Blatant Berry: The Endowment's Purpose

I am always pleased when the American Library Association (ALA) does well. I've been a member for decades—so long, in fact, that I have some kind of permanent member status now that I'm deep in my dotage. So it was good news to hear from ALA treasurer Rod Hersberger that, at the end of September, ALA's endowment had reached the exalted sum of $31,432,147. After all, 31 million bucks is not chicken feed!

On reflection, however, I have never understood why it is a good idea for ALA to pile up money in the bank. I don't understand the purpose of the ALA endowment. Indeed, I have sometimes felt that it was downright wrong for ALA to solicit donations and contributions for it, in nearly direct competition with the very libraries it is mission-bound to support. As a membership organization, ALA makes money on fairly substantial charges to its members for dues, conference registration and attendance, continuing education programs, and publications. These charges, coupled with travel and lodging costs, place a hefty burden on ALA members who are at the beginning of their careers and suffer at the lower end of library salary ranges.

So why do we need 31 million smackers in the bank? We even changed the name of the fund from the endowment to the Long-Term Investment Fund. As I understand it, interest from the fund supports several ALA scholarship programs and life membership expenses, but these never reduce the amount of money, the principal, in the fund. Limited amounts can be and have been borrowed from the fund for ALA program support, emergencies, and even new initiatives. The endowment supported ALA's costly fight against the Children's Internet Protection Act and even helped purchase the ALA headquarters building, which was later sold for a profit. Such withdrawals are tightly limited by ALA Policy 8.5, and, more important, that policy requires that they be repaid with interest. In other words, any use of money from the fund essentially constitutes an interest-bearing loan from ALA to itself. The fund is an ALA bank account from which ALA can never withdraw money, only borrow it.

Now I know that financial heads like Hersberger will say this is standard, prudent endowment management. I just don't understand why a membership organization needs to salt away so much money when it has to increase dues and conference fees to maintain its operating budget.

One former ALA executive shared my skepticism about keeping so much money in a fund. He once told me, “ALA money is for spending.” I don't advocate spending the Long-Term Investment Fund on routine operations, but I do feel strongly that ALA policy makes it much too difficult to use that money in support of the things to which ALA should be paying attention.

For instance, ALA should more loudly, more effectively use all the media to explain to an increasingly skeptical public the essential value of libraries to society and to the communities within which they exist. This priority moves up the list every time some misguided politicians or administrators decide to close libraries to cope with budget deficits.

My agenda also includes a far more aggressive assault on the growing trend to censor and otherwise limit free expression in our society, particularly as it relates to public and school libraries. And it includes a much stronger effort to explain why our society needs well-paid librarians as trustworthy disseminators of information that fosters democratic decision-making.

Even a small piece, a quarter or a third of that $31 million, could do a hell of a lot to increase public awareness of the value of and need for librarians and libraries. And ALA wouldn't have to put the touch on members for a change. It would still have millions sitting in the bank. I hope someone will tell me why spending some of the ALA endowment on this crucially important agenda is a bad idea!