Well, up to a point, Val.  I agree that there is some duplication in groups
- UMSLG and UHSL, for example, and I've always felt that the LINC Health
Panel was a group too far.  However, LKDN doesn't seem to have shaken off
its RLG paternalistic roots.  Libraries are assuming higher profiles in
their trusts: we have more and better quality staff than when I started in
the sector and we now have very strong senior managers within Trust
libraries.

I accept that WDC leads need to have a forum, but so do library service
managers.  To take your example of "Users first," in Kent Surrey Sussex our
WDC Lead sent a response and so did the library managers, through the local
Health Libraries Forum.  And they were different due to the differing points
of view.  It's a pity that LKDN didn't reconfigure more fundamentally to
incorporate this.  Any Trust librarians who are LKDN members appear to be
there more through luck than any formal process.  If LKDN became properly
representative of library service providers, then I wouldn't have an axe to
grind.

Mike







-----Original Message-----
From: Trinder Val (Q16) TV WDC [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 08 July 2003 12:28
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Consulative body



In response to Mike Roddham's e-mail I beg to differ about LKDN. True, a lot
of us are no longer at the coalface, but we regularly solicit views from our
local librarians, (I did ask mine about Users First & passed on their
feedback, and I know a lot of other LKDN colleagues did the same), are in
regular contact with them, know their patches well and learn in detail
what's going on through the accreditation process - all of which inform our
work as an organisation to influence policy. Added to which a significant
number of WDCs are represented on LKDN by librarians who work for the WDC on
a part time basis and are working "at the coalface" the rest of the time.

LKDN is in a unique position, many of its members having a clear remit to
drive forward local strategy as well as having a voice nationally. These two
facets are what potentially gives the organisation great strength, a
coherent view and the opportunity to speak with authority and consistency.
True it is a new organisation and is only just beginning to function  so
please give us time before writing us off.  Sucesses so far to name but two,
are engaging with CHI to ensure that libraries are going to be put on their
clinical governance review agenda, and working with NHSIA to ensure that
specific library related IT issues are not overlooked.

I think that to create another body would add another complicating factor to
an already complex picture. We already have Helicon, HLG, LKDN, UMSLG, UHSL,
SCONUL ACHS, each with their specific remit, but which are potentially
confusing to people outside the sector. To have a further body to deal with
NHS policy would present a divided front to the "powers that be" and in my
view would undermine the work LKDN is beginnig to do.  Would the national
bodies we deal with, including the DoH, know who to listen to?  - "united we
stand" ... etc.

I can see real potential for LKDN to influence things in the national work
we are doing with Veronica Fraser. Let LKDN do the jobs it has been set up
to do - one of which is to influence policy, and if you have a burning issue
- talk to your LKDN rep about it - that's what we're there for.

These are my personal views and I'm not the sort of person who normally puts
my head above the parapet first - which means I must feel strongly about
this! Shoot me down if you will but I will defy anyone to argue that the
work LKDN is doing on accreditation for example, hasn't made a difference
for the better to NHS libraries!

Val Trinder
Knowledge Services Strategy Manager
Thames Valley WDC
Jubilee House
5510 John Smith Drive
Oxford Business Park - South
Cowley
Oxford, OX4 2LH
01865 336914
[log in to unmask]