Regarding the question of open meetings, “open” is an interesting word. There’s nothing particularly “open” about ALA Council at all. Most of Council meets after everyone has gone home, and Council has refused to make its real-time online transcripts available beyond the chambers, even though it is financially and technically trivial to do so. So some of ALA’s “concern” about open meetings should be taken with a grain of salt.

In this century, being truly “open” may mean dispensing with face-to-face meetings and meeting virtually. I can’t see ALA migrating to that overnight, however.

On my own blog, I’ve recently written about what I get from ALA. Just for the networking and activities alone, I get my money’s worth. And no, blogging is not enough. Eventually I need to see real people.

ALA engages in arm-twisting by forcing those with primary interest in one of its divisions to pay additional dues to the mother organization. What I really need from an organization is opportunities for professional development provided by ACRL and its sections. I, for one, would be glad to pay higher dues to ACRL were it to split from ALA.

So what is the preferred term? I, for one, didn’t know that was a pejorative. How should I rewrite this sentence: “Back when I had a paraprofessional job at a university library, I thought most librarians were kooks”?

Even their insistence on it is offputting, frankly; it reeks of arrogance. A few too many of them (”any” being too many, of course) use ALA membership or other specific forms of participation in ALA as a litmus test, and covertly or overtly accuse non-members of lack of dedication, lack of awareness, passivity, complacency, or other character defects.

(I have been so accused, in case you were wondering.)

ALA exists as part of a constellation of other library societies, other professions, and other opportunities for librarians. Unless and until they realize that, and decide and articulate what role(s) they can most effectively and efficiently fill within that larger world, they will continue to suffer departure of talent and money.

To address Jim Rettig’s excellent comment — we outside ALA cannot *possibly* determine where ALA should put its resources. ALA’s finances and goals are far too opaque for that. I do, however, strongly believe that ALA needs to step back, look at the world around it, and NARROW ITS MISSION to the things that *only* ALA can do.

That may mean jettisoning some divisions, frankly. It may mean wiping some activities off the face of the earth because other organizations do them better and cheaper. It may mean building bridges between ALA and related professional organizations (ASIST, SLA, SAA, ACM, ACH, to name a few possibilities) rather than competing with them or downplaying them.

It almost certainly means major changes in the way ALA conducts business. It means no more hiding ineffective activities behind the lobbying arm. It means humility toward ALA’s stakeholders, instead of self-righteous invitations to martyrdom. It means setting explicit goals for the organization and its activities, and gauging activities and services on (cost-)effectiveness measures as well as ideological grounds and “cool factor.”

It’s time. It’s past time. And if ALA doesn’t get started with this *soon*, ALA may get started too late — and then the lobbying arm goes down with the ship.

Rikhea: What ALA has done for me is accredit my graduate school and fight stupid legislature – hardly very personal changes in my life. I sense that people like Karen Schneider and Michael Golrick have been leaders in ALA because they want to give back, but are they trying to give back to librarianship? Or are they actually giving back to ALA?

I am pretty sure most people that volunteer and work hard within ALA positions and committees are giving to the profession and not a single organization. ALA is just a tool to give back to the profession.

While I will not argue whether one should or should not join ALA, the efforts of ALA do effect all of us in either positive or negative ways. Lets see “personal” or not? That accreditation insures that your degree is accepted standard for employment in libraries. The “stupid legislation” effects how we all do our jobs. Research conducted by, with support from, or published by ALA (or sections within) leads to changes or improvements in our profession or organization regularly. I will not keep listing other examples.