I sent the following letter to the AALL Officers and Executive Board
today, and wanted to share it with the law-lib readership. Many members
of the Academic Law Libraries Special Interest Section have expressed
concern about AALL's decision to curtail the availability of the Law
Library Journal, and have requested that the SIS convey these concerns.
I welcome your comments pro or con--both personally or to the list--and
encourage you also to contact the AALL leadership to let them know
your opinions.
Barbara Bintliff
University of Colorado Law Library
Campus Box 402
Boulder, CO 80309
(303) 492-1233
----------appended text follows---------
Officers and Executive Board Members
American Association of Law Libraries
53 W. Jackson Boulevard, Suite 940
Chicago, IL 60604
May 15, 1995
Dear Colleagues:
On behalf of the Academic Law Libraries Special Interest
Section, I am writing to protest your proposals to either
eliminate the Law Library Journal as an automatic benefit of
AALL membership or to severely curtail its frequency. The Law
Library Journal is too much a part of our Association to so
summarily decide its fate.
The importance of Law Library Journal to all law
librarians, and to the Association, is hard to overstate. It
is the source to which most of us turn when faced with a
challenge new to us but not unknown to the profession. It is
our representative in the worlds of scholarship, both legal and
librarianship. It is a visible and positive membership benefit
that does not need explanation to deans, managing partners, or
judges. LLJ has become highly respected; publication in it has
become sought after and valued. Law faculties, who frequently
vote on academic law librarian retention and promotion,
understand the significance of being published in Law Library
Journal. AALL's own literature touts it as the "official"
publication of the Association, one which complements the
educational purposes for which AALL was founded.
The options with which we have been presented, either vote
to remove LLJ as a benefit of membership or reduce its
frequency, are explained as being based on the premise that the
journal is subsidized too heavily by the Association and does
not meet the needs of AALL's members. How were these
conclusions reached? What changes in LLJ's content were
considered to enable it to better meet the needs of the
Association's members? From what source of income is it being
subsidized? What other options for financing or publishing LLJ
were explored? What kind of marketing has been done of the
journal? What kind of advertising has been sought, and how has
it been solicited?
We urge you to reconsider these proposals. We are
concerned that, once the distribution of LLJ is so drastically
reduced (either by cost or frequency), it is only a matter of
time before the publication ceases to exist. We are well aware
of the financial constraints facing all organizations today.
We understand the necessity of change to accommodate the many,
varying demands placed on the Association. We believe,
however, that a change of this magnitude of the Law Library
Journal is not in the best interests of the Association and is
contrary to the educational purposes for which the Association
was founded.
Sincerely,
Barbara Bintliff
Chair, Academic Law Libraries
Special Interest Section;
Law Library Director
and Associate Professor
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST