Comments on: The ALA Conference Meeting Life Cycle

By: If it’s broken (part two) « Venn Librarygram

If it’s broken (part two) « Venn Librarygram — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:03:34 +0000

[...] for ALA, the meeting cycle for people on committees is horrific, and if you’re in more that one division you can almost forget getting any professional [...]

By: Emily

Emily — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 23:51:00 +0000

As a relatively new member of ALA, I’m glad to hear the more experienced folks saying that ALA needs to rethink its meeting structure. I thought it was just me being a newbie and not “getting” ALA…now I know it’s not just me. Kudos to divisions like RUSA that have begun creating a lot more virtual members for their committees. This is one step in the right direction. I also attended a MARS program in DC that skyped in the committee chair to welcome the audience because he couldn’t be there in person–it worked great!
It’s great to see signs of change happening. I’m for anything that will get us to the tipping point.

By: GinaP

GinaP — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 17:12:34 +0000

While I’ve just finished my first year with Council, ALA Division and/or Round Table committee meetings are not new to me. I think you’ll find that many of those committees (or maybe just the ones I work with) are already holding online meetings, phone calls, or just getting work done by e-mail. The problem, I fear, is that it is probably just a minority of groups doing this.

As I recall, someone said as much in the Council meeting. Committees are meeting and getting work done outside of the 2 face-to-face events and plan to just ask forgiveness once (or if) it becomes an issue.

I suspect there is a segment that is waiting for it to be ‘permitted’ by including description of such work styles in the bylaws/Handbook/wherever (Ugh!).

What I can’t get over is that there are people that think it entirely appropriate to spend just 4 hours a year (2 2-hour face-to-face meetings) to do the work of their committee. Get real. If the work is as all-important as some think it is, I hope you’re spending more time than that on it. I think that work on furthering the role of the library, advancing the role of the librarian, and establishing the library as a fundamental good in our society is worth more than 4 hours of discussion a year.

Further, many of those involved in the discussion within Council about whether or not (or how) to accomplish the work of the Association outside of the “open” face-to-face meetings are, themselves, library directors/administrators/managers and, likely, working in organizations that require some amount of openness. Would these same individuals run their library they way they run ALA? Seriously, would they encourage LESS between-meeting work in the spirit of openness? Would they encourage a less-efficient modes for accomplishing the work of their organization?

[As I'm typing, I digress, but if I wait to create a well-thought-out and edited comment/response, it might never get posted. Apologies for being all over the place.]

By: Michelle (Jane)

Michelle (Jane) — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:58:36 +0000

I am all for the “lets try it and then push the issue” method.

By: Deep Thinking :: Should we meet online? :: July :: 2007

Deep Thinking :: Should we meet online? :: July :: 2007 — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 03:59:24 +0000

[...] Free Range Librarian brought my attention to the blog A Wandering Eyre. Both are discussing ALA with it’s too many meetings and overbooked people double and triple booked to meet. I understand that. I have experienced that, but I disagree with their premise that people are meeting to meet. I agree that much of the content of the meetings they describe could be occurring outside the physical meeting rooms at ALA, but I see the work of the profession getting done every day via email, listserv, wiki, ning, phone calls, and much more. I see people trying out new tools to stay connected. Yes, I have even moderated an ALA Online Communities group – great concept, but I will be diplomatic and state there may be better venues. [...]