“new discoveries on lost lake”: 2004 acquisitions institute at timberline lodge

an average of eight students in a regular class, thereare 160 distance education students. Distance educa-tion can help with and improve the quality ofeducation of librarians and technical services libra-rians in general.This NETSL conference generated enthusiastic audi-

ence response and participation for an excellent confer-ence at Holy Cross.

Acknowledgment

Many thanks to Librarian Mona Hefzallah of FairfieldUniversity, who attended the conference and sharedboth thoughts and her notes with me.

Notes

1.Walt Crawford and Michael Gorman, Future Libraries: Dreams,

Madness and Reality (Chicago: American Library Association,1995).

2.Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd ed. (Chicago: American

Library Association, 2003) and Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules,

2nd ed. 1998 rev. (Chicago: American Library Association, 2003).

3.Michael Gorman, The Concise AACR2, 1998 rev. (Chicago:

American Library Association, 1999).

4.Michael Gorman,Our Enduring Values (Chicago: American LibraryAssociation, 2000).

doi: 10.1016/j.serrev.2004.08.009

The fifth annual Acquisitions Institute at TimberlineLodge took place on May 15-18, 2004. The majesticsetting on Mount Hood in Oregon is a stellar locationfor a conference! The Acquisitions Institute is not onlyheld at an amazing location but offers plenty ofopportunities for participants to spend time with oneanother in either the lodge bar, reading, or enjoying theoutdoors. The three organizers, Richard Brumley (Ore-gon State University), Nancy Slight-Gibney (Universityof Oregon), and Scott Alan Smith (Blackwell’s) createdan excellent program with the theme bNew Discoverieson Lost Lake.Q

Keynote address

Henry Yaple (Whitman College) started off the Acquis-itions Institute by sharing, bGolden Rods, Tub Files,Encumbrances, and How to Put the Cat among thePigeons or, What I Learned in Acquisitions, 1973–1987.Q One of his first important lessons took place in a

bNew Discoveries on Lost LakeQ: 2004Acquisitions Institute at Timberline Lodge

Emily McElroy

cataloging class during library school. When the classwould disagree on subject headings, the catalogingprofessor would tell them, bWhen you get your ownlibrary, you can do what you want.Q The second lessonhe learned was one after he started working at MichiganState University and was learning the procedures forfiling goldenrod forms by main entry. The bgoldenrodsQwere used to inform everyone that titles were on orderso duplicate orders would be avoided. Later, he learnedhow tub files were used in acquisitions. After an orderwas checked for duplication, a copy of the order formwent into the tub file by title and not by main entry. Ashe moved upward in the library, he realized thatfollowing the routines with duplicate materials contin-ues at all levels of the acquisitions department. Withoutconsulting his staff and sending a letter to a vendorabout a shelf of duplicates, the vendor replied that Yaplehad put the cat among the pigeons by not followingproper procedure. As a result of his experiences with thegoldenrods, tub files and the cat among the pigeonscomment, Yaple discovered that it is important toconsult staff and pay attention to details. Another lessonhe learned at Michigan State University was to alwaysconsult with the lowest common denominator. It isimportant to consult the person who can stop somethingbefore you proceed to ruin it. At the University ofWyoming, Yaple found out that spending money can behard work and that money must move in a timely way.He learned some lessons from his vendors on how tomove money through the system. Instead of saying,caveat emptor, bLet the buyer beware,Q librarians shouldsay audeat emptor, bLet the buyer be audacious orbold.Q

As Yaple moved on to Whitman College as collegelibrarian, he found that his prior experience in acquis-itions work had served him well, first in a remodelingproject and then when a new building was constructed.He concluded with these suggestions: consult staff, payattention to details, find the lowest common denomina-tor, say audeat emptor, be comfortable spending largeamounts of institutional funds for worthy projects, andwhen you get your own library, you can do what youwant.

Session #2

Katharine Farrell (Princeton University) and MarcTruitt (University of Houston) presented bDefiningFunctional Requirements for Acquisitions Records:Vendor Metadata.Q Farrell and Truitt previously dis-cussed the need for acquisitions standards at the 2003Acquisitions Institute and the 2003 Charleston Confer-ence. They began their presentation by noting thatunlike bibliographic metadata, there is no acceptedtheoretical or conceptual base for developing acquis-itions standards. They identified vendor metadata as astarting point for standards because vendor data is thelink between libraries and systems and materialssuppliers. Farrell and Truitt established four goals forestablishing standards for vendor metadata. The first

Davis / Serials Review 30 (2004) 354–370

361

goal was to conceptualize what they called thebCharleston ModelQ: applying a relational databasemodel to developing requirements for vendor recordsas part of this concept. The second goal was to defineactivity segments, and the third goal was to completethe model. The fourth goal was to test the modelthrough application to vendor records. In order toconduct such a test, Farrell and Truitt created dataelements, tasks and subtasks. Some of the data elementsinvolved creating an authority name for vendors,chronological scope for a vendor’s name and a uniqueidentifier. By focusing on vendor metadata, Farrell andTruitt discovered new functionality by being better ableto analyze activities with business partners. In addition,libraries could track publishers as well as agents in thematerials acquisitions triangle. They concluded bysuggesting that in order for this to move forward,libraries need to define requirements, systems vendorsneed to support standards and materials vendors needto supply metadata.

Session #3

The follow-up panel to the presentation by Truitt andFarrell consisted of Katharine Farrell, Marc Truitt, DanMiller (Blackwell’s), Martha Gettys (VTLS, Inc), andJannette Schuele (YBP Library Services). Farrell andTruitt discussed how they reviewed other models thatwere discarded by libraries and vendors and found themtoo enumerative, duplicative and cumbersome. Whatattracts them is the possibility of gathering relationalinformation. The need for a relational database isessential because of all of the corporate relationshipsand multiple attributes of a vendor that cannot beadequately described in a flat system. They also see theneed for greater authority control over the expression ofvendor names. Increased functionality of a controlledvendor record would improve access and understandingof vendors. Questions were raised on how this couldhappen without the support of national organizationsand authority control agencies. This is a recognizableissue and one that Truitt and Farrell are still exploring.A balance of flexibility and ease of use is anotherconcern. The conference attendees raised concerns thatthe application of standards could mean a loss offunctionality and flexibility because there may be a lossof local control and a need to conform more rigidly tothe standards. Other concerns were also expressed aboutthe funding support for the development and promotionof new standards and the reaction standards wouldreceive from catalogers.

All of the vendor representatives expressed supportof the development of acquisitions standards. The costof development was the main drawback especially asresources become more limited. As Gettys pointed out,when standards do not exist, her company sees anincrease in customization which also multiplies costs.An early knowledge of coming demands enables hercompany to plan and prioritize, so VTLS is eager to

see the process of developing standards move forward.Both representatives of the book vendor community,Jannette Schuele and Dan Miller, emphasized thatstandards would not limit duplication but it wouldcertainly help. Schuele discussed how having stake-holders with broad experience can help standardsmake sense for all involved parties. Miller talkedabout his experiences with acquisitions workflow andadaptability on the vendor side. It was a positiveconclusion to Farrell and Truitt’s presentation since itaffirmed the need for more discussion on what appearsto be a need for acquisitions standards with vendormetadata.

Session #4

Bill Fisher (San Jose State University) began his pre-sentation, bImpact of Technology on Reading Behav-ior,Q by proclaiming that reading is out and thattechnology has had a significant impact on this decline.The type of reading that has declined is less sustainedreading and leisure reading. Now we are only readingwhat we have to read. Fisher then described the historyof the book and how reading has changed over time. Hebegan with the development of writing, the impact ofpapyrus and parchment, as well as language develop-ment. He detailed how early readers were the clergy,educators, and patrons of the arts. Fisher traced furtherdevelopments in publishing that met the increasingdemand for reading material such as the GutenbergPress, how the publishing industry became a craft, theapplication of power to the printing press, how themanufacturing of paper became a mass productionprocess, and how the author and editor relationshipimproved over time. He stated that the peak readinglevel was twenty years ago.

The increased use of computers and newer technolo-gies such as PDAs and printers have meant a greateravailability of online full text, which has impactedreading. As a result, much of our reading can now takeplace online using digital formats. Fisher believes thatthe move to digital formats has created too manyoptions for readers and that there is an increasedurgency when we read online. As a result, we arescanning more than reading. There is also a greaterdiversity of reading material, which has resulted in toomany choices. Fisher finds correlation between what weread and what is being written. Finally, Fisher askedhow many of our libraries include reading in ourmission statements.

Session #5

Laurel Kristick and Margaret Mellinger share collec-tion development responsibilities for engineering atOregon State University. In investigating a move to e-only, the speakers chose to focus on the engineeringcollection. Their presentation, bA Leap in the Dark: A


362

Pilot Project for an E-Only Engineering Collection,Qfocused on this shift from print to e-only. Kristick andMellinger described how their engineering faculty,graduate and undergraduate students use their printand online collections. Most of their users preferred touse online over print, so this collection was a likelycandidate for migration to e-only. The speakers de-scribed some of the benefits of going e-only, includingsaving time of the users; access anywhere, anytime andwith multiple users; currency especially when articlesare available online before they appear in print; en-hanced functionality such as searching, linking, andmultimedia elements; cost savings; increased shelfspace; less processing time; and savings in bindingand replacement issues.At the same time, Kristick andMellinger ably described

many of the challenges that face libraries and users duringthis migration. In describing these challenges, the speak-ers separated them into broad categories such aspublisher considerations, content issues, technologicalissues, and e-journal management. The criteria they usedin moving to e-only centered around licensing restrictionswith accessibility and archiving, reliability of providers,publication structure, technological considerations, localresources, faculty input, and local factors such asimportance to discipline, curricula and research. Theyfocused on publishers with stable content who met all oftheir local criteria and avoided signing any bbig deals.QUsing 2003 and 2004 subscription data, they provided abrief overview of the progress of their transition to e-onlyand concluded that this switch was the right decision fortheir engineering collection.

Session #6

Gwen Bird (Simon Fraser University) followed Kristickand Mellinger by talking about bMigration to ElectronicJournals: One Library’s Experience.Q Bird explained thecontext for this migration from print to electronic. As arelatively young university, Simon Fraser Universitylacks a historical collection. Noting that some disciplinesare almost ninety percent electronic, Bird described howSimon Fraser was able to manage such a relatively fasttransition to electronic access. As a member of theCanadian National Site Licensing Program (CNSLP),they were able to license bundled collections thatallowed Simon Fraser to access many titles they hadnever had access to before. They also reviewed their titlelists to identify which titles could be converted to e-only.Before embarking on this transition, Bird observed whatwas happening both in Canada and the United States tosee how other libraries were handling the move to e-only. After establishing criteria for moving to e-only,they sought faculty input. One of the first things theydecided was to use the word bmigrationQ to explain thisprocess to faculty. To Bird, migration indicates progressand is more positive than some of the other terminologydirected to faculty. Overall, faculty has been supportiveof this migration to e-only.

Bird outlined the implications of this migration to e-only. These implications include retraining and rede-ploying staff to meet the changing workflows, growingneed to track online usage statistics, and restructuringtheir collections budget to move money into a centralpot. Not only has online usage increased with theirmove to e-only but interlibrary loan has been dramat-ically reduced. Bird described how they plan to conductcomprehensive usage surveys every three years in orderto keep apace of changing user needs. Simon Fraser hasredeveloped library space designs and felt the impact ofincreased printing on the library’s equipment needs.Bird felt that they have a strong e-journal managementsystem and that providing up-to-date and seamlesslinking to e-journals is very important. Questions wereraised about the sustainability of the bbig deal.Q Birdresponded by saying that the CNSLP is a very largebuying group with new money. Issues surroundingpreservation are still a concern for her faculty.

Session #7

Pat Wheeler (Oregon State University), editor of theJournal of Phycology, a journal that studies algae and issponsored by the Phycological Society of America (PSA),presented bThe Scholarly Journal: An Editor’sPerspective.Q Blackwell Publishing has published theJournal of Phycology since 2000. Prior to that, AllenPress published the journal. Wheeler described many ofthe responsibilities she faces as an editor, financial costsassociated with the print and online production of thejournal and her thoughts on Open Access and some ofthe challenges facing society publishers. Her timecommitment as editor has increased over the years asthe journal has increased the number of acceptedmanuscripts along with the implementation of a two-month turnaround time for review. Subscription rateshave increased because of the increased number ofpages. The breakdown of revenue for the journalconsists of subscription income, consortia sales, sale ofoffprints and color plates, and page charges. At the sametime, expenses for such activities as production costs,editorial office support, publisher overhead, distribu-tion, marketing, and online costs associated with Black-well Synergy have also increased. Any surplus revenue isreturned to the society and publisher. A backgroundlook at the costs of online production via HighWirePress and Blackwell Synergy was presented. As onlineaccess has become a major mode of access, the onlinecosts are easily justified for the society.

Wheeler also presented her viewpoint on some of theimportant issues facing scholarly communication. Sheaddressed the journal’s approach to copyright andauthor rights. For example, the journal allows authorsto post their articles on personal Web pages. Shedescribed the struggles that smaller societies are facingwith declining profit margins, which normally supportsociety business. The PSA has lost members with librarysubscriptions to the online version. While scientists and


363

libraries are happy with online access, the editor andsociety have mixed feelings. Even though productioncosts have stabilized, she believes the odds of moving toan online-only journal are slim because the quality ofgraphics in the print version is far superior to that of theonline edition. Wheeler concluded by discussing herperspective on Open Access and some of the modelsthat have been recently discussed, including the authorpayment model.

Session #8

A publisher panel comprised of representatives from twouniversity press publishers and one commercial pub-lisher addressed challenges and opportunities in publish-ing with a focus on the future. Daviess Menefee (ReedElsevier) began by discussing priorities for Reed Elsevierin the upcoming years. These priorities consisted ofincreasing the speed of publication, training editors toreview article submissions in the electronic era, lookingat ways of furthering cost reduction beyond layoffs andoutsourcing of help desk employees to India, andimproving customer service. Menefee also outlined ReedElsevier’s business strategy of continuing aggressivedigitization efforts, broadening the customer base intothe corporate sector, developing new products especiallyin the health sciences area, expanding markets intoChina and acting more like an Internet style company.

Peter Milroy (University of British Columbia Press)talked about the challenges facing the university pressmarket. The decline in academic library budgets has hada direct impact on university presses because theacademic market can make up to two-thirds of theirrevenue. As a result, some university presses have movedto interdisciplinary, collaborative projects or havestarted to focus on large-scale research projects that donot cost as much money. Another result of the decliningrevenues is that university presses are starting toexamine the supply chain. Publishers are able to viewwhere books are in the supply chain and can respondaccordingly. In addition, publishers are examining theissues of e-books and how they can integrate them intotheir market. Milroy described the difficulty universitypresses face today with weak revenue. The lower returnon investment in many endowments has had a directimpact on university presses. He listed some of theuniversity presses that have either closed or dramaticallyreduced their catalog.

Niko Pfund (Oxford University Press) continuedMilroy’s grim picture of university presses and thefuture of the academic monograph. He described howthe business model would fail when humanities mono-graph titles exceed one hundred dollars. Like Milroy,Pfund described the supply chain and how data move-ment studies are changing the way of publishing. As aresult, print on demand is increasing. Pfund detailedsome of the changes he has witnessed throughout hiscareer in publishing. He forecasts a further dilution ofmarketing through print catalogs in the coming yearsand believes the number of online products will only

increase. According to Pfund, publishers are still tryingto figure out new business models. Pfund concludedwith the saying, changes in the academy happen onefuneral at a time.Discussion ensued on issues audience participants

have seen in the last few years in publishing. Questionswere raised on the future of the cloth book and whetherpaperback editions will become the only edition madeavailable because they are less expensive. Increases inpaperback costs are coming according to some of thepublishers. Discussion turned to the business model thatReed Elsevier has used with ScienceDirect in the last yearand how some libraries have renegotiated contracts andmoved away from the bbig deal.Q Menefee informed theaudience that Reed Elsevier has not lost customers butcustomers have changed their level of access to Science-Direct. He said that the business model for ScienceDirectis evolving and some changes will take place in fall2004. Finally, Menefee outlined how profit margins willalways outweigh libraries’ concerns because sharehold-ers’ concerns have priority.Other questions centered around the impact of

Google on print sales and how this has impacted thepublishers represented on the panel. Pfund has not seena decrease in print sales. A question was raised onwhether scholarly publishing is a supply driven or ademand driven enterprise. Pfund said that some dis-ciplines are endangered, for example literary studies,pre-colonial Latin American studies, and linguistics. Hissolution for the more esoteric titles is to move to a print-on-demand model to keep costs down. Panel partic-ipants also mentioned that institutional repositories arenot viewed as competition to commercial publishing.There is a concern by some publishers that e-reservescould potentially become a more contentious issue in theyears to come.

Session #9

Stefanie Wittenbach (University of California at River-side) discussed the old model her institution used incollection development in bChanging Horses Mid-stream: Restructuring Collection Development.Q Theold model consisted of funds divided by humanities,social sciences and sciences—a very broad range ofallocating funds. Bibliographers approved all mono-graph orders and approval books. The library decidedto create a new fund structure by discipline and not byacademic department. As a result, the University ofCalifornia at Riverside now has approximately seventy-five funds. They are using one fund for databases and aseparate fund for consortia purchases. Responsibilitiesfor ordering monographs and approval decisions havebeen assigned to thirty subject specialists and sixbibliographers.Wittenbach detailed the implications of this change in

fund structure. Their first task was to update all of theirapproval plans. They had to code approval plans withnew fund codes and modify their entire approvalworkflow. Another important issue centered on training


364

acquisitions staff and subject specialists. Some of thetraining focused on the philosophy of the collection andhow it might change, how to work more closelytogether, learning new procedures with the approvalplan, how the acquisitions process works, and how toread financial reports. In addition, they worked withsubject specialists on how to best serve faculty as theirnew liaisons. Wittenbach described how further changesare on the horizon. She outlined six important tasks thatneed to be implemented or reviewed: update theapproval profile; recode continuations in their inte-grated library system; finalize fiscal close procedures;analyze discipline profiles; monitor the work of subjectspecialists; and review fund allocations. In summary,Wittenbach stressed the positive feedback she hasreceived from everyone involved and how the trueheroes of this change in collection development are theacquisitions staff.

Session #10

Sarah George (Illinois Wesleyan University) discussedbCooperative Collection Development in an Interdisci-plinary SubjectQ by examining different collection assess-ment tools used in comparing Illinois Wesleyan Uni-versity’s environmental studies collection with regionallibraries. She began by discussing the different consortiaIllinois libraries may join. In conducting a statewideassessment of environmental studies, Illinois WesleyanUniversity participated in a 2002 grant sponsored bythe Illinois Cooperative Collection Management Pro-gram (ICCMP). George described the members ofICCMP, the tools that were used in the assessmentand how the grant evolved. The collection assessmentinvolved eighty-five academic libraries and the ChicagoPublic Library and was used to review the state’s overallcollections. Planning for the assessment took two yearsand the grant allowed two years of funding.A variety of tools were used in the collection assess-

ment, including OCLC’s Automated Collection Assess-ment and Analysis Services (ACAS), Library ofCongress’ Classification Web, ISI’s Journal PerformanceIndicators (JPI), Magazines for Libraries, and the OCLCunion catalog for Illinois. Both monographs and serialswere assessed. George described her observations onhow the assessment worked for the environmentalstudies collection.She discovered that subject headings could be prob-

lematic when analyzing interdisciplinary subjects. Forexample, the ACAS subjects were not always sufficientto use, while the Library of Congress subject headingswere cumbersome to evaluate overlap and uniquenessacross interdisciplinary subjects. She felt that collectionassessment tools could limit the interdisciplinary scopeand saw potential opportunities and problems doingconsortial collection assessments. She discovered that itis essential for individual institutions to provide infor-mation to increase the accuracy of data and forconsortia to monitor new products for collection assess-

ment. George concluded by discussing future possibil-ities in collection assessment. One implication of theresult of current and future studies is the need to collectand preserve publications from non-governmentalorganizations and small presses.

Session #11

Diane Carroll (Oregon Health and Science University(OHSU)) began her talk on bSerials Decision Data-base: Selection, Management and Evaluation of Printand Online JournalsQ by providing an overview ofOHSU and the library’s collection. The purpose ofcreating a serials decision database was threefold: tocumulate information about their collection in oneplace so they could run reports; to provide objectiveinformation that could be analyzed by the library’scollection development committee; and to organizeinformation in a way that the committee could makedecisions without being overwhelmed by data. Carrollthen described the database, actually an Excel spread-sheet, used by the library’s collection developmentcommittee. Examples of some of the informationincluded in their serials decision database include:listings of print and online subscriptions; titles underconsideration for purchase; titles with e-access but notowned in print; holdings; and accounting information.The collection development section of the database isextensive and provides citation data, recommendations,print and online usage, interlibrary loan borrowingstatistics, and cost-per-use. Carroll described some ofthe uses of this data in prioritizing collection needs,analyzing cost-per-use, title sharing within a consortia,support for accreditation reports and, to communicateissues with publishers and faculty. Carroll providedmany examples of each of these uses and variousdecisions made using the database. She also discussedthe pros and cons of maintaining a serials decisiondatabase. Carroll warned that the initial start-up of adatabase is time intensive but the benefits far outweighthe initial time commitment.

Session #12

Julie Blake (St. Cloud State University) and SusanSchleper (St. Cloud State University) provided a com-prehensive overview of bFrom Data to Decisions: UsingSurveys and Statistics to Make Collection ManagementDecisions.Q They discussed all of the surveys andstatistics they have used in making collection manage-ment decisions. For each type of analysis, they outlinedhow the information is gathered and the advantages anddisadvantages of each method. Circulation data, printbrowse statistics, electronic usage statistics, cost-per-use,subject data analysis, and bibliography comparisonswere some of the objective methods they considered inassessing their collection. Blake and Schleper discussedother methods of collecting data on their collections that


365

involved faculty and patron input, anecdotal evidence,and physical wear and tear on their collections.Comparing St. Cloud State University’s library collec-tion with those of their peers was mentioned as anotherpossible assessment tool.

Their data collection efforts allowed them to deter-mine subject strengths and weaknesses, whether or not atitle was core or more esoteric for their users, and if aresource should be continued or cancelled. Blake andSchleper concluded by showing a serials survey that wassent to all academic departments asking faculty to ratetitles by importance to their discipline. They felt this wasan effective tool to use in helping them make collectionmanagement decisions.

Session #13

Do librarians always have to be neutral? When canlibrarians become advocates? These are questions thatWendy Highby (University of Northern Colorado)addressed in bThe Ethics of Academic Collection Devel-opment in a Politically Contentious Era,Q the finalsession of the institute. Highby began her talk bydescribing the American Library Association’s intellec-tual freedom principles for librarians and the impor-tance of remaining neutral in our role as selectors.Highby described how librarians could look to JohnStuart Mill and his description of ethical neutrality orhow literature searches backed up the call for neutralityin developing collections. The talk then moved on tohow ethically challenging it can be to remain neutral inlocally, politically difficult times. Most of the discussionfocused on a bill that was introduced in the ColoradoHouse of Representatives entitled Concerning Students’Rights in Higher Education. Portions of this billprovided students with the right to not experience ahostile environment towards their political or religiousbeliefs if the content was not substantially related to thecoursework. Eventually the bill was withdrawn after theAmerican Association of University Professors expressedopposition.

Highby asks what role, if any, librarians should takein situations like the one just described. She feels that alibrarian’s role is intertwined with that of our colleaguesin the classroom, and being neutral might not be thepreferred option. Situations like the one that took placein Colorado do impact intellectual freedom. Highby alsodescribed various instances when critics have askedlibrarians to become more active in arguing againstmedia consolidation, changing copyright laws, anddealing with concerns that librarians might be distractedtoo much by the Patriot Act. Highby concluded her talkby proposing several strategies that we can implement inour libraries, such as educate all library staff in theprinciples of intellectual freedom, incorporate intellec-tual freedom discussions in bibliographic instruction,teach students to read between the lines in order tounderstand the social history of texts and assess variouspublishers more effectively, and explain to students howto value controversy and debate about all issues.

New Discoveries or Still Lost (Wrap-Up)

The three organizers Richard Brumley, Nancy Slight-Gibney, and Scott Alan Smith asked conference partic-ipants for feedback on future programs, logistics of theconference and overall evaluation of the 2004 confer-ence. The audience enthusiastically received the presen-tations and suggested future speakers, along withrecommendations on how to balance programmingand time for networking. Everyone praised the location,food, entertainment, and weather. The 2005 conferencewill be held May 14–17, 2005, at the Timberline Lodge.

doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2004.08.008

A Pioneering Spirit: North American SerialsInterest Group 2004 Annual Conference

Chris Brady

The official theme for the 2004 North American SerialsInterest Group (NASIG) conference was bGreat Visionson a Great Lake: Growth, Creativity, and Collabo-ration.Q I felt like a pioneer coming to the conference,partly due to the location in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.Wisconsin is the state to which my great-great-grand-parents immigrated over one hundred years ago andwhere they married and started their family. I thought itappropriate that I was embarking upon my professionalcareer by coming to Milwaukee and attending theNASIG conference.NASIG was also a pioneer this year by holding the

meeting entirely in a hotel for the first time. Ourmeetings, meals, and lodging were located at the HiltonMilwaukee Central City. This change was on the mindof many people this year, especially those who wereveterans of past NASIG conferences that were held oncollege and university campuses.The conference officially opened when we pioneers set

out from the Hilton to the Milwaukee Public Library afew blocks away. The opening session was held in theexquisite Centennial Hall, where everyonewaswelcomedto the conference and the award winners were intro-duced. JohnGurda, a prominent local historian presentedus with an overview of the history of Milwaukee, basedon his book, The Making of Milwaukee.1 The city has afascinating history. It began as three towns that (almostliterally) warred with each other. The effect of theserivalries can be seen to this day in that the streets are laidout on different grids with every downtown viaductcrossing the river at an angle. Milwaukee was a city ofimmigrants in the late 1800s and early 1900s and had thehighest percentage of foreign-born residents of any majorAmerican city at that time. With its reputation forbrewing, it is no surprise that it was (and still is) themost German city in the United States. But other ethnicgroups have come and contributed to the growth ofMilwaukee: Poles and other eastern Europeans, Italians,


366

“new discoveries on lost lake”: 2004 acquisitions institute at timberline lodge

Documents