ISSUES / PROS AND CONS

Some people support the current quorum. They say if we reduce the quorum the meeting will not be representative of the membership at large and "special interests" will take over the meetings. They also say that if the issues are important, enough members will attend to meet the current quorum.

Other people want to reduce the quorum. They say that the current higher quorum allows the "powers that be" to ignore the membership and that the quorum was increased so that Council could avoid membership-meeting resolutions. They also say that official meetings (when the quorum is met) allow active members to communicate their concerns and to present issues that otherwise would not be considered by Council.

Issue	SUPPORT CURRENT QUORUM	SUPPORT REDUCED QUORUM
Representativeness	There's no way to insure that Membership Meetings will represent the entire membership, even with the higher quorum. Why should ALA lower the quorum and end up with an unrepresentative Membership Meeting when we already have an elected Council that represents the members?	There's no way to insure that any smaller group - the Executive Board, Council, Membership Meetings - will represent the entire Membership, especially since we don't poll our members. What is important is that ALA involve as many members as we can and that ALA give them a sense of ownership of the Association. The Membership Meeting is not the final forum; our elected Council must approve all resolutions.
Broad or Narrow Views of What Are Library Issues	The Resolutions from the Membership Meetings often have a social, political, or international focus. ALA doesn't have any special expertise about these issues and they take away time from real library issues like Internet filters, outsourcing, funding, and salaries. Council spends too much time on these issues already; keeping the quorum high will mean that Meetings won't meet the quorum and Council will not spend time on issues it shouldn't be addressing in the first place.	In the ALA Policy Manual (Section One, Subsection 1, 1.1) ALA "recognizes its broad social responsibilities," that includes both defining how librarianship can help solve critical problems of society and taking a position on current critical issues and their relationship to librarianship. Issues like censorship, gay rights, due process, and human rights are real library issues that affect both librarians as individuals and the provision of library service. Council sets its own agenda and should not blame the Membership Meeting if it is unable to fulfill its responsibility to deal with these issues.
Anti-Democratic?	Setting a low quorum for Membership Meetings is "anti-democratic" because it gives too much weight to the opinions of the people who can afford to come to conferences and who are political enough to attend Membership Meetings.	Setting a high quorum so that ALA normally doesn't hold Membership Meetings is "anti-democratic" because it disenfranchises individual ALA members. Even if many members have other priorities, other members with a wide range of views want to exercise their right to have Membership Meetings.
Control by a Small Group?	Setting a low quorum makes it easy for the Meetings to be controlled by a small group whose views may not reflect the membership at large. Even the higher quorum is too low too ensure that Membership Meetings will represent the entire membership.	Setting a high quorum makes it easy for the Meetings to be controlled by a small group of "those in power" whose views may not reflect the membership at large. They will have lost a major source of feedback from individual members if Membership Meetings are not held.
Reasons for Low Attendance	ALA has low attendance at Membership Meetings because most members are not interested in the bureaucracy and politics of ALA and its special interests, and they have other meetings or activities they value more.. They elect officers and Council to take care of those things. We shouldn't lower the quorum simply because there aren't enough people interested in attending. If there is an issue of sufficient interest to a sufficient number of people, they will show up at a Membership Meeting to discuss it and vote on it.	ALA has low attendance at Membership Meetings because of lack of information, the agenda and logistical problems. Most members do not even know there are Membership Meetings; they certainly do not know the role the Meetings can play. If the membership had more control of the agenda, if the timing and publicity were better, and if there were no conflicts with other meetings, more people would attend Membership Meetings. Some members do not attend because they know that it is unlikely that there will be a quorum. We should accommodate those who want to have a forum for their views, even if many members are not interested.
Why Did Council Increase the Quorum?	Council initiated the quorum increase because it thought the Meeting didn't represent the whole membership.	Council initiated the quorum increase because it was tired of dealing with social issues referred from the Meeting.
Membership Has Already Voted on the Quorum	The change in the quorum may have been proposed by Council, but it was ratified by the entire membership on the 1994 annual ballot. While membership often goes along with Council proposals to change the bylaws, this one was approved by a particularly large margin, 8,635 to 1,814.	The change in the quorum may have been approved by the membership, but the title on the ballot was "To Ensure Greater Representation of Membership to Speak to Issues of Importance to the Association," hardly an even-handed characterization of the proposed change. The only mention of the bylaws change was buried in the report of the Council meeting. There were no articles, columns, or letters to the editor in American Libraries, and there were no pros and cons listed on the ballot that year. Membership votes just rubberstamp proposed constitution or bylaws changes; none have been rejected since 1990.
Other Ways Members Can Bring Up "Their" Issues?	There are other ways for members to bring matters forward for discussion by Council. They can work through Divisions, Roundtables, and Committees, or can bring their issues to individual Councilors.	The other ways for members to bring matters all require the member to trust the bureaucracy of ALA's structure as an intermediary. Not being able to speak personally and directly in support of an issue makes some members feel disenfranchised.