Let me say this first. I am not an expert in ALA or LITA (or even ACRL) bylaws regarding participation, open meetings, etc. I’m sure a lot of very experienced and awesome people like Jason Griffey, Aaron Dobbs and Cindi Trainor could speak to these issues from the standpoint of someone who is immersed in this world. I am speaking to these issues as someone who does not have the funding nor the inclination to attend both Midwinter and Annual (since those would likely be the only things I’d do all year), but still wants to contribute to her membership organization and is willing to put in the time and effort. I’m also speaking as someone who has dedicated her professional development work over the years to improving access to professional development opportunities for librarians who cannot physically attend conferences. In fact, I even got an award from LITA for my work in this area.
I first heard about the LITA Board shutting down Jason Griffey’s live stream of their meeting through Michelle Boule’s excellent post on the subject (so nice to see a post like this from you Michelle! You’ve been missed). Jason is not just some rabble-rouser who is trying to subvert authority; he’s an elected member of the LITA Board who has dedicated his time in LITA to making the organization more transparent and responsive to the needs of its members. He has had a part in creating most of the best new things to come out of LITA in the past 4 years. I’ve been to and participated in a number of events and meetings that Jason has streamed to make them accessible to people who were unable to attend and I think it’s wonderful that it extended the reach of and conversation about events at ALA Annual/LITA/Midwinter beyond the physical room. I do agree that Jason should have broached the subject of streaming the meeting with the other members of the LITA Board prior to the meeting, but I’d bet that he’d have been turned down and we’d never have heard about it. Maybe it was important for him to do this and be turned down publicly so that we’d know how open our “open meetings” really are.
What I really couldn’t understand was the argument that “we paid a consultant to talk to a Board, not hundreds of people.” First of all, that consultant was paid with money that came from our dues. Why we are any less deserving of access to that report is beyond me. Second of all, the LITA Board meeting was not “closed doors.” It was an open meeting — open to anyone attending ALA Midwinter, so the report couldn’t have had any confidentiality tied to it. There legally could have been hundreds of people in the room who weren’t even LITA members, and they would have been allowed to hear the report bot not members of the organization who could not attend physically. This doesn’t make sense to me other than that it’s the way they’ve done business since before these collaborative technologies existed.
While I do think these meetings should be streamed, I don’t think it should happen in the way that Jason has been doing things. I think this speaks to a bigger issue — that all of the efforts to make these LITA meetings and events more open have spearheaded by individuals. That does not a sustainable project make. If Jason Griffey and other individuals like him suddenly couldn’t attend LITA, ALA and Midwinter, would we suddenly not have any more streaming? This sort of access should happen, but it should be a regular part of how LITA does business. But the way it is now is doomed to failure because it’s seen by most people as something extraneous, or even as “entertainment.” If LITA wants to be responsive to its membership, when fewer and fewer people can attend conferences but still have not lost their passion for contributing to the profession, then it needs to look at how it can accommodate participation and keeping-up from afar. Jason’s done a beautiful job of bringing these issues to the fore, but now it’s time to either make it a part of the way LITA does business or make it clear that this is not the way LITA does business.
Several years ago, I decided that I wanted to get more involved in ALA. I was asked to be on Jim Rettig’s Presidential Initiatives Committee and the ACRL Annual Conference Virtual Conference Committee, so I thought I’d do both. Working with the diverse and impressive group involved in making Jim’s presidency awesome was truly a pleasure, but it was the ACRL committee that really changed my view of participation in ALA (or at least in ACRL). I had always heard that virtual participants were never treated like full citizens on committees and it was one of the big reasons why I hadn’t previously wanted to get involved. With this committee, at least, that could not have been further from the truth. Around that time I was getting funded by ALA for my travel to Annual and Midwinter as I was covering the exhibit hall for American Libraries, so I was actually able to attend all of the meetings for my committee (until I got too pregnant to do so). However, there were other members of the committee who could only attend a few, one or none of the meetings. At every meeting I attended, we had webinar software set up and were able to have a hybrid virtual/physical meeting. This was more than just streaming what went on at the meeting — the people online were just as active participants as those physically in the room. We also met several times synchronously online to catch up, make decisions and conduct other business. It was nice to feel like I could still be helpful and involved when I was too pregnant to go anywhere. Heck, I was able to give a talk for the virtual conference when I was 9 months pregnant! That whole experience gave me new hope that I could make a real contribution to ACRL; that virtual participants didn’t have to be second class citizens.
I would have gotten more involved in ACRL immediately after my experience with the Virtual Conference Committee, but I had a baby a month after ACRL’s National Conference and have been just a tad bit busy with that bundle of energy and moxie since. Now that he’s nearly two, I’ve decided to volunteer with ACRL again and am eager to see what committees I end up on this time around. I hope that I’ll be able to participate through a mixture of virtual and physical participation, since I neither can afford to nor want to attend two ALA conferences each year. I hope that I’ll be given the opportunity to do good things for ACRL, because I’m certainly willing to put in the time and energy. And LITA? I decided to let my membership to LITA lapse. From what I’ve seen, I feel like that division is languishing and that those who want to innovate and make LITA more relevant and accessible are facing one brick wall after another. ACRL has responded in many ways to the needs of its membership (Cyber Zed Shed, OnPoint Chats, Virtual Institute, online classes, National Virtual Conference, etc.), making professional development experiences and participation more interesting and accessible to those who can’t physically attend conferences. I feel like I can find a home at ACRL, because I believe that the organization is moving in the right direction (they’re not there yet, but I believe they will be). I know there are a lot of really fantastic people working to make LITA better (take a look at the EParticipation Task Force Recommendations), but I get the sense that they are swimming against the tide.
ALA, LITA and ACRL are not organizations that embrace or are even structured for radical change, but I think the age that we are in (where people have less funding, more job stress, and more opportunities to participate in professional development, network and make professional contributions online) requires radical change to ensure the survival of the organizations. Enabling more people to participate virtually is not going to kill ALA. People do not just attend ALA and Midwinter because of committee responsibilities and to hear what a Board has to say. They also attend because there is still nothing that holds a candle to attending a conference, learning from someone standing in front of you, seeing old friends, and having long talks with like-minded librarians over sushi and beer. Offering more opportunities to benefit from and make contributions to the organization virtually will increase overall participation and will likely attract members who wouldn’t otherwise have joined because they didn’t feel like ALA/LITA/ACRL represented their needs.
But don’t just read my views on this. Here are some other interesting perspectives:
How Much Is Enough? at ACRLog
Disconnect of expectations between physical and virtual participants at Library Web Chic
New Technology, Open meetings? Not at LITA at Thoughts from a library administrator
Dear ALA, about Midwinter at The Sheck Spot
A Hybrid ALA For 2015 at ACRLog
Virtual Participation on a Shoestring – LITA Rocks the House! from ALA TechSource Blog
Why virtual participation in ALA must be legalized, not decriminalized at Free Range Librarian
Pingback: Tweets that mention Collaborative tech, virtual participation, and what is an “open meeting” anyways? | Information Wants To Be Free -- Topsy.com
“Jason [Griffey] is not just some rabble-rouser who is trying to subvert authority; he’s an elected member of the LITA Board who has dedicated his time in LITA to making the organization more transparent and responsive to the needs of its members.”
I’m pretty sure he’s both. 😀
Too true, Steve. 😉 That was mainly in response to a comment I saw on Michelle’s blog which seemed to be suggesting that Jason was just “some guy” coming to the meeting with a recording device, not that he was actually a member of the board.
Thanks for sharing some kind words about ACRL and their responsiveness to the membership – and you are correct that it can be a challenge to achieve radical change with an ALA division – but creating some change is within the realm of possibility.
Just one comment on including Cyber Zed Shed as an example of ACRL responding to the needs of the membership. Actually, no member asked for anything quite like CZS. It was created by the Innovation Committee for the 2007 ACRL Conference in Baltimore (I was a co-chair). We thought up CZS as something new to offer that we thought would be cool and fun to try. It was originally thought of as an on-site learning technology lab, but some of what we wanted to do was too radical for ACRL. So after dealing with the constraints we came up with a tech-focused, rapid fire setting for allowing members to share their tech savvy ideas and projects. We had no idea if anyone would find it of interest – but they did.
If you decide you would like to get active in ACRL again, let me know. I am running for ACRL VP/Pres-Elect. If elected I will be looking for good folks who are interested in projects that will help to make ACRL an even better association for its members.
Great post. I’m coming in late to this discussion but I completely agree with the following “While I do think these meetings should be streamed, I don’t think it should happen in the way that Jason has been doing things.” I truly applaud his intentions with this, I truly feel that ALA open meetings should be just that and include virtual participation, and I also feel that due paying members, whether they’re attending physically or virtually should have the right to hear what the consultant had to say. I just feel that notifying the board before hand would of been the more responsible, thoughtful thing to do. Even if they had turned him down, surely a discussion could of still ensued in the aftermath concerning how to better include virtual participants to these meetings. Instead, I fear the reaction of the PTB will only be to dig their heels in over this issue.
I was at the meeting as an observer. I’ve been very frustrated with the Twitter/blog response to the whole mess because (to my eyes) it played very differently in real life.
For me, what it comes down to in this case is not whether LITA and ALA want to maximize openness; it’s not whether the consultant’s contract permitted a streaming audience; it’s that it’s a massive and fundamental violation of trust to record one’s peers without their knowledge or consent. When you’re starting from that point, it’s really hard to move past it to get to the broader questions of whether and how to share meetings with a wider audience.
I tend to agree with you on the violation of trust thing. However, I think what the other point of view is trying to establish (maybe I’m wrong, but this is how I’m interpreting it) is if this is meant to be an “open” meeting, then those sitting on and attending that meeting should be accepting of the possibility that the meeting will be recorded in some way. I think it comes down to how we are defining “open meetings” these days. With the increase in use of streaming tools, like Ustream, is it to be understood that they be allowed during open meetings simply because they increase the open nature and transparency of the meeting? I think they should, but if they are and if that’s how we’re going to define open meetings, then it needs to have a consensus so board members can plan accordingly and research issues like whether a consultants presentation should be included in that open meeting or not, before hand.
I totally agree, Carleen. And I think that’s where some of the problems stem from. One issue is that ALA’s definition of “open” is a little weak and non-explicit. It’s reflective of a time when this kind of thing wasn’t an issue. (I don’t think UStream is the answer though, because I don’t think there’s any way to read ALA’s definition of openness as extending beyond conference attendees and ALA members–unless there’s a way to authenticate UStream through ALA’s member database.)
However, given the reality that ALA policies and procedures don’t necessarily account for the streaming video case, we need to tread carefully. The Board could have been setting ALA up for legal liability if they’d continued the webcast (it’s not the Board’s responsibility to be familiar with ALA contracts) so I think they made the most prudent decision under the circumstances.
If all this stuff had been hashed out beforehand (or as a matter of policy) than it would have been OK. However, if it were a matter of policy, I’d hope they would make darn sure that members and participants were aware that meetings might be recorded/streamed/etc.
I agree with both Carleen and Dre. I’ve been in situations where I showed up to give a talk and was just at that moment told it would be recorded. I normally have no problem being recorded, but I’d like at least to be asked. Actually, I found a talk I gave for an online library school class posted to the web by the instructor, which seemed like a complete violation of my trust. And yet, if I’d been asked, I would have had no problem with it. That’s why I said that I didn’t think the way streaming was currently being done (piecemeal and not as a system-wide decision and plan to make this happen and keep it going) was a good idea. However, one positive thing about this kerfuffle is that it’s inspired a conversation about openness and collaborative technologies that is bigger than just an individual situation. Hopefully it’ll go somewhere beyond the blogosphere. 🙂
If the consultant’s contract had language against streaming or recording that I still think that’s bad on LITA’s part. As Meredith said our dues money paid for him to speak, why shouldn’t we be able to watch it later if we couldn’t attend? Or why should non-LITA members be allowed to hear him? (Mind you I’m not opposed to the later just throwing it out there).
I was watching the conversations happening via Twitter and my impressions match up pretty well with Meredith’s. But I think my biggest issue was that there wasn’t a unified answer being given by anyone on LITA board. Instead they kept making tweets and then backtracking a bit when they realized they misspoke or didn’t phrase something correctly. And there still hasn’t been an actual explanation from the LITA board about why they shut down the streaming, which is something that I think needs to happen.
LITA has a chance to learn from this mess and so far…I’m not seeing anything coming from them about what they’ve learned and that’s seriously disappointing as a member.
Pingback: Free Range Librarian › Armadillos on Fire: Revisiting ALA’s Open Meeting Policy
Pingback: 5 Things | Shelf Space
Pingback: Practically Speaking – about Streaming the LITA Board meeting – Library Hat
Hi Meredith, As the President of ACRL I couldn’t be happier to hear the good words about ACRL. Please help spread the word that ACRL does not require conference attendance for service on any division level committee – and as you experienced virtual members are full members. There are still a lot of folks out there who do not realize we have changed the policy on conference attendance and committee membership.
Having said that, no resting on our laurels! Please let us know if you have any other advances you’d like to see! 🙂
Lisa Hinchliffe
ACRL President (2010-2011)
Pingback: On Transparency and Openness | SarahGlassmeyer(dot)com