Future of ALA?

A friend was nice enough to send me a copy of this interesting document from the ALA Council meeting on Sunday. It’s the report from the the ALA’s Future Perfect Presidential Task Force, a group that was charged with the following question:

If there were no governing body currently in place, what structure would you envision that reflects ALA’s goal of an engaged and collaborative membership, the effective use of new technologies, and the changes in outlook and expectations occurring with the new generation of people working in libraries?

They came up with these five proposed changes.

1. Revising requirements and member options associated with conferences
2. Merging council and the executive board
3. Committing to diversity through resource allocation and structural change
4. Integrating ALA with its state chapters
5. Increasing transparency, accessibility, and open communication
6. Legitimizing governance by increasing voting percentages and member engagement

It’s worth taking the time to read since it talks about a lot of different possibilities for future governance of the organization. I’m going to think about it for a couple of days, but I thought people who are away from the conference might like a look as well.

eBooks at Another Milestone

Between ALA Annual in New Orleans and TEDxLibrariansTO in Toronto, I feel I am missing out on two important librarian gatherings going on right now. In my perspective, the importance is in their timing in the scheme of things.

[Originally, this was one post talking about both ALA and TEDx. Upon review, I broke it out to two separate posts. You can read the other part here. -A]

For Annual, I think another eBook milepost has been reached. With the announcement of Baker & Taylor and Barnes & Noble joining forces, the offical emergence of 3M onto the eBook scene, and the announcement of a Freegal-like eBook lending service, there is a corner being turned here. Thus begins an era of different lending models and pricing schemes where librarians will be choosing which models they want and which they do not. This point cannot be stressed enough; this will be a time when librarians can pick which lending models they are comfortable with them.

My concern is that this power will be cast aside in favor of the blind “costs be damned” mantra of providing content to patrons because they demand it. Also, there is still a lack of ownership or collection control being offered from the major players. (If I recall correctly from Computers in Libraries 2011, there are companies that offer eBook ownership, but damned if I can remember which. I just know it’s not any of the major fiction groups.) There continues to be a movement towards licensing or leasing without an ownership alternative.

The idea that really concerns me is the movement towards a “buy it now” option offered next to the lending option. Would libraries see any of this money? Would we be purchasing the license for an eBook just to lose out when the patron opts to buy it when they see the length of the wait? Will libraries become another advertising platform for eBook vendors to reach customers? The idea of libraries purchasing eBook licenses on platforms that simultaneously encourage people not to use the library for borrowing but to purchase instead seems like a big loss for libraries.

While some may argue that libraries will be able to provide a means for patrons to purchase titles they like (something they can’t do with print), I would say that the current eBook lending and licensing model stacks the deck towards making a sale more so than with print books. The instant gratification of eBooks delivery lowers the bar compared to print books along with a (generally) lower price point. It provides the ingredients to easily create frustration while providing a quick and relatively cheap remedy. (“You don’t want to go through the hassle of borrowing when you can go through the ease of buying, do you?”)

My question for this kind of move is this: where does it leave libraries in their role in society? What kind of future does it offer? I’m not in complete opposition to it, but I don’t see how it furthers the core mission.

Four Out of Five Librarians Do Not Rock the Vote, Cont.

One of the blog posts I’ve been anticipating for awhile has finally come to pass. Oleg Kagan released the results of his ALA non-voter election survey this week; the purpose of this exercise was to investigate as to why there is a low turnout in ALA elections. It’s a long post but I enjoyed Oleg’s insights and the yeoman’s work he put into arranging the data and writing up an analysis.

One of the bigger discoveries to emerge from the survey is that of the unfamiliarity of the candidates inhibiting people from voting. To be more specific, non-voters felt that it was hard to get an idea of what the candidates stood for, the difference between positions from their statements (which some judged as “worthless”), and that the sheer number of candidates made it hard to figure out who might be the best candidate for people to choose. Or, in my opinion, they got walloped with information overload. (There is some irony to this.)

Since reading Oleg’s analysis (which if you haven’t done yet, you should do now; I’ll wait), I’ve been thinking about how to condense and present the ballot so that people can be able to make judgments on a hierarchy of information points. (Brief aside: I have no idea what the voting interface looks like; I’m just imagining how a sample ballot or election page might look.)

Here’s what I would suggest:

[Name]

[Memberships][Committees]

[Priority Issues, numbered #1 through #5]

[One line personal statement which links to personal statement that has both a short ~200 word position paragraph and a longer unlimited word statement]

So it would look like this:

Andy Woodworth

PLA, LITA, RUSA, YALSA, AASL. Chair, Volcano Worshipper’s Roundtable.

Priority issues: Advocacy, Organizational Transparency, eBook/eContent, Small Libraries, MLS accreditation 

“I believe public libraries change people’s lives everyday”

(embedded link to short and longer statements)

My thinking approach in presenting it this way is to put association involvement first and foremost to give people an idea if the person is doing anything in the organization. I would imagine that, in electing counselors, some display of experience or commitment might be seen as a desirable quality.

As to the inclusion of ranking priority issues, this could originate from either a predetermined master list of issues that ALA creates or given over to the candidates to formulate for themselves. It would force the candidates to prioritize their issues in a way in which that people could draw differences between them at a glance. As a voter, if you are looking for someone who make certain issues a priority, this would allow you to cut to the chase in terms of offering support for certain candidates. It’s another way of pulling out differences from the candidates and possibly allow for voters to examine similar groups of candidates on a spreadsheet more easily.

With the one line personal statement linking to the longer ones, it allows voters who want more information to seek it out. By including a 200 word personal statement, it gives a sample of what they stand for and their reasoning. The candidates can use the unlimited statement space to make any and all points, plans, or promises that they are willing to offer voters.

I know there are other ideas zipping around about how to address the non-voting issue so I hope this adds to the conversation. I hope that this suggestion can be put to use by the membership in order to make the voting process a bit more friendly by allowing people to base their decision on an ever increasing amount of information offered.

If you have other ideas for how to make the ballot better, comment away!

Four in Five Librarians Do Not Rock the Vote

One in five.

That’s how many ALA members voted in this year’s annual elections for positions ranging from President to Council. One in five is also the ratio of voters to non-voters for the previous year’s election. For a profession that likes to reach back and quote individuals going back to the Founders about the importance of information in a democracy, it falls a bit short for its own professional organization.

To get some insight into this phenomena, Oleg Kagan has created a ALA Non-Voter’s Survey for the four in five members to fill out. It offers a range of explanations to choose from as well as providing space for people to type in their own. Participation in the survey is anonymous, so please take a moment to add your explanation if you did not vote.

In looking at the excuses, my own personal guess would be between “forgot” and “I don’t know enough about the candidates to vote for one”. I’d also be curious as to how the number of voters compared to the number of people committees, roundtables, task forces, Council, etc. (aka people who are actively involved in the organization at present.) 

If you voted, how did you make your decision as to who to vote for? If you didn’t vote (and you want to share), why didn’t you vote? And how can the organization get more people to vote?

(h/t: Patrick Sweeney)

ALA T-Shirt Contest Finale!

With 551 entries, I have chosen the five winners randomly using the website Random.org. They have been contacted by email, so give a little look in your spam folder to make certain. I’d like to thank everyone for entering; I wish I had more t-shirts to give away. For those who didn’t win, you can always buy the shirt from ALA. It raises money for advocacy efforts and we will certainly need that in 2011.

In other news, I’m happy to say that the Secret Santa has begun with a smooth start. There are about 50 people this year, down from last year, but I’m already writing notes about using DrawnNames for next year. So far, so good, so here’s hoping for a smooth Secret Santa!

Happy Holidays everyone!

Blatant Berry Bloviating

In this month’s Library Journal, John Berry’s latest editorial speaks about the role of ALA in the issues of society. Specifically, the now somewhat infamous ALA Council email list discussion regarding the new Transportation Security Agency (TSA) and the new body scan devices. The short version is a member contacted a Council member regarding the new regulations and if ALA had an opinion on the matter. From there, the situation evolved into one in which there were people on Council who are wondering why ALA is talking about this topic and there are people on Council who are, well, talking about this topic. From the closing of Mr. Berry’s piece:

I [was] ready to run out and do battle with ALA’s conservatives who would tightly bind the ALA agenda to issues they define as “directly related to libraries.” This debate resurfaces frequently.

Most issues fit the description. Consider the billions we are spending on a war in Afghanistan, billions more in Iraq, billions to bail out Wall Street, the auto industry, and to build infrastructure. You can’t tell me that there wouldn’t be more for libraries if those costs of government were lower. You can’t tell me that libraries and librarians will not be safer if we can make our country more secure. You can’t tell me that one candidate for local, state, or federal office would not be better for libraries than another. Despite that fatuous debate over TSA scanning, I still believe, as I have since I first joined ALA, that every issue is a library issue.

(Emphasis mine.)

I would ask a reconciliation between the first sentence and the last sentence of that highlighted paragraph, for one sentiment would appear to usurp the other. And in lieu of a long winded post about what constitutes a library issue, I’d rather embrace the latter sentiment and encourage the ALA councilors who read my blog (I know who some of you are!) to take up a list of issues I have compiled off the top of my head.

• Arsenic based life forms (how should libraries deal with life forms that have substituted some basic elements for other kinds?)
• Pluto as a planet (as the ALA represents catalogers, I think it is only fair to the profession that we get this sucker properly classified)
• The BP oil spill (just like emerging information technologies, no one knows what the long term impact will be but seem to agree that it will be bad)
• Mine regulation in the United States (because libraries and mining companies have one thing in common: we both have heavy interests in search technology)
• LeBron James joining the Miami Heat (it’s just like Ranganathan said: ‘every reader his book’. Just substitute the word ‘reader’ with ‘basketball franchise player’ and the word ‘book’ with ‘multi-million dollar sports contract.)
• Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (a military policy that is commonly confused with the approach many libraries have to advocacy and marketing)

I eagerly await discussions and resolutions on all of these issues. I’d mention Wikileaks and the global digital information distribution, net neutrality as it relates to the Netflix v. Comcast debacle, and pretty much anything that has to do with ebooks, but I don’t want to fill up the Council’s agenda with too many “library issues”.

Uncle Dewey Needs You!

From the ALA legislative action alerts:

MLSA VOTE TOMORROW! Call Now to Support the Museum and Library Services Act!

Good news! The U.S. House of Representatives has scheduled a vote on the Museum and Library Services Act (MLSA) for Tuesday. Your phone calls to Congress are especially important now as your representatives will be making a decision on how they plan to vote on this bill.
Please call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask to be transferred to your representative’s office. Tell their staffs that passing MLSA is imperative to ensuring libraries can continue providing critical resources and services to their constituents, particularly in this tough economy. Specifically highlighting programs or resources your library provides to the member’s constituents will make your message stronger.

MLSA will ensure that all library programs under the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), including the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA), are authorized, therefore equipping IMLS to lead America’s libraries. This bill received bipartisan support from both Republicans and Democrats when it passed the Senate late week, and it will need the same bipartisan support to pass the House. To access the full text of this bill, click here.
Your calls are urgently needed TODAY! If the House fails to pass this legislation when it is on the floor tomorrow, the whole reauthorization process will have to start over after the first of the year. We cannot let that happen.

Click here to find your representatives (if you were sure who they are), get on the phone or email or whatever, and kick some ass on behalf of your community!

And then get the people around you to help out too!