Download PDF version of this summary/report (185 KB).
Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader.
The educational policy of the Association seeks to provide members high quality educational programs that apply specifically to their job functions and generally to the issues that cross all job functions and library types so that they remain current in the profession of law librarianship. The annual meeting is one venue for those high quality educational programs.
On average, for each annual meeting there are 120 program proposals for 60 program time slots. About 70% of these proposals come from the SISs, through their Education/Program Committees. The remaining 30% come from: (1) AALL committees, (2) individual AALL members, and (3) AALL chapters. In addition, four programs are routinely scheduled: Legislative Update, Hot Topic, Call for Papers and a CRIV session.
With constraints on time and budgets, not every quality proposal can be accepted. Thus, some tension between the AMPC and the various Association constituencies, particularly the SISs, inevitably arises because of their different goals. Namely, AMPC, while recognizing the SISs' particular expertise in identifying and developing programming responsive to their member needs, seeks to provide a balance of programs and learning opportunities for all members. The SISs seek to provide programming that meets the specific needs of their members.
The annual meeting is also the time when the face-to-face work of committees, SISs, task forces etc. gets done. Few members are assigned to more than one committee. However, the leadership in the SISs often plays several roles in their primary and secondary SIS. In Orlando, there are over 140 of these meetings – mostly with fewer than 30 attendees. The limitations of time mean that most of these meetings are scheduled in either early morning or late afternoon time slots.
The percentage of members attending the meeting has remained relatively constant for the last 10 years, ranging from 24% to 31%. Their employer pays about 90% of attendees' registration. The proportion of attendees by employer type has also remained relatively constant: law schools 49.5%, law firms 29%, government 8.7%, courts 5.9.
Of the 5,103 members, 3,731 belong to at least one SIS. Over 1,000 belong to two SISs. While 1,444, or 27.9% do not belong to any SIS, over 90% of annual meeting attendees belong to an SIS and over 67% attend the SIS business meetings.
The three largest SISs are PLL with 1,542, ALL with 894 and Technical Services SIS with 652. The three largest types of employers are: law firms with 1,895, law schools with 1,707 and courts with 347.
The committee believes that these recommendations ensure the continued success of the annual meeting. They balance professional development opportunities with time in the exhibit hall and with opportunities for the Association to do the face-to-face business of committees and SISs. The committee makes four major recommendations (for detail on these and the rest of the recommendations, see the recommendations section of the report.)
That SISs and committees be allowed to schedule small meetings, roundtables, discussion groups, and educational opportunities any time from Saturday 7 AM through Wednesday 5 PM except during the following times: exhibit hall – one hour per day; the two business meetings; the member open forum, keynote or plenary sessions.
Add job function to the appointment guidelines. Modify the charge to refer to Association educational policies and the needs of the members.
To the extent possible, programs selected should proportionately represent the memberships of the SISs.
That the PDC develop a guideline or rubric for evaluating program proposals.
Permit SISs and committees to schedule small meetings, roundtables and educational opportunities any time from Saturday 7 AM through Wednesday 5 PM except during no-conflict times: (1) exhibit hall – one hour per day, (2) the two business meetings; (3) the member open forum, (4) keynote or plenary sessions. These activities, subject to: (a) space availability and (2) the approval of the AMPC chair, may be scheduled during the same timeslots as AMPC-Selected educational programs. (AALL Bylaws Article X, Sec 7)
To the extent possible, create an SIS room for the week with seating capacity generally no larger than 40. The rooms for these activities cannot change set up or arrangement, e.g. the room is set theater style and it remains that way for the duration of the meeting.
Any expenses for these activities (such as speaker expenses or audio/video costs) will be borne by the SIS or committee. Any Fund-raising limitations and coordination governed by existing guidelines, http://www.aallnet.org/sis/sponsorships.asp
Utilize tables in the Exhibit Hall as venues for continuing discussions, small meetings. These areas could be reserved in advance or used as space available – a sort of bar in the exhibit hall.
For many years the Association has permitted certain kinds of conflicts with education programs. Educational programs conflict with other educational programs. The exhibit hall is open during educational programs and Association business meetings.
Now, members gather informally to discuss issues important to them and their SIS throughout the week. They find places in hallways and lobbies to meet and get frustrated that they can't use an empty room, can't get on the annual meeting schedule except early in the morning and late in the afternoon. This recommendation gives these meetings a place on the annual meeting schedule so SIS members can gather to do the work of the SIS or its sub-units.
The recommendation creates greater flexibility in scheduling by permitting the scheduling of meetings between 7 AM Saturday and Wednesday at 5 PM except for no-conflict times. It addresses concerns raised by the SIS Council in 2001 that there are too few meeting time slots. Respondents to the AMEPC survey echoed those complaints; they wanted more possible time slots to hold discussion group meetings. See Appendix One. It also addresses complaints voiced by members in the AMEPC survey noted that 7 o'clock meetings are too early. For example, a 7 o'clock meeting in Orlando is 4 o'clock Pacific time. In addition, many of the complaints from SISs regarding scheduling revolve around the desire of sub-units of the SIS to hold discussion group meetings throughout the week or after a program they sponsored/proposed/coordinated.
The recommendation expands the times available for members to do the business of their individual SISs, engage in smaller learning opportunities while maintaining the 'no-conflict' time in the exhibit hall to encourage members to visit the vendors. By not scheduling SIS meetings against keynote speeches or plenary sessions, Association business meetings or open forum the recommendation seeks to emphasize the importance of the collective community of law librarians.
With the combination of convention centers and hotels the annual meeting has an adequate supply of spaces for meetings of 15 to 20 people provided the rooms are used throughout the week and not just during of early mornings. While adequate, the supply is is always limited by both the venue and the annual meeting budget.
As long as the room remains in its original setup there is no expense to the SIS. The only expenses they might incur would be if they invited an outside speaker or wanted to use audio/video equipment.
The continuing use of rooms throughout the week and the discussion area in the exhibit hall permit impromptu gathering to discuss a issue raised during an educational program. It could also enable discussion of different hot topics for different SISs.
Asking the SIS Council to create a meeting matrix for their business meetings, committee meetings, discussion groups, educational programs, etc. engages the SIS leadership in identifying and sorting out potential conflicts in meetings. This will in turn, facilitate identifying potential scheduling conflicts between AMPC education programs, SIS meetings and committee/other entity meetings. Generally, when a conflict is identified the SIS meeting should be rescheduled instead of the AMPC education program.
Sometimes there will be irresolvable scheduling conflicts. About one third of all AALL members do not belong to an SIS, so this does not create any more conflicts for them.
There are 25 to 30 Association standing, special or advisory committees or task forces. Each has a membership of about 7 for a total membership of less than 250. The 13 SISs have over 800 sub-units. The recommendation expands the time available for staff to schedule the meetings, thus potentially reducing conflicts, of both Association wide groups and SIS sub-units.
In Orlando, there are 47 Association committee meetings, 107 SIS meetings. Of those 154 meetings 10 have expected attendance of 50 to 99, 15 expect more than 100 attendees.
The additional time slots and increased number of smaller rooms might encourage the use of other learning opportunities, e.g. an evening cocktail educational program or a teatime roundtable discussion meeting. Either of those expand the practice of many librarians getting together to network and learn. They could combine a formal presentation followed by discussion groups.
Headquarters staff now schedules committee meetings and would continue to do so under this recommendation.
This recommendation applies only to scheduling small meetings, not selecting programs. It does not authorize business meetings for an entire SIS during an AMPC scheduled education program. As proposed, the SIS Council co-ordinates scheduling SIS meetings, headquarters staff attempts to accommodate requests for committee meetings and meetings of other Association entities. The AMPC chair has final approval (Bylaws Article X, Sec. 7.)
This recommendation seeks to describe the outcome: that some small meetings, discussion groups, roundtables, etc. can be scheduled during education programs. The recommendation seeks to describe some guidelines that give clear direction while balancing all competing interests without becoming cumbersome and inflexible.
Using all hours of the day, except the no-conflicts times expands the number of meeting slots by at least 90 – 3 meetings during each of the 30 educational program slots which should reduce pressure to schedule place holder meetings.
While the additional meeting times could be scheduled for the 2003 meeting, the SIS Council would be unable during its 2002 meeting to review and schedule these new meeting slots. However, it could work remotely through September to slot possible meeting times.
A possible chronology could be: The SIS Council starts work with the overall schedule of the annual meeting that includes time slots, plenary sessions, Association business meetings, type of library SIS business meetings, etc. Next, they collect requested time slots from the SISs and the SIS sub-units and slot those into the matrix before AMPC schedules the preliminary education program. Headquarters staff seeks to accommodate the requests – limited by available space and the guideline of no more than 3 meetings per educational program slot. The AMPC chair approves the final schedule of SIS meetings.
To avoid conflicts of competing SIS meetings, an additional membership statistical report would facilitate scheduling the small meetings, etc. Namely, a report that how many of each SIS belong to other SISs, broken down by specific SIS.
Fully implementing this recommendation will take time. A three-year commitment to the schedule should sufficient time identify and sort through the details.
Amend the charge and size of the committee to refer to the Professional Development Policy and the needs of the members and to include job function.
Proposed charge, size and appointment guidelines:
New text is in ALL CAPS. Deleted text is strikethrough.
Charge, and Size AND APPOINTMENT GUIDELINES
The committee shall select programs THAT ADDRESS THE ASSOCIATION EDUCATIONAL POLICIES ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF MEMBERS that are consistent with the theme selected by the Vice-President and Director of Programs that AND takes into consideration recommendations of the Professional Development Committee. The Annual Meeting Program Committee shall oversee implementation of selected programs through the Annual Meeting; set the guidelines for program selection and programs; will schedule the committee's Annual Meeting and will meet with the Vice-President and Director of Programs for orientation at the Annual Meeting prior to the selection of programs at the Committee's fall meeting. The Committee will meet prior to the Annual Meeting they are planning to review proposals and select Annual Meeting programs.
Size AND APPOINTMENT GUIDELINES: The Committee will consist of a Chair and six members. The members will be appointed by the newly elected Vice-President for his/her Annual Meeting, serving through the conclusion of that meeting. TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE THE APPOINTMENTS TO THE COMMITTEE WILL SEEK A BALANCE OF GEOGRAPHY, LIBRARY TYPE, AND JOB FUNCTION, REFERENCE, ACQUISITIONS, ETC. A non-voting Executive Board liaison will be appointed who will be the same person appointed as liaison to the Professional Development Committee and will attend the Committee's meetings. The staff liaison will be the Director of Programs.
Over the course of the last 8 years the AMPC program selection has increasingly focused on educational needs over marketing themes. The adoption of the Competencies of Law Librarianship gives the AMPC a formal, comprehensive educational framework to measure program proposals against. This recommendation aligns the charge with the current and future educational policies of Association. (In 2002, there are three educational policies: Professional Development, the Competencies of Law Librarianship and Guidelines for Graduate Programs.) The theme of the annual meeting is more a marketing or promotional tool than a factor in choosing a continuing education program. The vice-president has ample opportunity to shape the annual meeting through the selection of keynote speaker and plenary session(s) and the AMPC committee appointments.
It formalizes the practice of seeking balance on the committee by library type and geography.
Continue the practice of allocating about two-thirds of all programs to those proposed by the SIS Education/Program Committees.
To the extent possible, programs selected from SIS Education/Program committee proposals should proportionately represent the memberships of the SISs.
Allocating about two-thirds of the programs to the SIS Education committees acknowledges the educational expertise of the SISs in meeting the educational needs of their members. It also meets the interest of the Association in providing high quality programming that reaches a broad spectrum of the AALL membership.
Program proposals come from (1) the SISs, through their education/program committees, (2) AALL committees, (3) individual AALL members and (4) chapters. Sometimes several proposals cover the same topic and same target audience. AMPC chooses the "best" proposal balancing many factors: quality of program proposals, the likelihood of quality program execution, the cost and benefit of the program proposal.
One possible way to calculate the proportion of programs might be one program per 200 SIS members. By using membership rather than attendance at the annual meting we keep focusing on the present or the future rather than the past. In this way, the Association can more effectively attract more attendees. (See Appendix Two - Tables One through Sixteen for attendance, membership, proposals and programs data)
Recommend that Professional Development Committee develop these guidelines address:
Preparing guidelines in the form of a rubric should further the improvement of program proposals and increase the consistency of proposal evaluation. Each AMPC may require some training in applying the rubric to assure consistency between the members. The PDC may wish to recommend that the Director of Programs prepare these training materials.
The more detailed rating should also help the proposal author understand what worked and what didn't work.
See Appendix Three for a sample created by the Director of Programs.
Respectfully submitted for the Committee
Mark E. Estes, Chair
June 26, 2002
The Annual Meeting Educational Program Committee
Note: The appendixes 1 (part 2) through 14 are in PDF format and require Adobe Acrobat Reader to view.