In February 2022 LRL members got together to discuss how to add value to legislative research requests without compromising nonpartisanship in their work. Folks attended from Michigan, Minnesota, Delaware, California and Nevada. Questions that were asked:
1. How do you usually deliver results to your legislative patrons? For example, by email, document(s) attached to email, hard copy, file sharing site, orally/in person?
2. Please share examples of research/reference requests that you get from legislators or from other legislative nonpartisan offices. Do you often get requests that are very big or take a long time?
3. Is there room for analysis without compromising nonpartisanship? Where is the line?
Jessica Lundgren in Maine told us they mainly receive and respond to requests via email with some folks coming in person to receive research services. She said they try not give responses verbally.
Maeve Roche in California told us about the difference between research requests answered by librarians versus researchers and of their hope to hire a data librarian in the future. She also let everyone know that the folks with the California Research Bureau are now working from home permanently.
Joel Rudnick in Delaware agreed that most research responses are given via email and addressed that most public patrons just need to be referred to an agency and he usually does this via phone.
Many expressed hesitations offering analysis even just referring folks to specific code sections that may apply to their question. But to consider that a certain amount of analysis happens just in judgment as to what applies to a question and what doesn’t and how sources are listed, etc. All expressed hesitation at highlighting specific resources and data over others. Most of this can be remedied with robust reference interviews. Some folks who had law and library science qualifications felt a bit more comfortable in offering a bit more detailed analysis but still maintaining bipartisan resources and offerings.
Diane Donham in Michigan made a good point that sometimes making in-person “deliveries” of resources to get face time with folks can help with library outreach and that it is good to have the initial email for the written record but to also follow-up by phone to conduct an interview and zero in on their question and gain clarity on the types of resources being sought.
Stephanie Hayworth in Nevada brought up a good point that some clients may prefer their resources in a specific format. Some really want those hard copies!
Elizabeth Lincoln in Minnesota highlighted that they try to deliver at least the most important piece of research to the requestor in person. The value in this is the opportunity for outreach, getting face time and cutting through what is usually a huge amount of information that legislative researchers or personal staff are wading through.
She also told us about what they call, “Post-it analysis,” pointing out that a certain article is cited by most of the other resources or seems to contain the most robust information or most directly relates to their question. “If you’re only going to read one thing, this should be it.”
Joel explained how he completes “short answer” or “executive summaries” that he includes with his responses. Not much interpretation but mainly summarizing sources and how they relate to each other and pertinence to the question.
Elizabeth shared that some of the large, deep research requests they do allow the librarians to make close connections with other legislative staff and agencies and build expertise.
These calls are fascinating and offer legislative librarians a way to connect, meet each other and really get into the nitty-gritty of questions and concerns that are very specific to their unique roles in the legislatures. If you have any ideas or questions that you think other librarians would be interested in exploring together, pleased reach out to LRL liaison Megan McClure and we can work on getting it on the calendar and out to the membership. And keep an eye out for upcoming calls!