music 5 M. Sheet Music 10 D. Bibliography 10 N. Small Academic 2 E. Black Music Collections 2 O. Social Responsibilities 4 F. Conservatories 2 P. Subject Access to Contemporary Music 4 G. Film Music 13 Q. Technical Services 4 H. Jazz and Popular Music 8 R. Video 13 I. Large Research Libraries 5 S. Women in Music 8 J. New Members 5 T. World Music 1 U. Jewish Music Which of those marked above are directly related Which do you plan on attending again to your current position? at future MLA meetings? Total number marked Number of responses Total number marked Number of responses 7 2 5 or more 6 6 0 4 2 5 3 3 7 4 3 2 5 3 3 1 3 2 8 0 2 1 3 0 1 Have you been a member of any committee or subcommittee in the past five years? 12 Yes 14 No In the past five years, have you attended the open meetings of any committee or subcommittee of which you were not currently a member? 23 Yes 3 No How many of these committee or subcommittee meetings did you attend each year? 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 3 or more 7 6 7 6 3 2 8 9 6 4 2 1 6 4 2 3 5 none 1 1 0 1 1 total attended: 21 19 15 13 10 Do you usually attend the Plenary Sessions? 18 Yes 5 No Ranking of the different types of meetings: Plenary Sessions Committees, Subcommittees Roundtables 6 Very important 17 Very important 12 Very important 14 Somewhat important 8 Somewhat important 13 Somewhat important 5 Not very important 0 Not very important 0 Not very important 1 Not important at all 0 Not important at all 1 Not important at all Which of these formats have been used at the roundtable meetings you have attended? 23 A. A panel of speakers with time set aside for discussion or questions 17 B. Planned discussion topics with a facilitator 14 C. Planned discussion topics without scheduled speakers or a facilitator D. Other (please describe) 1 Free-for-all 1 Report on activities How would you rate the effectiveness of these formats? A. B. C. D. Very effective 14 8 4 1 Somewhat effective 6 8 5 1 Not effective at all 2 1 4 5 Not applicable 1 1 1 3 There are currently 20 roundtables, with no limitation on the number of roundtables permitted. Do you think the number should be limited? 12 Yes 13 No Currently, a roundtable may be established with three letters of support from members of the organization. Should the authorization of roundtables be made stricter by requiring any of the following? 9 Six letters of support 15 Approval of the MLA Board 3 Sponsorship of an existing committee 7 No change should be made 0 Other (please describe) Summary: While no clear consensus of the fate of roundtables in MLA emerges from the responses, some observations can be made. Roundtables appear to be rather important to the membership and fairly well attended. Most people are pretty satisfied with the format of roundtable meetings. On the issue of whether to and how to limit the number of roundtables, however, the responses are divided. Of the 26 members responding, 24 attended at least one roundtable meeting at the 1993 MLA meeting. Attendance in previous years was only slightly less (from 20 in 1992 down to 15 in 1989) but it must be borne in mind that not all respondents attended MLA each year. Interest in roundtables is about as varied as the number of roundtables. The roundtable reported as best attended are the Technical Services Roundtable and Large Research Libraries Roundtable, with 13 people reporting as having attended at least one of their meetings. The middle ground (with between eight and ten responses) consists of American Music, Bibliography, New Members, Research in Music Librarianship, Small Academic Libraries, and Video roundtables. The remainder had a count of five or fewer. Most responses showed a high correlation between the focus of the roundtable and the participant's current position. Twenty-three reported planning on attending at least one roundtable meeting in the future, with fifteen of these planning on three or more. Roundtable participants seem to be active in committee work as well. Twelve have been members of committees at some point in the past five year, while twenty-three reported attending the meeting of at least one committee of which they were not a member. Roundtables appear to offer another avenue for participation in MLA; to paraphrase a comment from one questionnaire: Roundtables provide another forum for participation outside of offices and committees. Some comments: "If the purpose of MLA meetings is to bring together people who have common interests, then surely the roundtables provide the most important facet of the meetings." "If it were not for the roundtables, I would not attend the national meetings." Eighteen usually attend the Plenary Sessions, but rankings show the Plenary Sessions rate behind both roundtables and committees. Twenty-five rank meetings of roundtables and committees as either vary important or somewhat important, while only twenty give the Plenary Sessions equally high marks. These numbers, however, do not reflect the dissatisfaction expressed in some comments. For example: "They [roundtables] begin to overlap with each other and with the committees. They also sometimes lose their steam." Also: "After attending MLA for 20 years, I have decided that the quantity of meetings of committees, roundtables, etc. make the meeting totally superfluous. The roundtables seem to have degenerated into mouthpieces for one or two people with an ax to grind." Some of this sentiment is reflected in another respondent's comment: "I feel that roundtables contribute quite a bit to MLA meetings. On the other hand, their development should reflect the interest of more than a few members." And, "perhaps roundtables should ensure minimal attendance (i.e. six persons) to merit space in the program." Responses are most sharply divided on the question of limiting the number of roundtables and how. Twelve believe the number should be limited and another thirteen believe they should not. If the authorization of roundtables were to be made stricter, the majority (15) favored requiring the approval of the MLA Board (although there were two comments to the effect that "the formation of roundtables should not depend on the approval of the MLA Board"). The second most favored method was increasing the number of letters of support should be increased from three to six, and three thought that sponsorship of an existing committee should be required. At the same time, seven responded that no change should be made. One comment: "I think the system of trusting roundtable members to decide whether or when a particular roundtable is no longer needed should be retained." Some comments reveal an understanding of the scheduling difficulties the proliferation of committees and roundtables creates. "Many times, I have a difficult time fitting in roundtable meetings." "Any more roundtables would make scheduling a nightmare." But another comments that "people have to choose how to spend their time at meetings and what to put their energies into." There seems to be some understanding as to the problems that the number of roundtables creates, but a reluctance to address these problems by making major changes in the ways roundtables are established or continued. Perhaps one of the shortcomings of the questionnaire was the it didn't specifically address the problems a swelling number of roundtables could create, or present the opportunity to respond to some possible suggestions for coping, other than limiting the number of roundtables. Such suggestions may have included extending the length of the meeting or setting aside a length of time, such as a half day, exclusively for roundtables, during which no Plenary Sessions or committee meetings could be scheduled. Submitted by Michael Colby __________________________________________________________________________ Results of the current and the most-recent past roundtable coordinators questionnaire If you succeeded someone as coordinator, through what process were you selected? 5 appointed by the MLA President 4 elected by members of the roundtable 11 other (please describe) What format of roundtable meeting do you/did you usually plan? 17 a panel of speakers with time for discussion following each speaker 6 a panel of speakers with time for discussion at the end of the meeting 11 planned topics for open discussion, with one person leading the discussion 9 planned topics for open discussion, without planned speakers or discussion leaders 8 other (please describe) Attendance: ROUNDTABLE Attendance 1993 Attendance 1992 Increase or decrease in general? American Music 40 same increase Archives 30-40 same increase Band Music 45 decrease same Bibliography 80 decrease fluctuates from 40-120 Black Music Collections 30-35 increase * Conservatories 17 (1994) 17 (1993) stable Film Music 40 decrease increase Jazz and Popular Music CURRENT COORDINATOR DID NOT RETURN QUESTIONNAIRE Large Research Libraries 33 same stable New Members 32 * * Organ Music 25-30 increase stable Research in Music Lib. 25-30 decrease depends on schedule conflicts Sheet Music 40 did not exist in 1992 * Small Academic Libraries 40-45 slight decrease slight decrease Social Responsibilities 7 or 8 decrease varied; highest was 40+ Subject Acc. to Cont. Music 15 decrease varied; highest ever was 25 Technical Services ca. 100 80 * Video 25 same same Women in Music 50-60 60-70 steady increase World Music 30 same stable * The roundtable is too new (1 to 2 years) to establish a pattern in attendance How the topics and speakers/discussion leaders were selected: 19 solicit topics and speakers/discussion leaders from the roundtable membership either verbally or in written form sometime during the roundtable meeting 4 solicit topics and speakers/discussion leaders from the general MLA membership via MLA-L 19 ask persons you know with experience in areas related to the topic of the roundtable to speak or lead a discussion 9 a combination of the above three methods 8 other (please describe) Do you consult with related MLA committees, subcommittees, or working groups to see if any of them will be covering similar ground in their meetings or projects? 8 yes 22 no 1 might in the future 2 consulted with another roundtable Do related MLA committees, subcommittees, or working groups contact you when they propose topics or projects that your roundtable may also be covering? 5 yes 24 no 1 not yet Has your roundtable ever collaborated with any MLA committee, subcommmittee, working group, or other roundtable on a meeting session? 8 yes 19 no 2 don't think so 2 plan to Has any topic your roundtable covered grown into a MLA committee, subcommittee, working group, or even plenary session topic? 7 yes 15 no 3 might in the future/not yet 4 not sure Has any topic your roundtable covered grown out of a topic or project you felt was not covered adequately in either an MLA committee, subcommittee, working group, or plenary session? 14 yes 15 no 1 don't know Have you ever used an idea that has been covered at the chapter level that you felt was important enough to include in a roundtable meeting? 5 yes 26 no Has it been easier or more difficult each year to come up with topics for your roundtable meetings? 11 easier 6 more difficult 6 same 2 can't tell yet 2 other How much duplication would you say occurs between your roundtable and any MLA committee, subcommittee, or working group? 10 none 2 some 4 not much 1 some overlap but not duplication 1 40% Has your roundtable ever issued a publication, such as a membership list or guidelines concerning the subject of the roundtable? 4 yes 21 no 1 not yet 1 don't know Has your roundtable undertaken any special projects? 9 yes 17 no 2 not yet Have you needed MLA funding for any of the roundtable meetings, projects, or publications? 5 yes 21 no 3 not sure Do you publicize the meeting of your roundtable with time of meeting, topics, and/or speakers in any way? 25 yes 1 no 1 not sure 1 not yet With the proliferation of MLA roundtables, there has been an accompanying congestion of programming at MLA meetings. Several alternatives have been suggested to alleviate this. Which of the following do you think will help? 1. 17 establish set days and times for roundtable meetings on which they will meet each year 2. 15 limit the length of roundtable meetings from 2 hours to one and a half hours 3. 10 limit the length of roundtable meetings from 2 hours to one hour 4. 5 alternate meetings of the roundtables to every other MLA meeting 5. 0 have a summer MLA meeting during which roundtables along with committees, subcommittees, and working groups will have their working and/or business meetings 6. 7 make the guidelines for creation of roundtables more strict to slow the increase in number of roundtables and resulting programming time 7. 21 "retire" roundtables as their usefulness and need diminish 8. 4 other (please describe) COMMENTS: o It seems to me that roundtables are of more use and interest to general members of MLA than some working groups, etc. which are off-putting and exclusive. In other organizations I belong to member of task forces, working groups, etc. come early or stay late in order to meet. Such procedures at MLA would decongest the program without affecting everyone. o Not to mention working groups, resurrected &/or active committees, etc. Don't blame it all on the RT's! No to 4, NO!!! to 5. o For many people, RT activities are the main attraction of the national meeting. I wouldn't like to see anything done to diminish their importance or restrict their creation. o Organists usually do not want meeting scheduled into Saturdays, Sunday mornings or holy days (Ash Wednesday, Holy Week, etc.). 1 1/2 hours was adequate meeting time provided it was not scheduled with conservatories, small academic libraries, etc. o 1, 2, or 3 [all three were tallied]; NO! to 6: this defeats the purpose of a R.T. o Get used to overlap like real professional societies. o Don't know if adding summer MLA will help. I think we all are bombarded with meetings and it is becoming so expensive to attend. o I feel very strongly about #1 -it's a very good idea. o No. 2-3: Time limits make sense if there is an escape clause for groups that really need more time; No. 4.: Good idea; No. 5 [Summer meetings] would not make sense for my RT, which is more informational than working/business; No. 6.: I don't know what the guidelines are now; there is nothing in the by-laws; No. 7 "Usefulness and need" is an entirely different question from "congestion of programming" and should be considered separately. It should be apparent to the coordinator and roundtable members when no worthwhile topics or subjects are forthcoming. o Could some roundtables have joint sessions? o This should be happening anyway because you have to petition to keep going! o Roundtables should be rethought as essentially ad hoc groups for the duration of the MLA conference. A "core group" of six persons should indicate their intention to be present, select one of them as "coordinator" for the occasion, and draw up whatever program is needed. Several such groups could meet simultaneously in a larger conference room. o I think that part of the congestion could be relieved by suggestion that small roundtables with discussion only meet over a meal instead of in a meeting room. o No to options 3, 4, and 5 of this question. Limiting the length of the meeting from 2 hours to one and a half hours is possible, but prefer flexibility of 1, 1 1/2, or 2 hours. o Extend the overall length of annual meeting to better accommodate all the diverse programming needs. Might be able to concentrate business sessions at one end of other, so members not involved in those could attend for one day less if they chose. How should the decision to "retire" a roundtable be made? o Loss of interest, activity. o Vote by the roundtable's membership, at the request of the MLA President. o Attendance, relevance of topic. o RTs that do not meet any year should be reviewed automatically by the Board. One Board member should have responsibility of oversight. o Not necessarily a good idea. o I thought roundtables "retired" automatically every three years unless interest is expressed in keeping them. o Reevaluation after every four years should include reexamination of some sort (even a form questionnaire like this one?) and along the likes of the above suggested stricter guidelines for creating roundtables. o Perhaps decrease the renewal cycle to 3 years rather than 4. The mechanism for retiring a roundtable already exists by default. If there is insufficient interest to continue the group, it will not get the requisite number of letters of support. The roundtable structure should be kept flexible and informal to meet needs that aren't (and needn't) be met elsewhere in MLA. If even the minimum no. of people want to continue with a roundtable, that option should be there. o I'd prefer such decision NOT to be made by people who have NOT attended the meetings of the RT in question. Rather than requiring certain RT activity (or attendance) as a sign of viable life, perhaps coordinating and disseminating the charter of each committee, subcomm., WG. & RT to all chairs of such groups in an easily read and digested format would help keeps groups in context & perhaps would encourage groups with similar aims to work together. Especially at renewal time, sending the renewing RT (etc.) a list of other groups working on similar projects & in similar areas & requesting a justification/explanation of how the RT is different might encourage people to work together. Ditto on the formation of RTs. Also, the RT structure is linear ... perhaps there can be "sub-RTs" which could take part of a RT meeting rather than the whole slot. Also, I'm not sure that it makes sense to look at the "problem" of RTs in isolation from the rest of MLA- do we really need all those BCC subcommittees? And open/closed meetings for all committees? (Just and example, of course). o If fewer than 8 people attend 2-3 years in a row. o Ask members if they wish to continue. o Current system is fine; our group discussed the need to continue and letter writers for support letters were solicited. o Coordinators should be honest enough to recommend disbanding meetings of a subject that has lost supporters. o By a vote of those attending meetings. o When attendance drops off. o I think real honesty and soul-searching is necessary between the Board and the roundtables concerning their place in the structure, but I think, from my experience, that a roundtable can judge its own internal health to some extent. In my day, I had wonderfully enthusiastic support and a real feeling of communal interest. If that interest can be kept alive and the RT can keep a individual identity in the complex of MLA, then I think it deserves to survive. Roundtables can offer avenues for involvement that might not otherwise be open. I consider my time with [the] RT to have been the most wonderful of my professional life. o The decision should be made by the members of the RT. One measure would be attendance; another would be ease of selecting topics and finding speakers; another would be timeliness of the RT's subject area. No one aspect should be used in the decision to retire a RT. o Find similar groups and merge if possible. o "Retire" all of them! For larger groups (such as Tech Services) redesignate them as an "interest group" or "form" and give then a more lasting status. o Decision of MLA President in dialogue with coordinator. o A roundtable should be retired after 2 years with attendance below the level required to establish or renew a roundtable. o That's a tough one. If attendance falls below a certain number (10? 15?) for 3 consecutive years, then perhaps programming space is no longer justified. Current coordinators and core members could also agree that roundtable should be dissolved. Summary: Generally, a coordinator is in that position for two to four years, but only a quarter of those who replaced previous coordinator were appointed by the MLA president. Four were elected by members of the roundtable, which seems to be a very democratic way of selecting a coordinator. About half stepped in as coordinator after being asked by the previous coordinator. By far the most popular format of meeting is a panel of speakers with time for discussion following each speaker. [Note: the MLA members surveyed found this to be the most effective format of those meetings they attended.] Attendance ranged from a low of 7 or 8 to a high of ca. 100. Several comments mentioned having low points when the roundtables were scheduled against each other or against other meetings. The general trend is an increase or a plateau in attendance. The attendance has been determined for the most part by having attendees sign up at the meeting. This is not a 100% accurate means, since not all people sign the sheet and because people move in and out of RT meetings. Selecting topics and finding speakers is done mostly through asking for volunteers at the meetings, asking the general membership via MLA-L, or asking persons known by the coordinator to have interest or experience in the topic or subject. Most coordinators find it easier to come up with topics for the meetings, although some in extremely specialized subject areas (Band music, Conservatories, Organ music, Contemporary Music Subject Access, Video) are finding it more difficult or expect to find it increasingly difficult. At least one coordinator commented on the difficulty of getting the members to get involved, however. For the most part, there is little interaction between the roundtables and the various committees, subcommittees, and working groups of MLA. When there is, however, it usually results in interesting and valuable programs, such as the World Music and Music Printing and Publishing plenary sessions. Most coordinators feel that there is little or no duplication between the RTs and other groups. However, one commented that we should "get used to overlap like real professional societies." As far as funding goes, the RTs are relatively cheap. Only five coordinators mentioned the cost of renting the hotel meeting room and any equipment needed, but for the most part, RTs do not seem to need much funding. It is probable that the costs associated with mailings, publicity, or soliciting topics are absorbed by the coordinator's institution or come out of pocket. The question of alleviating program congestion yielded somewhat of a consensus. There were high responses to the options of establishing set days and times for roundtable meetings on which they will meet each year, limiting the length of roundtable meetings to one and a half hours, and "retiring" roundtables as their usefulness and need diminish. [It should be noted that all coordinators, current and most recent past, felt that their roundtables continue to be useful and needed.] (These first two options also received heavy support in Stephen Fry's questionnaire on MLA-L.) One respondent urged us to consider the congestion caused by all the groups meeting at the conference, not just the roundtables. (In fact, this was a response to Stephen's survey: "There are too many RTs and committees [emphasis mine] and the Board should curtail them.") No one selected having a summer meeting for roundtables and working/business meetings of the committees, etc. The coordinators were almost unanimous in believing that the decision to retire a roundtable should rest with the coordinator and/or members. The aspects they felt should be considered when making the decision included attendance, regularity of meetings, activity, members' wishes, and relevance of subject. All the coordinators reported positive feedback. One did report negative feedback as well, but it was indicated that this was a known risk with a controversial speaker. Since there is no means of accurately measuring feedback or evaluating effectiveness, the responses to this question cannot be considered as objective truth. The questionnaire was sent to all current and all most recent past coordinators in August, with a stamped, addressed return envelope and a request to return it by September 1, 1993. Five current coordinators did not return them, and they were sent the questionnaire again in April 1994, again with a stamped, addressed return envelope, with a deadline of May 1. Still, two coordinators did not respond. One was received after the deadline and the responses are included in this revision of the final report. Of special concern is the remaining coordinator, who has been outspoken in the view that this Committee and the Board is conspiring against the roundtables. Submitted by Michelle Koth __________________________________________________________________________ Results of the questionnaire of other library organizations Since the response from other organizations was disappointingly low, and since it varies significantly between the two organizations, this report will be a hybrid of tally and narrative. Despite repeated phone calls, etc., this report is completed from only two completed questionnaires--the Medical Library Association and the American Theological Libraries Association. 1. Organizations structure: Both groups have a national board, which does most of the appointing, etc. within the organization. ATLA's board is quite "powerful" from the perspective that they do not have a structure of committee, etc, below them. MLA has a structure that is very similar to ours, with "sections" serving as their equivalent to our roundtables. (They also have committees, panels, task forces, chapters, etc.) 2. Meetings: Both groups meet once a year. 3. Plenary Sessions: Both groups have regular plenary sessions at their annual meetings and schedule nothing against them. ATLA has two for business with others as necessary; MLA has only one. 4. Committees: ATLA does not have committees, but has "interest groups," which vary in focus from year to year. The number of interest groups does not exceed ten. All meetings are open, and their role is usually task-related. (They are appointed.) MLA has an elaborate structure of committees that is somewhat similar to ours. Membership is appointed, open and closed meetings are presented each year, and any subcommittees are established by the "Committee on Committees." The purpose and focus of committees vary greatly. 5. Roundtable equivalents: ATLA's interest groups appear to be a hybrid of our committees and roundtables. They are appointed by the board, but their charge may vary from year to year. MLA's sections are very close to our roundtables; they are based on special interests, and the organization currently has twenty-two. One morning (8:30-12:30) of the annual meeting is usually devoted to section meetings. Section meetings begin with a two- hour (!) business meeting followed by a program "designed by the Section Program Committee. It can be invited speakers (outside or in), panel discussions, or contributed papers. Each section decide[s] the format. These sections are essential to the organization because they allow members to congregate based on special interests." There is no membership limit, and sections are established if: 1) their purpose is consistent with the by-laws; 2) their needs cannot be met by an existing section; and 3) the requirements of the by-laws are fulfilled. 6. Financial support: Members can apply to the ATLA board for financial support; all outside speakers are funded on an equal basis. MLA sections receive no financial support and must find their own (from vendors, etc.) for programs at the annual meeting. 7. Program budget: The registration fee covers the program budget for both organizations. 8. Scheduling: The conference committee plans the schedule for both organizations. In order to be included on MLA's printed program, sections must go through the program committee. At MLA, "informal meetings do happen, though." Concurrent sessions are programed for both organizations, with all of MLA's sections meeting concurrently during one morning of the annual conference. MLA sections meet for four hours, and MLA committees meet for two to six hours. ATLA groups usually meet for about one hour. Summary: While the problems the Music Library Association faces may seem unique, they are quite closely mirrored by the Medical Library Association's structure. Medical Library Association sections appear to fill the same role as roundtables in "our" MLA--they are subject oriented and play a vital role in the life of the organization. With twenty-two sections, the "other MLA" has an almost identical number of sections as we do roundtables. They also have a full committee structure that is similar to ours. Their solution of having all sections meet at one time during the conference does not allow their members to belong to more than one section. This is an important difference, since it is obvious that Music Library Association members enjoy being able to attend more than one roundtable meeting. Their sections are also more "business" oriented, with two hours of the four- hour meeting devoted to business. This is somewhat antithetical to the philosophy of roundtables in the Music Library Association. I also spoke with a representative of ARLIS, who, disappointingly, did not follow up with a written response to our questionnaire (as she promised.) Their organization is also similar to ours, with a scheduling philosophy that is consistent with the Medical Library Association. They also fund sessions on an equal basis; e.g. each session for any given conference may be $150 and must stick with that limit, whether they need the funds or not. In short, although it is good to know that other organizations have similar groups to our roundtables and struggle with the same scheduling conflict we do, they have not yet (in my estimation) come up with a "magic answer" that would help solve our complex needs. Submitted by Beth Christensen __________________________________________________________________________ Notes from the Open Forum for the Ad Hoc Committee to Study Roundtable, Friday, March 4, 1:30-3:30 PM Present: Michelle Koth, Michael Colby, Beth Christensen, Stephen Wright, Christine Hoffman, Dan Cherubin, Matthew Wise, Ian Fairclough, Laura Snyder, Cindy Richardson, Jane Gottlieb, Carl Rahkonen, Bonna Boettcher, Anna Sylvester, David Hunter, Ned Quist. APPOINTMENT OF COORDINATORS: The meeting began with a discussion of the appointment of roundtable coordinators. The group seemed to feel that the procedure of soliciting roundtable recommendations, which would then be approved by the MLA president and MLA Board, was fine. The appointment of the next roundtable coordinator needs more structure. (JG) The selection process of roundtable coordinators should be kept informal. Ian mentioned that, although Fritz Dolak is still "coordinator of record" for the Video Roundtable, he has turned everything over to Ian. He was under the impression that Michael Ochs "wanted to hear from the membership" about coordinators. In regards to roundtables electing their coordinator, Steve W. expressed his confusion about roundtables that vote and have lists of membership. He did not believe roundtables should engage in Parliamentary activity; therefore people aren't members, and elections cannot be held. He stressed the need for a more detailed description of "just what a roundtable is." Christine H. clarified the difference between committees and roundtables. Committees are appointed by the Board and are "top down," whereas roundtables originate with the membership and are "bottom up." She feels that this is a good difference, one that provides important give and take within the organization. JG pointed out that committees do the work of the organization, while roundtables are more subject oriented. MK pointed out that some of the roundtables deal with issues outside of music librarianship or MLA, and asked if roundtables should be limited to those areas. The group decided that since we are about music, it is important to have music as the topics of roundtables as well as library-oriented issues. Other comments, with initials of those contributing the comment: Roundtable are good for new members (DC) FORMAT OF MEETINGS: The "hard fact" that roundtable must "compete for attendance" makes their presentations more formal. (MW) If roundtables want to publish, do programs, etc., they should be something other than roundtables. (SW) NQ stressed that programs need to be considered roundtable "projects" because they take resources -- larger rooms, A-V equipment, etc. Formal roundtable programs don't leave time for important informal discussion. (DC) Speakers are often the only way to avoid dominated discussions. (MW) Most organizations review papers to be presented. Roundtables are our "bread and butter." They are the only way to become involved in MLA. (CR) WE has done calls for papers. The program booklet should specify "Discussion on ... " or "Open discussion" when there is no formal program. (IF) The present structure allows roundtable to be more timely-- and it also allows some to be self-serving. (MW) Roundtables are not regularly evaluated. (MK) AMOUNT OF TIME SCHEDULED: SW agrees that there isn't enough time for informal discussion. He sees roundtables as a chance for everyone to participate. Perhaps roundtables should have two hours every other year, alternating with one-hour time slots. Roundtables should all have informal time near the end of their meetings. (IF) JG suggested that there could be a consensus among coordinators that roundtables have a maximum of one to two speakers with time for informal discussion. The group agreed that 1 1/2 hours is plenty of time for roundtable sessions. NUMBER OF ROUNDTABLES: There should be a maximum number of roundtables. (JG) A maximum number of roundtables is a good idea. Several roundtables could easily be merged. (MW) IF does NOT like the ideas of a maximum number of roundtables. He suggested one large room at the conference with chairs set up in different circles for discussions (Not a great response to that idea) SW agrees that we should not limit the number of roundtables, but he is also very concerned about the escalating cost of MLA meetings. IF believes twenty roundtables is NOT too many APPROVAL PROCESS: The group agreed that more than three letters of support to establish or renew a roundtable was reasonable. Everyone felt comfortable with six letters. Should there be more evaluation when groups are re-appointed? (SW) MLA HANDBOOK AND MLA BOARD INVOLVEMENT IN ROUNDTABLES: Information in the MLA handbook has not been distributed to roundtable coordinators. (SW) IF stressed repeatedly that coordinators have not been getting the MLA handbook. The group agreed that some (probably someone from the MLA board) should be assigned to coordinate roundtables, perhaps by having a meeting at the annual conference that would be modeled after the chapter officers' breakfast. One officer should be responsible for communicating with all roundtable coordinators. Should coordinators take more responsibility for the overall program (JG)? This coordination thing may happen naturally at an annual coordinators' meeting. Topics of discussion for the next program could be presented. (BC) Coordinators need to take more responsibility! (JG) Could coordinators compare notes about upcoming sessions halfway through the year? (IF) The group once again generally agreed that someone on the board needs to coordinate the roundtable coordinators. Also, programs should be ready ahead of time. ATTENDANCE: No minimum attendance should be required. (CR) There should be a minimum attendance over a number of years in order to qualify for a room at the conference. (MW)