IT IS NO SURPRISE THAT ONLY 20 PERCENT OF THE members of the American Library Association (ALA) who are eligible to vote decided to use that privilege in the race for president in the recent ALA election. Intelligent voters make an important statement when they choose not to vote. Their message is that it doesn’t make any difference who wins. The voter turnout for seats on ALA Council was even lower. Apparently, it makes even less difference who is chosen for that body.
ALA elections only attract participation from those members who are already securely seated in one of ALA’s established constituencies, the so-called “leadership” of the association. That leadership is formed by longstanding cliques more focused on maintaining their control of the association than debating the many crucial issues faced by libraries and the profession that serves them.
Indeed, when one poor councilor made the mistake of urging members to vote for a particular presidential candidate in a message on the electronic discussion list of ALA Council, she was told that such campaigning was inappropriate and ALA lists and units should not endorse nominees. Her candidate won, but the balloting was so low that it is impossible to interpret the results as a mandate.
ALA has a deep aversion to presidents who genuinely want to debate issues on the agenda of the library world, and the Executive Board has made it clear to candidates that no initiatives by ALA presidents will be tolerated. The last president to succeed with a program was Maurice J. Freedman, who campaigned to get the organization to push for better professional salaries. He got the issue institutionalized in ALA’s Allied Professional Association (APA). APA still works for better salaries, though the focus, hopefully just for the moment, has eroded to certification programs for paralibrarians. There is nothing wrong with such efforts unless, as happens so often with ALA, the aim becomes revenue rather than professional development.
Revenue is the direction of much of ALA activity these days, including all the expensive preconferences before ALA’s Midwinter Meetings and annual conferences run by the divisions and units. That kind of goal displacement, coupled with the never-ending effort by the ALA Council and Exec Board to prevent presidential leadership and the obsession with process and procedure, surely turns off potential voters.
One member of Council opined during the recent preelection upset over campaigning that ALA officers should be elected because of their achievements. A voting member would certainly have very little interest in choosing among such honorary candidates. We must not turn ALA’s elected leaders into figureheads whose only job is to spout the Council- and Executive Board–approved ALA line to media and members. ALA has very effective staff publicists and lobbyists to do that useful work.
The job of ALA’s elected leaders must be to unite and mobilize the membership to address both the core values of the profession and the current crises in library funding and support. While ALA leaders give lots of lip service to both, they have not ignited the members to do anything under the banner of ALA. The interest in the march on Capitol Hill during last month’s annual conference is the exception that proves that assertion.
The ALA election turnout itself presents ample evidence that a great apathy about governance has set in with ALA members. There is little interest in ALA elections because they don’t make any difference.
Any figurehead can decorate the prow of the good ship library, but what ALA really needs is a captain to take command and lead the members into battle for the hearts and minds of the citizens and the votes of national, state, and local politicians to get the meager share of the public budget that would make libraries strong.
Good points. I'm a young librarian and haven't voted in the last two elections for the reasons you've stated. I went to one ALA conference, but think that the organization is too big and and not connected with what matters to most of us who work in the field.
My ALA conference experience was fun because I met with people I went to school with, and also with former professors. That was the best part of the conference. At the end, I thought it was an interesting experience, but not the best conference I've been to. How naive I was. I thought it would be the best ever because it's the big one. I was told to expect great things, to be overwhelmed with it all. I was underwhelmed, though I had fun. I've been to regional conferences that had better, more focused sessions and that were more in tune with the "rank-and-file."
Posted by Kim on July 17, 2010 07:09:08PM
Ditto on Kim's comments. I've been to ALA once in my 20-year career. I much prefer PLA. I'm also discouraged by the clique-thing (it's a popularity contest). I've given up on voting. Oh, and remember that "wellness circle" project or whatever that was the President's project one year? How's that working for you?
Posted by Sarah on July 19, 2010 03:00:44PM
Same here. The last ALA I attended was in Chicago - and I found most of the sessions to be so watered down to appeal to every type of library that it was useless. This last ALA in DC, I only attended workshops. They were great, and I didn't miss the actual conference at all.
I rarely vote in the elections because it just seems silly. Nothing gets done, no matter who gets elected. And for all their carrying on about being desperate for volunteers to help with committee work - well, I filled out all the paperwork two years in a row and never heard a word back. So, I guess even the volunteer work goes to those in the clique...
I view my membership dues as very expensive magazine subscriptions. Because that's about all I get out of being an ALA member.
Posted by DS on July 20, 2010 02:50:32PM
Yes, and speaking of revenue and conferences in the same breath...just how much money does ALA think librarians make these days? The directors and seniors of the library systems could maybe afford travel and lodging, plus registration and the extra fees tagged onto everything, but the rest of us are the ones who would most benefit from going! And furthermore, most of us can't attend awards dinners with a $50 price tag for rubber chicken after having spent all our money on plane fare, a hotel room, meals.... Most of us are staying home. Too bad.
Posted by ME on July 20, 2010 07:11:29PM
John, I could not agree more. I personally admire anyone with the chutzpah to run for ALA President, and kudos to any employer willing to give that much release time to a successful candidate.
The problem is with the organizational structure. ALA Council has become a bad joke, a debating society that spends hours opining on matters over which it has no control and minutes paying attention to what counts to working librarians. Given rank and file voters' understandable apathy or outright loathing for Council, the same cliques that get those folks elected will keep them there until hell freezes over.
Council needs to go. I would suggest replacing it with a 20-30 member elected assembly that would be the policy setting board of the association. Several seats could be reserved for representatives of the major library types, and the rest (a majority in any case) would be elected at large. The president, immediate past president, vice president/president-elect, and the treasurer would sit on this body. And the Executive Director of ALA should be empowered to be the official spokesperson for the organization.
Posted by George on July 21, 2010 08:45:00AM
The institutionalization of ALA Council's leadership was one of the reasons I left ALA Council and indeed ALA. Term limits are sorely needed there.
John has hit the nail on the head most squarely.
Past ALA Councilor-at-Large. ...and another member of the ad hoc "Berry ALA Round table"
Posted by John D. Berry on August 4, 2010 03:02:32PM
