A little over two months ago I wrote about the issues I have with the ALA. This was in light of Jenny’s complaints about the ALA charging her registration for PLA when she was flying to Boston just to speak at the conference. For me, it was pretty much the straw that broke the camel’s back. A few months before I had reluctantly paid my ALA dues — which my employer does not cover. I didn’t even know why I was doing it. I guess I wanted to hold onto a glimmer of hope that ALA could get better. Between Michael Gorman, speakergate, and a whole host of other issues, I have pretty much lost hope. Two months ago I vowed not to speak at an ALA conference until speakers are better appreciated for their contributions (and not just those who are A-list bloggers/celebrities). And now I’ve pretty much decided that I no longer want to be a member. I just don’t feel like it represents me, and I don’t want to continue to support politics as usual. I especially don’t want to pay more (in light of the dues increase) to support politics as usual.
My registration won’t be up for renewal until next Fall, so there’s still time to change my mind. In my last post about ALA, I talked a lot about what’s wrong with ALA, but I didn’t really say what ALA could do to make me want to stay a member of the organization. So, ALA, here is a list of some things you could do to keep me around. I’m not saying you need to do all of them; heck, in some cases even one of these things would be enough to keep me around. The thing is, I want to believe that ALA can get better. I want to be a member of a professional association that I feel passionate about, not one that I feel completely disconnected from.
1. Officially and publicly recognize that there is not currently a shortage of librarians in entry-level positions — nor will there be in the near future — and put money towards the establishment of residency programs in libraries that prepare new librarians for management positions in the future (and to give them a job!). At least that would be a good use for the revenue from the dues increase! Heck, I’d just be happy if you publicized the fact that there is not currently and will not soon be a shortage of librarians.
2. Reach out more to new librarians in the profession. And I don’t just mean by having the New Member Roundtable or by talking to a couple of bloggers.
3. Start appreciating your speakers. You don’t have a conference without them, so don’t insult them by forcing them to pay to speak at your conference. The attitude that it is an honor to speak at an ALA conference is ridiculous. When I talk to people, I do it because I want to impart information that might be helpful to them. I can do that for free on my blog or at an online conference. If I do it at a conference I have to travel to, I certainly don’t want to have to pay for the priviledge of doing so (other than regular travel costs).
4. Start using some of the social tools your patrons are using. Disseminate news via RSS feeds. Have your council members, President, and others get blogs to communicate with their constitutents. Start the ALA 2006 New Orleans wiki for goodness sake! I’m happy to create another one, but how cool would it be if it came from the ALA? But if you do any of this, do not put it behind the membership wall or no one will bother to look at it. Why does this sort of stuff need to be hidden? Information wants to be free, you know. If you’re going to do it, do it right!
5. Raise the accreditation standards for library schools. The standards should be extremely rigorous and every library school should be required to integrate certain core competencies into the curriculum. And by core competencies, I mean that certain technology skills should be taught to library school students so that they might actually have a chance of finding a job when they get out of school. And these technology skills should be integrated into the curriculum. I hate when library schools teach technology totally separate from the library stuff as if technology has no place in libraries. When teaching Web design, it might be helpful to talk about LIBRARY Web sites, no? Every student at every library school should have to create an electronic portfolio (designed for the Web themselves). I came out of library school with a lot of gaping holes in my education. The classes that should have covered these things didn’t. It should be more about teaching certain competencies than teaching certain classes.
6. Become more transparent and human. I know, it sounds very Library 2.0, but if I had some better idea what really goes on at ALA and why it needs as much money as it does to serve its membership, I might have a better feeling about it. To me, it just feels like a big scary faceless monster with big slightly less scary faceless tentacles coming out from it. I want to see what’s behind the curtain.
7. Start sending me literature and e-mails for the things I’m actually a member of. Last year I was a member of RUSA, NMRT, PLA, and ACRL. This year I’m a member of NMRT and LITA. However, I have continued to get magazines and e-mails from some of the sections I’m no longer a member of and I have never heard from the ones I am a member of (or does LITA not have any print publications anymore? — the Web site certainly is not helpful). An e-mail today is the first I’ve ever heard from LITA, and I changed my membership many months ago. This is just one example of a myriad of clerical snafus that go on in ALA. I’ve heard horror stories. With all the money the members pay, you could at least stop sending us the stuff we don’t want and start sending us the stuff we actually paid for. Update: Michael Golrick explained why this was the case and I do understand it. While they could do a better job, I do understand the difficulties of keeping up with members who may change their affiliation every year. In my case it was just because I didn’t have any idea what sort of library I’d be working in until this year. This wasn’t exactly the biggest point on my list.
8. Get a Web site that doesn’t suck. I could go into more detail, but it could take days and I have a book to write.
9. Start having more free online educational opportunities for members. The cost of those ACRL online workshops is absurd. If OPAL and SirsiDynix and the Blended Librarian folks can have cool speakers talk for free, why can’t you? Sure, it’s great that ACRL and EDUCAUSE are having an online conference, but it ain’t free. Look, I’m planning a FREE online conference so I know it really isn’t that difficult or that expensive to do. If you all start offering free educational opportunities online, I’d volunteer to speak as I’m sure would many other bloggers with subject expertise. It could benefit so many librarians who simply don’t have the money to travel or pay for overpriced online conferences.
10. Just about everything mentioned here by readers of Leslie Burger’s blog.
Update11. I would love for every new member to receive a publication entitled “ALA for New Members.” This would explain a lot of what ALA is, how it is structured, and would describe each of the component parts of ALA. The goal would be to demystify all this for new members. When I joined, I didn’t even know to join NMRT because I didn’t know what it was. I’ve been a member for the past two years though. Since the Web site is so confusing and so much of it is out-of-date, it would be great to create a publication (updated each year) that explains all this and makes ALA more transparent! Three and a half years after joining, I’m still confused about how ALA and the divisions and council and all of it work.
I’m writing this, not because I want to lambaste the ALA, but because I really actually want them to do these things. Seriously! I don’t want to not be an ALA member, but it would be stupid to go on supporting an organization I don’t feel represents me. I’ve still got almost half a year until I will need to decide, and by then Leslie Burger will be president and will begin undoing some of the harm Michael Gorman caused. So please, give me a reason to stay, ok?
Update: For those of you who are considering not renewing your membership or are just feeling alienated by ALA, what could they do to make you want to still be a member?
I already let my ALA membership lapse last month, mostly because I’m a special librarian, and thus the SLA is more suited to my needs. My employer does pay for my professional association memberships, so I might have been able to still be a member of both, if I had wanted. But I didn’t want to.
What ALA really needs to do is try to appeal more to new librarians. When I glanced through the catalog of events at the ALA conference last summer, I saw very few worshops and programs that appealed. More programs on issues that appeal to the non-management librarian would be a great first step.
They need to magnify their web presence as well. You already touched on this, but one thing I’d like to see is blogs on the ALA site. SLA is doing this (I just volunteered to work on the Petroleum and Energy Resources Division blog) and I think its a really great way to market the organization.
Finally, reach out to us. Maybe have more of a regional presence, so that librarians who CAN’T afford to go to conferences have more opportunities to network and meet their fellow librarians. Even for those who do go to conferences, the opportunity to network in a more laid back surrounding, on a more frequent basis, is invaluable.
Meredith – I talked with the division heads and executives yesterday for 3 hours. I urged them to be transparent! It’s like you read my mind!
I used quotes from your ALA post to illustrate the conversations taking place without ALA involvement.
Well said.
Let me start by saying that I am a member of the ALA Executive Board (at least through the Annual Conference in June), and some of what you said has been heard, and is being worked on.
However, the registration issue with Jenny is not specifically an ALA issue, but it is a PLA issue. With functions like running the divisional conferences, decisions are made at the divisional level and not by “big ALA.”
For good or for ill, ALA is a large, complex organization. That is both good and bad. Large gives ALA credibility when dealing with Congress and regulators in Washington (among others). That is good. It also means that it is hard to change, and that is bad. Becasue ALA is big, that means that some things will always move slowly.
The issue of understanding ALA is a complex one, and watch my blog for some discussion of ALA 101. At least I’ll try. ALA is/does try to welcome newcomers to the profession. It is hard, and always has been. We need to do better. Did you join the New Members Round Table? That is a good place to start.
I will forward your blog posting to the person at ALA who deals with membership issues, so don’t be surprised to hear from somone as they try to fix some of the issues you noted. I will note, that for most publications (ALA’s and commercial ones) the address labels are run months in advance. That partly explains both why you got the old ones for so long (and they were hoping you would re-up) and why you have not gotten the new ones. Electronic communication will help this.
There are a lot of us out here who do care and can help point you in the right direction to solve specific issues while we all work on the larger issue of making ALA more nimble. [That concept was a huge part of the newest strategic plan, and was mentioned by many, many folks long-time members as well as new ones.] Have hope, and feel free to contact me.
I’m just commenting on one of your issues. I think it’s unreasonable to attack ACRL for charging a fee for their online workshops and conferences. A large organization is going to get charged by the online community provider, in this case, Learning Times Network, to put on the conference – so the fee has to be paid by raising some revenue. Online conferencing isn’t free. Someone either has to pay – or you are being sponsored by the good graces of the online community provider. OPAL I would venture to say gets public or private funding. SirsiDynix – come on – you can’t compare ACRL to a private for profit company. And the BL guys get by on the good graces of the Learning Times folks and very generous colleagues who give their time and expertise to help educate colleagues – or else they couldn’t offer diddlysquat. And when ACRL charges for an online workshop some of those funds help organizations like ACRL and TLTGroup (a frequent co-sponsor) pay their bills and be able to offer services to members. You don’t really think your dues pay for it all. Have you looked at the dues and conference fees for some other professional associations. In some ways we are getting a bargain. And as someone who has delivered those 3-week ACRL workshops online, they take a lot of work and preparation and it’s only fair to compensate the workshop presenters. I would venture to say those who attend get their money’s worth everytime. And are you aware that at ACRL conferences there are multiple workshops available included in the registration fee – not for fee preconferences – but actual workshops that cost nothing extra to attend.
If you are disillusioned with ALA feel free to quit. You may find it more rewarding to join your state organization or a local chapter of a larger national organization. Granted, ALA is a large, bureaucratic, frequently impersonal, and sometimes completely bewildering (e.g., council actions) organization. But I think most of us who are active and enjoy participating don’t think of ourselves as belonging to ALA. Rather we belong to ACRL or AASL or LITA – and we get involved. You only get out of it what you put into it. But all the divisions wouldn’t be possible if ALA didn’t keep it all together.
I’m not an ALA member now, and I have no plans to re-join. I’m not really angry with ALA, I just don’t see it as something important to me as a professional. My attitude is very likely to change, but probably not in the near future. I am a proud member of the Colorado Association of Libraries, and would suggest that you look into the Vermont Library Association if you haven’t yet. I helped plan the CAL conference for the past two years, and it was a very rewarding experience.
When I was an ALA member, I tolerated the bureaucracy of ALA and the grotesquely large annual conference because it was a prerequisite for being an active member of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section of ACRL. RBMS is a great association, with great people, focus, and a killer preconference every year (and chatter between the sessions every year about how great it would be if RBMS could somehow become independent from ALA).
So I agree in part with Steven Bell (above), but I’d put the locus of “belonging” one step further down the chain, in the sections. I still subscribe to the Literature in English and College Libraries section email lists (I just got some help on the LES list today).
What could they do to make me want to re-join? Geez, I don’t know. I have very little money to spare right now, so simply doing a cost/benefit analysis makes it hard for me to think of anything they could do to make it worth the $145 it would take to join ALA and ACRL. (As much as I love K.G. Schneider, I can’t help but laugh at her putting the cost of the ALA dues increase in terms of 9 cafe lattes a year–I would so much rather have the coffee!) Cancel the annual conference in favor of more divisional and sectional meetings? Give me pony?
“A large organization is going to get charged by the online community provider, in this case, Learning Times Network, to put on the conference – so the fee has to be paid by raising some revenue. Online conferencing isn’t free.”
Online conferencing is getting near-free. The current state of the art, Citrix GotoMeeting.com, which allows for web conferences with up to 200 participants per meeting, runs a little less than $10k per year for unlimited meetings.
You can run hundreds or thousands of web meetings a year for this fixed price. The service cost is essentially a rounding error to most large or midsized businesses.
The reality is meetings of all types are cash cows for organizations. If you do a half-competent job of running one, you will always come out ahead. Just shake your members and a few “sponsors” down.
I think you’d see Michael Gorman subscribe to this blog (and/or pigs flying) before you ever see the ALA ditch their conference fees.
Michael (Golrick):
I understand that Jenny’s specific issue is a PLA issue, but in a larger sense it is the result of a culture that pervades all of ALA. Attitudes need to change not just in PLA, but throughout the organization and the divisions. ALA can set help the tone.
Thanks for explaning the publication thing. I was starting to think that LITA didn’t love me! 😉
I totally agree with you that ALA is doing great things for Intellectual Freedom and privacy. And I know that there are terrific people doing good things for ALA — from you, to Mary Ghikas, to Jessamyn and Karen and Rochelle in Council. And changing a culture isn’t easy, but it needs to be done or you could risk losing a large chunk of GenX who could be future leaders of ALA and the divisions.
I also think it would be valuable to offer some ALA 101 on your blog, because I still don’t feel like I understand ALA, and not for lack of trying. I certainly would be interested in reading it as I’m sure would a lot of other folks.
“If you are disillusioned with ALA feel free to quit.”
Steven Bell, I really think ACRL should hire you to do their PR. If you don’t like ALA, quit. That’s really a great thing to tell someone who really want to believe that ALA can be better and wants so much to find a reason not to quit. I am a member of my state organization. I go to meetings and I am speaking at our annual conference. I think VLA is a terrific organization that does so much with very little money. I’m going to an all-day talk on program evaluation (sponsored by VLA) next month and do you know how much I’m paying? $10. It’s just to cover the cost of food.
I wasn’t attacking ACRL for charging a fee. I was questioning how high their fee is. Let’s say it costs $10,000 per year to run the state of the art Web conferencing software (which I don’t think ACRL is running, are they?) for a year, unlimited. Then if people were paying $100 a pop, you would only need 100 participants a year to break even. If you wanted to pay your speakers, then you’d need a few more participants per year. And then you could offer free classes online as well using speakers who are willing to give their services for free (and many are). It’s not like all this is a break-even for ACRL.
Also, if ACRL has the conferencing software, why can’t they have committee meeting online? I’ve used Citrix’s product and it is IDEAL for committee meetings (if you’d like me to show it to you, just let me know). I would like to get more involved in ALA and its divisions, but most committees require going to MidWinter and Annual. And I don’t have the money for that. Nor do a very large number of librarians. It becomes a “haves” vs. “have nots” thing where the only people involved either have a lot of institutional support, a lot of money, are on the tenure track and have to be involved, or are so passionate and dedicated that they would go broke working for ALA (though that breed is becoming increasingly rare). You suggested me for a committee that sounded really cool, but it involved me going to Midwinter and Annual, so I couldn’t do it (I also was no longer a member of ACRL which was another issue). If a lot of business could get done through online live meetings, a lot more people would be able to be involved in the business of ALA, ACRL, LITA, etc. I’d even considered getting involved in council, but couldn’t justify the expense when I barely make enough money to make ends meet. So you can say “you get what you put in” but does it occur to you that ACRL and other divisions put up a lot of barriers to people putting anything into it? It’s not like I’m lazy. I’m chairing an online conference, I’m writing a book, I’m starting to speak at events, I get e-mails every day from people who want to build a wiki or learn more about them and I help every one of them. I believe strongly in contributing to the profession, but I also need to pay my mortgage. Online participation would be ideal for me and a lot of other people.
“Have you looked at the dues and conference fees for some other professional associations. In some ways we are getting a bargain.”
Why yes I have. Look towards the bottom of this post (http://meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/index.php/2005/12/16/ala-relevance-and-the-almighty-dollar/). I was a member of an organization (NASW) that did great things, offered terrific benefits, had more members and a smaller budget, and spent money much more efficiently. And the cost of membership was NOT more expensive.
I think number 6 is really the biggest issue.
There are some people who will never be able or want to pay whatever the membership fee is. I belong to a professional association that charges $25 a year for membership and a local club that charges $6 a year, and getting people to join is still an issue.
For those, like you, who might pay x dollars for membership, it is critical that ALA communicate what you are getting for your money – publications, access to programs, supporting intellectual freedom, etc.
(And it is equally critical that ALA not attempt to “add” value to memberships by hiding resources behind a members-only wall. I think Library Journal’s experience is very instructive in this regard.)
Heyya, Meredith. I won’t comment on the ala politics, but on the education of librarians. I went to a school that did require a portfolio and while it could be paper, 99.9% of people did it electronically and it was easy and fun. We were taught technical skills and some of us banded together to teach incoming students these skills before classes started so that they wouldn’t start off behind. I agree completely about the need for core competencies. It’s just wrong to send beginning librarians off to jobs without the skills they need.
Meredith – you may be interested to know that ALA is rolling out online community software that will allow the various divisions to conduct online meetings – I just attended the training session last week. So the association is being responsive to those who would like to participate but can’t always attend the conferences. Many of the committees want this so that we can attract new people to our groups. Maybe that will give you a reason not to quit (I clearly have to improve my PR skills). The College Libraries Section has been holding virtual midwinter meetings for the last two years – so it can be done. However, as a chair I find that a F2F meeting once a year is quite critical to the success of the committee.But it’s not conferencing software – maybe they’ll buy that too in the future.
Again, divisions like ACRL are not just in the business of putting on virtual conferences. Yes, they charge a fee that may seem higher than necessary but keep an open mind to all the activities that ACRL must support. They provide grants to regional chapters so they can offer lower priced programming. They provide grants to all the sections and committees so they can offer special programs free or low cost to members – and support newsletters and special publications. They offer scholarships to the Immersion Institute and the conferences. The money to support these beneficial activities has to come from somewhere – and it’s not just dues. So these activities – you can call them cash cows if you want to be cynical – support lots of other good activities and programs. For all the folks who want to know what those big membership fees are paying for – do a bit of investigative work. I don’t think anyone at ALA is getting rich off our dues.
One aspect of the whole “membership in ALA” business that I rarely see discussed is that membership in ALA is a prerequisite for membership in any of its divisions, sections, etc. It’s been alluded to above, but it’s really the central issue for me: if I could be a member of ACRL and LITA without being a member of ALA, I’d do so in a heartbeat, *and* I’d be willing to pay a good deal more to those organizations than I am currently.
I doubt seriously, though, that ALA will ever allow this to happen, for the same reasons that the cable television conglomerates will never allow a la carte pricing: they can justify charging more money for a “package” of 50 items, only 3 of which you actually want.
I joined ALA as a student last year, when the dues were less expensive. Now that I’m not a student anymore and my library won’t pay for my membership, I’ll probably be letting it lapse. When I joined I wanted to get involved, but didn’t really see how or what I should be doing. I think I joined NMRT, but I’m not sure because I never heard anything about it. I’m glad ALA is lobbying for libraries in DC, but it seems completely divorced from anything I am doing working as a librarian. I’m signing up for VLA this year to try to participate more, but frankly, I’m a little disillusioned about this professional organization thing and I think I get better professional development help reading Meredith’s blog then from the ALA magazine.
The relationship between “big ALA” and the Divisions is an incredibly complex one. It is so complex that there is an official ALA policy document which defines most aspects of the relationship. In the ALA Handbook of Organization, it occupies almost four pages of the 8 point, three column section referred to as the ALA Policy Manual (pages 36-40). For ALA policy wonks (like me) it is Policy 6.4.1 and is known as “The Operating Agreement.” http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=handbook20042005&Template=/MembersOnly.cfm&ContentFileID=58256 [sorry it is members only…not my call]
If the a division were to “secede” there are a number of services provided by “big ALA” which the division would have to provide. These include office space, payroll and banking services, human resources support (hiring/firing), pension, library for staff and members, technology infrastructure, etc. All those are part of the bigger budget and are “charged back” to the divisions, but not a the full cost. I think that divisions which spun off would find that to provide the same level of member services, the dues would rise dramatically.
Do I gulp when my ALA dues are due? You bet. With two kids in college at the same time, it is a chunk of money, especially when you belong to three divisions.
I get something out of ALA. No doubt. But that only really started to happen after I had experience in my state association. The state associations are critical. They deal with the local issues that ALA cannot. ALA and the state associations work very hard to maintain a cordial working and information relationship. (I am a past President of the Connecticut Library Association, as well as a past Conference Co-Chair.) Do get involved.
I will try over the weekend to start an ALA 101 series of postings on my blog. (That blog shows up as the hotlink in my name in the comments.)
“I think I get better professional development help reading Meredith’s blog then from the ALA magazine.”
Awwww shucks! But I do agree with you. I get so much out of reading things by other passionate bloggers and having a dialogue with them. American Libraries has some good articles, but I rarely come out of reading it with a bunch of terrific ideas.
I know what you mean about not really knowing what to do once you become a member. I initially had wanted to get involved as a student and get on committees, but then I saw that I’d have to go to Midwinter and Annual and that certainly wouldn’t have workd. I belong to the NMRT mailing list. I really don’t know what we can do if we can’t go to the conferences and that’s why I’ve always felt kind of clueless when it comes to ALA. Maybe it’s our generation, Elsa, but maybe it also has something to do with the fact that there is no transparency to ALA and it’s difficult to know how to get involved and what to get involved with. These sort of organizations can seem rather impenetrable and, in some cases, pointless to a new librarian who finds other ways to contribute to the profession and network.
I don’t even know where to start, but all I can say is you embody a lot of what I have been saying and thinking. I had my moment writing about this last year, and I honestly thought I could let it drop, but between you making such a well crafted statement, and Mr. Bell’s lack of PR skills (to put it nicely), I am having some serious thoughts and concerns. True, in the scheme of things, I am just a small librarian who pays the dues (though for how long I am not sure), hmm. . . Maybe on the other hand, it may not make a difference if I were not to renew next time around. After all, I don’t have big pockets to travel to conferences if I want to have some involvement, and I just heard the message that if I don’t like it, I can quit from an ALA representative. On the one hand, I want to believe. On the other hand, I just want to be a part of the professional fellowship, and all I see, as someone who just started their library career, is yet another bureaucratic large organization that is mostly political and mostly for some people who “have.” I saw that when I was a public school teacher and had to deal with the NEA. Then again, what do I know? I am more interested in working with my students and faculty (I am an academic librarian); they are really why I entered the profession.
Some of the things you mention are being done by associations overseas. Eg, my local – ALIA has a policy committee for new librarians, a national new graduates group with reps in each state, an entire biennial conference for new librarians, RSS feeds, etc etc.
As for an association guide for new members, well, we don’t quite have that finished yet but we’ve been working on it for the last few months. New members do get a pack of information about various programmes and all the groups in ALIA, but we’re also working on an online guide. The other thing working in ALIA’s favour is that all group memberships are free. No painful decisions like with ALA about “will I join ACRL or LITA this year?”.
I’m also a member of ALA (international), and I also get annoyed by bureaucratic hiccups and delays in recognising changes to membership (I started getting ACRL stuff months ago, but got a welcome email message to NMRT today?!?). Unfortunately I think a lot of that has to do with size.
I am attending Annual this year for the first time (on my own dime) and I’m looking forward to seeing what kind of a juggernaut it is – I’ve never been to a conference with more than 700 delegates.
The membership I am thinking of dropping is IFLA – I don’t attend their conferences, their groups and divisions are very expensive, and all their information, newsletters, etc are available for free. While I have a strong interest in international issues, it’s hard to justify the cost at this point in my career.
I was all ready for a great long comment, but everyone pretty much covered it here. I too have to give you a little hope, the program I will be attending in the fall has an elective (not required) where library students have to create an entire library web site – now I don’t have to take that class – since I do that daily, but it’s there for others to learn.
I was going to join the ALA (never did), but I have read so many unhappy posts about it that I’m holding out – for now. I agree with all of your points and thing that they would all make me want to be a member.
I am NOT an ALA member. This is in part due to the fact that I’m a student archivist, but other reasons as well.
1. They really push us to become members as students, but I just don’t see any benefit in it when conference fees are enormous and the library literature is written by and for those who teach in the profession or who practice some weird sort of librarianship in some far corner of the world.
2. They concentrate so much on politics and are labelled as the “liberal librarians” by myself and many of my conservative friends. I don’t mind someone who is liberal or conservative or moderate, but bringing hotbed non-library political issues into the mix just turns me off.
I think perhaps the answer is right in front of us: how many people in these comments gave, as the answer to these challenges, that “the ALA is really big and complex.”
Well then, perhaps it really, really needs to simplify.
I’ve got plenty to say about this issue, being a new librarian and all…but I’ll do so over on my blog when I get a chance.
Geez, Meredith, you really know how to spark a conversation.
For those following this thread, don’t miss Dorothea Salo’s Getting Us Back at Caveat Lector.
I’m with Dorothea when she says “The right question [for ALA to ask itself] is ‘How can we offer valuable services as inexpensively as possible?'”
That makes sense to me. When people say (as Bell does above) “you can’t compare ACRL to a private for profit company,” I guess I wonder why not. It seems like ALA partisans often say “yes, we know that other organizations offer conferences, online teleconferences, whatever, that are just as good or better than ALA for less money, but you should pay up at ALA,” I wonder why we should be grading ALA on a curve.
I am *not* someone who applies market logic to everything (I suppose I’d be in a different line of work if I did!), but I can’t help but think that it may apply in this situation. Shouldn’t ALA (and its divisions/sections/etc.) be saying “what can we do better than anyone else for a price that people want to pay?” If private companies are offering better online seminars for less money, why is ALA/ACRL doing it at all? What business is ALA in, anyway?
And if ALA’s seminars are actually much better than the “competition’s” (and perhaps they are much better–I have never attended an ALA/ACRL online event), ALA should make damn sure that the word gets out and every attendee is gushing on listservs and blogs about the last ALA event they attended.
As I mentioned above, I was a paid-up member of ALA/ACRL when I wanted to be part of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section. It seemed to me that there was no substitute for the connections, the continuing education, and the general professional development I would get from that group. I might not have liked paying the dues every year, but I felt I *had to* be part of RBMS. Now that I’m no longer involved with special collections there is nothing remotely as compelling about ALA.
BTW, what are the trends in ALA membership? Are they having trouble attracting new members and convincing existing members to re-up? Or are they just shedding the geek squad who would rather convene in a loose federation of blogs and wikis anyway?
I can’t fix the “you have to be a member of ALA and ACRL to make this possible” but if you are a member of those two and then choose the Instruction Section as one of your “included with ACRL dues sections” – please know you will be welcome to volunteer for some of our virtual committees/task forces. What I can’t guarantee is that you will get on one right away. As you might not be surprised to hear, the virtual groups (and we also have virtual members on pretty much almost all the nonvirtual (?) groups as well), are quite popular to volunteer for. 😉 ACRL Instruction Section leadership is trying hard (not that we are perfect) to work within ALA/ACRL policy/procedures and still be responsibe to members’ desire to participate in the work of the Instruction Section – even if they aren’t at conference. I am also pleased to be able to mention that the Instruction Section program will be captured in New Orleans this summer and the video streamed on the IS website (not certain how open of access – but there will be no additional charge — it will probably be some member perk but whether IS, ACRL, or ALA remains to be seen … I know call is Library 1.5 …). So – while I complete respect those who decide to put their profession membership monies and efforts elsewhere, if you are “on the inside” please also join those of us working for change and – if you are willing – help us get the word out about some of what we do accomplish even if you (and we) might think it not yet enough…..
I forgot to mention – in the interests of full disclosure – I’m the current Chair of the Instruction Section.
Meridith, what costs have occurred for your online conference and who pays for them? I can think of a lot of expenses that would add up fairly quickly (web site, bandwith, speakers, archive of content, advertising, technical support, etc.).
If your costs have been fairly cheap, I would expect we are taking about something else in the case of ALA. While I agree ALA’s costs are high for online sessions, I am sure they are also used to make money. That would make it another issue all together. Not how much it costs to produce, but how the money is used. Which is also a major issue.
People have made some great suggestions here in this entry and many others I have read. I would think many of these changes will need to be initiated by specific divisions or sections first. After success is demonstrated, ALA has a whole will adopt them. I think at times this is the best way to bypass some of the bureacracy. Maybe the best thing for the majority of current members to do is focus in a specific group of the memmership rather than attack ALA as a whole to make changes.
On a related note, especially for the technology generation, do we put too much confidence in outlets like blogs and wikis to get our point communicated? I wonder how much organizations like ALA listen to efforts like this? Just thinking out loud I guess.
Which leads right back to the question of why we have to pay for the ALA behemoth when what we want are the sections. I have yet to be convinced that the sections have made the best economic deal they can with ALA, nor do they seem to be telling ALA itself to slim down.
Economic audit NOW!
Steve Lawson: well said, sir!
Dorothea – Do you mean sections (which are part of the divisions) or the divisions? I think the sections are pretty dependent on their divisions since, unlike the divisions, sections don’t have staff at ALA and depend on the staff of their respective divisions. I do believe ACRL did an economic study in the past few years that showed that if ACRL was not part of ALA, the ACRL dues would be more than the current combine ALA + ACRL dues (though that admittedly does not address the “value for money” critique). I just keep wondering though why dues increases pass a vote of membership …. how about voting no on a dues increase? That seems a more likely to be successful strategy I think since it doesn’t seem like enough people will step out of ALA to make a dent in the overall membership. And – more likely to immediately force an economic audit in some form since we are told that without a dues increase ALA will have to cut back (?) on something…. I’m a life member of ALA but voting no on a dues increase for lots of reasons and, as a life member, there is no personal extra cash cost to me if there is a dues increase. That and working to try and create new ways of participation in ALA in my little corner in the ACRL Instruction Section (though not so little with almost 4000 members) is what I think I can do best.
Sorry, Lisa, you’re right — I meant division. Thanks for the fix.
I’d be interested in seeing that ACRL study. Don’t go out of your way to find it or anything, but if you could point me in the right direction, I’d like to try finding it.
Rather than reply to specifics in this vigorous thread, I’ll address broader issues. And let me say up front that, like Michael Golrick (both a colleague and a friend), I am a member of the ALA Executive Board till the conclusion of the 2006 Annual Conference. At that time my service as a member of BARC (ALA’s Budget Analysis and Review Committee) will also conclude.
Does ALA membership cost too much? That is a decision each individual must make. Does ALA participation cost too much? That, too, is an individual decision. Is the ALA dues increase proposal on the spring ballot justified? How to vote on it is also an individual decision. But the facts of the case point clearly towards a need for more revenue if ALA is to continue to carry out its mission and to add to its programs those priorities that some 20,000 members identified as ALA carried out a grass roots process to develop its new strategic plan (see http://www.ala.org/ala/ourassociation/governingdocs/aheadto2010/aheadto2010.htm). ALA has had a flat budget for the past five years. In a really good year staff receive a 1.5% salary increase. The staff today is only 90% as large as it was a decade ago. Yet in that time ALA has challenged CIPA; without that challenge, the Supreme Court would not have in effect rewritten the law and EVERY computer (staff and public) in every library receiving certain federal funds would now have filtering software installed on it with no option to turn it off for any reason. Would Trina Magi have had the impact on the nation’s thinking about the USA PATRIOT Act if the ALA Washington Office hadn’t been able to amplify her message? These are major two examples of ways that ALA has delivered value to all of its members and all of American society.
Why not make ALA membership optional so that members can join just divisions? What are members willing to do away with to have that option? A strong, unified voice through the Washington Office? The resources to mount a major court challenge to an invidious law? The synergy that comes from the day-to-day interaction of division staff representing many types of libraries and specialties? The Office for Intellectual Freedom?
As Michael Golrick has noted, the policy governing the relationship between ALA and its divisions is complex. In an ideal association, every member would understand it. Realistically I don’t expect many other than those who really need to understand it to do so; those are senior ALA staff, division executive directors and officers, the ALA executive Board, BARC members, and the small group of governance geeks (you know who you—er, we—are) who really get into these issues. When division leaders and ALA approved the operating agreement in 1989 ALA made a strategic decision that it would depend on the divisions for most of its programming. How has that worked out? Very well. Look at the abundance of opportunities at the Annual Conference, at the allegedly program-free Midwinter Meeting, at the PLA, ACRL, and AASL biennial conferences, at other forums, etc., that the divisions sponsor. This year five divisions and Choice magazine are transferring a total of $450,000 to their endowment funds to assure their long-term fiscal health and vitality. How much has ALA transferred to its endowment in recent years? $0.00. Is this a bad thing? No; the divisions will be able to continue to provide their members with the sorts of programs they want. But will ALA be able to continue to provide the divisions with the services they need to continue their good work? This is not to set up a false dichotomy between ALA and the divisions; they are interdependent. But it is to say that ALA has nothing to spare for new programs and initiatives unless it terminates some of its existing programs. If there is no dues increase or if new programs are added, what should ALA STOP doing? Which offices should it close, which staff should it lay off permanently?
If divisions were to walk away from ALA to become independent, who would subsidize the services ALA provides to the divisions at less than cost? The divisions’ members would, through their dues. What direct benefit would those members receive from multiple replications of personnel, IT, payroll, the HQ library, office space, building utilities, telecommunications, mail room, publishing operations, and more? None. ALA provides these to the divisions at a cost (however below market value) so that the whole can serve the membership.
I am concerned about how. as it must, ALA moves more nimbly into a highly digital world in which social networks are nurtured through processes far younger than ALA practices. ALA has many factions, each holding values dear to them. Some values (e.g., intellectual freedom) are held universally. Others are not. One of the latter is the openness and transparency of ALA embodied in the Open Meetings policy. (ALA policy (7.4.3) states that “All meetings of the American Library Association and its units are open to all members and to members of the press. Registration requirements apply.”) This policy cannot be dismissed lightly. I doubt a resolution to repeal this policy would win Council’s approval. How does ALA expand participation opportunities employing relatively new technologies and at the same time honor this policy? It is neither intransigence nor Ludditism at work, but a legitimate concern for valued principles. Reconciling these principles and the wishes of some members for rapid change is ultimately a political issue. The surest way to be disappointed with the results of the political process is to withdraw from the association.
Wow! I’m thrilled to see the dialogue that has been going on here. It’s great that we’re talking about these things and that we don’t ever stop. I’m thrilled to see people who are dedicated long-time members of ALA responding to this post.
Jim, you bring up many important points and concerns, but I guess what I see here are too many reasons why things can’t happen and not enough brainstorming on how things might be able to change.
“If there is no dues increase or if new programs are added, what should ALA STOP doing? Which offices should it close, which staff should it lay off permanently?”
Like Dorothea has been saying, this is where auditors should come in. It is not always an issue of either/or (in fact, it rarely is), but of looking for creative low-cost ways to provide as many services as possible. I’m sure there are places where costs can be cut at ALA without necessarily sacrificing quality. I recently read about a company that saved a quarter of a million dollars a year just by using VoIP instead of traditional phone service. There are ways to make things happen, but if people want to keep everything the way it is, then clearly there will be no place for new initiatives. And many new initiatives and ideas hardly have to cost anything. Are blogs, wikis, and other communication tools really that expensive? I think a number of the things I’d mentioned do not necessarily have to involve increased costs at all.
Lisa, I think what ACRL is doing having virtual committee membership is terrific. Hopefully we’ll soon be able to have many meetings online, allowing many more members to have a voice in how their organization is run. It would be a beautiful thing. 🙂 I also think that voting “no” on a dues increase would send an important message to ALA that changes need to be made. I think before the membership is asked to pay a dues increase, there should be a really comprehensive audit of ALA to show that there is no way that costs can be cut and no way that the ALA can survive without a dues increase. Especially when I get the sense that even with a dues increase, we won’t be seeing the sort of changes I hope to see.
The lobbying work that ALA does is great, but I’m getting a bit sick of that always being thrown up at every criticism of ALA.
“One of the latter is the openness and transparency of ALA embodied in the Open Meetings policy. (ALA policy (7.4.3) states that “All meetings of the American Library Association and its units are open to all members and to members of the press. Registration requirements apply.”)… How does ALA expand participation opportunities employing relatively new technologies and at the same time honor this policy? It is neither intransigence nor Ludditism at work, but a legitimate concern for valued principles.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand how allowing members to view meetings online would lead to less openness. Meetings could be recorded for future viewing. Meetings could still take place physically, but using Web conferencing software, people online (who couldn’t make it to the conference) could also participate. I would think it would open up these meetings to any member, regardless of their ability to pay to visit the ALA Conferences. Is that not a good thing? Why should we limit participation in ALA only to those who have the ability to attend the conferences? Maybe I’m just misreading what you wrote, Jim.
If the lobbying arm of ALA were split from the rest of the organization, I would pay specifically to join that PAC (since that is what it would be).
I would even pay more than current ALA dues, though I would want to see some changes (mail drives structured like Progressive Secretary’s, for instance — this is a great way to lower the friction involved in many people contacting Congress). And I would want to see some bottom-up method of calling the organization’s attention to important smaller pieces of legislation (how many times do I need to say “CURES Act” before anybody listens?).
Thing is, though, I can find other ways, other organizations to support or protest high-profile legislation such as that the ALA typically agitates for or against. ALA adds value over those organizations ONLY insofar as it goes after the low-profile bills — which, being the behemoth it is, it generally doesn’t. This is sad, by the way, because it often takes a much smaller lever to enact or prevent the lower-profile bills! Back in the day, a ragtag group of a couple dozen grad students kept the Javits Fellowship alive for three years after it would have been cut.
I wholeheartedly support everything Meredith said in the previous two comments. ALA must change. ALA must cut costs — libraries and librarians have had to. ALA must get off its high horse and come to terms with not being the only game in town — librarianship is a service profession, so how did our professional organization get so terribly high-handed? I firmly believe that ALA can do all these things without sacrificing quality.
Meredith wrote: “I’m sorry, but I don’t understand how allowing members to view meetings online would lead to less openness. Meetings could be recorded for future viewing. Meetings could still take place physically, but using Web conferencing software, people online (who couldn’t make it to the conference) could also participate. I would think it would open up these meetings to any member, regardless of their ability to pay to visit the ALA Conferences. Is that not a good thing? Why should we limit participation in ALA only to those who have the ability to attend the conferences?”
All of this would definitely be a good thing! It implicitly assumes, though, that every meeting room in every convention center and hotel LA uses has the capability to support this sort of real time online connection between those gathered physically in one place and others online. Who would pay for these services? They won’t be free.
The virtual meetings/open meetings issue begins, I think, from the other end–i.e., f2f meetings at ALA Annual and Midwinter. These have been the norm and ALA’s open meetings policy dates from the time when there were two options for meetings: bring everyone together to one location at a specified time or hold conference calls (which didn’t then and still don’t easily accommodate observers). The concern about violations of the open meetings policy is over meetings of boards, committees, etc., held at times other than the Annual Conference and the Midwinter Meeting. How are those meetings made open to interested members? Some are listed at http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=meetings&Template=/meetings/meetings.cfm .
Truth be told, most of the hundreds of committee meetings that occur at an ALA conference do not attract on-site observers. That, however, does not make moot the principles embodied in the open meetings policy. It does, however, I believe, point to opportunities for a modulated approach to meeting the concerns of both the strongest defenders of the open meetings policy and the most eager advocates of electronic meetings. I believe it is possible to find common ground.
In a 2003 forum held in Toronto in the absence of a quorum for a Membership Meeting, I made a presentation on the Committee on Organization’s work to date on virtual committee members, electronic meetings, the open meetings policy, and other policy issues. Then, as I have since, I compared the conflict between the open meetings policy to Prohibition—it may have been illegal for people to produce and sell and purchase alcoholic beverages, but it didn’t stop a lot of people from doing so. Yet the Constitution prohibited such trade. Nor has the open meetings policy stopped committees from meeting (actually meeting, not just conducting work) outside of the ALA Midwinter Meeting and Annual Conference. Yet such meetings violate the open meetings policy. Just as the repeal of Prohibition did not lead to a wholly unregulated marketplace for alcoholic beverages, I don’t think it would be in ALA members’ interests to have a completely unregulated meeting environment; in such an environment there might actually be less opportunity for members to observe the work of their association. Let’s assume that an absolutist interpretation of the open meetings policy informs that environment. To succeed, therefore, meetings would need to:
• Be announced in advance in a place where any and all ALA members and the press could learn about these scheduled meetings
• Post an agenda prior to the meeting
• Make documents available prior to the meeting
• Provide information about how observers can observe in real time
• Produce a record (e.g., minutes and/or a list of actions taken) to be posted publicly after the meeting
• Be paid for by someone
Do we today have the technology for real-time, synchronous meetings that will accommodate observers in real time, that is universally available to ALA members, and that can be supported financially? And who would provide that financial support?
It’s not enough to say that ALA should do this. Before it can do so, there are questions that need answers: How can ALA do it, what will the costs be, and what will the benefits be? Or are there other possible interpretations of the open meetings policy?
If anyone reading this wants to know more about this clash between policy and growing practice, see http://www.ala.org/ala/ourassociation/governanceb/council/counccommittees/coo/openmeetings.htm . I produced that document when my term as chair of COO concluded in 2003. I think it also reflects the current situation. I don’t think it has had many readers these past three years even though the URL has been posted to the Council list a number of times by my successors as COO chair. If it has had many readers, I am surprised that none have howled over the option I offered to interpret the open meetings policy in something less than the absolute.
(For what it is worth, I wonder how much attention this issue would have received formally in ALA over the past five years. It had received discussion but no meaningful action. When I became chair of COO in 2001 the committee decided to look into it and make recommendations to Council. I have never been sure that this really falls within COO’s jurisdiction, but we didn’t let that nicety hinder us. COO took an incremental approach, not a revolutionary approach. The policy issues are real. Only Council has the authority to change the policies relevant to this issue.)
And now for a non-sequitur—ALA truly does need the new revenue the dues increase will produce. From my vantage point as a member of BARC, the committee that reviews all budgets in ALA, if there is anything left to cut, it is people. And there are fewer of them than there were ten years ago. For example, ALA has done wonders in economizing on building maintenance without sacrificing the building. ALA produced a surplus last year, but only by cutting budgets early in the year and by leaving key positions vacant. Think of your own organizations and what their needs would be if they had five years of flat budgets and could offer staff only tiny salary increases that lag well behind inflation. Those organizations would need new revenue sources just as ALA does. In addition to dues, ALA has plans for its publishing program that will, it hopes, increase revenues. At the same time, if most committee work can be carried out through virtual meetings, ALA will likely see a significant drop of revenue from its conferences.
A lot of our orgs HAVE seen five years of flat budgets and minimal salary increases. Or more than five years.
Just sayin’.
I’m really enjoying this conversation!
Dorothea said: If the lobbying arm of ALA were split from the rest of the organization, I would pay specifically to join that PAC (since that is what it would be).
Hear hear! I think the fundamental problem with ALA is that it is trying to meet two masters, and can’t do both. It cannot be primarily a lobbying organization for _libraries_ AND primarily a networking and professional development organization for _librarians_. And, my impression has always been that ALA provides services to librarians only in order to fund its lobbying. (right or wrong, that fact that the impression exists is the problem….consider this another vehement nod to transparency…)
Now, the political muscle of ALA and the need for a central lobbying force for libraries should not be undervalued. I’m just a little weary of paying more than I can afford right now for that and still not getting the professional development I want and need, and without which I may never be able to afford to support my political needs as generously as I would like (not getting because most of financial issues — travel is outrageously out of line with what my library will support, and I cannot reconcile paying over $300 for an online workshop, I simply cannot. Someone needs to convince me that it will change my life and make me the most amazing librarian before I’ll put out that kind of money to sit at my computer and stream a class).
Has the splitting of ALA into a PAC (WO/OIF) and a librarian’s Association (the divisions) ever been discussed by Council? I think that a whole lot of folks would contribute a whole lot of money to the PAC, and the remaining association would be smaller, nimbler, and more responsive.
Have you considered SLA? I’m not suggesting that we abandon ALA, but I found SLA to be a better fit for me. SLA has problems of its own, of course, but what I found is a smaller organization with great networking and professional development opportunities at the local (in many regions) and national level.
I had always thought of SLA as an organization for librarians in truly special settings–law libraries, corporate libraries, etc–but there are a surprising number of academics in SLA. The Information Technology division of SLA is quite strong and includes information professionals from a wide variety of settings. (I am a little biased on the Information Technology division bit since I’m Chair-Elect, but it really is a good group to belong to and we are attempting to do more things with technology to reach out to our members).
I attempted to get involved in NMRT and attended a few ALA conferences, but I really found the programming and networking opportunities better at SLA. I’ve continued paying my ALA dues for the last few years, but I really feel more at home at SLA.
I can’t think of anything ALA could do to win me back, honestly. I wouldn’t spend my money to rejoin them, and I’m not sure I’d even be willing to spend my workplace’s money on it, if they offered.
I feel selfish and perhaps a bit petulant for mentioning this, but I have little interest in an organization that has little interest in me. Before I started graduate school, I volunteered in public libraries – because I felt they’d done a lot for me. I love helping out with science fiction conventions – because I have so much fun at them. I hope this doesn’t sound too mercenary – I’m trying to get at the idea that we feel kindly disposed toward those that are kind to us. We’re not demanding kindness, we’re trying to repay kindness we received.
This is again part of why I became a librarian – because libraries did so much for me. 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 think that there must be something that ALA does, and I think it’s sad that it’s not more transparent (as you said). Maybe ALA is a great organization that would be personally and professionally rewarding for me – but I sense that the bulk and beauty of the work is buried under acronyms and behind membership walls.
[…] The first couple of months this year have been very busy with committee meeting after meeting for various groups and projects that I am a member of. We are (just!) under nine months away from NLS2006, and we’re coming up to the close of Call for Papers. It’s been interesting reading all the comments about how ALA should do more for new librarians, like having programmes for new librarians at conferences (on NEWLIB-L, Meredith’s post and ACRLog this week), and a reminder how good we have it with ALIA as this is the fourth time the New Librarians’ Symposium will be held in Australia. […]
Re: “Lisa, I think what ACRL is doing having virtual committee membership is terrific.” Just to keep things clear – ACRL is just not restricting virtual committee membership beyond what the ALA policy restricts. It takes people in the specific sections, etc. to actually decide to implement it. Within ACRL, I know of the College Library Section’s virtual midwinter approach and the Instruction Section’s virtual committee membership and virtual committee approaches. All of these have been considered and designed to be in compliance with the relevant ALA policies. ALA policy only allows a certain % of committee members to be virtual and – since the reality is that most IS committees never take any governance votes, the virtual members really aren’t disenfranchised in actuality like they are theoretically by policy (I still don’t think the policy makes sense but I wanted to at least point out that it isn’t as problematic for Section committee work as it would be for ALA Council for example). And – the reality is that with overlapping meetings at ALA conference itself – there are a couple of other committees I’ve served on over the years and never been to the meetings in person because bi-location isn’t a skill I’ve developed yet. 😉 The CLS and IS initiatives were implemented by creative and dedicated members working to make the association a better place. The chairs of the committees I’ve been on but not attended often in person were flexible in helping me make a contribution through email messages, etc. It would be great if ALA policy became more flexible in all these regards but a fair amount can be done even with current policies but this is where individual members really make the difference. That’s why I’m hoping people stay in ALA (or at least in some part of ALA) and make it the association we want it to be.
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.
I agree with Brian that what ALA does in fighting for or against legislation does affect us. However, the whole accreditation thing is in need of major reform, otherwise why is it that programs can offer such completely different programs (some that leave major holes in a student’s knowledge of librarianship) and all be considered “the accepted standard for employment in libraries.” I also understand what Rikhei is saying. There are many ways to contribute to the profession — ALA certainly isn’t the only way. And I understand feeling like ALA is all about what we can do for them and not what they can offer us. I’m happy to support a dues increase when I know for a fact that the dues increase will specifically fund the things I want to see change. And I’m all for giving to an organization that I feel is moving in the right direction. But I don’t see that yet.
Brian, I think you’re right about the paragraph you boldfaced. But does ALA? That’s where Meredith’s “martyrdom” post comes in. ALA wants to construct itself as the BEST or (worse) ONLY way to give back to the profession. ALA is wrong about that, and their wrongness is hurting them now (as librarians find other venues) and will hurt them worse in future.
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.
I agree with most of your points, but I have to take issue with the idea that ALA wouldn’t have a conference without speakers. There are a lot of groups within ALA who do important work at their conferences–write guidelines and recommendations for the profession, give out awards, etc. Speakers and programs are important, but they’re not the only thing going on at conferences, by any means.
[…] Leslie Burger has posted a promising response to Meredith’s What could ALA do? In her post entitled Become the Change You Want to See Burger calls for Meredith (and probably everyone else who isn’t happy with the ALA) to get more involved with the ALA so as to help the necessary changes come about. […]
Stop calling other professionals who actively contribute to the betterment of libraries and the librarianship “paraprofessionals” It insults over half the staff members who work in libraries and add value to their communities everyday. ALA should be for anyone who wants to contribute the future of libraries, not just those who have an MLS.
>Stop calling other professionals who actively contribute to the betterment of libraries and the librarianship “paraprofessionals”
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”?
Rudy has made an excellent suggestion about the possibility of dividing ALA into a Political Action Committee and a more narrowly-focused professional organization (the divisions.) My student ALA membership expires in March, but now that I am a full-time academic librarian I feel no desire to replace it with a full membership. There is nothing in the activities of the ALA behemoth that is even remotely relevant to the concerns of myself and many of my academic librarian colleagues. Several of them have let their memberships drop in recent years.
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.
I’ve been biding my time on replying to Meredith’s “Martyrdom” post for strategic reasons, but she was speaking for me, as well. On the other hand, my grievance isn’t with “Big ALA”; it’s with a specific division, and no, I do not mean LITA. I think that’s an important distinction to make. My happiness with ALA rises and falls with the units I interact with. When we’re discussing the LITA blog, it’s very high. When we’re discussing another division’s unreasonable speaker policies, it’s very low.
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.