I want to offer a couple of comments on the LLJ amendment from
my perspective as former editor of the Journal. I will vote against the amendment
on the basis of the two budget options presented by the treasurer in her April
Newsletter article. As Ann Puckett indicates in her June 28 posting to this list, there
are a number of creative ways for the Association to ensure wider distribution of
the Journal than will be the case if it is made subscription-only. These are not
presented as options in Board communications, however. Although Ann suggests that
voting for the amendment will give the Board the flexibility to seek creative
alternatives to meet members' needs, the options presented in the April Newsletter do
not indicate an interest in exploring alternative means for distributing LLJ.
A sound plan for ensuring wide distribution of the Journal is
important because LLJ is the major vehicle for developing and distributing the
literature of our profession. The key issue for the AALL membership and Board to consider is
how much importance it wishes to give to supporting the professional
literature of our field. Formats and frequency of publication will change, and there are
ways to reduce what may be burdensome costs for an Association attempting to support
a wide range of member interests and programs with limited resources. However,
the support and nourishment of a professional literature is one of the key
functions of a professional association, just as the existence and development
of that literature is one of the key characteristics separating the professions from
other occupations. It seems odd, therefore, that at a time when the traditional role
of our profession appears to be threatened by technological change and economic
forces, we are willing so readily to place at risk our primary means of
promoting research and writing in our field without a clear idea of the consequences of
the decision.
Ann and Judy Meadows and others who have commented here have
noted that the Journal is not important to all members of the Association, and I
am sure that in an Association as large and diverse as ours that must be the case.
But it is still unfortunate if our members do not see the value of having a
shared literature that is more readily available to all than it will be under the
subscription-only alternative, and if they have not fully considered the effects of that
alternative on the future development of the profession.
Ultimately, the questions of the Journal's distribution and of
what the Association does to promote research and writing should not be decided on the
basis of a narrow set of financial options provided by the Board Finance and Budget
Committee. They are deserving of more thoughtful consideration both as to what
the Association's research support programs are to be and in terms of possible
other alternatives to subscription-only distribution of the Journal. Without a clearer
idea of what the Association's role should be, the amendment should fail.
Richard A. Danner
Associate Dean for Library and Computing Services
Research Professor of Law
Duke University School of Law
Box 90361
Durham NC 27708-0361
Voice: 919 613 7115
Fax: 919 613 7237
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:48:58 PST