I do take cues and get inspired by seniors librarians (both specifically you, Steven, and in general). I really dislike the whole “get out of our way” attitude that tends to creep up every now and again when it comes to this fake “older vs younger” librarians meme. I wouldn’t want to be treated that way in twenty years from now and I don’t believe that it is very helpful in retaining institutional knowledge. However, I do believe that there is merit and value to getting different ‘generations’ of librarians at a conference. If it takes a different distribution of conference money wealth, then I think it’s a good thing in the long run.

But I think you misinterpret something Berry states in his editorial. You wrote:

The statement made by Mr. Berry is that the conference is attended by those who get the least use out of it: directors, top management, and others who are well established and well compensated through their position.

Your statement suggest that senior librarians and administrators “get the least use out of” the conferences. I wouldn’t agree if he made that point. I get a hell of a lot of use out of the conferences. Hearing new ideas, talking to the exhibitors (really critical if you are making allocation and purchase decisions) – and complaining to the vendors – best time to do it. And I get a lot of value out of meeting newer folks.

But what he actually says is:

The top managers, directors of libraries, and others who get the least use out of them get full subsidy and time off to attend conferences.

By that he means, I believe, that the senior library don’t actually need the subsidies in that they could probably afford to pay their own way – unlike the newer folks who are earning less. I don’t think he’s saying folks like me get the least use out of the conference (which is how you replay it), but rather we get the least use of the subsidy to attend the conference.

Maybe I’m the one reading it wrong – or the way it’s written it’s ambiguous and open to interpretation. But if he intended it the way you read it – I’d argue he’s wrong. But based on my interpretation, I don’t think he meant it as a put down to us senior admin types.

As to the rest, that sounds about right to me.

However, I was told that I could not attend, even if I paid my own way, even if I only went for one day of the conference. I was told that I had to stay at work to staff the desk, even though only the director, assistant director, and youth services librarian were attending the conference.

This is not even an issue of taking vacation days or spending your own money. This is an issue of providing opportunities for all staff members to pursue professional development.

In terms of sponsorship, I say go for it. I don’t have a problem with people making money off of their work, as long as its obvious who’s paying them. In fact, that’s one of the things I love about NASCAR. They don’t try and obscure who is paying the bills. Besides, there seems to be so few library vendors that people love – why not highlight those that are doing a great work?

I don’t know exactly how ALA conferences are funded, but my experience at local/regional conferences is that they are funded largely by the vendors. I think that working on this relationship could have an impact on offerings and price.

The choice of who should attend should be based at least in some part on community need – evidence based conference attendance. What are the library’s goals this year and how is attendance at this conference going to help?

So clearly you *don’t* only have 91 subscribers – now can you solve the second half of the mystery for me? What is that stat doing there and where does it come from..?