Skip to content

Why virtual participation in ALA must be legalized, not decriminalized

Four or five years back I attended a “meeting” at an ALA conference where by the time my friend and I showed up, five minutes after start time, the meeting had been adjourned. The members had met online and made decisions, and the face-to-face meeting was the nominal show-time to validate what they had done.

Naïve us!

I’m not going to argue that we force people to meet face-to-face to conduct business — which, incredibly, is what some old-tyme ALA Councilors suggest. The horse is out of the barn, and good for ol’ Mr. Ed, at that: as I keep saying, let’s get the busy-work out of the way between conferences so we can use our hard-won money and time to show up to network/learn/share/par-tay. Some meeting work still needs to be done face-to-face, but please — not the bulk of it.

What I am suggesting is that civil disobedience — which I promoted in an earlier post — is an interim step.

As Christopher Harris notes in his comment, functionally, it’s not as simple as saying “let’s just ‘do it’.” The biggest problem is that if we simply condone virtual participation, we don’t address the problem that crept in while ALA was pretending nobody worked this way, illustrated by the example that opens this post: we don’t have methods in place to ensure that ALA business is truly open.

We have a long, proud tradition of openness in ALA, and that’s a Good Thing. Some of that tradition is very hard-won. It was not always so: in the late ’60s there was a sort of revolution in ALA. It had been an insider’s organization with unfair rules privileging the insiders, and a lot of members worked hard to change that.

Some of those members are on Council today, and in their minds an “open” meeting takes place twice a year at a conference, where it is listed in a published paper bulletin and people gather in a room. (As I write that, it sounds almost quaint.)

Yet interestingly, the ALA Policy Manual doesn’t actually define what it means by open. From this rather dry extraction of ALA documents comes the sum total of Policy 7.4.4:

All meetings of the American Library Association and its units are open to all members and to members of the press. Registration requirements apply. Closed meetings may be held only for the discussion of matters affecting the privacy of individuals or institutions.

In my head, online committee work is potentially far more open than a meeting that requires all the hurdles of face-to-face participation. But it’s not open if you don’t know about it. Time, place, manner: these are the facts our members are entitled to.

In some ways I’m advocating a return to the Good Old Days, or at least to that twenty-year period when openness meant a meeting you knew about and could attend. That’s why it’s just not enough to break the law; we also have to remake it.

Caution: I smell the incipient lust of the ALA policy types: how they would love to spend years diddling with definitions, best practices, proposed policies, proposals to the proposals, nit-picking, quibbling, debating, postponing, referring to other committees, and every other tool used to throw roadblocks in front of change. Please let us not diddle this to death. It’s really simple! Give each committee a wiki page, tell them to advise members how to follow their discussions and to announce incipient actions, advise ALA members to subscribe to the feeds, and we’re done. Take note of the ten-day notice for final votes; it’s fair and reasonable.

We don’t even have to wait for a policy change; sunshine could precede legalization. That’s how I understand it went down for the ALA reformers of the early 1970s, whose practices set the standard for the organization.

Posted on this day, other years:

Add a Facebook Comment


  1. Anne in AZ wrote:

    I’d love to see ALA get on board with this approach. This could give me the chance to finally be involved with ALA rather than just reading newsletters and journals and blogs. I might even join and participate in a committee or two.

    Further, seeing how this works and improves the organization might give libraries also wanting to use this technology an example to use when planning their own “revolutions.”

    Tuesday, December 4, 2007 at 8:04 pm | Permalink
  2. as I was reading, I was thinking “that could be done easily with a wiki…” – and then you said it! Yes! Amazing really, how easy this can be to solve.

    Tuesday, December 4, 2007 at 9:33 pm | Permalink
  3. Abigail wrote:

    So revolutionary an idea and yet it makes such sense.

    Now if we could just add in a little site rebuilding to go along with that….

    Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 11:40 pm | Permalink
  4. Jenny Levine wrote:

    If there was such a wiki, how would you propose handling who is authorized to post about the committee’s activities and actions? I can say from experience that we would have to limit author access to the wiki to registered accounts or else it would be spammed to death, so we’d need a way to make sure that committee members are the ones posting information, especially when the roster changes each year.

    No roadblock here – just trying to think through the details.

    @Abigail: Site rebuilding is well underway. You can track information about it on the Web Planning wiki and blog.

    Friday, December 7, 2007 at 10:00 am | Permalink
  5. Jenny, that sounds exactly right: an approved poster (and delegate posters, if the chair approves) for each committee (TF/unit/etc.).

    A wiki is just a simple publishing mechanism. A wiki doesn’t have to be wide-open to be useful. (In fact some wikis aren’t that easy MediaWiki comes to mind — I would also hope we’d use one with a simple visual editor. And of course it needs feeds!)

    Friday, December 7, 2007 at 10:08 am | Permalink
  6. Jenny Levine wrote:

    BTW, I can’t believe I forgot to note that there is a page on the Annual 2007 wiki for linking to content from the conference – The link to it is the first topic on the wiki’s home page, but you’ll note how sparse the content is. Even the LITA BIGWIG Showcase didn’t show up here, nor did *any* committee meeting notes (including from, um, participation task forces).

    We could try something like this for Midwinter 2008, but a big part of it will be an education issue that the divisions and the members have to come together to build the resource in order to make it as comprehensive as possible.

    Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 9:00 am | Permalink

3 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Council Resolution on Electronic List Participation on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 9:36 am

    [...] Personally, I see no harm and only good from this resolution. Some of it ties into a post I wrote last year about why electronic participation needs to be legalized, not decriminalized. [...]

  2. If its broken (part three) « Venn Librarygram on Saturday, December 12, 2009 at 1:22 pm

    [...] Schneider recently posted three great posts on how ALA’s committee/meeting structure is broken. I was thinking about those as [...]

  3. [...] 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 [...]

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *