ROLE OF MEMBERSHIP MEETINGS
The Task Force feels that Membership Meetings allow members to participate in
the formulation and debate of ALA policy and can aid in retaining members. Although
ALA considers itself to be a mem-bership-driven organization, it is difficult
for any organization with 60,000 members to integrate new members or give continuing
members a sense of ownership in the Association. No single ALA activ-ity will
appeal to every member, but it is important that the Association try to meet
the diverse needs of its members.
The Perlov Report (Structure and Governance Audit of the American Library Association,
September 1993) prepared for the ALA Self-Study Committee said that there was
"a cadre of no more than 100 people who have been in, are in, and show
every evidence of remaining in the decision-making loop."
The report said that several hundred others help make things happen, but the
"vast majority of mem-bers don't know or seem to care very much about"
ALA governance. (p. 9) These conclusions seem to be as valid today as they were
nine years ago.
Less than one-third of all members attend any given Annual Conference. Most
who attend have other activities to which they give higher priority than Membership
Meetings. Nonetheless, a few hundred activist members, many of whom may never
be elected to Council nor appointed to an Association-wide committee, see Membership
Meetings as their primary way to influence ALA policy. Many of these members
have felt alienated by the fact that only two official Membership Meetings have
been held since the quorum was increased in 1994.
Some members of the Task Force saw that a related role of Membership Meetings
is to provide a source for new policy ideas for the Association. Others felt
the Membership Meetings provided a use-ful check on Council actions, although
no Council action has been set aside by the required three-quarters vote of
the Membership Meeting in at least 35 years.
The Task Force also considered changing the name of the Membership Meeting to
reflect that the meetings are not necessarily representative of the membership
at large. However, alternative names that were not unwieldy seemed likely to
alienate the members who attend and could still be inter-preted as the membership
at large.
THE 1994 QUORUM CHANGE AND ITS EFFECTS
Before 1994 the quorum for Membership Meetings was 200 members; since then the
quorum has been one percent of the personal membership (currently 589 members).
The catalyst for changing the quo-rum was a resolution (1991-92 CD#60) to condemn
censorship and human rights abuses by Israel. This was approved at the Membership
Meeting in 1992 and was later passed by Council at the 1992 Annual Conference.
Subsequently, many groups within and outside of ALA protested that Israel should
not have been singled out in an area of the world in which human rights are
all too frequently abused by other governments as well. Moreover, many councilors
questioned whether ALA should pass resolutions dealing with such issues. Council
formally "revoked" the Israeli censorship resolu-tion at the next
annual conference (1993, New Orleans).
Since the quorum increase went into effect only two of the sixteen Membership
Meetings have had a quorum that allowed them to conduct business. One occurred
in 1995 in response to a proposed ma-jor change in ALA structure; the other
occurred in 2001 - in response to the Children's Internet Pro-tection Act (CIPA)
and the result of major efforts from the Membership Meeting Task Force and the
ALA staff.
THE ISSUES
The question of whether to maintain or reduce the current Membership Meeting
Quorum has been addressed by Council on a regular basis ever since the quorum
was changed in 1994. The size of the quorum has been coupled with other issues
making it more difficult to bridge two legitimate - but completely opposite
- sets of views on the Membership Meeting and the creation of ALA policy.
The issues in conflict include the representativeness of the meeting, broad
or narrow views of what are library issues, the nature of democracy in ALA,
the control of Membership Meetings, the reasons for low attendance, and other
ways members can bring up "their" issues.
THE REPRESENTATIVENESS OF MEMBERSHIP MEETINGS
Many Task Force members shared the concerns expressed by a number of councilors.
Some individu-als have questioned whether a vote at a Membership Meeting is
an accurate reflection of the member-ship as a whole. Many of the same people
are worried that a small group could take over the Mem-bership Meeting and pass
resolutions contrary to ALA's interests.
One group argues that 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 politically oriented enough to attend Membership
Meetings. Another group counters that setting a high quorum so that ALA normally
doesn't hold Membership Meetings is "anti-democratic" be-cause 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. The Task Force believes that no one can insure that Membership
Meetings will represent the entire mem-bership, even with the current higher
quorum.
Those who attend Membership Meetings are a self-selected group who can afford
to go to the annual conference and who are interested in political and policy
issues. Likewise, many councilors and committee members are self-nominated,
and some membership groups are overly represented on Council relative to other
groups. Some councilors are elected at large, but many are elected because of
name recognition or unit affiliation rather than because members read about
the policy stances of all candidates. Other councilors represent specific constituencies;
some represent thousands of mem-bers; others a few hundred. This mix of councilors
serves many useful purposes, but it does not guar-antee that a vote of Council
will reflect the views of the entire membership, although Council contin-ues
to be the authority for determining ALA's policies.
The Task Force believes that the Membership Meeting also serves a useful purpose.
The Membership Meeting serves to involve interested members and to give them
a sense of ownership of the Associa-tion. Council will have lost a major source
of feedback from individual members if Membership Meetings are not held.
Other councilors have been concerned that a small group could take over the
Membership Meeting and pass resolutions contrary to ALA's interests. The Task
Force believes that an effective way to avoid that outcome is to return to the
expectation that councilors attend the Membership Meetings to hear their member
concerns and to vote at those meetings. The attendance of many councilors repre-senting
a broad spectrum of views can insure that no one group has an unfair advantage.
Moreover, councilors will find out the concerns of their constituents who attend
the Meeting. Finally, the Mem-bership Meeting is not the final forum or decision-making
body; our elected Council must approve all resolutions.
When deliberating the merits of an issue, Council has not been swayed by the
assertion the vote of the Membership Meeting is the will of the membership at
large. The Task Force feels that whenever the need arises ALA councilors and
other leaders can clarify to outside groups that Membership Meeting actions
may not always reflect the views of the membership as a whole and can defeat
the resolutions brought from the Membership Meetings.
The Association's Constitution and Bylaws identify the Membership Meeting as
one of the bodies that can initiate consideration of policy and the Council
the authority to establish or change policy on behalf of the membership at large.
If Council feels that a Membership Meeting resolution does not represent the
membership at large, Council can vote to defeat the resolution.
REASONS FOR LOW ATTENDANCE
Some councilors argue that 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. 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.
Other councilors argue that ALA has low attendance at Membership Meetings because
of lack of in-formation, the agenda and logistical problems. Most members do
not even know there are Member-ship 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 be-cause they know that it is unlikely that there will be a quorum.
Regardless of the reasons for low attendance, the Task Force believes that the
Association should ac-commodate those members who want to have a forum for their
views. ALA benefits from having its members actively engaged in the issues that
confront the Association.
OTHER WAYS IN WHICH MEMBERS CAN INFLUENCE ALA POLICY
Some councilors argue that there are other ways for members to bring matters
forward for discussion by Council. They can work through divisions, round tables,
and committees, or can bring their issues to individual councilors. However,
the Task Force believes that the other ways for members to bring matters require
the member to trust the ALA structure and bureaucracy as an intermediary. Not
be-ing able to speak personally and directly in support of an issue makes some
members feel disenfran-chised. Moreover, some issues transcend the interest
of any single unit or group of units.
BROAD AND NARROW VIEWS OF APPROPRIATE LIBRARY ISSUES
In the ALA Policy Manual (Section One, Subsection 1, 1.1) ALA "recognizes
its broad social responsi-bilities," which include both defining how librarianship
can help solve critical problems of society and taking a position on current
critical issues and their relationship to librarianship. Councilors dis-agree
strongly about which issues are appropriate to consider.
Many councilors feel that the Resolutions from the Membership Meetings often
have a social, politi-cal, or international focus. They say that ALA doesn't
have any special expertise about these issues, that Council already spends too
much time on these issues, and these issues take away time from real library
issues like Internet filters, outsourcing, funding, and salaries. They believe
that keeping the quorum higher will mean that Membership Meetings will not have
a quorum, and Council will not spend time on issues it shouldn't be addressing
in the first place.
Other councilors argue that 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. They say these issues are exactly the
"social responsibilities" cited in the Policy Manual.
The Task Force concludes that the issues have been placed on the Council agenda
regardless of whether the Membership Meeting has had a quorum. Council sets
its own agenda and must accept responsibility for decisions about whether to
deal with these issues and dispose of the issues effec-tively.
MEMBERSHIP VIEWS
Some councilors argue that the members themselves on the 1994 annual ballot
already approved rais-ing the quorum by a large margin (8,635 to 1,814), and
there is no need to think their views have changed. Other councilors have countered
that the vote was not a fair or accurate reflection of mem-bership views. Membership
votes just rubberstamp proposed constitution or Bylaws changes; none have been
rejected since 1990.
The Task Force found that the title of the proposed quorum increase 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 edi-tor in American Libraries, and there were no pros and cons listed
on the ballot that year.
The Task Force believes that debate over whether the 1993 vote was an informed
and representative decision is not useful in resolving the recurring quorum
question. Instead, the Task Force believes that a 2003 mail ballot with widespread
discussion and of the issues and publicity of the upcoming vote is a better
way to determine the views of the membership.
THE TASK FORCE COMPROMISE
The Task Force believes that there is no magic number or scientifically established
number for the Membership Meeting Quorum. Rather the Task Force tried to balance
legitimate, but contrary, con-cerns expressed on both sides and to come up with
a number that is a workable compromise.
The Task Force considered five quorum options:
SPECIAL PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE ON THE MEMBERSHIP MEETING QUORUM
Monika J. Antonelli, University of North Texas
Gordon M. Conable, Riverside County (CA) Library Systems and Services LLC
Jack Forman, San Diego Mesa College Library
Carrie Gardner, Milton Hershey School (PA)
Peter S. Graham, Syracuse University Library
Janet Swan Hill, University of Colorado Libraries
Norman Horrocks, Scarecrow Press (NS, Canada)
Barbara F. Immroth, University of Texas at Austin
Al Kagan, University of Illinois Library
Sue Kamm, Inglewood (CA) Public Library
Larry Romans (chair), Vanderbilt University
Pat R. Scales, South Carolina Governor's School for the Arts and Humanities
Roberta A. Stevens, Library of Congress
Patricia M. Wong (Executive Board Liaison), Stockton-San Joaquin County (CA)
Public Library
Lois Ann Gregory-Wood (Staff Liaison)