When it comes to modernizing ALA, I’m like Charlie Brown with the football. I cannot help myself, even though I’m now on my fourth committee/task force/whatevah dedicated to “electronic participation.”
So I’m working on a very, very early draft of a survey for ALA members and I pull up Ye Olde ALA Policy Manual for a definition of “virtual member” (which is not to be confused with an imaginary you-know-what).
The first thing I notice is that a “virtual member” is defined by what this person can’t do: help establish a quorum, or vote, or be more than 1/3 of the membership of any committee. Then I see the negative, scolding language: failure, acceptable explanation, grounds for removal... language more suitable for reform school than for defining activities in a professional association. It seems that the point of these rules is to ensure people get to the conferences and that committees aren’t overrun by people who might get things done virtually.
Imagine if the metric for committees was based around work products! That, of course, will never happen — but at least we can work toward a model of engagement that isn’t so heavily skewed toward the meatware experience.
Anyone for a rewrite? (Emphasis mine.)
4.5 Requirements for Committee Service
With the exception of virtual members, members of all ALA and unit committees are expected to attend all meetings. Failure to attend two consecutive meetings or groups of meetings (defined as all meetings of a committee that take place at one Midwinter Meeting or Annual Conference) without an explanation acceptable to the committee chair constitutes grounds for removal upon request by the chair to and approval of the appropriate appointing official or governing board.
- Definition of Virtual Members:
Virtual members of committees or task forces have the right to attend meetings, participate in debate, and make motions. Virtual members are not counted in determining the quorum nor do they have the right to vote. - Appointment of Virtual Members to Standing Committees of the Association:
Virtual members of standing committees of the Association are appointed in accord with the provisions of the ALA Bylaws, Article VIII, sec. 2(a)(i). Inclusion of virtual members on a standing Committee of the Association requires the recommendation of the Committee on Organization and the approval of Council. No more than one third of the membership on a standing committee may be virtual members. - Appointment of Virtual Members to Standing Committees of Council:
Virtual members of Committees of the Council are appointed in accord with the provisions of the ALA Bylaws, Article VIII, sec. 2(b). Inclusion of virtual members on a Committee of the Council requires the recommendation of the Committee on Organization and the approval of the Council. No more than one third of the membership of a Council committee may be virtual members. - Appointment of Virtual Members to Committees of Round Tables and Divisions:
Virtual members of division or round table committees are appointed in accord with each respective division’s or round table’s appointment procedures for committee members. No more than one third of the membership of a round table or division committee may be virtual members.
Posted on this day, other years:
- Two retirements - 2014
- It's the Economy, Stupid (and that's just to start with) - 2008
- Wikis, Synecdoches, and LITA Forum - 2008
- "Waiter, a table for 17,000": The Midwinter Rooming Crisis - 2006
- Automated LCSH - 2004
- Open This, Open That, Drink Me: Get Real! - 2004
I figure we need to do two things. 1. Start a new class of members who don’t have to appear in meetings and who CAN vote and participate and not be shunned etc. Call it something else. Remote members? 2. Retire the idea of virtual members. When I was a virtual member on some committee, I found it totally ridiculous. All the work and none of the ability to affect change. When I would ask about this I’d get a lot of people repeating WHY this was the case, but not any inkling that maybe it was ridiculous.
Until ALA has a way for people to substantially participate without attentding one of two big meetings, I really don’t believe they’re serious about 2.0 anything. Having blogs and wikis is nice but if it’s not helping you do the work for the organization it seems like more pigs to put lipstick on.
Jessamyn, exactly. My thought is that we don’t need another class of users at all. Just redefine meeting participation. I remember not being allowed to take a drafting class in junior high because it wasn’t open to girls, and no one could ever explain how that served anyone.
I agree that we don’t really need to designate “virtual” members. Instead we need to have members who participate and members who are there to pad their resumes categories. 😉 More seriously we need to really providing the technical support to meet physically/virtually – where some of the members are physically present at midwinter or annual and some are not. I realize that we need to be doing work between conferences, but I admit that it helps to have the time at conference as a reserved time where I’m not pulled off to do my day job – it helps to set some deadlines. Also it helps with having most of the committee in the same time zone scheduling problems. 🙂
Hmpf. As a former “Virtual Member” *who actually physically made it to every meatspace meeting* of a committee (I think my opinions and votes counted, too) that’s really funny.
While I was on said committee I was never treated as a second-class anything (maybe because I participated, shared my ideas, collegially discussed the strengths and weaknesses of everyone’s ideas, etc.) Or maybe it was that I showed up and acted like I was supposed to be there. Or maybe it was that I joked at every meeting about being the “physically present virtual member” — but mostly I think it was the way the Committee Chair and the other members were respectful of all ideas and were willing to listen to each other (including me).
While I like Jessamyn’s “do away with the class” idea; Karen, you asked for a rewrites, so here goes:
6.16 Virtual members
All Committees and Task Forces will have Virtual members. Virtual members may perform and fulfill committee duties responsibilities from any location and may participate in any committee activity from any location.
1. Definition of Virtual Members
Virtual members of committees or task forces have the rights and responsibilities of “Regular” Members; with the added benefit of not being required to be physically present.
2. Appointment of Virtual Members to Standing Committees of the Association:
Virtual members of standing committees of the Association are appointed via the same process as “Regular” committee members.
3. Appointment of Virtual Members to Standing Committees of Council:
Virtual members of Committees of the Council are appointed via the same process as “Regular” committee members.
4. Appointment of Virtual Members to Committees of Round Tables and Divisions:
Virtual members of division or round table committees are appointed via the same process as “Regular” committee members.
Rewriting 4.5 is much easier:
Members of all ALA and unit committees should have a presence (either synchronously or though pre-meeting efforts on meeting discussion points) at all meetings. Membership on a committee or task force is a serious commitment of time. If a member demonstrates a lack of interest in the work of a committee, that member may be replaced by another, more interested, member. Quorum is met when a simple majority of appointed members (regular + virtual) have a presence in a meeting. (“Meeting” defined as either a face to face gathering, a conference call, an asynchronous online gathering (say an email list or discussion board, etc) a synchronous online meeting (WebEx, Netmeeting, Second Life, etc. — geez, why would “meeting” need to be defined in today’s multi-mode communication environment?!)
Feel free to edit the suggestions, these are just quickie maunderings before bedtime.
(PS will anyone get in trouble if I name the committee? I hope not… it was the ALA Membership Committee)
Aaron, I appreciate your input and your comments! I agree we need a way of measuring participation — I’ve been on far too many committees where the only requirement was you showed up.
I’m glad ALA Membership stretched the rules by allowing you to participate. That happens far more frequently than anyone realizes. The teachy-preachiness of the ALA policies are in part a reaction to those madcap, jitterbugging divisions letting people Do Just Anything.
Let’s face it: librarians self-select into the profession, and they all have control issues of one sort or another. And the folks that drive to become involved in the administration of a large organization like the ALA think that what they do is important and needs to be taken srsly.
But that just explains why things are the way they are. Given that video conferencing is basically free, and teleconferencing even cheaper, there’s little reason to force people to travel all over to participate, especially when the meeting timeslot at ALA seems (from other people’s reports) to be a free time for the members, who did actually get all the work done beforehand.
True, David, and I would argue that ALA policies are driven by an even smaller group of largely self-selected people, such as those who would serve on Council and those who would be welcomed into the domain of high-level policy-driving committees.
I have served a virtual member on two LITA committees. One had to do with scholarships and all of the work was done via e-mail. Voting also occurred via e-mail.
Why should I be considered a second class member because my institution does not have deep enough pockets to send me to ALA? I certainly can’t afford to attend ALA conferences on my own financial resources.
From my years of being active with ALA (my goodness, I’ve been a member of ALA for 24 years–and I’m only 46 years old), I think the idea of virtual members of committees is over. I think it worked for some committees and didn’t work for others. I’m not going to be as thoughtful as Aaron was, but I’ll make some points.
First, the committee should have some actual purpose and some actual work to do. That’s vital.
Then, members and chairs should be appointed with the idea that they will be actively involved with the work of the committee, which will mean different things on different committees. It might mean one conference per year. I might mean that conferences don’t really matter. It might mean an in-person hard-working week of meetings. It might mean writing a great deal. It might mean thinking a great deal. And that could be determined by the person doing the appointing and the chair, not codified in the Handbook. In many cases this is already happening. I am the member of an active discussion group that never meets at conference, though we do very nicely put a sign in the meeting room (one of those “all committee” rooms) explaining how to find us in our real meeting place, which is electronic. The determination of whether conference attendance is required should be based on the actual need to meet in person.
And finally, it should be a bit easier to remove members who aren’t doing anything or to end a meaningless committee.
Few public librarians I know go to the conferences specifically for meetings. They go for programs or to network or just to do something work related in another city. At least among public librarians, I don’t think conference attendance would change much if committee members were not “required” to be a conferences.
I’ve got a problem with the word “virtual” — if I were a member of a committee that couldn’t attend either or both in-person meetings, I would be offended by the notion ‘virtual’. What does that make me? I’m some artificially intelligent byproduct of crossing a librarian with an ELIZA program? Is Ms Dewey a virtual member of ALA?
Either I’m a member of the committee, or I’m not. (Or as LITAmember suggested — I’m either on a committee to contribute or I’m on it to pad my resume.) Any other designation is bound to make such a participant a second class citizen.
Peter, I agree. I would tentatively suggest that it appears that most people on this task force agree with you (and with me) on that point.
As a member, I’m heartened to see this discussion. As a staff member, though, I have to disagree with Jessamyn that blogs and wikis are only free of lipstick when used for virtual work.
ALA’s IT department has spent the past year setting up an infrastructure for online communication tools (follow our updates here, including documentation and training. As a result of these and other efforts, members have more access to current information about ALA than ever before.
For example, you can follow President Loriene Roy’s blog (where she’s posting her Council updates), President-Elect Jim Rettig’s blog, Treasurer Rod Hersberger’s Online Forum (that I expect will have lots of numbers), and a relatively new blog by staff called ALA Marginalia.
So while I understand Jessamyn’s overall point, I personally believe that a more open and transparent ALA – one where you have more avenues to voice your opinions – is a good thing, lipstick or not. There are virtual committee members and then there are virtual members (who are also important).