Dream Big or Comments on "A "Modest Proposal on Programming at AALL" and the Report of the AALL Annual Meeting Review Special Committee

I read with great interest the recent blog post "A "Modest Proposal" on Programming at AALL". In that post Mark Gediman suggested that the PLL Summit be folded into the Annual Meeting.  I agree that would be good.  However, that was tried this year. The organizers of the Summit proposed it as an AALL Workshop.  It was turned down by the Annual Meeting Program Committee.  So it was organized as an independent preconference event.  Despite the two extra hotel days, the additional time off from work and the $195 cost I, and almost 100 other PLL members, have chosen to attend the Summit.  How many more would have attended if the Annual Meeting Program Committee would have made it a part of the conference?  By the way, there is still time to sign up by contacting the PLL President, Kate Martin.

The PLL Special Interest Section ("PLL SIS") has 1445 members.  We are the largest SIS.  Yet many of our programs are rejected as official AALL programs and we are forced to schedule them as SIS programs in competition with other events and programs.

In the April 2010 AALL Spectrum, in a column entitled "A New Look at the AALL Annual Meeting", Catherine Lemann, President of AALL stated "I've asked the AMRSC to dream big and come up with ideas for ways to transform the meeting."  Ms. Lemann also stated "We strive to provide educational programming that is relevant to particular audiences and programming that has universal appeal."

So did the Annual Meeting Review Special Committee ("AMRSC") dream big? NO!

Here is some of what they proposed regarding programming:

1. Annual Meeting Program Committee (AMPC) should remain as is with current charge and selection process.

2. Special interest sections should continue ranking their programs.

3. They endorsed the concept of identifying programs by "tracks" which should encompass the competencies of law librarianship.

4. Continue to allow and encourage un-conferences.

5. Make known existing options available re Special Interest Section programming including, but not limited to, the possibility of ticketed programs to help defray costs.

In other words, nothing is changing and if you want relevant and out of the box programming you have to go outside the AALL Conference to get it and/or you may have to pay extra for it.

I do like Mark Gediman's suggestion of a series of program tracks for each SIS with an extra track for cross-disciplinary programs.  However, I am concerned that will lead to isolation from the other Special Interest Sections.  I, for one, think we need more collaboration, not less.  But if the joint programs were not scheduled against other programs it could work.  I also reiterate my call to expand our focus to the world around us and not limit our programming to traditional skills.  We really do need to dream big.

Caren Biberman