Comments on: Why A CLS And ULS

By: Lisa Allen

Lisa Allen — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:28:08 +0000

To be clear, if I get two free sections with ACRL membership, each of those sections must count, so I would never join both CLS and ULS. I always join EBSS, due to the nature of my job, so I’d have to go with CLS for the other section. Even though I work at a university library, COLLIB-L is more active and “sells” me more on the value of CLS, whether that’s true or not.

By: Lisa Allen

Lisa Allen — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:21:00 +0000

I still think the bureaucratic issue is a problem. I’m all for streamlining ALA and its divisions. I cannot afford to pay for ACRL and more than the 2 sections that are free with ACRL membership. I can see the value in uniquely different programs at ACRL conferences, but not in paying for membership to multiple sections that are more similar than different.

By: Marc

Marc — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:15:37 +0000

I find the number of sections, divisions, roundtables etc one of the most frustrating parts of ALA. At least part of it seems to be about getting people to pay more dues, since most librarians have multiple job functions. Then you go to the conferences and there are 5 different sessions on topics you are interested in all at the same day and time.

By: Debbie Malone

Debbie Malone — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:05:53 +0000

As a longtime member of CLS and the current ACRL Board liaision to ULS, I agree with Steven’s conclusion that there are good reasons to maintain both groups as separate entities. There are certainly many, many areas for collaboration, but there are also unique strengths particular to each group. Maintaining groups with different approaches and slightly different “voices” is healthy for everyone. Besides, a combined ULS/CLS would be gigantic and perhaps unwieldly in many ways. I like the idea of giving ACRL members numerous opportunities to participate in groups of a size to allow easy discussion and exchange of ideas.