For decades (if not longer), the ALA conference meeting schedule has remained unchanged. For six months the pupae lie dormant. The week prior to the conference, they begin wiggling in their pupal cases, responding to the faint clarion call of hotel room reservations and vendor cocktail parties. The ALA creatures emerge all at once, and before their wings are even dry they are in flight, driven by instinct toward their new homes.
Then, for the next week, they do what is known as the work of the association.
If you talk to some of these creatures — and I have been one — they will tell you how busy they are. Busy, busy, busy! So busy, in fact, that they will take pains to tell you that they don’t go to exhibits or even most programs. Sometimes they are double- and triple-scheduled, and will show up mid-meeting with a triumphant air. Whew, amazing, you managed to attend two meetings at the same time at opposite ends of the city! Applause, followed by a quick recap of the last three hours. Ad infinitum.
But what is that work to date? It is, as Jane at Wandering Eyre points out, the sort of stuff that much of the rest of the information-privileged world now resolves between conferences. Because the rest of the world understands that meetings are for the most part about administrivia, which can be handled via email and so forth, with a quick face-to-face to wrap things up, while conferences are about human networking, personal growth, and vendor SWAG.
I gripe a lot about ALA Council, and certainly it is fertile territory for criticism. But one reason ALA Council meets as late as it does, with its last, longest, and most productive meeting held a full day after everyone has gone home (and forgive me if you have heard this from me before) is that its meeting schedule is in part a function of every other major meeting in ALA. For the most part, Council is waiting for committees, and boards, and task forces to finish their work.
Not only is a lot of this work completed in real-time at the conference, a lot of it is started at the conference, and some of it has the bitter taint of make-work. When I was last on Council, one Roundtable was particularly egregious about churning out “resolutions” that put ALA on record for positions that were nominally important but completely insignificant as presented in these hastily-composed first drafts. All of these needed to be reviewed by the resolutions chair, placed on Council agenda, mulled over at Council Forum, and duly considered and voted on.
ALA: how it puts the “fun” in dysfunctional!
The only way to understand what I’m describing is to experience it. At ALA Midwinter, pick a division, ALA-level committee, Executive Board meeting, session of the Intellectual Freedom Committee, or some other top-level group; sit through as much of it as you can. Then — keeping in mind that Midwinter exists as a “meeting,” and strictly speaking, does not even offer programs — ask yourself how much of what you hear could have been accomplished without flying cross-country for half a week — or at least, having done that, sitting in a room for several long hours.
I’m a little tired from a marathon-writing day, but I feel there is something here to be worked into Aaron Dobb’s evolving wiki on changing ALA. I keep wondering if we should continue waiting for ALA to approve virtual meetings or just hold one and then push the issue legislatively.
[…] 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. […]
I am all for the “lets try it and then push the issue” method.
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.]
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.
[…] 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 […]