Summary of results from the BIBCO Survey on OpCo Membership
and Meeting Expansion

Question 1. Are you in favor of expanding membership on the BIBCO Operations Committee to include one representative per institution?

Summary of Responses: There no consensus on this question. Of those that responded, 7 clearly felt that under no circumstances should the membership of the OpCo be expanded to include representation from each institution, while only 3 responded that it should be expanded without qualification. There were 7 respondents who felt that expansion should be accompanied by funding for travel to the annual meeting. 1 simply commented on the desire to expand but that it would be much too inefficient a group. Other comments indicated that increasing the current number might be a better option than including a member from each institution.

Question 2. The OpCo membership question aside, are you in favor of expanding the number of days for the BIBCO OpCo meeting to become a 3 day meeting rather than a 2 day meeting?

Summary of responses: There was a clear consensus on this question. Respondents agreed that increasing the number of days for the OpCo meeting would be a good option but not as a matter of course. Increasing the number of days should be an option only when something "substantial" needed to be discussed. Comments indicated that even now there is not enough substance in this meeting. Question 3. If you were to be appointed as a BIBCO OpCo representative would you be willing to serve.

Summary of responses: A majority (10) of respondents felt that participation on the BIBCO OpCo would be possible only if there were funding to defray the cost of attending the annual meeting, while at least 6 respondents indicated that they would be willing to participate regardless of whether or not there was any financial support. Some comments indicated that local institutional funding was a possibility and thus this was not a consideration.

Compilation of responses to the BIBCO survey on BIBCO Survey on OpCo Membership and Meeting Expansion

A.  Are you in favor of expanding membership on the BIBCO Operations
Committee to include one representative per institution? (Choose one)


__3____  1. Yes, under any circumstances
__7____  2. Yes, but only if PCC funds are available to (at least) partially fund
               the travel of the representative to attend the annual meeting
__4_____ 3. Yes, but only if (at minimum) my institution is able to grant me the
               time off from work to attend the annual meeting
__7____  4. No, under any circumstances


Comments:

University of Chicago:

I've served on Bibco OpCo and I think that the rotation of members is a better
option than having a rep from each institution.   If BIBCO membership continues to grow, and
each institution sends a rep to the annual meeting, the OpCo group could become a rather
large one, and size can have inhibiting effects on discussion of issues.  I think that the
combination of rotating members and allowing for online discussion of issues is a sufficient
way to ensure that all members get a chance to serve PCC and have their views taken into
consideration.

Cleveland Public Library:

We concluded that maybe it would be more practical in expanding the number of members in
the Committee, rather than to include every
library all the time. As BIBCO membership grows, if there were a larger number of
representatives in the Committee, the rotation would move faster. Thus, member libraries
would get their turn faster, yet not obligated to be present every year. Annual
representation for every institute may influence some small libraries in their decision in
joining BIBCO.

Cornell University:

I am somewhat concerned that the increase in size would hinder the committee's effectiveness,
but I feel that this consideration is outweighed by the desirability of invigorating the committee
by bringing in a wider range of perspectives.

New York University:

The governance model for CONSER is perhaps related to the master record approach and it is
more critical that all get a chance to 
hear about, and react to, any decision. Until the monographic model is one enhanceable,
central bib record (which may be quixotic), a representative model with plenty of PR is fine for
BIBCO.

New York University:

We cataloging unit heads at NYU are quite convinced that BIBCO OpCo 
should only be expanded in size if it would result in greater 
quality. We think it would be more profitable for the PCC libraries to 
send LC the travel money and you all can hire another librarian or 
two in Coop.--

Queens Borough Public Library:

A -- While I like the idea of one representative per institution as a means
of involving more institutions in decision-making and as a means of getting
more feedback, I have my doubts that a "committee" that large would get
anything done. I seem to remember reading years ago in one of those
Murphy's-law-type books that once a committee expanded past 15(?) members it
tended to become either paralyzed or turn into a rubber stamp. Of course the
chances of everybody actually being able to come to Washington are pretty
slim, but then those institutions who couldn't might feel left out.

Stanford University:

I am very much in favor of expanding the PoCo but a representative from each BIBCO 
institution would make the membership too large to operate efficiently.  Such a group would
become more like a users group, which may not be the intent behind this idea.  A change in its
mission and an operating mechanism would need to be worked out in order to make it work
effectively.   You may wish to consider expanding the number of members to a reasonable size
and make the  membership rotate among all institutions more frequently. 

University of Florida:
 
No, Option 4.  I hope the number of BIBCO institutions will continue to grow and that would
make it unwieldy to have a representative from each institution on the operating committee.
BIBCO-at-Large meetings offer good opportunities for input. I would not want to jeopardize
financial support for those who attend.

University of Oregon:
 
Yes, Option 1. (If Not Everyone Can Attend, Fine. But Open it Up)--

*********************
B. Are you in favor of expanding the BIBCO OpCo meeting to become a 3 day
meeting rather than a 2 day meeting, regardless of the decision concerning
OpCo membership? (May check more than one)

__0____  1. Yes, under any circumstances
__3____  2. Yes, but only if one of the days is devoted to continuing education
               workshops
__17____ 3. Yes, but with the option/flexibility of either a 2 or 3 day meeting to
               be held only if/when the agenda warrants the extra day
__2_____ 4. No, under any circumstances

Comments:

Cornell University:

Yes, if the extra day is used for sessions targeted to both BIBCO and CONSER members, to
reduce the meeting conflicts inherent in the current schedule.  The move to accommodate
interest by BIBCO and CONSER in specific sessions acknowledges and addresses the
convergence of serial and monographic cataloging issues and moves the PCC in the direction
of a more integrated approach to cataloging standards as a whole.  (This answer comes closest
to Option 2, but I hope the added detail will be noted.)

Queens Borough Public Library:

B --  I think the idea of a flexible 2 or 3 day meeting is good--no sense
dragging people down to Washington for an extra day if there isn't
sufficient agenda to warrant it.

University of Florida:
Regarding the duration of the meetings, I will attend my first BIBCO OpCo meeting this spring
so I am not sure how much time we need. It does sound attractive to include a continuing
education component.  

University of Oregon:

Yes, Option 3. The Meetings Would Need to Be More Substantive Than The Last One I
Attended Was. If We Discussed Issues The Way That They Do in  CONSER Meetings, it
Would Be Worthwhile.

Yale University:

I continue to support the practice of overlapping meetings and sessions of CONSER and
BIBCO
**************************

C. If you were to be appointed as a BIBCO OpCo representative would you be
willing to serve: (May check more than one)

___6___  1. Under any circumstances
__10___  2. Only if there were PCC funding available to help defray the cost of
               attending the annual meeting
__3____  3. Without the PCC or local funding-- but only if my institution is
               willing to provide support in terms of time allotted to attend the  annual
meeting
__0___   4. Only if the meeting is a 2-day rather than a 3-day meeting
**************
__1__ Chose options 2 and 3.

__2__ Chose to disregard this question.

Comments:

Columbia University:

In the instances where I've checked PCC funding, I'm reading that to mean PCC or  local
institutional funding.  I think the suggestions to increase participation and expand  the time are
necessary and important for the strength of the program.

New York University:

As to serving if asked, we don't think it makes sense to add more people or to stretch the
meeting unless there seems to be mammoth agenda going undone. The question seems "not
applicable" rather than "yes/no."

Queens Borough Public Library:

C --  My library is usually pretty good about covering costs, and I don't mind picking up the tab
for whatever they don't cover, but I do need the excused time.

Stanford University:

I would be happy to serve but some PCC funding might be necessary.  I am certain my 
institution would allow me time but would not increase its financial support beyond what is 
already offering.  It would also expect me to prioritize my external commitments.

University of Colorado, Boulder:

I would like to see there be PCC full or partial funding available if possible.
My institution would always grant me the release time to attend meetings, but it may not
always provide funding.  I personally think that it is a good idea to move toward the CONSER
model for membership meetings.