----------------------------Original message---------------------------- I don't think that Alice Hudson's wondering (and asking) about why key map library positions are going unfilled is rude at all. It certainly is a question in my mind! (Apologies in advance for the length of this reply.) There are probably many factors creating this problem. First, although I don't know if it is foremost, many of the folks appropriate for these positions might not be willing to move -- they're comfortable and well established where they already are. The profession as "matured" in the ten years that I've been "doing maps," and until this past year there weren't many openings. Now, when there are spots to move into, those that are qualified have firm roots in their current work and other situations. Secondly, I'm not so sure that the open positions have offered adequate compenstation for the depth of expertise and breadth of experience that are being requested -- Either in $$ or in staff support within the individual "units" so that the librarian can fill all of the roles needed. After reading the Illinois job description, I could easily see the same kinds of frustrations building there that I have here in Washington. We're being required to take on more and more -- and perhaps don't feel that we're "expert" in what we already were doing. Or we never have the time/opportunity to truly become proficient in the new tasks/responsibilities. I also can't tell if the people doing the hiring for these positions are able to articulate what they think the map librarian should be doing. I think that most library administrators know that something is happening in the world of digital geospatial data -- but they aren't able to forecast (just as we really can't) what the impacts will be. Because all of this digital stuff is still amorphous in many ways are library administrators/hiring committees looking for "geospatial data gods" (in contrast to Secret Masters of Mapdom)? These "gods" would be able to handle every electronic data thunderbolt without even THINKING of sweating! Can any of us aspire to this yet? Also, perhaps because of the same fuzziness, mixed messages about priorities are being sent. I know that much of what appears in advertisements is boiler plate -- but it still should reflect what the actual situation is. Reading the responsibilities paragraph the priorities are: administration, supervision, reference/information services, cataloging, collection development, new technologies/GIS. I suppose that the GIS bit could fall under reference/information services which is why the qualifications line up as: administartion, supervision, GIS/digital data, reference, collection development, cataloging. I found the Illinois ad interesting (and scary) because it listed SPECIFIC packages and platforms!! Is this akin to requiring catalogers to know MARC and OCLC? Yes, all of this digital stuff is becoming increasingly important -- but it shouldn't be allowed to do so at the expense of the "traditional" formats (which for most users are still much more accessible). Again, my apologies for this too long message -- Alice's question appeared at a time when I've been thinking about all of this and MAPS-L was the first forum for me to broadcast/vent what I've been thinking. I look forward to reading what others think! Jenny Marie Johnson Head, Map Collection and Cartographic Information Services University of Washington Libraries [log in to unmask]; (206) 543-9392