ALA Members

 View Only
last person joined: 16 hours ago 

  • 1.  Seeking Feedback on Meeting Room Interpretation Draft

    Posted Sep 04, 2018 06:21 PM
      |   view attached

    In July 2018, the Intellectual Freedom Committee formed a working group that brought multiple voices and a broad range of perspectives together, including representatives from the diversity community, to revise "Meeting Rooms: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights," adopted by ALA Council at ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans. In August, Council voted to rescind the interpretation, restoring the 1991 version; however, work on a more up-to-date revision continued. The working group distributed a Google Form for suggestions on language and resources to include in the revised draft.


    The working group collected feedback and suggested edits and took them into consideration.


    The Intellectual Freedom Committee would appreciate feedback from the library community on this draft. ALA members and non-members alike are invited to provide feedback on the draft interpretation by September 14, 2018. Feedback can be posted in the following two ways:


    • Use this Google doc to post your comments. The working group requests that you ONLY post comments on this document, and not edit the document directly. To post a comment, select "Insert" in the top menu, and then click "Comment." Comments may be posted anonymously (if you're not signed into a Google account) or publicly (if you're signed into your Google account).
    • Post suggestions to this ALA Connect post, either as a comment or by attaching a "track changes" version of the provided Word document.

    Please share this document widely. After the deadline, the working group will review comments and revise the document further. It plans to submit the draft to ALA Council no later than October 1, 2018. The committee also plans to publish a Q&A on meeting rooms, addressing specific questions brought up in discussions and feedback from the library community; this Q&A will be drafted after October 1.


    Below are resources and references that will be included at the bottom of the web version of the Council-approved interpretation. Although this section - titled "See Also" - is not part of the proposed interpretation and is not adopted by ALA Council, the working group invites suggestions on additional resources that readers may find helpful:


    Thank you for your feedback, and please let me know if you have any questions.


    Julia Warga, Chair

    Intellectual Freedom Committee



    ------------------------------
    Julia Warga, Chair
    Intellectual Freedom Committee
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Seeking Feedback on Meeting Room Interpretation Draft

    Posted Sep 05, 2018 11:46 AM
    The new draft is an enormous improvement-thanks to everybody who put the work in to make it so.

    One suggestion for whoever's managing the comment process-consider changing the sharing permissions to only allow comments, not edits. I hit the wrong button and accidentally "resolved" somebody else's comment. :(

    (Unfortunately Google doesn't let you create separate links for those with comment privileges and those with full edit privileges. A workaround would be to limit edits to the original owner for the time being. It also seems from this post in their help forum as though it might be possible to assign full edit privileges to individuals directly while limiting link visitors to comment privileges, although I haven't tried it.)

    ------------------------------
    David Moles
    Senior Software Developer
    California Digital Library
    (speaking only for myself)
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: Seeking Feedback on Meeting Room Interpretation Draft

    Posted Sep 06, 2018 09:32 AM
    Thank you, David. I will share your suggestion with the OIF staff. -- Julia

    ------------------------------
    Julia Warga, Chair
    Intellectual Freedom Committee
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: Seeking Feedback on Meeting Room Interpretation Draft

    Posted Sep 06, 2018 11:49 AM
    Thanks, Julia!

    ------------------------------
    David Moles
    Senior Software Developer
    California Digital Library
    (speaking only for myself)
    ------------------------------



  • 5.  RE: Seeking Feedback on Meeting Room Interpretation Draft

    Posted Sep 06, 2018 09:38 AM
    David,

    Luckily there is a way to "unresolve" comments that were made that have been resolved, in this case by accident, but even in general. I would hope that the document owners/editors will look through resolved and unresolved comments before finalizing the document.

    I was surprised to learn that link access hadn't been limited to just commenting. There is definitely be a setting in the "Share" options that allow people with the link to comment, but allows specific people/email addresses to have editing privileges. 


    Emily Goodman
    Adult Services Librarian 
    Community Outreach
    Tiverton Public Library
    (401) 625-6796 ext. 121





  • 6.  RE: Seeking Feedback on Meeting Room Interpretation Draft

    Posted Sep 30, 2018 02:16 PM
    I've been mulling over the comments in the Google doc and that made me go back to the LBOR itself.

    The website notes, "Although the Articles of the Library Bill of Rights are unambiguous statements of basic principles that should govern the service of all libraries, questions do arise concerning application of these principles to specific library practices" (my emphasis).

    The draft interpretation is worded in a way that suggests it is largely legal guidance, particularly related to what not to do (libraries are a public forum, if your library has a meeting room you may not limit its use). This legal guidance has its value, and that's largely undisputed in the comments. But the division within the document's commentary seems to be about beliefs and principles, not what is unlawful or illegally risky. This suggests that the principles in the LBOR itself are not "unambiguous," because ALA members are disputing them.

    I'm not laying out a position here, in part because I feel conflicted about the principles at hand. I believe in access for all, but I also believe that providing forums for groups that espouse hate is not a neutral choice and creates its own harm. Instead, I'm pointing out that a) this document is not simply stating the law, it is stating a position, and b) there are enduring differences about principles among our membership that are not likely to be resolved by presenting this document as legal advice--particularly given that elsewhere we state that the purpose of this document is to reflect our, ALA's, principles. Perhaps, as some have recommended, there is room in this document to note that the principle of equal access is not neutral and can itself conflict with other principles we as an association value.


    ------------------------------
    Karen Schneider
    Dean, University Library
    Sonoma State University
    ------------------------------