Eroding ALA Democracy | Blatant Berry
Virtual participation must not be second-class membership By John N. Berry III Feb 15, 2011IT’s already obvious that virtual participation in meetings and conferences of the American Library Association (ALA) would make ALA governance more transparent, broaden open access to ALA sessions, and increase the number of active, participating members. Virtual participation would allow members unable to attend conferences to serve on committees and boards and take part in programs. Despite those givens, an alarming number of instances during and before the recent ALA Midwinter Meeting in San Diego suggest that without strong leadership, virtual participation may actually bring an erosion of the ALA open meeting policy and the democratic governance of the association. A few examples make the point.
Long before Midwinter, more than one ALA unit actually forbade and prevented individual members from access to electronic discussion lists because of what were deemed “inappropriate” postings by them. These members were muzzled by whomever in that unit had control of the list in question.
At the Saturday meeting of the board of the Library Information and Technology Association (LITA), an ALA division, board member Jason Griffey was set up to stream (broadcast over the Internet) the session to LITA members and others. Some board members protested that such streaming would force them to be less candid. Later, they also argued that because they had hired a consultant to tell them how to improve board sessions, streaming that consultant’s comments would encroach on his intellectual property. The LITA board voted to stifle Griffey, and he disabled the stream. To add insult to injury, the consultant had advised the LITA board that once they had voted on an issue, all board members should agree to go along with the decision and not publicly oppose it, a bizarre bit of undemocratic wisdom. Nothing was said at the LITA board meeting that required the physical presence of any member. The entire gathering could have been broadcast to the members without negative effects.
After Midwinter, LITA president Karen Starr issued a somewhat defensive statement explaining the view of the LITA board’s majority. She admitted that streaming meeting content was an “identified need” and promised to appoint a LITA Content Streaming Task Force to work out the issues. Ah, bureaucracy!
At another meeting of an ALA governing board, this LJ reporter took notes as a board member proudly related how she had been forced to take vacation time and still faced administrative disapproval for being absent from her job to attend Midwinter. During a break, she asked LJ to cut her remarks from the report because she feared workplace retaliation. Ironically, that request to delete her comments came as the board was discussing what limits ought to be placed on virtual participation in ALA. There was no evidence that any board member had to be present at that meeting; it could have been held virtually with no loss of substance.
There can be solid reasons for members of boards to meet fact-to-face, but they were not apparent at Midwinter. That makes discussion of “tiered” membership for virtual participants sound like second-class membership. It violates the purpose of ALA’s open meeting policy and ALA democracy.
The forum for ALA presidential candidates could be much more effective and accessible if it were broadcast online. Only 100 of ALA’s more than 60,000 voting members showed up in person.
ALA leaders must be very careful to preserve member access and full participation in the organization’s events and governance. They are now faced with an unprecedented opportunity to expand that engagement. They must protect the ALA democracy we fought for decades ago. Virtual participation is coming, but it must not bring second-class membership in ALA.
| Author Information |
| John N. Berry III is Editor-at-Large, LJ |
