Blatant Berry: A Pulpit for the Rank and File
ALA's leaders should lead by listening
By John N. Berry III, Editor-at-Large, jberry@reedbusiness.com -- Library Journal, 6/15/2007
I often enjoy the rantings of some members of the Council of the American Library Association (ALA). I read them on ALACOUN, their discussion list. It is available “read only” to all ALA members for the asking. Sure, it wears a bit thin pretty fast, but occasionally the posters rise above ALA process and discuss important issues.
Lately, they've been arguing about whether or not councillors should participate—take the microphones and speak—at Membership Forum and Meeting I at the ALA conference in Washington, DC, Saturday, June 23, 3:30–5 p.m.
That session is designated to be devoted to a favorite perennial of the Council: Should ALA take stands on social and political issues faced by our society and the world? Those are the concerns that opponents of ALA position-taking usually label “nonlibrary issues.”
The examples used to promote the session are: “Should ALA take a stand on the war in Iraq, the minimum wage, or library workers in Cuba? What is a 'nonlibrary' issue?” From ALACOUN, I glean that many councillors will attend and speak to these questions. Not only that, two august members of the ALA establishment, past president Michael Gorman and longstanding councillor Steve Matthews, have been awarded the privilege of opening the session. Gorman favors ALA taking stands, Matthews opposes it.
No one would deny either of these talented speakers and regular ALA rhetoricians their right to speak, even to speak first. No one would suggest that other “leaders” from the ranks of the Council, Executive Board, or elsewhere aren't entitled to the same option. Unfortunately, that will mean that for most of that 90-minute session, attendees will be forced to listen to people we hear from all the time. The opportunity to participate will be severely limited. I wanted to participate. I even offered to be one of those opening speakers. Now, having read the Council postings and reflected, I figure I have a bully pulpit here at LJ. I would rather hear from younger, newer members of ALA than take their time and make them listen to me. We need to hear from rank-and-file ALA members on this important set of questions. There are very few opportunities for that.
Over the years, the face-to-face membership meetings of ALA have been systematically stripped of any real function. Now they are only used as opportunities to gather an audience for the rituals and ceremonies of ALA or, as in this upcoming debate, as a venue to allow members who don't hold any elected office to sound off on the organization's actions and policies. Since so few people actually attend these sessions, it is probably good that they have little power to change anything. Still, it would be too bad to allow the meeting to be dominated by those who already have ample access to other podiums from which they can “lead” ALA. That will only further drive “nonleader” members to events that hold more promise for participation, enlightenment, or entertainment.
I'm sure most of my colleagues can easily guess where I stand on the debate. You know that I find it difficult to understand why any issue on our national and world agenda is not a library issue. I believe that there are very few matters, if any, that the library profession should not address. I'll continue to speak out here and at ALA on those topics.
But I hope that the “leadership” will hold their tongues at that ALA Membership Forum. I hope that, despite how difficult it will be for them, Gorman and Matthews will be brief. I hope that the members of Council and Executive Board express themselves at their meetings and leave this one for the rank and file who don't tell us often enough or loudly enough what they think about ALA actions. I don't want to muzzle our leaders, but maybe they will lead by listening for a change.
