AALL Executive Board unanimously approves recognition of an AALL Caucus on Consumer Advocacy

(From Michael Ginsborg’s statements to the Caucus email list, as edited by Jamie Marie Keller. Marie S. Newman has also posted on our recognition here.)

On November 5th, with Michael Ginsborg in attendance, the AALL Executive Board unanimously approved a motion to recognize the AALL Caucus on Consumer Advocacy with a slightly amended purpose. The approved purpose is “The AALL Caucus on Consumer Advocacy will recommend to AALL  the AALL Executive Board that it petition appropriate government bodies for specific remedies to anti-competitive and unfair business practices by legal information sellers.”

There were two main concerns about the Caucus from the Executive Board. First, the Executive Board was concerned about the undefined relationships between the Caucus and the Vendor Liaison and CRIV. Margie Maes, Vendor Liaison, considers it her responsibility to develop a policy under which AALL would pursue consumer advocacy, and hopes to define the role of AALL in consumer advocacy with a policy ready for the Spring Board meeting. CRIV’s purpose, to facilitate communications between AALL members and vendors, was also brought up. This is not what the Caucus proposes to do.

The second concern the Board had was that the Caucus would end up speaking on behalf of AALL, or otherwise risk AALL liability, and would lack sufficient oversight. One board member responded by underscoring the limited nature of the Caucus’ purpose. Another board member stated that the Board can address that contingency if it arises.

Our member-driven Caucus was held out by a board member as an example of spurring grassroots interest, which AALL President Darcy Kirk agreed was important to AALL.

Michael Ginsborg sent the following to the Caucus’ email list: “I am grateful for your kind thoughts. Of course, I am just as grateful to you [our members]. Our recognition owes to your persistence, dedication, patience and hard work. I told the AALL Board how amazed I was at your level of enthusiasm, energy and engagement. I said that I had never seen anything like it. Our message here was even more compelling due to support from PLL-SIS and petition signatories. (For helping gain PLL-SIS support, we owe a special thanks to Steve Lastres.) In fact, the combined effect may have been decisive.”

Having matched our vision with a new opportunity, we now have the challenges ahead of using the opportunity to AALL’s best advantage. You can help us by joining! If you want to follow our listserv, contact Sarah Glassmeyer at sarah.glassmeyer@gmail.com. Even if you cannot join us, we welcome your suggestions and insights.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Support A Petition To AALL’s Executive Board On The Consumer Advocacy Caucus

11/1/11 update:

Today we submitted the final version of our petition. We gratefully acknowledge support from 57 petition signatories and the PLL-SIS.

10/29/11 update:

We are now near our deadline to receive additional support for our petition. We ask that supporters contact Chair Michael Ginsborg (michaelginsborg@yahoo.com) by 8 p.m. EST on October 31st.

10/22/11 update:

In September, Laura Orr encouraged AALL members to support our petition here, and Marie Newman recently posted a reminder here. We encourage you to not only consider supporting the petition, but respond anonymously to our new survey. We expect to include your anonymous responses in the final version of the petition. Your comments will provide the Board further evidence about why AALL should recognize our Caucus.

9/22/11 update:

AALL President Darcy Kirk recently provided “background information” to the membership about our petition. We want to help the Executive Board make a fully informed decision about the petition, so yesterday we submitted a chronology of our attempted registrations. We also share Ms. Kirk’s desire to keep AALL member “fully informed.”   To receive our chronology, please contact Caucus Chair Michael Ginsborg (michaelginsborg@yahoo.com).

9/16/11 update:

We continue to circulate our petition for signatures and endorsements from AALL members and AALL affiliates. We have filed an “interim” version of our petition, with 37 AALL members as supporters. We encourage AALL Board members to contact us with questions, because we want to help them make a fully informed decision.

9/10/10 announcement of petition:

Our Caucus needs the support of AALL members as we petition AALL’s Executive Board to gain recognition. We are also seeking endorsements from AALL Sections, Caucuses, and Chapters. Signatories may contact Caucus Chair Michael Ginsborg at Michael Ginsborg. We will submit the petition on September 15th, allowing the Board enough time to place it on the agenda of its November meeting. Although we prefer to collect signatures and endorsements before September 15th, we will continue to collect them until November 2nd, the day before the Board meets. We will then resubmit the petition with the additional signatures and endorsements.

Request To Support A Petition For An AALL Consumer Advocacy Caucus

We are a group of over 50 AALL members who need your support in a crisis affecting all types of law libraries. Our libraries cannot indefinitely sustain the escalating costs of unfair and anticompetitive business practices by some sellers of legal information. AALL has unique promise to champion the interests of legal information consumers. We have matched its promise with an opportunity. In April, we registered to become an AALL Caucus on Consumer Advocacy. AALL members have achieved earlier successes at consumer advocacy. Based on their examples, we proposed several consumer advocacy initiatives as our goals. AALL’s leadership initially raised concerns about our goals. We were told that our Caucus would violate antitrust law and make policies on AALL’s behalf. To answer these objections, we changed our statement of purpose. Former AALL President Joyce Janto subsequently approved our revised statement for an Executive Board vote. AALL President Darcy Kirk recently rejected it and offered a substitute that compromises our effectiveness. We need your support as we petition the Board to reverse Darcy’s decision and approve our revised statement of purpose. We ask that you endorse the following petition to the Executive Board. We will instruct the Executive Board to keep signatory names strictly confidential.

A Petition Of Undersigned AALL Members To AALL’s Executive Board

As AALL members, we petition AALL’s Executive Board to approve this statement of purpose for the creation of the AALL Caucus on Consumer Advocacy:

“The AALL Caucus on Consumer Advocacy will recommend to AALL that it petition appropriate governmental bodies for specific remedies to anticompetitive and unfair business practices by legal information sellers.”

We do not consent to any disclosure of our names as signatories. Disclosure could allow legal information sellers to retaliate against us by singling out our employers for less favorable business relations.

Reasons For The Petition

1. The Caucus has a strong factual basis for its proposed purpose.

2. Although AALL has three venues on “vendor relations,” none can effectively address unfair and anticompetitive business practices in the legal information industry. First, the Vendor Colloquium did not discuss consumer advocacy, and the membership had no opportunity for digital participation in any of its sessions. Caucus members asked a Vendor Colloquium task force to consider our proposal of a robust consumer advocacy equal to AALL’s promise. The task force did not respond, closing an opportunity for their participation. Second, CRIV does admirable work to help individual institutions resolve complaints against legal information sellers. But CRIV can not use information from these complaints to advocate for a change in AALL policy. Third, despite significant anti-consumer practices in the industry, AALL’s Vendor Liaison has reduced related membership concerns to a problem in public relations.  In March 2011, Vendor Liaison Margie Maes reported that unidentified “vendors” were “frustrated with the airing of public complaints,” but hoped that a “vendor relations program” would “stem the flow of that negative communication.”   (March 25-26, 2011 AALL Executive Board Meeting Board Book, Tab 17)

3. We need a new approach. Caucus members seek the opportunity to independently influence AALL policymaking in a matter of high importance to the membership. An AALL Caucus would provide AALL members a forum to fully exchange their views on consumer advocacy, and a transparent venue to reach consensus on a policy recommendation to the Executive Board. The Caucus would not decide policy for AALL or act on its behalf. Caucus members seek only to have their voices heard; to open a new outlet for member participation in AALL; and  to collaborate with AALL’s leadership in developing an effective consumer advocacy.

4. Over 50 AALL members have twice requested AALL’s recognition of the Caucus. Valuing AALL as their best ally, they have worked with its leadership to develop an acceptable statement of purpose. Former AALL President Joyce Janto provisionally approved their latest submission, but her successor, Darcy Kirk, has rejected it. Darcy suggests that the Caucus accept yet another statement of purpose:

“The purpose of the Caucus on Consumer Advocacy is to provide a forum for AALL members to exchange ideas and information regarding the legal information industry and to represent its members’ interest and concerns within AALL.”

5. Darcy objected to the “negative tone” of the Caucus’ latest purpose and faulted the Caucus for suggesting “actions regarding policy.” She says that her substitute purpose “does not prevent [the Caucus] from from making recommendations to AALL regarding petitions.” But it would prevent the Caucus from candidly declaring its real purpose – to recommend a consumer advocacy petition..

6. AALL’s leadership could apply similar objections to any activity our Caucus might otherwise pursue, especially given the recent history of changing positions by AALL Presidents.

7. Darcy’s rejection of the Caucus’ proposed purpose would harm AALL  in the following ways:

a.     It would violate the implied right of members to engage AALL in matters they find fundamentally related to its mission;
b.     It would violate AALL’s principle of transparency and openness;
c.     It would create a chilling effect on Association speech, as members will not be allowed to discuss consumer advocacy issues, must less pursue them, for fear that AALL will not approve of candid discussion;
d.     It would create  the appearance that AALL is afraid of candor in matters that affect sellers of legal information;
e.     It would deprive members the indispensable status and perceived “protection”  that AALL recognition confers on an activity that some legal information sellers can be expected to disapprove; and
f.     It would deter members from otherwise acting together to pursue their vision of a robust consumer advocacy.

8.  These harmful consequences prevent Caucus members from accepting Darcy’s substitute purpose. So unless the Board reverses Darcy’s decision, the Board will deny over 50 AALL members an opportunity they eagerly want to participate in their Association; will deprive other AALLL members the benefits of allowing the Caucus to organize; and will undermine member trust and interest in the Association.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Bloomberg To Acquire BNA: Opportunity For Public Comment On The Proposed Acquisition

Bloomberg has just announced its intention to acquire BNA for a cash-tender offer of approximately $990 million. Bloomberg also provides answers to questions about the proposed acquisition. Under the Hart–Scott–Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, Bloomberg must file pre-merger notification and report forms with the FTC and the the Department of Justice Period. During an initial waiting period, these agencies review the filings for possible antitrust violations and determine whether to investigate further. If neither agency decides to further investigate the transaction, the waiting period ends 30 days after the agencies received the acquirer’s pre-merger notification, unless the transaction involves a cash-tender offer. In that case, the waiting period ends in 15 days. (15 U.S.C. §18a(b)(1)). According to an FTC Guide, “any interested person, including either of the parties [to the transaction], is free to present information to either or both agencies at any time.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Informal Notes On Our July 25th Meeting In Philadelphia

We owe special thanks to the generous hosts of our July 25th  meeting, Linda-Jeane Schneider and Bonnie Shalala, of Drinker Biddle. Jamie Keller and Kelly Reynolds prepared the following informal notes. I have added observations or clarifications in brackets.  This meeting handout provides reasons for two forms of Caucus organization.  Marie S. Newman has also just posted her summary of the meeting at the Out of the Jungle blog. [MG]

Statement of Purpose and Initial Priorities

Michael Ginsborg provided the background for the development of the Consumer Advocacy Caucus.  The initial statement of purpose submitted for caucus formation was inspired by Raymond Taylor’s 1969 article in the ABA Journal entitled “Law Book Consumers Need Protection.” Taylor’s article brought awareness of the unfair business practices of legal information vendors (LIVs) including the violation of laws and FTC’s intentions.  The ABA, but not AALL, attorneys submitted a position statement on the practices of the LIVs [expressing support for proposed FTC Guidelines], but AALL did not provide input or state a position on the matter. The ABA’s position led to the adoption of FTC Guidelines for the Law Book Publishing Industry. The Guidelines improved disclosure to consumers, and so did books like Ken Svengalis’ Legal Information Buyer’s Guide & Reference Manual, which provides librarians and other legal consumers the information needed to compare products and services. [In the 1980s and 1990s, CRIV informed AALL members when specific legal publishers violated the FTC Guidelines and sharply increased supplementation costs. CRIV influenced the 1993 reversal by Matthew Bender of its escalating supplementation costs. CRIV’s example also set a precedent for our undertaking.]

The initial statement of purpose sought to increase disclosure and forge coalitions in order to advocate for appropriate legal remedies.  Currently, when purchasing materials, we depend on Svengalis’ Guide and the vendors themselves for information regarding their services, especially electronic resources.  There needs to be more information comparing LIVs, looking at cost transparency, analyzing price escalation, and developing consumer-based comparison criteria.  In short, there is a need for more education, including a sequel to Raymond Taylor’s article in the ABA Journal.  The ABA Journal is preferable to a librarian publication because so many legal information consumers are lawyers who do not have librarians on staff.  We can also increase education through workshops at annual meetings, such as a program to review the quality of LIV editorial practices.  In addition, we should form collaborative communities between bar associations, attorneys, library associations, and consumer advocacy groups.  The caucus would also conduct fact-finding concerning the nature and extent of practices that undermine competition in order to craft legal remedies, remedies that would not violate the law.  The idea is to make enough noise that the LIVs cannot ignore. [Joe Stephens expressed the idea in a September 1996 article for Spectrum, “The End of West(ern) Civilization.”]

This statement of purpose was rejected by AALL on two grounds.  First, the administrative objection was that the caucus could not form a committee to comment or commit on any policy while presenting themselves as part of AALL.  Only the AALL leadership has the authority to speak or lobby on behalf of AALL.  The second objection was based on legal concerns over the perceived violations of antitrust laws.

Discussion of Options for Organizing

The two options for the Caucus are (1) try to obtain AALL status or (2) form an independent organization.   Submitting a revised statement of purpose was considered more effective than creating an independent organization.  Additionally, AALL’s reputation, size, and influence would give the Caucus credibility and could help back the policy we wish to create.  We reviewed the handout Michael Ginsborg created and distributed.  There was also discussion on how the Consumer Advocacy Caucus would work with CRIV and the Vender Liaison.  The caucus could help AALL develop consumer advocacy policy, as CRIV is prohibited from policy-making.  Some members also mentioned that by staying within AALL, the Caucus would attract more members who might not wish to join a non-AALL organization. Mark Estes thought that fear of vendor reprisal was overstated. Mark also said that AALL approval of our Caucus application would be a “slam dunk.”

It was unanimously decided to submit another statement of purpose to AALL for Caucus formation, with formation of an independent organization only as a last resort.  Michael provided the text of the new statement of purpose. The Caucus will submit it to the AALL Executive Board in August.  [It was submitted on August 3rd.] Michael’s understanding from (then) AALL President Joyce Janto was that there were no administrative or legal objections to the new draft.

Price Index Issues

Ken Svengalis discussed the issues with the AALL Price Index for Legal Publications (Price Index). The Price Index 2d covers titles with the base year of 1998 [and ends with coverage for 2004.] Thomson West data was provided by members from 2000 to 2004. Thomson West [did not provide the Price Index Committee requested price data between 2005 and 2008]. The company provided the Price Index Committee price information in 2009, but limited the information to new set costs, not discounted supplementation costs that the Committee needed. [The Committee reports that “other legal publishers that other publishers have also supplied new set pricing between the years 2005 and 2008.”]

Ken recommends data collection by members so that all products are compared across LIVs for historical (year) sales for discounted supplementation costs. He also called for volunteers to assist with his price gathering for his book.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Consumer Advocacy Caucus Seeks AALL Recognition Under New Statement of Purpose

Today we applied for AALL recognition under a new statement of purpose:

The AALL Caucus on Consumer Advocacy will recommend to AALL that it petition appropriate governmental bodies for specific remedies of anticompetitive and unfair business practices by sellers of legal information.”

We decided to pursue our latest application at our July 25th meeting in Philadelphia. We will soon post a summary of our discussion.

Michael Ginsborg
Caucus Chair

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Jones Day Partner Greg Catanias to larger legal information vendors: “Your business model is broken.”

At today’s PLL-SIS Summit, Jones Day partner Greg Castanias spoke on how librarians add value to law firms. Connie Crosby summarizes his comments here. “You fail to understand,” Castanias told legal information vendors, “how we do business while seeking partnership with us.” Another attendee said that he “attack[ed] Wexis vendors for incomprehensible billing.” Connie tells me that his presentation “got a lot of applause, and even some table banging from the audience.”

8/3/10 Update: Greg Castanias has posted his speech today at On Firmer Ground, and responds here to a comment about “vendor bashing:

“Jeremy Sullivan had two problems with my speech. As to the first one, he labels it “’vendor bashing’ (which he may do if he wishes), and thereby discounts it because it’s supposedly ‘the easiest thing in the world to do.’ But to so categorize my words minimizes the points I was making, among which are: (1) that these are real problems that we at the firm-ownership level are having with vendors; (2) we in “management” are — or ought to be — aligned with our library professionals in this respect; (3) each of you is not a lone and powerless voice in the wilderness, and if you know that — and align yourselves with your firm’s management — you have the power to effect positive change in your relationships with vendors; and (4) a ballroom full of library professionals heard these words from a library partner, and vendors need to know that. (The e-mails I’ve received in the past few weeks confirm that others who heard or read my words — lawyers, librarians, AND vendors — picked up these points exactly.)”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Applying its non-discrimination policy, AALL asks us if we would accept “vendor members.”

Last night, we received an inquiry from AALL. Would we accept “vendor” members? We learned that AALL would require us to so, because, under its non-discrimination policy, “every group is open to every member.”

On short notice, we can identify just one non-discrimination policy,  though we would welcome correction of any oversight.  This policy concerns requirements for institutions to use AALL’s placement services. Its bearing on “vendor” membership remains unclear to us.

At 4:15 pm EST today, AALL’s  Executive Board will consider a recommendation to adopt a proposed Antitrust Compliance Policy. The antitrust policy would require AALL entities to include every qualified participant, “especially if there is a business advantage in being a member.” The Policy would appear to apply to all AALL members, including associate members who work for commercial information services. We have informed AALL that our group includes several such members, and that we welcome all AALL members to join us.

Michael Ginsborg
Caucus Chair

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Will a proposed Caucus Formation Policy preclude our eligibility to become an AALL Caucus?

AALL President Joyce Janto recommends that the  Executive Board adopt a proposed Caucus Formation Policy at the Board’s July 21st meeting. Our Caucus only just this afternoon became aware of the proposal. We have asked the Board whether it would bar our eligibility to become an AALL Caucus.

7/21/11 update: Joyce has confirmed that our “professional interests” under this policy would qualify us to apply for AALL affiliation.

Dear Board Members:

Our group of AALL members only just took notice of the proposed Caucus Formation Policy under Tab 18 of the July 21st Board Meeting Agenda. Therefore, we have had no opportunity until now to learn how this proposed policy might apply to our group if we decide to file a new statement of purpose following the Annual Meeting. We will consider our form of organization when we meet on July 25th.

Under these circumstances, we ask the Board to clarify how the Board would apply the policy before the Board acts on the recommendation to adopt it. The policy appears to limit Caucus eligibility to four categories:

1. Shared backround;
2. Shared work environments;
3. Shared professional interests;
4. Work related to a AALL Special Committee

Of course, we believe that our “shared professional interests” would merit our eligibility for Caucus approval. Please confirm that the Board will rely on this interpretation of the policy.

We seek this clarification because we have recently asked Joyce to consider two statements of purpose under which we might organize as an AALL Caucus. In her memo of June 15, 2011, Joyce says that “we have once again been approached by members to form a caucus that may or may not be in AALL’s best interests. I think that we should re-visit the idea of having some formal procedures in place governing the formation of caucuses just as we have for the formation of SISs and Chapters.”  We do not know that Joyce was referring to our Caucus proposals, or that she meant to compare our group with a “Vegans” group that sought Caucus status in 2007. Nevertheless, we ask that the Board reject the policy if the Board would interpret it to bar our eligibility to become an AALL Caucus.

Michael Ginsborg
Chair, Consumer Advocacy Chair

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Can AALL Members Organize For Consumer Advocacy If AALL’s Executive Board Adopts A Proposed Antitrust Compliance Policy On July 21st?

The AALL Executive Board is about to act on a proposal that may prevent this Caucus from organizing in any form, whether within AALL or independently. The Board will vote on a proposed “AALL Antitrust Compliance Policy” at its July 21st meeting in Philadelphia. (I copied this document  from the Board’s posted agenda draft of June 15, 2011.) We ask that the Board delay a vote on the policy, whose consequences will affect all AALL members, not just those who belong to our Caucus.

The policy represents an interpretation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, banning concerted action in restraint of trade. Its drafters target price-fixing as a special concern. According to their “Antitrust Guidelines,”  “[p]rice-fixing is a very broad term which includes any concerted effort or action which has an effect on prices, terms or conditions of trade, or competition.”

To enforce compliance, the policy requires rigorous oversight of all AALL entities.  AALL entities must submit meeting minutes “to the AALL office”  and provide to the Executive Board “written periodic reports” on “all pending matters, requests for action and approvals for preliminary decisions.”  AALL members can not have “any discussion which may provide the basis for an inference that the members agreed to take any action relating to prices, services, production, allocation of markets or any other matter having a market effect.”  (AALL  initially asked members to follow a similar restriction when joining AALL’s  digital “communities.”)  Members can not have prohibited discussions at “formal meetings and informal gatherings. In fact, informal gatherings of association members are often looked upon with suspicion by the government.”

The policy also includes “some examples” of what AALL members can not discuss – “either virtual or live” – at Association meetings. Among other examples, members may not “discuss current or future prices,” and we must “be very careful of discussions of past prices.” We may not discuss “pricing procedures.” It is unclear whether, or when, informal member discussions  – “live or virtual” – would also trigger these and other of the specified bans. Even the possibility of violating these restrictions would have an obvious chilling effect on informal discussion by members who wish to retain their membership. They could secure advance authorization from AALL headquarters whenever they discuss business practices of legal-content vendors. “It is important that members contact the association for guidance if they have even the slightest qualms about the propriety of a proposed activity or discussion.” But how can members anticipate whether they should have qualms of the kind AALL’s counsel would have? As a result, members would have at least an incentive to avoid such informal discussions altogether.  (Some members may, of course, prefer to risk disciplinary actions up to revocation of their membership, though the policy has no provision on member penalities.)

The policy appears to have at least two antecedents. The first involves a canceled, SCCLL-SIS program that Ken Svengalis was to present at the 2007 Annual Meeting.  The program concerned recommended responses to skyrocketing prices in the legal publishing industry. Ken expected to include economist Mark McCabe,  who received AALL’s support for his research on anticompetitive pricing effects of the Thomson-West merger. AALL canceled the program because its description had the word “boycott”: AALL’s counsel found that any boycott reference in an AALL program incurred significant risk of antitrust violation.  (Betsy McKenize describes the details here. Commenting on the program’s cancelation, Ken said he talked to Department of Justice Antitrust Division attorneys, and they advised him that the Department would intervene only if AALL members undertook to organize a boycott. )  Responding to member inquiries about the cancelation, AALL described its broader antitrust concerns with language later used in the policy. Our Caucus may have also influenced the policy’s development. We submitted our initial statement of purpose in May 2011. AALL raised policymaking and antitrust objections that the policy appears to formalize.

At our July 25th meeting, our Caucus had plans to decide whether to stay within AALL or to organize independently. If we decide to become an AALL Caucus under a new statement of purpose, we would recommend that AALL petition government bodies for remedies of antitrust and unfair business practices by specific legal information vendors. Although AALL has conditionally approved this statement of purpose, the policy suggests that  AALL would render it moot. Our recommendation of a petition may never receive approval as an agenda item for a Board meeting. The Board can discuss “only approved agenda items.”

A reasonable interpretation of the policy shows how it would be pointless for us to organize as an AALL Caucus, unless the Board clarifies the policy or we plan to change it by a membership resolution. If successful, any petitioning we recommend to AALL would have a proscribed “effect on prices, terms or conditions of trade, or on competition.” Under the  policy, we may be understood to recommend collective action with an intention to influence market conditions or competition – not directly, of course, but through government intervention. To prepare our petitioning recommendation to AALL, we would risk violating the policy, because we would need to discuss past, current, or future prices of legal subscriptions, among other “conditions of trade.”  How could we prepare a recommendation under this circumstance? And even if we organized independently, as AALL members we would be associating “informally” to undertake actions, such as government petitioning, that the policy may be understood to prohibit. We would then risk AALL’s refusal to allow our preparations, disciplinary warnings, or revocaion of our membership.

A body of case law – the “Noerr-Pennington doctrine“  – establishes our right to petition our government even if market participants perceive our petitioning as a restraint of trade under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Although the doctrine has exceptions, they do not apply to the action we would pursue as an AALL Caucus.

A recent Vendor Colloquium Action Plan includes a recommendation to develop “an AALL Vendor Relations policy related to antitrust law,” and to engage “outside counsel as needed.” We had no advance notice that the Board would vote on such a policy so soon; in fact, we did not become aware of the policy until July 16th, a day after the deadline for members to comment on the Action Plan.  Of course, we do not know that we have correctly interpreted the policy. Yet a reasonable interpretation raises troubling questions. We therefore ask that the Executive Board suspend any action on the policy until AALL’s members have full opportunity to request clarifications and to submit comments on its ramifications.

Michael Ginsborg
Caucus Chair

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Caucus Meeting In Philadelphia Rescheduled To Noon On July 25th

Please join us for our 12-1 p.m. meeting on July 25th at the Philadelphia office of Drinker Biddle (One Logan Square, Ste. 2000, at the corner of 18th & Cherry Streets). We will discuss the status of our registration with AALL, decide our form of organization, and consider our initial priorities.

Feel welcome to bring your lunch. We can guarantee space for the first 35 attendees who contact me, and we may be able to accommodate up to 5 callers by phone conference. Please let me know as soon as possible if you plan to attend in person or by conference.

We wish to thank Drinker Biddle Library Director Linda-Jean Schneider for hosting our meeting, and Sarah Glassmeyer and Steve Lastres for assisting our preparations.

Michael Ginsborg
Caucus Chair

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment