URGENT LSTA ALERT: REPOSTING NEEDED IMMEDIATELY -Forwarded

["Karen A. Hatcher" <hatcher@selway.umt.edu>]

>The following is a message from Carol Henderson, Exec. Director of
>the ALA Washington Office (cch@alawash.org):
>==================================================================
>
>URGENT ALERT: REPOSTING TO APPROPRIATE LISTSERVS NEEDED
>IMMEDIATELY
>
>The ALA Executive Board and Committee on Legislation have
>recommended that the COL Chair prepare an alert about the draft
>guidelines for the LSTA National Leadership Grants or Contracts
>program.  
>
>The intent is that this alert be reposted on appropriate
>electronic lists to bring concerns about this draft to the
>attention of more parts of the library community, and to urge a
>large number of comments during the public comment period (ending
>August 18).  
>
>Please repost the memorandum below on appropriate electronic lists
>available to you.  Thanks!
>
>==================================================================
>
>MEMORANDUM
>
>TO:       Appropriate listservs
>FROM:     Patricia A. Wand, Chair, ALA Committee on Legislation
>DATE:     July 14, 1997
>SUBJECT:  Comments needed by August 18 on draft guidelines
>          for LSTA National Leadership Program;
>          Please repost this memo as appropriate
>
>On June 17, the Institute of Museum and Library
>Services announced the availability for public comment
>by August 18 of draft guidelines for the National
>Leadership Grants or Contracts program under the Museum
>and Library Services Act.  This program is found in
>Section 262 of the Library Services and Technology Act. 
>LSTA is Subtitle B of the Museum and Library Services
>Act; other subtitles include general provisions and
>museum grant programs.  
>
>LSTA includes a mandated setaside of 4 percent of
>appropriations designated for national leadership
>purposes:
>
>     1. education and training of persons in library
>     and information science, particularly in areas of
>     new technology and other critical needs, including
>     graduate fellowships, traineeships, institutes, or
>     other programs;
>
>     2. research and demonstration projects related to
>     the improvement of libraries, education in library
>     and information science, enhancement of library
>     services through effective and efficient use of
>     new technologies, and dissemination of information
>     derived from such projects;
>
>     3. preservation or digitization of library
>     materials and resources, giving priority to
>     projects emphasizing coordination, avoidance of
>     duplication, and access by researchers beyond the
>     institution or library entity undertaking the
>     project; and
>
>     4. model programs demonstrating cooperative
>     efforts between libraries and museums.
>
>Several groups within the American Library Association
>discussed the draft guidelines at the recent ALA Annual
>Conference in San Francisco.  The ALA Executive Board,
>the Committee on Legislation, the Committee on Research
>and Statistics, ASCLA, and other units expressed
>serious concern with certain aspects of the draft
>guidelines.  Both the Executive Board and the Committee
>on Legislation recommended that I alert other library
>constituencies, summarize the nature of the concerns,
>and urge library groups, individual libraries or
>library schools, and individual librarians and library
>supporters to examine the draft guidelines and file
>comments during the public comment period.
>
>WHERE TO FIND THE TEXT OF THE DRAFT GUIDELINES
>
>The full text of the draft guidelines is available on
>the IMLS web site at:
>     http://www.imls.fed.us/guidelines/natlead.pdf
>or by mail from the Institute of Museum and Library
>Services at:
>     IMLS, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20506. 
>
>MAJOR CONCERN IDENTIFIED BY ALA UNITS
>
>The draft guidelines, by describing National Leadership
>Grants or Contracts under the Museum and Library
>Services Act and providing for museum eligibility for
>all parts of the program, obscure the fact that this is
>a program clearly intended by Congress to provide a
>small amount (4%) of funding under the Library Services
>and Technology Act for national needs IN LIBRARIES AND
>IN THE LIBRARY FIELD.  For the museum community in
>particular, with no knowledge of the separate
>development and history of LSTA, the draft guidelines
>will set up unrealistic expectations of museum
>involvement in library programs, and lead to comments
>on the guidelines and eventually applications based on
>incorrect or at least incomplete information.
>
>MAJOR RECOMMENDATION FROM ALA UNITS
>
>The first three proposed priorities for FY 1998 should
>comply with the law's first three purposes and provide
>that applicants shall be only libraries or library
>entities (library agencies, library consortia, library
>schools).  The guidelines as drafted propose that
>museums and museum agencies would be eligible for all
>three library purposes in partnership with libraries. 
>Museum eligibility is clearly spelled out in the fourth
>purpose of joint library/museum projects.
>
>RATIONALE FOR MAJOR RECOMMENDATION
>
>The predecessor of this program was Title II of the
>Higher Education Act, which was repealed as LSTA was
>enacted.  The provisions of HEA II-B focused on library
>education and training and library research and
>demonstration.  HEA II-C focused on strengthening major
>research libraries through preservation and access
>projects.  IT IS CLEAR FROM READING THE PURPOSES IN THE
>LSTA STATUTE OF THE NATIONAL LEADERSHIP GRANTS OR
>CONTRACTS THAT THE FIRST THREE PURPOSES ARE INTENDED TO
>HAVE A LIBRARY FOCUS EXCLUSIVELY, IN LINE WITH THE
>PROVISIONS OF ITS HEA II ANTECEDENT.
>
>It is also clear that the fourth purpose, model
>programs of cooperation between libraries and museums,
>was intended to provide programmatic support for the
>new library/museum relationship forged in the Museum
>and Library Services Act, of which LSTA is a part. 
>Thus, only libraries (as defined in LSTA), library
>consortia (as defined in LSTA), library agencies, or
>graduate library education programs in institutions of
>higher education (in line with predecessor history)
>would be eligible for grants or contracts under the
>first three purposes, while museums would be eligible
>only under the fourth purpose.  This critical
>distinction between the first three purposes and the
>fourth purposes is lost in the draft guidelines.
>
>In the draft, museums are specifically included in the
>wording of priority number two (corresponding to the
>second purpose) and the application process is open to
>museums in partnership for all purposes.  Museums
>should be eligible only under the fourth purpose, and
>the priority in this first year should be less
>prescriptive and more open to allow for the wide
>diversity of joint projects that might be proposed,
>subject only to a preference for those with broad
>national impact.
>
>RECENT FUNDING HISTORY AND PROPOSED FUNDING
>
>HEA II current (FY 1997 funding):    7.5 million
>
>Expected FY 1998 funding for 
>LSTA National Leadership Grants 
>(assuming funding at President's 
>budget request)
>
>Total required by law from LSTA:    $5.5 million
>
>Total requested as addition to 
>museum grants:                      $1.0 million
>
>According to draft guidelines, this 
>would be broken down in FY 1998:
>
>Purposes 1-3        2/3 of LSTA funds:              $3.6 million
>Purpose  4          1/3 of LSTA funds:              $1.8 million
>Purpose  4          $1 million in new museum funds: $1.0 million
>
>SPECIFIC CONCERNS IDENTIFIED BY ALA UNITS
>
>Various ALA units identified the following concerns
>regarding the draft guidelines:
>
>   o Agencies (defined as "any state or local agency
>     officially charged by the governmental entity with
>     the extension and development of library OR
>     [emphasis added] museum services within a
>     governmental unit") are eligible applicants,
>     singly or in partnership with other eligible
>     applicants, for grants awarded under the first
>     three national leadership purposes.  This
>     definition of eligible applicants is not
>     appropriate.
>
>   o Museums are also eligible applicants for partner
>     grant awards in conjunction with a library under
>     the first three national leadership purposes. 
>     This is not appropriate.
>
>   o Museums are required partners for grants awarded
>     under the fourth national leadership purpose. 
>     This is appropriate, but should be the only place
>     where museums or museum agencies are eligible.
>
>   o Revising the draft guidelines to correct this
>     major problem--that is, to provide that library
>     entities (and not museums) are the eligible
>     applicants for purposes one through three--will
>     require considerable rewriting throughout the
>     document to reflect this change.
>
>   o Several ALA units expressed concern about the high
>     proportion of national leadership grant monies
>     (1/3) proposed to be devoted to cooperative
>     museum-library projects; no rationale is given nor
>     it is supported by LSTA.  They recommended that
>     the fourth purpose should receive no more than 1/4
>     of LSTA funding for National Leadership Grants. 
>     This would be $1,375,000 plus the $1 million
>     expected from museum appropriations for joint
>     projects in FY 1998, for a total of $2,375,000.
>
>   o The eligibility of higher education institutions
>     for these grants relates to the history of this
>     program in HEA title II.  The guidelines should
>     specify the inclusion of graduate programs of
>     library education at such institutions, as has
>     traditionally been the case.
>
>   o LSTA includes a definition of library consortium. 
>     Library entities meeting this definition should be
>     considered eligible for National Leadership Grants
>     or Contracts.
>
>   o Applications for the first three purposes should
>     be reviewed by members of the library community
>     alone.  Applications for the fourth purpose should
>     be reviewed by a combination of library and museum
>     representatives.
>
>ACTION NEEDED
>
>Please repost this memorandum on appropriate listservs
>available to you, such as listservs for ALA divisions,
>round tables, committees, library educators, or other
>groups.   And be sure to send comments before the
>August 18 deadline to Dr. Rebecca Danvers at IMLS.  
>
>The ALA Washington Office had earlier requested input
>to the ALA response by August 1 (to ALA WO at
>alawash@alawash.org or by fax at 202-628-8419).  But it
>is also critical that IMLS hear directly in public
>comments from many voices throughout the library
>community on the issues raised above and on any others
>that may be identified.   Your comments need not be
>lengthy, but it is important that you be heard.  Please
>send copies of your comments to the ALA Washington
>Office.
>
>This new version of the longstanding program to meet
>national needs in the library field has much potential
>for making a major contribution to the profession and
>to the development of library service that far exceeds
>the modest dollars involved. It is essential that this
>small library program get off to a good start in its
>new home, the Institute of Museum and Library Services. 
>IMLS has tremendous potential to promote and support
>library programs and is already doing so effectively in
>connection with the state-based program which receives
>more than 90 percent of LSTA funds. 
>==================================================================
>
>------------------- LSTA4%.TXT follows -------------------
>MEMORANDUM
>
>TO:       Appropriate listservs
>FROM:     Patricia A. Wand, Chair, ALA Committee on
>Legislation
>DATE:     July 14, 1997
>SUBJECT:  Comments needed by August 18 on draft
>guidelines for LSTA National Leadership Program;
>Please repost this memo as appropriate
>
>On June 17, the Institute of Museum and Library
>Services announced the availability for public comment
>by August 18 of draft guidelines for the National
>Leadership Grants or Contracts program under the Museum
>and Library Services Act.  This program is found in
>Section 262 of the Library Services and Technology Act. 
> LSTA is Subtitle B of the Museum and Library Services
>Act; other subtitles include general provisions and
>museum grant programs.  
>
>LSTA includes a mandated setaside of 4 percent of
>appropriations designated for national leadership
>purposes:
>
>     1. education and training of persons in library
>     and information science, particularly in areas of
>     new technology and other critical needs, including
>     graduate fellowships, traineeships, institutes, or
>     other programs;
>
>     2. research and demonstration projects related to
>     the improvement of libraries, education in library
>     and information science, enhancement of library
>     services through effective and efficient use of
>     new technologies, and dissemination of information
>     derived from such projects;
>
>     3. preservation or digitization of library
>     materials and resources, giving priority to
>     projects emphasizing coordination, avoidance of
>     duplication, and access by researchers beyond the
>     institution or library entity undertaking the
>     project; and
>
>     4. model programs demonstrating cooperative
>     efforts between libraries and museums.
>
>Several groups within the American Library Association
>discussed the draft guidelines at the recent ALA Annual
>Conference in San Francisco.  The ALA Executive Board,
>the Committee on Legislation, the Committee on Research
>and Statistics, ASCLA, and other units expressed
>serious concern with certain aspects of the draft
>guidelines.  Both the Executive Board and the Committee
>on Legislation recommended that I alert other library
>constituencies, summarize the nature of the concerns,
>and urge library groups, individual libraries or
>library schools, and individual librarians and library
>supporters to examine the draft guidelines and file
>comments during the public comment period.
>
>WHERE TO FIND THE TEXT OF THE DRAFT GUIDELINES
>
>The full text of the draft guidelines is available on
>the IMLS web site at:
>     http://www.imls.fed.us/guidelines/natlead.pdf
>or by mail from the Institute of Museum and Library
>Services at:
>     IMLS, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
>20506. 
>
>MAJOR CONCERN IDENTIFIED BY ALA UNITS
>
>The draft guidelines, by describing National Leadership
>Grants or Contracts under the Museum and Library
>Services Act and providing for museum eligibility for
>all parts of the program, obscure the fact that this is
>a program clearly intended by Congress to provide a
>small amount (4%) of funding under the Library Services
>and Technology Act for national needs IN LIBRARIES AND
>IN THE LIBRARY FIELD.  For the museum community in
>particular, with no knowledge of the separate
>development and history of LSTA, the draft guidelines
>will set up unrealistic expectations of museum
>involvement in library programs, and lead to comments
>on the guidelines and eventually applications based on
>incorrect or at least incomplete information.
>
>MAJOR RECOMMENDATION FROM ALA UNITS
>
>The first three proposed priorities for FY 1998 should
>comply with the law's first three purposes and provide
>that applicants shall be only libraries or library
>entities (library agencies, library consortia, library
>schools).  The guidelines as drafted propose that
>museums and museum agencies would be eligible for all
>three library purposes in partnership with libraries. 
>Museum eligibility is clearly spelled out in the fourth
>purpose of joint library/museum projects.
>
>RATIONALE FOR MAJOR RECOMMENDATION
>
>The predecessor of this program was Title II of the
>Higher Education Act, which was repealed as LSTA was
>enacted.  The provisions of HEA II-B focused on library
>education and training and library research and
>demonstration.  HEA II-C focused on strengthening major
>research libraries through preservation and access
>projects.  IT IS CLEAR FROM READING THE PURPOSES IN THE
>LSTA STATUTE OF THE NATIONAL LEADERSHIP GRANTS OR
>CONTRACTS THAT THE FIRST THREE PURPOSES ARE INTENDED TO
>HAVE A LIBRARY FOCUS EXCLUSIVELY, IN LINE WITH THE
>PROVISIONS OF ITS HEA II ANTECEDENT.
>
>It is also clear that the fourth purpose, model
>programs of cooperation between libraries and museums,
>was intended to provide programmatic support for the
>new library/museum relationship forged in the Museum
>and Library Services Act, of which LSTA is a part. 
>Thus, only libraries (as defined in LSTA), library
>consortia (as defined in LSTA), library agencies, or
>graduate library education programs in institutions of
>higher education (in line with predecessor history)
>would be eligible for grants or contracts under the
>first three purposes, while museums would be eligible
>only under the fourth purpose.  This critical
>distinction between the first three purposes and the
>fourth purposes is lost in the draft guidelines.
>
>In the draft, museums are specifically included in the
>wording of priority number two (corresponding to the
>second purpose) and the application process is open to
>museums in partnership for all purposes.  Museums
>should be eligible only under the fourth purpose, and
>the priority in this first year should be less
>prescriptive and more open to allow for the wide
>diversity of joint projects that might be proposed,
>subject only to a preference for those with broad
>national impact.
>
>RECENT FUNDING HISTORY AND PROPOSED FUNDING
>
>HEA II current (FY 1997 funding):                      $7.5 million
>
>Expected FY 1998 funding for LSTA National Leadership
>Grants
>(assuming funding at President's budget request)
>Total required by law from LSTA:                       $5.5 million
>Total requested as addition to museum grants:     $1.0 million
>
>According to draft guidelines, this would be broken
>down in FY 1998:
>Purposes 1-3        2/3 of LSTA funds:                 $3.6 million
>Purpose  4          1/3 of LSTA funds:                 $1.8 million
>Purpose  4          $1 million in new museum funds:         $1.0 million
>
>SPECIFIC CONCERNS IDENTIFIED BY ALA UNITS
>
>Various ALA units identified the following concerns
>regarding the draft guidelines:
>
>   o Agencies (defined as "any state or local agency
>     officially charged by the governmental entity with
>     the extension and development of library OR
>     [emphasis added] museum services within a
>     governmental unit") are eligible applicants,
>     singly or in partnership with other eligible
>     applicants, for grants awarded under the first
>     three national leadership purposes.  This
>     definition of eligible applicants is not
>     appropriate.
>
>   o Museums are also eligible applicants for partner
>     grant awards in conjunction with a library under
>     the first three national leadership purposes. 
>     This is not appropriate.
>
>   o Museums are required partners for grants awarded
>     under the fourth national leadership purpose. 
>     This is appropriate, but should be the only place
>     where museums or museum agencies are eligible.
>
>   o Revising the draft guidelines to correct this
>     major problem--that is, to provide that library
>     entities (and not museums) are the eligible
>     applicants for purposes one through three--will
>     require considerable rewriting throughout the
>     document to reflect this change.
>
>   o Several ALA units expressed concern about the high
>     proportion of national leadership grant monies
>     (1/3) proposed to be devoted to cooperative
>     museum-library projects; no rationale is given nor
>     it is supported by LSTA.  They recommended that
>     the fourth purpose should receive no more than 1/4
>     of LSTA funding for National Leadership Grants. 
>     This would be $1,375,000 plus the $1 million
>     expected from museum appropriations for joint
>     projects in FY 1998, for a total of $2,375,000.
>
>   o The eligibility of higher education institutions
>     for these grants relates to the history of this
>     program in HEA title II.  The guidelines should
>     specify the inclusion of graduate programs of
>     library education at such institutions, as has
>     traditionally been the case.
>
>   o LSTA includes a definition of library consortium. 
>     Library entities meeting this definition should be
>     considered eligible for National Leadership Grants
>     or Contracts.
>
>   o Applications for the first three purposes should
>     be reviewed by members of the library community
>     alone.  Applications for the fourth purpose should
>     be reviewed by a combination of library and museum
>     representatives.
>
>ACTION NEEDED
>
>Please repost this memorandum on appropriate listservs
>available to you, such as listservs for ALA divisions,
>round tables, committees, library educators, or other
>groups.   And be sure to send comments before the
>August 18 deadline to Dr. Rebecca Danvers at IMLS.  
>
>The ALA Washington Office had earlier requested input
>to the ALA response by August 1 (to ALA WO at
>alawash@alawash.org or by fax at 202-628-8419).  But it
>is also critical that IMLS hear directly in public
>comments from many voices throughout the library
>community on the issues raised above and on any others
>that may be identified.   Your comments need not be
>lengthy, but it is important that you be heard.  Please
>send copies of your comments to the ALA Washington
>Office.
>
>This new version of the longstanding program to meet
>national needs in the library field has much potential
>for making a major contribution to the profession and
>to the development of library service that far exceeds
>the modest dollars involved. It is essential that this
>small library program get off to a good start in its
>new home, the Institute of Museum and Library Services. 
>IMLS has tremendous potential to promote and support
>library programs and is already doing so effectively in
>connection with the state-based program which receives
>more than 90 percent of LSTA funds. 
>
>
>
Karen A. Hatcher
Mansfield Library
University of Montana
Missoula, MT 59812
hatcher@selway.umt.edu