¾«¶«´«Ã½

1.0 Purpose and Content of this Chapter

This Chapter on Developing Documents clarifies the following:

2.0 RUSA Documents

3.0 General Recommendations for Document Content

4.0 Drafting Documents & Submitting for Review

5.0 Public Comment Process

6.0 Final Approval Process

7.0 Review and Sunsetting of Documents

Appendix: Sample Guideline Template

2.0 RUSA Documents

2.1 Oversight of RUSA Documents

The RUSA Professional Resources Committee (abbreviated as PRC within this document), provides oversight of the maintenance and development of three types of RUSA documents: Standards, Guidelines, and Recommendations. A detailed committee charge and roster of current members can be found on the .

2.2 Creation or Revision of Documents

2.2.1 Responsible Bodies

Each RUSA document is assigned to a single “responsible body.” A responsible body is either a standing group (such as an existing committee) that authored the document or the standing group (such as an executive board) that formed a temporary group (such as a task force) that authored the document.

Responsible bodies intending to create new documents should carefully consider whether the document belongs in the category of Standards, Guidelines, or Recommendations (see 2.3 below), as each has a different process for creation, revision, and approval. They should identify the audience, define the need, and determine that they have the expertise and background to develop it.

For either creating or revising documents, in addition to notifying the appropriate authority within RUSA, the responsible body must notify PRC of their intent.

2.2.2 PRC Liaison

PRC will assign one of its members as liaison to any responsible body creating or revising a RUSA document. The PRC liaison will assist the responsible body with logistics and help them ensure that the document is in compliance with these procedures.

2.3 Types of RUSA Documents Overseen by PRC

2.3.1 Standards

Standards documents reflect shared values, may be used for assessment or evaluation, are common to all types of libraries with relevant services or collections, serve as baselines for comparative assessment, and serve as springboards for local data management.

New Standards may only be undertaken following a vote of the RUSA Board. PRC may recommend the creation of new Standards to the Board; members or committees proposing new Standards should work with PRC.

When existing Standards are due for revision, PRC notifies the responsible body and appoints a PRC liaison to work with the responsible body throughout the process.

2.3.2 Guidelines

Guidelines documents show how principles ought to be applied in practice, elucidate competencies, and illustrate what skills are necessary for best results in a service-specific context. They guide our behaviors toward best results.

New guidelines may be undertaken in one of the following ways: either an appointing authority forms a group to develop a new Guideline, or a responsible body should indicate their intention to create a Guidelines document in their ‘annual action plan’ submitted to their appointed authority. PRC should be notified.

When existing Guidelines are due for revision, PRC notifies the responsible body and appoints PRC liaison to work with the responsible body throughout the process.

2.3.3 Recommendations

Recommendations documents encompass the following: good ideas worth distributing; articulate shared understandings of a committee, working group, or other division- or section-level group; or provide advice or current awareness.

New Recommendations may be developed at any time. Responsible bodies should include intention to create a Recommendations document in their ‘annual action plan’ and notify PRC.

When existing Recommendations are due for revision, PRC notifies the responsible body and is available to address questions, etc., should they arise.

3.0 General Recommendations for Document Content

While documents need not all adhere to a strict formal template, they should include some basic information and follow certain style recommendations.

3.1 Clarity and Language Use

Documents should be written clearly and concisely, and specialized terms and language must be defined as needed. PRC also strongly recommends using and avoiding the use of .

3.2 Recognition of the Importance of Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Accessibility

Documents should reflect awareness of issues relating to , and accessibility (see the and for ideas).

3.3 Content and Structure

All documents should include content under the following headings:

1. Title
2. Purpose (and/or Scope, Aims, Goals -- choose whatever word or words suits your needs)
3. History (including all approval dates, revision dates if applicable, and the responsible body or bodies)

Documents may, as appropriate, include content under these additional headings:

4. Definitions
5. References
6. Further Readings (and/or Related sources -- choose the word or words that suit your needs)

For documents with complex main content sections, like many Guidelines, authors should use a numerical outline structure to ensure readability.

Since guidelines are the most common type of document created by RUSA members, a sample guideline template can be found in the Appendix to this Chapter.

4.0 Drafting Documents & Submitting for Review

4.1 Drafting and Internal Review

Following the General Recommendations for Document Content (section 3.0 above), the responsible body should develop a draft document and submit it to their appointing body and/or section chair for initial comment on its content. Within 4-6 weeks, that body should either recommend the document for PRC review or request revisions from the responsible body. This stage may be repeated until the appointing body and/or section chair feels the document is ready for review by PRC.

4.2 PRC Review

Once the appointing body and/or section chair indicates the document is ready for PRC review, the responsible body should submit it to their PRC liaison. PRC will review the document within 4-6 weeks with regard to content, format, style, and other editorial matters. The PRC liaison will then notify the responsible body of PRC’s decision. That may be (a) approval as is; (b) provisional approval pending some recommended edits, in which case the responsible body may discuss those recommendations with their liaison or request a meeting with the full PRC; or (c) an invitation for the responsible body to meet with PRC to discuss more extensive comments or concerns.

The responsible body will have an opportunity to review comments and incorporate any necessary revisions. This stage may be repeated until PRC is ready to approve the document. At any point, 4-6 weeks is the maximum amount of time for response by any participating body.

4.3 PRC Provisional Approval

A final draft should be submitted to PRC for provisional approval. Once approved, the document will be moved to the next step, which is the public comment process.

4.4 If PRC Elects Not To Approve

In the unlikely event that PRC finds the final draft unacceptable, and an impasse is reached after discussion with the responsible body and its appointing body and/or section chair, PRC will transmit that information to the responsible body, appointing body and/or section chair, and the RUSA Board. The Board may, in that circumstance, determine if the document should be moved to the public comment process.

5.0 Public Comment Process

5.1 Public Comment for Standards

PRC manages public comment for Standards. If public comments merit reconsideration or substantive revisions, the responsible body should consult with the PRC and with their appointing authority within 4-6 weeks. If appropriate, the responsible body may be asked to resubmit for a new public comment period.

Public comment process for Standards:

1. Working with the RUSA Office, the responsible body should develop an announcement to be posted in RUSA Update. Once posted, the RUSA Office should share the information on RUSA social media, to the RUSA ¾«¶«´«Ã½Connect community, and to the full ¾«¶«´«Ã½Connect community.
2. Public comment period extends from four to twelve weeks.
3. Comments should be collected via an online feedback form. PRC is responsible for developing standard question(s), management of the form, and for sharing responses.
4. Coordinating with PRC, the responsible body should schedule one or more virtual town hall sessions, and/or in-person panel or discussion at conference. Depending on the weightiness of the document in question, multiple sessions should be planned throughout the comment period.

5.2 Public Comment for Guidelines

PRC manages public comment for Guidelines. If public comments merit reconsideration or substantive revisions, the responsible body should consult with the PRC and with their appointing authority in a timely fashion If appropriate, the responsible body may be asked to resubmit for a new public comment period.

Public comment process for Guidelines:

1. Working with the RUSA Office, the responsible body should develop an announcement to be posted in RUSA Update. Once posted, the RUSA Office should share the information on RUSA social media, to the RUSA ¾«¶«´«Ã½Connect community, and to ¾«¶«´«Ã½Connect communities for relevant RUSA section(s).
2. Public comment period is six weeks.
3. Comments should be collected via an online feedback form. PRC is responsible for developing standard question(s), management of the form, and for sharing responses.
4. Coordinating with PRC, the responsible body should determine if virtual town hall sessions are appropriate; if so, the responsible body should schedule such a session. Depending on the weightiness of the document in question, multiple sessions may be planned throughout the comment period.

5.3 Public Comment for Recommendations

A public comment period is not necessary for Recommendations documents.

6.0 Final Approval Process

6.1 Approval of Standards

After approval by PRC, PRC will submit Standards to the appointing authority for the responsible body for approval (e.g., if the responsible body is a section committee, then the section executive would approve the Standards document). If approved by the appointing authority, PRC will submit Standards to the next level of authority. If that is the section chair, PRC will submit Standards to them; section chair will send written confirmation of approval or disapproval to the chair of the PRC and to the chair of the responsible body.

If section leadership approves, PRC will submit the Standards to the RUSA executive director at least one month prior to the board meeting at which consideration by the RUSA Board is expected. The RUSA executive director will distribute it to the RUSA Board.

If approved by the RUSA Board, final versions of approved Standards are circulated by the RUSA Office to RUSA membership and posted to the RUSA website.

6.2 Approval of Guidelines

After approval by PRC, PRC will submit Guidelines to the appointing authority for the responsible body for approval (e.g., if the responsible body is a section committee, then the section executive would approve the Guidelines document).

If approved by the appointing authority, final versions of approved Guidelines are posted to the RUSA website, and circulated by the RUSA Office to section leadership, RUSA Board, and RUSA membership.

6.3 Approval of Recommendations

After approval by PRC, Recommendations are considered final, as only the responsible body is required to approve them.

Approved Recommendations are circulated to PRC, section leadership, and RUSA Board and posted to the RUSA website.

6.4 If PRC Elects Not To Approve

In the unlikely event that PRC does not feel a document should be approved at this stage, and an impasse is reached after discussion with the responsible body and its appointing body and/or section chair, PRC will transmit that information to the responsible body, appointing body and/or section chair, and the RUSA Board. The Board may, in that circumstance, determine if the document should be approved despite PRC’s objections.

7.0 Review and Sunsetting of Documents

7.1 Regular Review of Documents

All documents should be evaluated for reapproval, revision, or sunsetting on a five year rolling basis. Responsible bodies may elect to review their documents more frequently. PRC conducts an annual review of all documents, identifies documents due for review, and communicates with responsible bodies that action is needed.

7.2 Sunsetting of Outdated or Superseded Documents

At any point, or at the five year review point, a document may be recommended for sunsetting. PRC may also recommend that the RUSA Board sunset any guideline that has not been reviewed within 1 full year of its five year review cycle (that is, at the end of the sixth year). Sunsetted documents will be archived in accordance with RUSA policies.

Appendix: Sample Guideline Template

TITLE:

Name of document

HISTORY:

Originally prepared by [responsible body, such as a committee or task force; include names of members if available; provide link to that body’s page on the ¾«¶«´«Ã½site if applicable, or to the appointing body if the Guideline was produced by a temporary group]; approved by the [approving body], [date].

If revised:

Revised by [responsible body; include names of members if available]; approved by the [approving body], [date].

Note: If more than one revision has occurred, include a separate line for each one.

If reapproved without revision:

This document was last reviewed and confirmed in [year]. This version remains current and will be subject to review in [year +5].

PURPOSE, SCOPE, AIMS, and/or GOALS:

Select the most appropriate heading terms or terms and provide at least one or two sentences of explanation.

MAIN GUIDELINE CONTENT:

1. Topical section 1

   1.1 Sub-section
   
   1.2 Sub-section

   1.2.1. Sub-section
   
   1.2.2 Sub-section

   1.3 Sub-section

2. ​​​​Topical section 2

   2.1 Sub-section
   
   2.2 Sub-section

3. Topical Section 3

   3.1 Sub-section

DEFINITIONS:

Include definitions of any key terms used in the Guideline, if appropriate.

REFERENCES:

Include any citations used in the Guideline.

FURTHER READINGS AND RELATED SOURCES:

Include any sources you feel are appropriate, such as relevant articles, related guidelines from RUSA or other organizations, websites, etc.

(The RUSA Professional Resources Committee is in charge of updating) Rev. 01/2021