T
he
C
R
IV
S
he
et
Th
e
N
ew
sl
et
te
r
o
f
th
e
Co
m
m
it
te
e
o
n
R
el
at
io
ns
w
it
h
In
fo
rm
at
io
n
Ve
nd
o
rs



A
A
LL


Vo
lu
m
e
24
, N
o
. 2


Fe
b
ru
ar
y
20
02
Sara Galligan (Chair)
Dakota County Law Library
sara.galligan@co.dakota.mn.us
The CRIV Sheet
Michelle Wu (Ex Officio)
University of Houston
mwu@central.uh.edu
Stephanie Edwards (Ex Officio)
Roger Williams University Law School
sedwards@rwu.edu
Carol N. Rogers
CRIVPage
Anne K. Myers (Ex Officio, Webmaster)
Boston University
amyers@bu.edu
Linda Kawaguchi McLane
CRIV Tools Subcommittee
Janice Snyder Anderson (Subcommittee Chair)
Georgetown University
anderjan@law.georgetown.edu
Gretchen W. Asmuth
Donald J. Dunn
Contents
From the Chair 2
Editor’s Corner 3
A Legal Publishers’ List 4
A Librarian’s View of the New Product Award 5
A Tour of the Label Application Process
at West Group 6
Report of the CRIV Meeting with
West Group about BSI 7
Additional Questions on West’s BSI and
West’s Response 8
Asking the Customer First: CCH’s Spring 2001 Survey 9
CRIV Member Profile: Michael Bushbaum 11
Mediation Subcommittee
Carol N. Rogers (Subcommittee Chair)
Latham & Watkins
carol.rogers@lw.com
Sara Galligan
Walter M. High
Ann H. Jeter
Linda Kawaguchi McLane
Educational Programming
Subcommittee
Michael Saint-Onge (Subcommittee Chair)
LexisNexis
michael.saint-onge@lexisnexis.com
Michael J. Bushbaum
Donald J. Dunn
Sara Galligan
New Product Award
Subcommittee
Michael J. Bushbaum (Subcommittee Chair)
Valparaiso University
mike.bushbaum@valpo.edu
Gretchen W. Asmuth
Ann H. Jeter
Site Visits Subcommittee
Lovisa Lyman (Subcommittee Chair)
Brigham Young University
lymanl@lawgate.byu.edu
Sara Galligan
Linda Kawaguchi McLane
Carol N. Rogers
CRIV Web Site
http://www.aallnet.org/committee/criv

Positive feedback highlights our accomplishments, and most
individuals appreciate acknowledgment. As the CRIV Chair,
many tasks have kept me focused on a variety of issues.
However, I have tried to keep a mental list of those entities and
individuals that I want to acknowledge for their contributions
to a better legal information world. Thus, the first issue of
The CRIV Sheet of the new year contains some accolades and
affirmations that I want to share.
First, I want to mention the AALL New Product Award. Great
minds may differ, but member consensus regarding a best new
legal title demonstrates our expertise in recognizing product
excellence. While it seems that law librarians spend a great deal
of time working with publishers to resolve problems, the New
Product Award provides an opportunity to highlight success.
It is our opportunity to promote to other publishers the types of
products that fill a niche, pioneer new territory, meet different
user demands, or just outright shine with outstanding content
and quality. This issue of The CRIV Sheet will highlight the
librarian’s perspective on the value of the New Product Award
to our profession and to the legal information marketplace. The
next issue of The CRIV Sheet will provide the vendor’s viewpoint.
Second, another legal information product that merits my
unabashed acclaim is the CRIV’s very own The CRIV Sheet.
Some new members may not know that The CRIV Sheet began
as a separate AALL newsletter in the 1970s. Between 1978 and
1988, the title was Publications Clearing House Bulletin. Law
librarians quickly appreciated The CRIV Sheet’s reports on
publisher issues — including both the librarian’s problem
identification and the publisher’s response. The CRIV Sheet is
now published three times a year in the November, February
and May issues of AALL Spectrum. The CRIV Sheet continues to
disseminate information relating to publishers and vendors,
acquisitions tips, perspectives on licensing and fair business
practices, and much more. Concerns have become more varied
and complex since the first issues were produced. From 1988
to 1994, Ken Svengalis served as editor of The CRIV Sheet.
He acknowledges that his stint as editor uniquely positioned
him to monitor trends in legal publishing and to develop ideas
expressed in his highly regarded book, The Legal Information
Buyer’s Guide & Reference Manual, winner of the Joseph L.
Andrews Bibliographic Award. The current CRIV Sheet editors
Michelle Wu and Stephanie Edwards have done a wonderful job
working on articles of importance to members, making sure
that the latest reports regarding publisher discussions are timely,
accurate and thorough. Members are always welcome to contact
the editors about writing articles pertaining to legal information
acquisitions and publishing.
Third, if ever there were hopes for a better new year, this is it.
While there are all too many reminders about the events of
Sept. 11, 2001, I want to note how heartened I was by the
legal publishers’ poignant messages and offers of support to
the law firms affected by the disaster. Most of us outside of
the New York and D.C. areas felt paralyzed and helpless, not
knowing what we could do to help. In light of unimaginable
circumstances, one can only hope that some law firms were
assisted by the publishers’ generous offers to replace volumes,
provide office space and offer some free online services.
Fourth, I am pleased to report that the CRIV received positive
feedback from the Annual Meeting Program Committee
regarding two program proposals. The Orlando Annual Meeting
will feature a program coordinated by Michael Saint-Onge,
“Where Will It All End? Law Book Pricing Study, Part II.”
I will coordinate a second program co-sponsored by the CRIV
and the State, Court and County Law Libraries Special Interest
Section, “Value-added or Value-denied: John Q. Public and the
Legal Information Marketplace.” These topics should appeal
to a wide group of law librarians as well as publishers.
Finally, the CRIV depends upon individuals and entities outside
the committee to accomplish its goals. By working with members
and publishers, the CRIV’s efforts to communicate constructive
solutions are a form of positive feedback to others. Thus, I want
to applaud the members and publishers who have taken the
time to work on problems and areas of mutual concern over
the past months.
2 The CRIV Sheet Vol. 24 No. 2 February 2002
From the ChairSara Galligan
Dakota County
Law Library
Hastings, Minn.

The CRIV Sheet Vol. 24 No. 2 February 2002 3
Editor’s Corner Michelle Wu
University of Houston
Texas
Stephanie Edwards
Roger Williams University
Law School
Bristol, R.I.
The pace of developments in the area of legal publishing
continues to amaze us, even after working as law librarians
for several years and serving several terms on the CRIV. We are
struck by the fact that things never slow down around here.
That is why we are committed to bringing you this publication
dedicated to such changes. The CRIV Sheet is not only one of the
ways we can disseminate timely news about the activities of the
CRIV and the legal information marketplace, but it also provides
some important reflection — after the fact — about changes
that have taken place.
The current issue highlights The Legal Publisher’s List, which
will be maintained by the CRIV Tools Subcommittee beginning
in 2002. We would like to express our thanks and highest
appreciation to Rob Richards at the University of Colorado
Law Library, who formulated the list in 1997 and has made
this valuable resource available to colleagues in all libraries.
We are pleased that the list will be added to the CRIV “Toolkit”
and hope to continue to recommend it to colleagues seeking this
kind of information.
With a deadline for nominations fast approaching in February,
our focus in this issue is also on the New Product Award, which
honors an outstanding new legal publication each year. Many
people are not aware that the CRIV plays a role in the selection
process for AALL’s New Product Award, which is officially handed
out at the Annual Meeting every year. The subcommittee
responsible for the award solicits nominations, reviews new
products and forwards a recommendation to the AALL Awards
Committee. Frank Houdek’s article details the background of
the award, its importance for the AALL membership and what
it is designed to accomplish. Look for an article in the next issue
of AALL Spectrum on the award and its significance from the
vendor’s perspective. Further, towards the end of this issue, the
CRIV is pleased to present a profile of the New Product Award
subcommittee’s chair.
The impact of West’s new Business Systems Initiative occupied
much of the committee’s time this past fall. Things have settled
down since the implementation process began, but we felt that
it would be valuable to members to reproduce the CRIV report
on its conference with West. Although this report, and related
documents, have been available at the CRIV’s Web site for
several months, The CRIV Sheet continues to serve as a valuable
means of informing members about any major activities since
the previous issue, such as the October teleconference with West.
In connection with the teleconference, Sara Galligan had the
opportunity to tour the West Group production facility and see
the label application system in action. She describes her tour
in this issue.
Developments relating to West’s BSI continue, as West mulls over
and responds to some of the complaints and questions that have
been referred its way both by individual librarians and by the
CRIV. For example, in early December, West agreed to sort its
subscription invoices by document delivery numbers. This was
among the most fervent requests West received in October from
library account managers, who were reeling as they tried to
adjust to BSI changes. Although the major issues identified in
a CRIV survey were presented to West in October, not all of the
problems have been completely addressed. Chris Graesser of
Brown Rudnick Freed & Gesmer, former CRIV chair, followed
up with West after noting that some of the questions from the
survey remained unanswered. An excerpt of her letter to West
and the response she received will be of interest to customers
still sorting out the account changes introduced with BSI.
As the articles in The CRIV Sheet indicate, communication is a
high priority for both librarians and vendors. In addition to
reporting on the CRIV communications with West, we also wanted
to cover one vendor’s outreach effort to librarians. In early
2001, CCH decided to survey law librarians on their Web
wants and needs in order to obtain a better understanding of
librarians’ expectations for vendors’ sites. In the last article
in this issue, CCH will describe this survey’s outcome, and
how the company responded to the resulting issues posed by
AALL members.
Thank you to all of the authors who contributed to this issue!
In upcoming issues of The CRIV Sheet, Linda Kawaguchi McLane
of the University of California School of Law Library will bring
us up to date on Aspen’s progress with its new business
system. On the heels of finishing the new edition of his Legal
Information Buyer’s Guide & Reference Manual, Kendall
Svengalis will offer some tips on keeping “write for order”
subscriptions on track. Ed Hart of the New England School of
Law Library has agreed to write an informative article about
the new Amazon.com corporate accounts. As always, we want
your expertise and perspective, too! If you would like to write
an article for The CRIV Sheet, contact Michelle Wu, mwu@
central.uh.edu, or Stephanie Edwards, sedwards@law.rwu.edu.

4 The CRIV Sheet Vol. 24 No. 2 February 2002
“We are born for cooperation, as are the feet,
the hands ... “ — Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
The history and story of A Legal Publishers’ List: Corporate
Affiliations of Legal Publishers, available at http://www.
colorado.edu/Law/lawlib/ts/legpub.htm, exemplifies successful
cooperation between law librarians and representatives of
legal publishers.
Where to Send Claims and Payments?
After I had started as technical services librarian at the
University of Colorado Law Library in early 1997, the
acquisitions and accounting technicians frequently knocked
on my door to ask, “Whom should we claim this from?” and
“Whom do we pay for this?” My wise supervisor, Georgia
Briscoe, pointed me to Kendall Svengalis’s indispensable history
of the legal publishing industry in the Legal Information Buyers’
Guide and Reference Manual. [The most recent version of this
remarkable resource is “A Brief History of Legal Publishing,”
in Kendall F. Svendalis, Legal Information Buyer’s Guide and
Reference Manual 5 (2001)]. I also learned further details by
monitoring listservs and sharing information with law library
acquisitions colleagues. Cynthia Aninao and the AALL Technical
Services Special Interest Section Acquisitions Committee offered
particularly helpful guidance.
To make the basic publisher-ownership information available
to the library’s support staff, I wrote up a simple diagram,
a legal publishers’ corporate affiliations tree. Once a month
I updated the List and printed out copies for our support staff.
Information on additional publishers came from acquisitions and
accounting technicians, occupational articles and resources, and
conversations with colleagues.
When the public services librarians expressed interest in the
List, we held an in-service training about the corporate
affiliations of legal publishers. Our discussion at the training
raised two concerns about the future: (1) the likelihood of steep
price inflation due to monopolization in many submarkets
of the publishing industry, and (2) the control by non-U.S.
corporations of so many U.S. legal sources.
In the beginning, then, our home-grown Legal Publishers’ List
(hereinafter, List) helped us send claims and checks to the
correct publishers. The List also put us on cost-alert; it cued us
to budget for high inflation in the coming years, to scrutinize
prices for new editions and subscription renewals, and to
implement “write-for-order” acquisitions in some cases. Further,
the evidence of the List impelled us to address our growing
concern about the problem of non-U.S. control of key U.S. legal
information resources in our professional associations.
Getting the Word Out and Getting Help
Later in 1997, colleagues at law libraries of all kinds, who were
as puzzled as we had been about whom to claim from and
whom to pay, asked me to share our List with them. With the
encouragement of Prof. Barbara Bintliff, our director, and
Georgia Briscoe, I posted our corporate affiliations tree to the
law-lib, LAWACQ, and GOVDOC-L listservs. I received more than
a dozen responses. Some readers sent thanks, while others
contributed ownership information about additional publishers;
I added this information to the List.
In the summer of 1997, I updated the List for publication in
The CRIV Sheet in the November issue. Through listservs,
I solicited more information on mergers and acquisitions in the
legal publishing industry. Librarians and vendor personnel
generously shared what they knew about current corporate
relationships and upcoming mergers. I began posting the revised
List to the listservs approximately once per month.
Next, the CRIV asked if the list could be posted on a Web site.
Bintliff and Briscoe graciously agreed to host the List on our
library’s departmental site, where we could regularly update it.
The CRIV then provided a link to the List from its Web site.
At first the Web version of the List contained just the affiliations
diagram without any hotlinks to publishers’ Web sites. After
finding that most colleagues used the List by printing it out
periodically and posting it near their workstations, I chose to
format it on a single HTML page, with very simple coding for
easy printing. Next, our acquisitions assistant added as many
hotlinks as we could find; Anna Belle Leiserson’s comprehensive
list of publishers’ Web sites, at AcqWeb, http://acqweb.library.
vanderbilt.edu/acqweb/pubr.html, proved invaluable.
Because librarians also needed to be informed of recent mergers
and acquisitions in legal publishing, a “News” component was
added to the site. The List then began to function as both a
current awareness tool and a corporate affiliations chart.
Once the List was available on the Web, I periodically posted
updates on the listservs. The editors of The CRIV Sheet and Legal
Reference Services Quarterly (1/2/1999) publicized the List in
their publications. The latter version was also published in The
Political Economy of Legal Information: The New Landscape 23,
ed. by Samuel E. Trosow ed.
A team of loyal information suppliers — both law librarians
and representatives of publishers — alerted me to pending
mergers and corrections to the List. So many professionals
supplied information that all of their names would not fit on
the List’s acknowledgements page. Although I thanked each
contributor personally, the acknowledgements page includes
only the names of those who contributed information about
corporate affiliations of multiple publishers or imprints.
We are all indebted to these professionals for their generous
and informed contributions.*
The List Today and Tomorrow
When first published in The CRIV Sheet in 1997, the List included
168 publishers and imprints. As of Nov. 17, 2001, the List
provided corporate affiliation information for about 500
publishers and imprints.
A Legal Publishers’ List: A Cooperative SuccessRob Richards
University of Colorado
Boulder, Colo.

The CRIV Sheet Vol. 24 No. 2 February 2002 5
The List divides legal publishers into three categories: (1)
subsidiaries of the major international publishing conglomerates;
(2) subsidiaries of other corporations or owners of multiple
publishers; (3) independently owned publishers. Of the three
largest conglomerates, the Thomson Corporation appears to
control the most legal publishers and imprints —- a total of
91 by our best estimation; 30 legal publishers and imprints are
under Reed Elsevier’s umbrella, while Wolters Kluwer owns 21.
We have identified 31 smaller, multilevel legal publishing
concerns; these control a total of 91 publishers or imprints.
The number of independent publishers is, happily, significant —
121 university presses and 172 independently owned publishing
companies. (The List seems to bear out Susan M. Yoder’s
prediction of a thriving independent sector; see “The Rise of
the Small: The Effects of Industry Consolidation on Small Legal
Publishers,” Legal Reference Serv. Q., Num. 1/2 1999, at 59.
Also published in The Political Economy of Legal Information:
The New Landscape 59 (Samuel E. Trosow ed., 1999).
Independently owned legal publishers and university presses
make up approximately 60 percent of legal publishers and
imprints identified on the List, while the smaller conglomerates
represent nearly 20 percent
The Web version of the List now receives an average of 2,000
hits per month. In October 2001, 2,490 users visited the List.
In January, the CRIV took over maintenance of A Legal
Publishers’ List. I wish to thank the committee, and especially
Anne Myers, Janice Snyder Anderson and the CRIV Tools team.
Barbara Bintliff, Georgia Briscoe, Anna Belle Leiserson and
the leadership of the CRIV and the AALL TS SIS Acquisitions
Committee have steadfastly supported this project from its
inception; I am deeply grateful to them. Their vision and
encouragement have fostered this rewarding experiment in
professional cooperation.
* I’m especially grateful to: Teddy Artz of the University of
Dayton Zimmerman Law Library, Margie Axtmann of the
University of Minnesota Law Library, Mike Beaird of the
University of Arkansas Little Rock Law Library, Bob Berring
of Boalt Hall Law Library, University of California, Berkeley,
Marilyn Bromley of BNA Library, Elissa Campbell of Freehills,
Stephanie Edwards of Roger Williams University School of
Law Library, Lori Hedstrom of West Group, Anna Holeton of
Campney & Murphy, Vancouver, Anna Belle Leiserson of
Vanderbilt Law Library, Angela Man of American Lawyer Media,
Atty. Ellen M. Poler, Laura Orr of the Lillian Goldman Library,
Yale Law School, Chug Roberts, Eric Sleigh of Carswell Thomson
Canada, Holley Marker Thompson of LexisNexis, Jane Thompson
of the University of Colorado Law Library, Lawrence Thompson
of Martindale-Hubbell, and M. Walters of Wolters Kluwer U.S.
A Librarian’s View of the New Product Award:
Looking for the Positive
Frank G. Houdek
Southern Illinois
University
Carbondale, Ill.
Past CRIV Chair,
1998–2000
The New Product Award, approved by the AALL Executive Board
in fall 1994 and first awarded (to Shepard’s/McGraw-Hill
for How to Shepardize, a computer-based tutorial) in 1995, was
designed to honor — and thereby encourage — new products
that enhance existing law library services or procedures or
improve access to legal information or the legal research
process. That statement alone ought to be sufficient to explain
why any law librarian should applaud the annual presentation of
this award — to do otherwise would be like dissing apple pie
— but perhaps a little history would also help to explain why
this recognition is one of the more important things AALL does
to encourage productive librarian-publisher relations.
In a “Proposal for New AALL Award” submitted to the Executive
Board in November 1994, the CRIV, through a subcommittee
chaired by Marcia Zubrow, explained why the Association should
establish a new product award: “There is no AALL award that
honors the work and dedication of publishers and companies in
developing new products or redesigning existing products in the
legal information field” (AALL Executive Board Book, Nov. 4–6,
1994, Tab 43). It was no accident that this language was carried
through into the minutes documenting the board’s approval of
the award (Minutes of the AALL Executive Board, Nov. 4–6,
1994, at 2034) — the very description of the award’s purpose
was itself meant to be a public recognition of the important
contribution publishers make to the world of legal information.
Not surprising since creating the award was a conscious effort
by both the CRIV and AALL to introduce a positive element into
what had increasingly become strained relations between law
librarians and publishers.
Perhaps the nature of those relations is best illustrated by this
description from the November 1993 issue of The CRIV Sheet:
“The CRIV Open [Publisher] Forum puts officials of the highest
publishing ranks in the hot seat. Law librarians come prepared
to voice complaints or exact promises from vendors. It can’t
be easy for a president of a large company . . . to face the
demanding questions of the customer. The same issue, like most
others of the period, contained much polite (but pointed) parry
and thrust between librarians and publishers over problems,
practices and issues related to specific publishers, publications or
both. Though Richard Vaughan was referring both to the city’s
weather and the excitement generated by CRIV activities during
the conference when he described the 1993 Boston Annual
Meeting as “HOT” in his “From the Chair” column (p.3),
it also was a fair characterization of the temperature of
librarian-publisher relations at the time.
Librarians had reasons to be hot. In his final “Editor’s Corner”
column (2/94:2), Ken Svengalis wrote of “a period of mergers
and buy-outs, corporate restructuring, proliferation of legal
materials and significant technological breakthroughs, [that has
had] an enormous impact on law libraries, which have witnessed

6 The CRIV Sheet Vol. 24 No. 2 February 2002
the transformation of corporate identities and longstanding
relationships. The consolidation of the industry has also brought
with it a variety of practical difficulties, from improperly merged
accounts, misdirected shipments, and payment problems to
sharply rising supplementation costs.” The pages of The CRIV
Sheet, not to mention postings on law-lib and other electronic
discussion lists, eloquently conveyed the dismay, concern and
frustration of librarians over the serious headaches engendered
by the events and practices of the time.
Nevertheless, a year later, CRIV Chair Betty Kern wrote in her
“From the Chair” column (11/94:3) about the proposed
establishment of a new product award: “This award reinforces
the goal of this year’s committee to promote cooperation
between librarians and publishers for mutual benefit.” Similarly,
a new editorial policy for The CRIV Sheet, adopted by the
Executive Board in July 1994, emphasized that the newsletter’s
“primary aims are to provide general information on
vendor/library relations and to foster a constructive dialogue.”
Moving from the “hot seat” to “cooperation for mutual benefit”
and a “constructive dialogue,” such rhetoric signaled AALL’s
intention to include positive as well as negative recognition in
the program of librarian-publisher relations. (Not that such
recognition was entirely new. In the November 1993 issue of
The CRIV Sheet quoted above, Editor Svengalis noted that in the
period from the mid-1980s librarians had “witnessed a host of
positive developments [in the world of legal publishing].”)
While it would be foolish to pretend that today everything is
absolutely hunky-dory between librarians and publishers, the
environment in which those relationships are established and
conducted is much different than that of a decade ago. A very
proactive CRIV works closely with the highest levels of the
publishing community to solve problems (or head-off situations
before they become problems), communicates frequently
with law librarians through electronic CRIVGrams as well as
The CRIV Sheet, visits publishers on a regular basis to engage in
constructive conversations about their practices, and generally
does all it can to promote a productive working relationship
between librarians and publishers. Law librarians now work
hard to publicly praise publishers when approbation is merited
— such as noting on law-lib when customer service has been
particularly helpful in responding to a budding problem —
to go along with the criticism they still offer on those occasions
when a publisher’s actions leave them justifiably “hot.”
And is this all the result of the New Product Award? Of course
not, but it certainly played a role in changing librarian-publisher
relations from an environment that emphasized the negative to
one that acknowledges the positive as well. Just like librarians
in their own jobs, publishers sometimes do well and sometimes
do poorly. It is both fair and appropriate to honor the good —
in this case, when publishers develop innovative products,
such as Health Law & Business Series (1997), Congressional
Universe (1998), KeyCite (1999), Indexmaster (2000) and
Hein-On-Line (2000) — while continuing to point out the bad.
AALL’s New Product Award helps law librarians and publishers
alike see the positive side of their ongoing relationship.
Prior to the teleconference discussion that the CRIV and West
Group held in October to discuss its Business Systems Initiative,
I was invited to tour West’s label production facility in Eagan,
Minn. Due to the numerous concerns law librarians have
expressed this fall about West’s new label process, I quickly
accepted the invitation.
After a lengthy walk through West Group’s corporate
headquarters, Lori Hedstrom, program manager for librarian
relations for West Group, and I arrived at the less familiar
entrance to the production facility. There we met our escorts,
Mark Lerud, director of bindery and distribution, and Paul
Buerkle, operations manager for subscription services. They
guided us on a tour of the plant where label application occurs.
We ambled along wide aisles, sometimes following yellow
directional lines in the floor. In the massive plant area
(approximately 1.1 million square feet), forklifts quietly
overtook us as we walked among endless stacks of collapsed
corrugated cartons and a scattering of conveyer belts. Numerous
stacks of print publications indicate that print is still a prominent
product for legal publishers.
The first line we observed had two spools of labels affixed 2 feet
apart from each other. The first spool on the conveyer belt
contained a roll of the larger shipping labels. We watched as
equipment automatically applied a label to a shipping carton.
The carton moved to the next spool, where the smaller “Peel
Here” label was affixed over the account information on the
larger shipping label.
As we walked around the conveyer belts, material and inventory
control systems directed which shipping cartons and print
materials were situated near the lines. However, Buerkle pointed
out that one objective in a shipping operation is to move
materials out of the area quickly. Thus, when one line is down,
stock will be moved over to another line where workers can
keep materials moving. When this occurs, print materials are
sometimes placed in shipping cartons that were lined up for
another product. Thus, tradition yields to efficiency when titles
normally packaged in pull tab boxes are placed into boxes
without pull tabs.
A Tour of the Label Application Process at the
West Group Production Facility
Sara Galligan
Dakota County
Law Library
Hastings, Minn.

The CRIV Sheet Vol. 24 No. 2 February 2002 7
We watched a second application of the new label stock where
shrink wrap was used as the shipping material. In this case, the
conveyer passed through the heating machinery that causes the
plastic to shrink on to the conveyed material. The material then
moves a short distance to the first spool of labels. Although it is
still warm at this point, the plastic shipping material has cooled
down enough to adhere strongly to the shipping label. The
second label is precisely calibrated for application on top of the
shipping label. The material then moves to the end of the line,
where workers remove and stack the material. According to
our guides, the new system will apply 8 million labels a year.
A Minnesota company produces the new labels. Lerud and
Buerkle explained that after two defective label stock runs,
the third label stock was much improved. West began using the
improved label stock in mid-October. Our guides demonstrated
the new features of the improved labels, including a 5/8-inch
margin on the left side of the label for easy lifting. The label
released easily and left no sticky residue. While the label curls
slightly at first, it relaxes within moments and appears to
remain flat. The glossiness of the stock is as low as possible yet
appropriate for the thermal printers. This process also allows it
to be receptive to ball-point ink.
We discussed other features of the labels. Lerud and Buerkle
explained that a wrap-around technique in the printing will
allow for longer title information to appear on the shipping
label. They also said that the labels applied on shipments of
new orders are equipped with a peel-off return label. Lerud
suggested that returns for subscription titles be handled
differently — a library that wants to decline receipt can simply
write “Return to sender” on the unopened box and send it back
to West without paying postage.
Although West’s production facility was previously unfamiliar
to me, I readily recognized the now notorious label stock. It was
a great relief to see firsthand that the latest label stock was far
superior to its forerunners. I appreciate the time Lori Hedstrom,
Mark Lerud and Paul Buerkle took to describe and demonstrate
the label application.
Report of the CRIV Meeting with West Group
Regarding Review of the Library Community’s
Response to West’s Business Systems Initiative
Carol Rogers
Latham and Watkins
Los Angeles, Calif.
The CRIV met with West Group representatives on Oct. 10, 2001,
to discuss the library community’s responses to West’s Business
Systems Initiative. Since the CRIV’s request for responses
occurred before most libraries completed their full billing cycle,
most of the discussion centered around the new shipping labels
and the subscription invoices.
The discussion opened with a brief introduction and a bit of
trivia. The much-talked-about shipping labels are actually not a
part of the BSI. They were a separate initiative that West rolled
out with BSI.
Shipping Labels. West readily admits to problems with the
shipping labels. The first batch of labels, which was referred to
as “phase one,” had an incorrect adhesive applied, were cut
incorrectly and were printed on defective stock. Most problems
were corrected with phase two, which ran through Oct. 7, 2001.
Phase three of the shipping labels began on Oct. 8, 2001, and
West believes that this phase has corrected the sticky peeling
problem. It has implemented a 5/8-inch “peel here” strip with no
adhesive and has adjusted the cut to allow more of the title to
appear and wrap as necessary. Testing of the new labels showed a
clean peel and little curling. West did not test “date stamping” the
labels and recommends a ballpoint pen for writing on the labels.
However, this new label is less glossy than the previous labels.
The labels are placed on specific parts of the box to make sure
they don’t pull off as they travel through the machinery. As for
UPS labels applied over the West label, West has reported the
problem to its mail centers with some positive results. Anyone
who continues to have problems with the UPS labels should
report those problems to West.
The delivery number printed on the shipping label has replaced
the former reference numbers. This number also appears on the
invoice and should be used for reconciliation of shipping notices
and invoices. One library reported a document delivery number
that did not match the delivery number on the invoice; that
example has been sent to West for research.
As of January 2001, there have been no separately itemized
amounts for shipping on the packing slips. Tax is broken out on
the invoices. The goal was to remove the tax information from
the reconciliation slips and place it on billing documents so that
both West and the libraries would be able to prove that sales tax
had been paid.
Clarification is needed for multiple copies. The quantities
on the subscription notices refer to the number of items in the
shipment, not the number of items in the individual carton.
A shipment can consist of multiple cartons.
The purchase order number field on the shipping label is
frequently not used and can be customized to contain whatever
special information is useful to the library. Page 7 of the billing
guide shows an example of the purchase order number field.
Libraries that want to use this field must contact West.
West has clarified the purpose of the posting numbers and
delivery numbers. The posting number is issued after the
delivery number and is linked to the accounting payment record.
The delivery number is referenced between the shipping label
and the subscription invoice but is not carried over to the
accounting payment record.

Subscription Invoices. The shipping label is not regarded
as a payment document. It is to be used as a record for internal
workflow for the customer. The delivery number is not used on
West’s financial reporting side.
Posting and delivery dates do not match because of actual
delays in West’s internal processes. The posting number is
what stays with the cash application system on West’s financial
reporting side. West of course prefers that libraries pay invoices
by referencing the invoice number. In cases where the library
cannot pay by invoice number, West recommends that the
posting number be referenced. West announced that it will begin
sorting shipments on the subscription invoice by document
delivery number, though a date for this change has not been
set. Several respondents raised this issue to both West and the
CRIV. (Editor’s note: West has in fact responded to the library
community’s request that items appear on Subscription Invoices
in order of document delivery number. West announced this
change on Dec. 5, 2001, and it was published widely as a
CRIVGram.)
West advises that the subscription invoice clearly indicate what
is being paid, especially if there are any discrepancies. In these
cases, the payments will be applied as indicated by the posting
number. When invoices are altered, they are sent from the
lock box system directly to customer service for review and
application.
All Rutter accounts should have been converted to West and now
appear on the subscription invoice. The intention is to have one
consolidated account. Anyone who still has multiple accounts for
Rutter and West should contact customer service.
Annual renewals remain an issue. The difficulty of distinguishing
between monthly and annual subscriptions has not been addressed
yet. West cannot include the renewal date on the subscription
invoice. Renewals are triggered by the anniversary dates for
subscriptions and are automatically invoiced in the billing cycle of
that anniversary date. One solution is to go to annual billing, but
beware of the possible loss of associated discounts with other
subscriptions. West will work with customers on a case-by-case
basis for a resolution regarding anniversary dates.
Miscellaneous. West concedes and recognizes the problem
with missing and delayed shipments. Its distribution center is
now working around the clock and will continue to do so until
the backlog is cleared. West expects to be caught up by the
end of November.
Some librarians have been told that there is a chance that
paper packing slips would be re-implemented. There is no plan
at West to change the new external labeling procedure.
Conclusion. The CRIV would like to thank the library
community for responding to our request for feedback to West’s
BSI. We would also like to thank West for working with us and
the library community to respond to and clarify issues raised.
8 The CRIV Sheet Vol. 24 No. 2 February 2002
The West Group-CRIV teleconference in October 2001 attempted
to address all the numerous concerns librarians have with West’s
new system changes and their direct impact on library accounts.
After reading the CRIV report and West’s subsequent response
posted on the CRIV Web site shortly after the conference,
Chris Graesser posed some follow-up questions to West’s Mark
Witzany, director of customer service at West Group. Because of
the continued interest among AALL members in the details of
the BSI implementation, The CRIV Sheet editors have deemed
it worthwhile to print an excerpt from her communication with
Witzany, along with his responses to the questions she raises.
(References in Graesser’s letter are to the questions collected by
the CRIV from the AALL membership and published on the CRIV
Web site at http://www.aallnet.org/committee/criv/mediation/
westbsi/responses.htm.)
Oct. 31, 2001
Thanks to West Group and the CRIV for working so hard to
answer questions that customers have about the new BSI
system. However, going through the questions and answers in
detail, I found that some questions were addressed in spades
and others weren’t touched, at least as far as I could tell. So I’m
going to break down the points that still seem to need attention.
1. New and monographic orders: How are those invoiced?
Do they appear as separate invoices or are they included
in the monthly subscription invoice? (Q 2)
Are electronic services invoiced separately? I know that
WESTLAW is, but what about CDs? One librarian complained
that monthly CD charges did not designate the month for
the charge appearing on the invoice. Why not? (Q9)
2. How are subaccounts (i.e., multiple shipping locations, offices,
etc.) recorded on invoices? The librarian wanted to know if
they’re consolidated or on separate pages. If they are not
separated, does the library have an option to request that
they be separated? (Q 4, 11)
3. What’s the correct way to handle Rutter invoices? Can West
be more explicit in designating Rutter account charges, rather
than an obscure TRG abbreviation? Are there other subsidiaries
or divisions that libraries need to be aware of in terms of how
they are billed? (Q5)
Additional Questions on Business Systems Initiative:
An Excerpt from Follow-up Communications
Chris Graesser
Brown Rudnick
Freed & Gesmer
Hartford, Conn.
with a response by
Mark Witzany
West Group
Eagan, Minn.

West’s Response
Nov. 8, 2001
Dear Chris,
I appreciate your feedback regarding West Group’s Business
Systems Initiative. I have reviewed your comments and have
provided responses that I hope will help resolve your questions.
New orders for print and CD-ROM bill differently. New print
orders will be invoiced in one place only: the New Sale Invoice.
Unlike new print orders, new CD-ROM orders are billed on a
monthly or annual basis along with other subscription update
charges on the monthly Subscription Invoice.
Under BSI, there is a dependence upon the original entry date
of the CD-ROM subscription and the date of the invoice. Instead
of a monthly CD-ROM subscription charge posting on an account
the first day of each month, the charge will post to the account
each month on the day it was entered on the customer’s
account. It is the posting date month under BSI that reflects the
days of coverage for a monthly or annual subscription charge.
For this reason, CD-ROM and print renewal dates are not
indicated in the product description for these charges. Because
each renewal date is specific to the date on which the
subscription was added to an account, the renewal period will be
unique for each subscription. Attached is a document we have
slated for posting on ServiceNews in the near future describing
the process of billing monthly and annual subscriptions in BSI.
Customers who would like to confirm what the West Group BSI
systems show as their subscription start date can call West Group
Customer Service at 800/328-4880.
Another question of yours was how subaccounts are recorded
on Subscription Invoices. If an account has multiple shipping
locations and all charges are billed to one location, the charges
will be consolidated into one monthly Subscription Invoice.
The invoice will indicate the billing address, listed on the lower
right-hand corner of the Subscription Invoice, and will include a
breakdown of charges for each ship-to location. We are in the
process of enhancing this document to include the option of a
page break between each ship-to location.
The Rutter Group subscription charges are designated with the
recognized TRG prefix. It is true that charges from The Rutter
Group updates are now billed on the West Group monthly
Subscription Invoice, along with the changes to BSI. No other
sister companies of West Group are billing in a similar fashion at
this time. We will investigate the option of adding “The Rutter
Group” as a long product description to our billing documents.
Thank you for taking the time to contact me for further
clarification. If you have additional questions, please call
me directly at 651/687-1737.
Respectfully,
Mark Witzany
Director, Call Center
Customer Service
The CRIV Sheet Vol. 24 No. 2 February 2002 9
Asking the Customer First:
CCH’s Spring 2001 Survey
Stephanie Edwards
Roger Williams
University Law Library
Bristol, R.I.In May 2001, before updating the tools and overall design on its
customer support Web site, CCH decided to run a survey of law
library customers to get feedback on the utility of the Web site,
and on Internet-related customer service issues. Leslie Bonacum,
the librarian liaison at CCH, contacted the CRIV and asked if it
would be appropriate to announce the survey in a CRIVGram.
The CRIV was happy to post the announcement on library
listservs, in keeping with the committee’s mission to promote
effective dialogue between vendors and the law library
community. From our point of view, a request for input,
especially when accompanied by the words, “We are very
interested in hearing from you,” represented an opportunity for
librarians to deliver an honest evaluation of vendor services.
After the CRIVGram went out, we did not hear about the survey
again until the AALL Annual Meeting in Minneapolis, where
CCH demonstrated the new features of its redesigned customer
service Web site (http://support.cch.com) in the Exhibit Hall.
Though CCH’s enhanced Web site is not unique per se (other
vendors also feature customer support via the Internet),
it piqued our interest especially because the new design
incorporates the feedback CCH received from the survey
of law library customers.
I asked Leslie Bonacum if she would share some information
about the survey for The CRIV Sheet, since it may be of interest
to those who didn’t respond to the survey as well as to those
who took part in it. Specifically, I asked her to address what
led CCH to conduct the survey and to what extent the survey
changed the way the company provides Web support.
To those of you who told CCH what you expect and what your
preferences are, note that it’s your Web site, to some extent.
Tell CCH if it got it right or not. Ask other vendors to give you
the options you want. Don’t wait for a survey!
The following article was solicited by the editors of The CRIV
Sheet, but it was written by CCH. It is in no way intended
to be an endorsement of the vendor or its products by AALL
or the CRIV.

About the Survey
CCH INCORPORATED began considering enhancements to its
customer service Web site (located at http://support.cch.com) in
the spring of 2001. CCH already had a site in place but wanted
to use new technology to upgrade the functionality and services
on the site, besides enhancing its ease of use and visual appeal.
The company had already collected feedback from a number
of sources (including the CRIV site visit to CCH in the spring of
2000 and the reverse site visits made to libraries in the fall of
2000) to ensure that the site would be an effective tool for law
librarians.
With just several months’ time before the AALL Annual Meeting,
where CCH planned to relaunch the new Web site, the company
sought to identify key improvements that would be of value to
law library customers. We knew that time and logistics were
working against us. (If you’ve tried planning a meeting recently,
you know what I mean.)
Seeking the most efficient way to access a large group of
geographically dispersed people, CCH turned to AALL and the
Internet. Believing an Internet survey would be an effective
way of gathering feedback on the CCH customer service Web
site, CCH approached the AALL Committee on Relations with
Information Vendors to ask if the customer service survey could
be announced in a CRIVGram. The CRIVGram asked those who
were interested in taking the survey to communicate directly
with CCH and not the CRIV.
The survey consisted of two main parts: Part A relating to
general information and Part B relating specifically to CCH’s
Customer Support Web site. Part C was optional and offered
respondents an opportunity to provide other comments.
In Part B, we asked participants questions relating specifically
to CCH site functionality:
• Have you used our Replacement Pages & Reports,
Unlock Code, or Order Status tools on CCH’s Customer
Support site? If so, what do you like about these tools?
What do you dislike?
• If you designed a new page for CCH’s Support group,
what categories of information would you include?
Please name three to five categories.
• What is missing from our site?
We also queried respondents on general organization issues,
visual appeal and other sites’ effectiveness:
• If you browse through the links on our site, do you
find them useful? Are they organized logically?
• What would you add to make our site more visually
appealing?
• Can you give examples of Customer Support Web sites
that you enjoy using? (These do not have to include
publishers’ sites.) What do you like about these sites?
We also wanted to address what we thought might be a sensitive
issue: whether respondents had any concerns about accessing
support over the Internet. CCH has consistently stated that
our goal is to provide excellent customer support in whatever
way a customer prefers to work with us: by customer service
representative, by automated phone service, in writing or over
the Internet.
The Survey Says ...
Overall, respondents favorably reviewed the existing site.
They deemed it to be easy to use because it was well-organized,
easy to navigate and functional. They told us what they liked
most about the site: that it was easy to read and search. From
these findings, we knew what site elements should be retained.
Hence, our goal was to keep the redesigned site straightforward:
not a lot of snazzy graphics, just a c lean presentation and quick
access to information.
Respondents also recommended specific improvements for the
site. The relaunched version of the site incorporated the tools
and information that were requested, including:
• An Updated Mailing Schedule: allowing customers to
view the mailing dates of product updates for CCH
subscriptions products as well as the tentative mailing
date of the next product update. Users can check
subscriptions by account number, alphabetically by
subscription title or by keywords. In the near future,
users will also be able to track newsletter mailing
information.
• Account Inventory: This new feature identified by survey
participants allows customers to view their current
subscription inventory. To keep account information
secure, the site requires the use of an account-specific
PIN that is supplied by a customer service representative
over the phone. Both the PIN and account number are
required to use this tool.
• Additional Information: More than 100 new documents
have been added in the Account Services, Product
Support and Orders sections of the site. These
documents answer customers’ most frequently asked
questions (several identified by survey respondents).
• Information Currency: Respondents told us that keeping
the site current is critical. To that end, we added a News
feature to the home page. News stories cover the major
issues that customers are calling us about today. We also
established a related process to review all information
on the site regularly so that it remains timely and
accurate.
When asked if they had concerns about using a Web site for
support rather than contacting a person by phone or in writing,
the respondents told us that they liked having different service
options to pick and choose from, depending on their needs, as
long as customer-service representatives remain available to
work with them, if the customer so chooses or requires.
10 The CRIV Sheet Vol. 24 No. 2 February 2002
Leslie Bonacum
Librarian Liaison,
CCH Inc.

The CRIV Sheet Vol. 24 No. 2 February 2002 11
CCH’s hunch about using an Internet survey was right. We
received excellent new ideas and feedback that helped launch
an improved customer-service tool for customers (on time!), and
we reached people we probably would not have been able to
visit under our scheduled time frame. From new functionality to
look and feel, ideas from participants of the AALL survey were
incorporated into our new site in a timely way and gave us
plenty of ideas to work on in the future. In the meantime, we’d
love to hear your good ideas about http://support.cch.com at
any time. Just visit the site and access the “Feedback” option
on the home page, then send us your comments.
CRIV Member Profile Michael Bushbaum
Chair of CRIV’s New
Product Award
Subcommittee
Quick Biography: Michael Bushbaum is the newly appointed
associate director for access services at Valparaiso University
School of Law Library. He oversees all aspects within the public
areas of the law library, including circulation. He coordinates and
teaches the first-year legal research program and the advanced
legal research course and monitors the day-to-day operations of
the student computer labs. He is a recent appointee to the
Indiana State Bar Association’s ProBono Commission, responsible
for the distribution of funds to service low income residents of
Indiana who otherwise cannot afford the legal representation
they require.
“This is my second term on the CRIV. I have seen the evolution
of the committee over the past five years into what I think is
one of the best committees within AALL. I had heard about
CRIV when I was in library school at the University of
Washington and was ’forced,’ as part of one of Professor
Hazelton’s assignments, to examine old issues of The CRIV Sheet.
Having a business degree background, I was fascinated to learn
that such a small group of individuals as AALL members could
have such a powerful influence over legal publishers. No other
association that I was aware of even attempted to link the
interests of their membership to the people supplying the
product they worked with.
“During my first term, I watched and was part of the resurgence
of the CRIV under the leadership of strong committee chairs such
as Frank Houdek. I was part of the first site visit to a publisher
(West) and was able to see first hand the respect and willingness
of publishers to work with and understand their primary
clientele. I saw the site visit process transform a meeting that
may have been viewed with trepidation into an interaction
that was welcomed by the publisher. During this time, the
CRIV was also able to sponsor Annual Meeting programs that
allowed all the membership to interact with executives from
the major publishers.
“Having returned to the CRIV during the 2000 meeting, I was
able to again see first hand the necessity for having a committee
like the CRIV. This committee has made a vital difference in how
we as law librarians are perceived by the vendors and in how
law librarians can interact with vendors. Because of the CRIV,
vendors are now less willing to ‘stonewall’ individuals and are
more willing to work together to reach a solution that works for
both sides. It has been both an honor and a privilege to serve
on the CRIV. I can think of no better way to serve the members
of AALL and to give back some of what I have been given.
“As part of that cooperation, it is also the CRIV’s responsibility
to recommend for the New Product Award a new and significant
product that has helped us do our jobs better and more
efficiently. It is a chance to reward a vendor or publisher who
has taken the time to understand our needs and has made the
effort to fill that need. I would strongly urge all law librarians to
take a minute and see if there is some product or service that is
worth recommending for this award.”

12 The CRIV Sheet Vol. 24 No. 2 February 2002
Request for Mediation: Committee on Relations
with Information Vendors
CRIV’s Mediation Subcommittee was formed to assist AALL members in resolving disputes with vendors. AALL members may file a formal request for
mediation. The form is available online at http://www.aallnet.org/committee/criv/mediation/requestform.htm and may be sent electronically or
through regular mail. Complainants will be expected to have made a reasonable effort to resolve the problem by contacting the vendor in writing and
by phone. The CRIV recommends that librarians in charge of resolving vendor issues for their libraries keep a publisher log in order to have a detailed
record of each transaction.
The request form should be accompanied by documentation of correspondence and conversations with the vendor. Requests for mediation and any
general questions about vendor mediation may be addressed to:
Carol Rogers, Chair
CRIV Mediation Subcommittee
Latham & Watkins
520 South Grand Avenue, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90071