I have a few clarifying questions and observations to this thorough and informative document:

• RE: Net Asset Balance, this sentence continues to scramble my brain: "These funds represent budget surpluses that have accumulated over the years from careful stewardship by the Board and Budget Committee– they are tracked but do not represent actual cash on hand." It's my understanding, historically and from reading the document, that these have been actual dollars that could be spent. Case in point, had there been monetary penalties from the 2021 conference, the NAB would have been drawn from to pay those penalties...using actual money, not ledger fictions. Therefore, is this sentence actually indicating that ACRL can no longer treat the NAB as actual cash because ACRL does not have access to it? (something alluded to later in the document on page 4 "Because we no longer have access to the Net Asset Balances..." and restated on page 5 "In FY23, ACRL was advised by ALA that we do not have access to the Net Asset Balance.") [You are correct that we, currently, do not have access to the Net Asset Balances. ALA is tracking them, calling them historic Net Asset Balances, but the money is not there and part of the reason seems to be liquidity challenges that date back several years. There has been some discussion around the possibility of moving NABs into endowment funds should cash flow improve (and the assumption here is that these would be reserved funds for ACRL), but with the sea changes in budgeting and financing that are currently underway, it is difficult to predict outcomes.]
• I think membership would appreciate a more straight line in connecting the dots from the changes requested by the ALA Board with respect to the budget and ACRL's lack of access to the NAB. I am unsure why the opacity around this topic exists. [Would something like the following be helpful? Members may remember that ACRL had accumulated Net Asset Balances, due to prudent budgeting, in excess of $5M. Recognizing the potential for these NABs, ACRL used these funds to initiate important projects, such as Benchmark and helping to purchase the office space for Choice in Middletown CT. These were called "spend down years." When ALA began teetering on the edge of a financial cliff, the ALA Board began to assert more authority over finances. This meant ignoring the provision for NABs in the Operating Agreement and has resulted in a much more austere budget for FY23.]
• Page 5 also notes the reductions in FY23 expenses, but does not indicate what the association is losing from those reductions. For example, the lack of SPOS is detrimental to Board efficiency and sense of community, the lack of adequate staffing surely has material impact on how members are supported, the reduction in stable funding for scholarships shifts the responsibility to member generosity in a time of high costs of living...and so on. We should be as transparent as possible with membership on what these reductions mean to the operations and, dare I say, joy (or potential for joy) associated with the work of ACRL. [I could elaborate on what you have provided here: In addition to eliminating SPOS, which have contributed significantly to board efficiency, the current budget means that ACRL will continue to be understaffed much longer than is desirable, which directly affects member services; has had to end its long-term support of the Library Copyright Alliance; has curtailed travel, which will make it more difficult to liaise with organizations; will reduce ACRL's presence at the Annual Conference; and introduces multiple stressors on services.] 

As always, much appreciation for the tremendous labor of our B&F colleagues and ACRL and Choice staff.

------------------------------
Yasmeen Shorish
Director of Scholarly Communications Strategies
James Madison University
She/Her/Hers
------------------------------