In terms of changing ALA, particularly in the area of virtual participation, I am personally committed to working along multiple tracks:
- Supporting others who want to work inside the belly of the beast: that would include my strong, hearty endorsement of ALA Council candidates Aaron Dobbs and Chris Harris
- Participating as a member of the ALA Task Force on Electronic Meeting Participation
- Writing and speaking about the advantages to ALA to lead change in the area of virtual participation
- Advocating civil disobedience, by encouraging ALA committees and other functional units to ignore ALA policy that prohibits units from voting between conferences, requires voting members to attend face-to-face meetings, and ignores virtual members in establishing quorums
I see these as complementary methods. It’s important that we get enough ALA reformers to understand the workings of Council. Personally, after three terms on Council I feel far too familiar with ALA’s plumbing and think I should run for Council only when we get a critical mass together to run as a slate, vote in our own Executive Board, and expeditiously change the organization.
As for the Task Force, this is the fourth time I’ve served on a unit dedicated to changing ALA in the area of electronic participation. My contribution so far has to been to draft a survey; the task force appears to be on hold for now. How ironic if we did the bulk of our work at conferences. I’m starting to worry this is a pyramid scheme: in the end, we’ll make recommendations that lead to the creation of another task force.
The writing and speaking is self-evident. It is the civil disobedience I have yet to posit as a parallel strategy.
In March, 2004, my partner and I were married at San Francisco City Hall. Several months later our marriage was invalidated, and it may be a long while before we see same-sex marriage legalized in California. But this civil disobedience changed many attitudes — not the least of which, our own. We went from seeing ourselves as outside the institution as people who could indeed marry. In that sense, civil disobedience appears to change the outer world but in truth, may be most useful for changing those who rebel.
My recommendation is that ALA units come out of the closet and into the streets. For committees, openly recruit “virtual” members and make it clear their participation counts; announce pending votes and conduct them electronically, by email, chat, Second Life, whatever works; make it a record of the minutes that quorums were established using virtual members; conduct ALA business as you do in real life. I would ask that electronic activities have plenty of strong sunshine — votes announced in public venues, archives and forums open to ALA members — to demonstrate that the most “open” meeting is the one that truly everyone can attend, whether or not they can spend thousands of dollars to fly cross-country.
This will probably ensure I never again chair a committee (particularly one superficially devoted to changing ALA on e-participation, though if I’m smart I’ll start to refuse those assignments), but if I were to be appointed chair of a unit, I would be ostentatious about conducting work online; I would insist on it. My goals would include getting most or all of the busy-work out of the way so the ALA conference could be about the things we can’t do electronically as well as we can face-to-face: network with colleagues, attend programs (and un-programs), explore vendor exhibits, see product demonstrations, attend great speaking programs, catch up with people we haven’t seen in a while, have some fine nibblies in an interesting location, and just enjoy being en masse in our librarian self-hood.
I’m hoping we get more, not less, of these opportunities, not just through massive f2f conferences but also through more online opportunities. As for our strictly-virtual colleagues, it would not surprise me if the loose ties created through their participation led them to find ways to attend face-to-face and virtual conferences.
ALA is afraid that if policy changes, and we loses the midwinter meeting as it now functions, it will lose revenue. But this syllogism is false, because it assumes that ALA policy is protecting us from change. My take on change is that it happens whether you wish it to or not, and the thin cardboard of an ALA “rule” isn’t going to protect ALA from the future. We can choose to shape change, or be driven by it. Whether ALA as an organization is around in thirty years depends on the road we take. A national association that meets two times a year, with one meeting dedicated to “conducting business” (you can’t even conduct a program at Midwinter), had best be reconsidering its route.
The weird part is ALA is convinced it can “save” its twice-year conference schema through policy enforcement, but in reality, the policy gets in the way of what we most need in our fractured society: a way to connect with one another. Eventually library directors will ask, “why do you need to attend a meeting twice a year? Why can’t you conduct work the way the rest of us do?” What will the answer be?
Of course, many ALA units un-ostentatiously conduct work online. They have to. ALA “rules” are designed to prop up the Midwinter conference because it’s a revenue source — there is no other rational reason — but it doesn’t mean those “rules” actually lead to best practices.
In fact, the weakness of ALA’s rules is most evident on Council itself, whose agenda is overwhelmed with hastily-written resolutions on whatever topics seemed urgent the month prior to ALA, while conversely, key issues happen in LibraryLand in between conferences and Council — the governing body of ALA — is unable to comment. Like having a one-year presidency (and yes, I understand the economic reasons for this), it enforces the ALA permanent bureaucracy as the real government of ALA. I don’t begrudge them all the work they do, but you should be aware how little say we the membership have in our organization, and how much that is a byproduct of our rules.
In any event, if you chair or sit on an ALA unit, I suggest you follow the slogan of a previous ALA president — “be the change you want to see in the world” — and engage in some ostentatious civil disobedience. Once the spluttering dies down, someone may someday thank you for saving ALA.
I guess I’d like a definition of what you mean by “ALA,” because that seems like a bit of a sweeping generalization to me. There are implications in your post that staff are propping up Midwinter solely for revenue-purposes, and that’s not true across-the-board. I know staff members who are asking the same questions you are, but they can’t change anything because it actually *is* all about the membership. The members truly are the only ones who can change the by-laws and policy.
Which of course goes back to the premise of your post. But when you say things like, “I don’t begrudge them all the work they do, but you should be aware how little say we the membership have in our organization, and how much that is a byproduct of our rules,” I think you should define “them” a little more clearly. They is us and we is they.
Well, my friend… you iz the bureaucracy now.
Perhaps I didn’t argue this well enough because you are conflating two points I am making.
ALA *policy* is propping up Midwinter (or attempting to), and that’s not the staff, that’s the decisions of Council and other ALA honchos.
The *outcome* of ALA policy is that it means that ALA members aren’t involved in ALA governance as much as they could/should be.
The staff are in a sense bystanders of ALA policy outcomes. So unruffle thy feathers. I’m not targeting “The Staff.” I’m targeting the members.
I had a beautiful long file that illustrated every place that ALA policy restricts virtual participation (none of it in the Constitution or Bylaws) and I do not know where I put it. But by gum, when I find it… sigh.
Wait… tears of joy… I found it! will post at lunch.
Hi Karen & Jenny,
Here’s how I read “…be aware how little say */we the membership/* have in our organization, and how much that is a byproduct of our rules…”
I see the “we the membership” identifier more like this:
We the members, who are comfortable working
[virtually /
asynchronously /
under our own supervision /
while trusting ourselves and our partners to advance our efforts /
etc.]
on our own passionate interests and projects under the umbrella of The Association.
I see the “…how little say … is a byproduct of our rules…” piece like this:
Libraries and librarians have been relatively hierarchically bound for ~100+ years (classification, ordering, decision-making; everything has a usually well codified parent / child relationship) – which I would call the status quo.
People outside the hierarchy (such as kgs, myself, and many others of our ilk [grin]) see problems with the status quo and highlight these problems. But without being in the system, and especially without enough critical mass, our voices are those hear crying in the wilderness.
The rules say we [must/should/shall] do things in a certain way… *but* current actual practice does not always stay within the bounds of the rules.
In my view, the rules need to be re-stated in more positive language which reflects current practice instead of the current restrictive language which is [occasionally/often] [ignored/overlooked].
For years (although not lately) the CLENE Round Table Board has conducted official business between annual and mid-winter using AIM chat. Likewise our various sub-committees. If what we were doing was in some way a violation of ALA policy, so what? We got our work done and the ALA police never showed up made us re-vote any decisions that we made electronically. No reason other ALA committees, sub-committees, task forces, blue-ribbon panels, advisory boards, sections, round tables, divisions (have any missed any?) can’t go forth and do the same.
When we started doing our online meetings it was pretty much a choice between AIM and Yahoo, and downloads were required for both. I know that can be a deal breaker in the heavily firewalled world of libraries. Well, it’s a brave new world. There are many options now, and plenty that don’t require a download.
For anyone thinking of doing online meetings, I direct you to the excellent work Michelle Boule, Dianna Fricke, Angela Kille and Nicole Van Thiel did for the ALA Emerging Leaders in
describing and recommending various virtual meeting options.
Pete: *I’m telling*!
@Karen: Thanks – that’s the clarification I was looking for, because really the membership *is* the only group with any say here. 🙂
Signed,
The Man
@Pete: If someone knocks at the door, don’t answer it! :-p
Who votes to change the rules? The people who go to the meetings and have a vested interest in keeping the status quo plus a reason to go somewhere twice a year on their employers dime.
To paraphrase a t-shirt slogan “The meetings will continue until morale improves.”
Greg, I think change will happen. Really I do. But it requires in part getting The Membership to wake from its deep slumber and take action along many fronts. It’s happened before… it can happen again!
@Pete: In New York, we ran into a problem in that having votes via e-mail or some other electronic means is not recognized by the laws and regulations that govern public meetings of groups chartered by the state department of education (namely our school library system group). As such, it was recommended that we remove e-mail voting as an option from our bylaws and replace it with faxes. I e-mailed my no vote (and then faxed it just to make sure I was playing by the rules so my statement wouldn’t be voided).
Greg, change will come. It may take a while, but with every person who stands up and says change is necessary the day gets a bit closer. I was recently asked to be a part of a task force looking at AASL 2.0 and so was thinking about this last week. Some of the things I wrote about mesh nicely with Karen’s excellent insights about the need for changes. And let me state very publicly that if elected to ALA Council I would vote to change the rules to fully support virtual membership on committees. Even if I have to fax in my vote.
And thank you, Karen, for your endorsement. I am greatly honored.
Chris, that would be my response to Pete as well. The reality is that these policies have outcomes. In the end our marriage was invalidated and our civil disobedience didn’t matter. Change must follow action.
Chris, I am honored to support you! You’re a great candidate and all I can say is do not get discouraged. Some of us are on your heels.
What are some committees I can volunteer for that are willing to do as Karen suggests?
I have served on LITA committees as a virtual member. In fact, the scholarship committee I was on last year did all of its work via e-mail and even voted via e-mail.
In order to make such a list readily available for everyone, I’ve started a new page on the nascent Get Involved wiki. I’ll see what information I can corral on our end, but this would be a great resource we could all build and maintain together.
Thanks, Jenny. Now if it just had RSS feed.
Bill, there’s a general recent changes feed for the wiki as a whole, but I haven’t been able to add article-level feeds to our wikis.
I found the WikiArticleFeeds extension but I can’t get it to work. I’ve talked to two wiki experts and emailed the developer (who hasn’t responded), but no luck. If anyone knows of another way to add article feeds, I’d love to try it. You can email me at jlevine@ala.org or catch me on AIM as cybrarygal .
Thank you Karen! You articulated why I have failed to contribute anything to every ALA/PLA/CLA committee I have ever been on, yet feel the drive to articulate myself and work for something larger for the profession on other forums like Publib. When I got appointed to my first PLA committee as a young newbie librarian I was so thrilled, until I received a list of rules first, then something to sign, then an order to appear at the conference … and nothing to do with my energy when I had inspiration at 2 a.m. (I’m a chronic insomniac who is generally most brilliant in the middle of the night).
If I could have made wiki pages, or posted to an electronic forum then, or asked a question of my colleagues, or sent out a draft of something without it being vetted by 18 people, I could have contributed. An uncomfortable meeting at the end of a conference when my feet hurt and my brain is full isn’t where my best work emerges.
I may join an ALA committee again … maybe. I the meantime, Publib will get my best work for the profession, with the occasional actual article when I feel like it. (I’m working on one about why women dominated service professions are in a quandry of their own making on salary and power and I don’t even know where to send that one).
Hillary Theyer
Hillary, I can think of a few places for such an article. I’d love to read it!
[…] I am suggesting is that civil disobedience — which I promoted in an earlier post — is an interim […]