Background on the 10/22 draft, with some notes on why (or why not) the text was edited as appears below.

2.1:
No changes. Left as is so that each organization can define to suit its needs. Not every type of library would want to explicitly tie their planning to only their parent organizations goals, etc. due to the different constituencies they serve.

2.2
Reworded so that the broader statement was listed first, but with specific attention to budgeting.

2.3
Reworded for clarity.

2.4
Added resources because they are so often a part of project management and organization.

2.5
Didn't want to specifically refer to standards because academic libraries have accreditation standards as part of their operations. Instead, chose broader language "applicable criteria" to reflect different libraries defining their operations to meet their needs.

2.6
Changed "clients" to "customers."

2.7
Expanded the concept of leadership to include the concept of negotiation and collaboration, with an eye towards the type of negotiation library leaders often undertake with the rest of the organization, alums, university, etc.

2.8
Wanted to expand to include newer technological trends and methodologies.

2.9
No changes.

2.10
Added in response to feedback regarding the need to include concept of marketing/promoting library. However, didn't want to define too narrowly given the different types of libraries this competency would apply to.

I think marketing should be included as part of the competencies -- when you consider how many libraries fail so astonishingly at marketing, there should be some statement here that it is necessary. Marketing does not mean PR; it is doing appropriate customer research and responding to customer wants and needs to successfully deliver services that are relevant to your customers. Which is potentially already stated in 2.5 (especially if we redraft including stronger language re needs assessment) -- I just think some explicit reference to marketing is called for.

Regarding negotiation skills, and "collaboration and cooperation", see my recent edit to the proposed new language for Core Competency 1.8.

Re 2.1: the only issue I have with so closely tying the library to the parent organization's goals is that it's possible that those goals can conflict with the library professional's best judgment about how to best manage a library (or legal info). As suggested in the redraft, there's no room to exercise independent professional judgment, nor an acknowledgement that there's a responsibility to do so.

I'm bothered by the use of "standards." Immediately thought of the ABA Standards which we have to live with but don't set. What about this: "Determines and articulates the applicable criteria for delivery of library services and measures and evaluates the quality of the those services."

Re 2.6: At first read I think it really refers to space planning and modeling to meet evolving needs (that and making sure it doesn't get shrunk to the size of a postage stamp). In some ways this is more about advocating for the library generally...

2.6 -- I will confess I do not understand what it really means. So perhaps it needs to be re-drafted so that dummies like me can get our minds around it? :)

2.5 No suggestions to change from commenters; however, there is a suggestion to add a new competency that says “Determines the applicable standards that the library must satisfy.” I would add that to 2.5 rather than creating a new one.

Proposed new language: “Determines the applicable standards that the library must satisfy, and measures, evaluates, and articulates the quality of the library’s services.”

Also there was a suggestion to add a new competency: “Determines the information needs of customers through observation, discussion with customers and colleagues, and the user of needs assessment tools.” But I’m thinking that is part of what is meant here in 2.5. Is this proposed new competency necessary as a separate statement? Or can some of this language be added into 2.5?

2.4 No suggestions to change from commenters; I might add “organizes people and resources” Proposed new language: “Understands the principles of project management and organizes people and resources to accomplish complex tasks.”

(Additionally, in the Core Competencies discussion, there was a comment about 1.10 referring similarly to an understanding of “the principles of knowledge management” – but do we know what is meant by that? What principles are those, exactly? And here in 2.4 it is the “principles of project management” – maybe there is no formal, agreed upon code of principles somewhere, but this probably could be clarified or supplemented by a link to information that would help people educate themselves if they do not already understand the principles of project management.)

Helane, I agree with your proposed rewording of 2.2 -- that is more clear and more accurate (at least to my understanding of what library managers are doing and expected to do)

2.3 No suggestions for change from the commenters; however, I would modify to make the grammar more clear and readable (I think there is a parallelism problem here?) Proposed new language: “Selects, supervises, and evaluates library personnel, and provides for their training and development.”

2.1 Suggestion from commenters was to add “ensuring that the library’s goals and objectives serve the parent organization’s goals and objectives.” My thoughts: when I add that language, it reads almost as though serving the parent organization’s goals and objectives is the only purpose of the long-range planning. So I would modify the proposed language slightly…
Proposed new language: “Engages in a continual process of long-range planning, and ensures that the library’s goals and objectives ultimately serve the parent institution’s goals and objectives.”

Re ability to market: I'm ambivalent about this and I'm not sure why. Perhaps because I think the importance of this varies greatly depending upon the type of library you are and the current culture in your organization.

Re negotiation skills - I do think they're significant enough to go here. I might actually suggest they go in both places. But the negotiation skills that are relevant to a management role particularly, have to do with negotiating with all of the relevant stakeholders, especially those outside of the library (i.e., faculty, dean's office, other libraries, university, alumni, donors). I would advocate for a way to distinguish this from the intra-organizational negotiation skills that get tapped when handling internal matters.

Re 2.2 and language on resource sharing, as reformulated in my earlier section, we could add "...and pursuing cooperative resource sharing and purchasing...".

Re whether the set as a whole still accurately captures the role managers play, I would say yes. Boiled down - that roles relates to handling funds, handling people, serving institutional needs, and keeping abreast of your specialty. All of those elements are present here.

Re 2.2: I'm not sure of the distinction being made between "plans, prepares, and controls budgets" and "manages all financial resources." As written, this seems to indicate two different sets of skills or activities. I would think "manages all financial resources, including planning and implementing budgets" (or some such) would be a better statement.