SRRT (Social Responsibilities Round Table)

I missed the virtual SRRT meeting yesterday, and I wish I had seen it, because from the outside it looks like some very important things are going on. One very brief comment: As uncomfortable as things are, I think the bright spot is that there is now a critical mass of newer members who are proving that SRRT has a future.  For decades I've wondered if SRRT would be able to keep going after its longtime members had retired, because it seems like most new people who showed interest became disenchanted after a short time and drifted off.  Now it is clear that a real contingent of newer people in SRRT have put roots in the ground and feel a sense of ownership. It's hard to let go of anything that one has been so invested in for so long, but it's a basic feature of life that that has to happen. The great value that the longtime members have in SRRT now is institutional knowledge, but I think that is at risk of being wasted if they don't let younger members have the reins, in order to maintain community. Apologies if my comment is based on a misunderstanding of what is happening.

- Rory

As a newly elected member of SRRT's Action Council (AC), and as a 30+ year SRRT member who was very active in SRRT and ALA from 1990 through 2009, I approach my new term as AC member with grave concerns.

Yesterday and today (June 28 and 29, 2025), I attended via Zoom the AC meetings taking place in Philadelphia during the annual ALA conference.  What I observed was shocking and deeply disturbing.   

In an effort to keep this message as brief as possible, and succinct, what I witnessed was the suppression of an attempt by several SRRT member to place on AC's agenda two resolutions.  One regarding free speech, another opposing the recent U.S. bombing of Iran.

The process for issuing resolutions has always been (until recently apparently) that a SRRT member with a concern would draft a resolution, confer with other SRRT members, bring that resolution to Action Council for further discussion and a vote.  Action Council would vote and sometimes recommend that the resolution be sent on to ALA Council for consideration.  In that event, it was the responsibility of the SRRT Councilor and/or any SRRT members who served on ALA Council to shepherd the resolution through the Council process.  This process has worked for decades.  Yes, there was often debate, disagreement, wins and losses, but that's democracy at work. 

Yesterday, the resolution being considered "Resolution reaffirming ALA's support of the right to protest as a necessity in a free society" was inexplicably "withdrawn" from the agenda by SRRT Councilor, Tara Brady, despite the fact that she knew quite well that several SRRT members wanted such a resolution to be discussed and voted on at that very AC meeting.

When members of SRRT's International Responsibilities Task Force objected to the withdrawal, and attempted to distribute copies they had prepared, suddenly an ALA staff person declared that he was "shutting down" the discussion.  Never in all my years of activity in ALA have I ever witnessed an ALA staffer intervene in this manner.  He then demanded to know who "owned" the resolution, implying that Tara could do whatever she wanted with the resolution despite the fact that other SRRT members wanted the matter discussed.

When this question of who "owned" the resolution was posed, a number of us (in the room and on Zoom) were so flabbergasted that initially no one spoke.  Then Ann Sparanese clearly explained why several people wanted the resolution discussed, and her comments were completely ignored, as if what she said was irrelevant.

For SRRT old-timers, the idea of anybody _owning_ a resolution is very odd.  Yes, there are the people who draft and put forward resolutions, but if any entity can be considered the _owner_ of a resolution it would be SRRT or ALA or whatever body considered, debated and voted on it.

Then today, AC Coordinator, Olivia Blake, informed AC members that she was unilaterally removing from the agenda the resolution opposing the bombing of Iraq, and in a verbal tirade accused Mark Rosenzweig, who had introduced the resolution yesterday, of _bullying_ Tara! 

Never in all my years of attending all sorts of meetings have I ever witnessed such autocratic behavior at that exhibited at these two AC meetinga.

And, now, I read via ALA Connect AC members' reactions to what occurred.  

I agree with Al Kagan's conclusion, "This was a very bad day for SRRT."  But, the responses to Al from Derek and April truly make me wonder what in the world has happened to SRRT's longstanding willingness and ability to grapple with difficult issues.  And, then, Rory celebrating what happened, but at least he acknowledges that he might not have a full understanding of what went down at yesterday's meeting.

In any event, I have absolutely no idea if I am willing to subject myself to the "reins" wielded within SRRT.  Where Rory sees "a critical mass of newer members who are proving that SRRT has a future" I see a cutting of ties to deliberation, consultation, open-mindedness, debate, democratic processes, and nothing but more of the same in the future.

Maybe I can do something to help with this mess.  I will give it a try, but it sure doesn't look like it'll be easy.

Elaine Harger

I missed the virtual SRRT meeting yesterday, and I wish I had seen it, because from the outside it looks like some very important things are going on. One very brief comment: As uncomfortable as things are, I think the bright spot is that there is now a critical mass of newer members who are proving that SRRT has a future.  For decades I've wondered if SRRT would be able to keep going after its longtime members had retired, because it seems like most new people who showed interest became disenchanted after a short time and drifted off.  Now it is clear that a real contingent of newer people in SRRT have put roots in the ground and feel a sense of ownership. It's hard to let go of anything that one has been so invested in for so long, but it's a basic feature of life that that has to happen. The great value that the longtime members have in SRRT now is institutional knowledge, but I think that is at risk of being wasted if they don't let younger members have the reins, in order to maintain community. Apologies if my comment is based on a misunderstanding of what is happening.

- Rory