SRRT (Social Responsibilities Round Table)

ACTION COUNCIL DELETED?|

If the Action Council is functionally abolished or rendered advisory-only, as seems to be the case, without formal authority, then by default representation has to migrate somewhere.

Organizations don't get to dissolve their representative body and pretend representation evaporates. Power and representational capacity always reappear somewhere, even if no one wants to name it.

Under the traditional SRRT structure, the Action Council was the collective, elected representative body. It mediated between membership, task forces, coordinators, and ALA Council.

The SRRT Coordinator had a convening and facilitative role, not a personal mandate to "speak for SRRT" as an individual. Authority flowed horizontally through AC, not vertically through a single officer.

Once AC is removed from that role, the Coordinator becomes, de facto, the only remaining body with an elected mandate that can plausibly be treated as speaking "for SRRT."

That is a radical shift. It converts what had been a collective representative structure into something much closer to a personal or executive representation model, even if no one is willing to say so out loud.

In practice, the Coordinator becomes the voice of SRRT by default, not because the bylaws say so explicitly, but because there is nowhere else for that voice to reside.

That has immediate knock-on effects. The SRRT Councilor's legitimacy becomes strangely unmoored. Historically, the Councilor represented SRRT as articulated through AC positions, resolutions, and deliberations. If there is no AC generating or ratifying those positions, then what exactly is the Councilor representing? The membership directly? The Coordinator's interpretation of membership sentiment? Ad hoc consultations? None of those are equivalent to an elected collective body. The Councilor either becomes an independent actor with no clear accountability, or an informal delegate of the Coordinator, which again concentrates representational authority upward rather than outward.

The situation with task forces, especially something like IRTF, becomes even more unstable. The old structure mattered precisely because it embedded task-force leadership inside Action Council. Making one of the co-coordinators an AC member was not a perk; it was a constitutional mechanism. It ensured that task forces were part of SRRT's representative governance rather than external pressure groups or thematic working circles. That link guaranteed two-way accountability: task forces informed SRRT policy, and SRRT, through AC, set boundaries and priorities.

When there is no AC, that linkage collapses. Task-force coordinators lose their formal route into SRRT-wide governance. They can still act, organize, draft, and advocate, but they do so without a representative bridge to an elected body. Their authority becomes informal, customary, or personality-based rather than structural. In effect, they become issue-based caucuses operating in a vacuum of governance.

What makes all of this especially troubling is that none of these shifts appear to have been openly debated, voted on, or constitutionally clarified by the SRRT membership. That means the organization is operating in a liminal zone where representational authority is being redistributed without consent. The Coordinator is treated as a personal representative without being authorized as one. The Councilor is treated as a voice of SRRT without a clearly defined source of mandate. Task forces are expected to function as if nothing has changed, even though the structure that grounded their legitimacy has been removed.

The abolition or sidelining of Action Council does not simply remove a committee. It rewires the entire representational logic of SRRT. It replaces collective, elected governance with individualized and procedural authority, while continuing to use the language of democracy and participation.

That contradiction can't be resolved by goodwill or pragmatism. It requires either restoring a representative body with real authority, or explicitly admitting that SRRT has been transformed into something else - something far more centralized, and far less democratic, than what its history, mission, and bylaws have long implied.

ACTION COUNCIL DELETED?|

If the Action Council is functionally abolished or rendered advisory-only, as seems to be the case, without formal authority, then by default representation has to migrate somewhere.

Organizations don't get to dissolve their representative body and pretend representation evaporates. Power and representational capacity always reappear somewhere, even if no one wants to name it.

Under the traditional SRRT structure, the Action Council was the collective, elected representative body. It mediated between membership, task forces, coordinators, and ALA Council.

The SRRT Coordinator had a convening and facilitative role, not a personal mandate to "speak for SRRT" as an individual. Authority flowed horizontally through AC, not vertically through a single officer.

Once AC is removed from that role, the Coordinator becomes, de facto, the only remaining body with an elected mandate that can plausibly be treated as speaking "for SRRT."

That is a radical shift. It converts what had been a collective representative structure into something much closer to a personal or executive representation model, even if no one is willing to say so out loud.

In practice, the Coordinator becomes the voice of SRRT by default, not because the bylaws say so explicitly, but because there is nowhere else for that voice to reside.

That has immediate knock-on effects. The SRRT Councilor's legitimacy becomes strangely unmoored. Historically, the Councilor represented SRRT as articulated through AC positions, resolutions, and deliberations. If there is no AC generating or ratifying those positions, then what exactly is the Councilor representing? The membership directly? The Coordinator's interpretation of membership sentiment? Ad hoc consultations? None of those are equivalent to an elected collective body. The Councilor either becomes an independent actor with no clear accountability, or an informal delegate of the Coordinator, which again concentrates representational authority upward rather than outward.

The situation with task forces, especially something like IRTF, becomes even more unstable. The old structure mattered precisely because it embedded task-force leadership inside Action Council. Making one of the co-coordinators an AC member was not a perk; it was a constitutional mechanism. It ensured that task forces were part of SRRT's representative governance rather than external pressure groups or thematic working circles. That link guaranteed two-way accountability: task forces informed SRRT policy, and SRRT, through AC, set boundaries and priorities.

When there is no AC, that linkage collapses. Task-force coordinators lose their formal route into SRRT-wide governance. They can still act, organize, draft, and advocate, but they do so without a representative bridge to an elected body. Their authority becomes informal, customary, or personality-based rather than structural. In effect, they become issue-based caucuses operating in a vacuum of governance.

What makes all of this especially troubling is that none of these shifts appear to have been openly debated, voted on, or constitutionally clarified by the SRRT membership. That means the organization is operating in a liminal zone where representational authority is being redistributed without consent. The Coordinator is treated as a personal representative without being authorized as one. The Councilor is treated as a voice of SRRT without a clearly defined source of mandate. Task forces are expected to function as if nothing has changed, even though the structure that grounded their legitimacy has been removed.

The abolition or sidelining of Action Council does not simply remove a committee. It rewires the entire representational logic of SRRT. It replaces collective, elected governance with individualized and procedural authority, while continuing to use the language of democracy and participation.

That contradiction can't be resolved by goodwill or pragmatism. It requires either restoring a representative body with real authority, or explicitly admitting that SRRT has been transformed into something else - something far more centralized, and far less democratic, than what its history, mission, and bylaws have long implied.