Here are the results of my informal and unscientific survey of
which law schools have technology committees. Of the 34 schools
that responded, 14 have permanent or standing committees, 9 have
ad hoc committees or task forces, and 11 currently have no
technology or computer committee.
It's interesting that some of the schools that are clearly
leaders in the application of computer technology do not have
technology committees. The comments included at the end may
suggest why.
Regular or standing technology committee:
Case Western Reserve U.
Columbia U.
Georgia State U.
Indiana U.--Bloomington
Northeastern U.
Northern Illinois U.
Notre Dame (chaired by library director, with staff,
faculty, administration and library members)
South Texas College of Law
Suffolk U.
Tulane
U. of Connecticut
U. of Iowa
U. of Montana
U. of Pennsylvania
Ad hoc committee or task force:
Albany Law School
Southern Methodist U.
U. of Akron
U. of Baltimore
U. of Oregon
U. of Richmond
U. of San Francisco
U. of Waikato (Hamilton, NZ)
U. of Wisconsin
No technology committee:
Arizona State U.
Cleveland State U.
Cornell U.
Hamline U.
Pace U.
Southern Illinois U.
U. of Kansas (Automation Committee in Law Library, but not
for law school)
U. of Nebraska (however, there is an Electronic Resource
Program Group consisting of librarians from law and
main)
U. of Washington
U. of Western Australia ("One issue is that we already have
a large number of committees in the Law School.")
William & Mary
Comments:
Albany Law School:
From: "ED BRENNAN, ALB LAW" <BRENNANE@gar.union.edu>
1. We don't have a committee we have a "task force" -
(we already had too many committees). We call
ourselves the Information Technologies Task Force. I
wrote our mission statement which charged us with
examining some converging technologies along with some
gaping holes in our infra-structure: library
automation, networking, internet, telecommunications,
and audiovisual. Our committee was given some monies
but we have to write and agree on committee reports in
order to spend any of it. There's always a catch!
2. We are not a subcommittee - but we did create our
own subcommittees: Internet, Networking,
Telecommunications/AV.
Cornell U.
From: Tom Bruce (tom@barratry.law.cornell.edu)
We have no technology committee, and I make no secret
of the fact that I consider them roughly the worst
thing on the planet. I'm convinced that:
1) Very often they are formed as a Committee of the
Revolution to deal with perceived or real ineptitude on
the part of support managers and personnel. Short of
serving as a personnel committee for the hire of a
competent support manager, I don't see their function
provided that that individual is doing her job. They
may take some heat off Deans and library directors.
Maybe.
2) They are collectively incapable of doing anything
but demanding more and faster of the technological
status quo.
3) They almost always favor faculty over administrative
and student computing needs, and occasionally dispense
boons only to themselves.
4) They almost always consist for the most part of
people whose brother-in-law knows something about
technology.
5) They are imbued with the spirit of the Work Ethic
for Others.
Hamline U.
From: ctemplet@hamline.edu (Clayton Templeton)
We have had several technology committees and
subcommittees formed throughout the years, but they
seem to dissolve due to a lack of authority and voice.
Currently we are trying to establish a new generation
of technology committees that have an official voice
and published docket; it is hoped that this will be
seen more as an elected and responsible group, instead
of just a group of interested parties. It is planned
to have its status as a separate committee. Past
incarnations have been sub- to another committee, but
it turned out that it didn't make sense to make the
parent comm. review and pass it off.
Pace U.
From: "John A. Humbach" <JHUMBACH@genesis.law.pace.edu>
No. Used to, but not anymore.
It's hard to say exactly why our "TechLaw" committee
went out of existence. It was a number of years ago.
I suppose the main thing is that the functions of "care
& feeding" our technology became administrativized --
we have 4 fulltime people to deal with computer suport
needs alone. At any rate, the issues don't seem to be
burning ones. The faculty has long since divided among
technology (computer) users and non-users, and (except
for new hires) the two groups are of stable
composition.
Given the administrative support, the remaining
problems we face are more ad hoc than systemic. We
don't have committees on the supply room, food
services, chalk and erasers or other amenities, either.
Technology, for those who find it useful, is a utility,
not an issue. That's about all I can say.
Southern Methodist U.
From: Gail Daly <VVBK1001@vm.cis.smu.edu>
Here at Southern Methodist University, our law school
has a faculty "Ad Hoc Computer Committee," which has
existed the entire three years that I've been here.
The committee is a separate committee of the faculty
and consists of four faculty members (including myself)
and the law school's computer technician. For the most
part, we set policy about purchase and placement of
computer hardware and software, arrange for "brown bag"
tutorial sessions, and plan for the future (when, I
devoutly hope, we will finally be networked).
Jim Milles
Head of Computer Services
Saint Louis University Law Library
millesjg@sluvca.slu.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST