SRRT (Social Responsibilities Round Table)

Original Message:
Sent: 8/27/2025 11:12:00 PM
From: Tara Brady
Subject: RE: Say Good-Bye to the SRRT Action Council

Hello, folks I'm the anonymous 'SRRT councilor' mentioned above.  

First, I did not speak against the amendment. I brought up a point of order that once a motion is on the floor it couldn't be amended unilaterally just with the agreement of the mover, and then I objected to adding the language via unanimous consent. Voting on the two motions individually one after the other as amendments to the main motion would have been the best way, and would have given each motion the best chance, but once the second mover had requested an amendment to our amendment (always procedurally tricky!) I acted as quickly as I could to do my best to salvage them. My expectation was that if they'd been bundled together into a single vote they probably both would have been voted down.  The wide vote against the first and narrower one in favor of the second seems to bear that out. (And not for nothing, if I hadn't objected and forced two votes on the two amendments we would have had time to vote the whole thing down at once and then get to the final vote on motion four which in all likelihood would now be a done deal with no changes from the original proposal!) 

In other words, "the SRRT councilor" did her best, as she always does. Parliamentary procedure, like life, at times comes at you fast. 

Second, we didn't run out of time to vote on motion four due to 'confusion on the part of the president;' we never got to the vote because someone piped up prematurely to move to extend the meeting,we lost too much time on that vote and had none left to proceed to a vote on the motion as amended, and now we're going to have to hold another meeting to finish what we didn't get to today. We got in our own way, as council sometimes does! 

As to the motion itself: I have to point out that in the vast majority of SRRT action council elections, members' votes simply do not matter because we have as many people running as there are positions - or fewer! This has been a problem for many years. And it's not just us; the EB report specifically referenced the large number of uncontested races in round table elections which still require considerable staff time to wrangle candidate bios and prep ballots. But I hope we haven't missed that under this new plan, SRRT members will have an opportunity to do something they haven't had before - to vote directly on SRRT's officers, something which action council has historically kept for itself.

Finally it's important to remember that this is only a policy level change. Anything that can be done in a single vote at ALA council can be undone in another: if this change is truly bad for round tables or their members, it won't be missed because it won't just be us and we'll be right back at council in a meeting or two. In the meantime we can work on other options. For example we can go back to RTCA and ask them to explore ways to hold lower-cost member-led elections on positions that don't go on the spring ballot. 

SRRT can't always be the Round Table that fights against every change to ALA. When debates like this come up we can't ignore the problems that prompted them: we can and should be looking for ways to lead positive change, rather than insisting the problem go unaddressed because we don't like the solution that's been proposed. We've got to have a little faith in our process and in our colleagues at ALA. 

Hi Elaine,

Actually as you may remember, they tried to make the ALA Council advisory to the Executive Board, but that failed. So instead they reduced the number of at large councilors from 100 to 36, which I think is now fully in effect. I have not tried to attend Executive Board meetings, so I don’t know if this was done in open or closed session. But it was sprung on us 2 days before the meeting, and with no explanation whatsoever. At least Tara should have notified us of the implications.

If this is approved at the next special Council meeting, within 45 days, I think we should all quit. This is the last straw for me. Of course we should make a principled statement when doing it.

So far I see no fight back or even willingness to make a statement from the SRRT Action Council. But this just happened and perhaps they may say or do something. I don’t know what it would take for this Action Council to fight back. One would think the elimination of the body would provoke something, but maybe not.
Al

> On Aug 28, 2025, at 11:09 AM, Elaine Harger <eharger@drizzle.com> wrote:
>
> This is absolutely outrageous! Are they doing away with election _ALA
> Council_ members also?
> And, why the hell did Tara oppose the amendment?
>
> Do you know if the Exec Bd come up with this idea in one of their secret
> sessions?
>
> Al, thanks so much for paying attention to the fact that this special
> meeting was happening and for attending and for letting us know about
> this. What shall we do?
>
> Elaine
>
>
>
>> To my colleagues, comrades, and friends,
>>
>> The ALA Council met for a Virtual Special ALA Council meeting today. At
>> that meeting, the ALA Executive Board put forward 5 actions. Only 4 were
>> voted or discussed due to running out of time. The 4th action was for
>> “…aligning the elected Round Table officers with ALA elected officers.”
>> What that means in practice is that round table elections would only be
>> held for president/chair and treasurer. There would be no other elections.
>> Others could be appointed to various positions. However an amendment was
>> put forward to add a secretary as an elected officer. Then a second
>> amendment was put forward to include elected members at-large.
>>
>> The amendment to add members at large failed by a vote of 33-65-8. The
>> SRRT Councilor spoke up against this amendment. Then the vote on the
>> original amendment passed by a vote of 55-35-11. Due to the confusion of
>> the President, no vote was taken on the motion as amended. Then the
>> meeting adjourned, and another meeting will be held within 45 days to
>> finish the agenda, including this item.
>>
>> At this time, it appears that the amended version will pass. This means
>> that those currently elected by round tables will finish their terms, and
>> that future elections will only be for president/chair, treasurer, and
>> secretary. That means the end of the SRRT Action Council as we know it.
>> Others could be appointed by the elected officers. This also means that
>> all the round tables will have to change their bylaws again.
>>
>> The rationale for this change is efficiency and cost-cutting in terms of
>> staff time. It is hard for me to see how this could save much money. In
>> any case, I don’t see why the Executive Board thinks it is OK to intervene
>> in round table elections in any way.
>>
>> But because the president forgot to call for a final vote, there is still
>> a slight chance to save the Action Council. That could only happen if the
>> Action Council instructs the SRRT Councilor to vote against this motion
>> and if the SRRT officers mobilize support from other round tables and
>> interested groups. Mobilization might also be done through the ALA Members
>> Connect space. It seems to me that this is very unlikely, but it would be
>> good to at least go on record that we oppose the dissolution of the Action
>> Council from on high.
>>
>> Al
>>
>> Al Kagan
>> SRRT International Responsibilities Task Force
>> SRRT Councilor, 1999-2009, 2011-2015
>>
>> African Studies Bibliographer and Professor of Library Administration
>> Emeritus
>> University of Illinois Urbana/Champaign
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Elaine Harger
>
> 509-893-8862 (landline)
> 425-221-8294 (texts)
> eharger at drizzle dot com
>
> "I'd say I'm a revolutionary optimist. I believe that the good guys - the
> people - are going to win." Amiri Baraka, 1934-2014
>

P.S. Tara claims that she objected to adding members at large for election would have meant the defeat of the entire amendment. That is unknown. But either way it means the end of the Action Council. Since she also said that Action Council meetings are meaningless because they are not contested, perhaps she is happy to get rid of it. She will not have to deal with people like us anymore.
Al

> On Aug 28, 2025, at 11:09 AM, Elaine Harger <eharger@drizzle.com> wrote:
> This is absolutely outrageous! Are they doing away with election _ALA
> Council_ members also?
> And, why the hell did Tara oppose the amendment?
>
> Do you know if the Exec Bd come up with this idea in one of their secret
> sessions?
>
> Al, thanks so much for paying attention to the fact that this special
> meeting was happening and for attending and for letting us know about
> this. What shall we do?
>
> Elaine
>
>
>
>> To my colleagues, comrades, and friends,
>>
>> The ALA Council met for a Virtual Special ALA Council meeting today. At
>> that meeting, the ALA Executive Board put forward 5 actions. Only 4 were
>> voted or discussed due to running out of time. The 4th action was for
>> “…aligning the elected Round Table officers with ALA elected officers.”
>> What that means in practice is that round table elections would only be
>> held for president/chair and treasurer. There would be no other elections.
>> Others could be appointed to various positions. However an amendment was
>> put forward to add a secretary as an elected officer. Then a second
>> amendment was put forward to include elected members at-large.
>>
>> The amendment to add members at large failed by a vote of 33-65-8. The
>> SRRT Councilor spoke up against this amendment. Then the vote on the
>> original amendment passed by a vote of 55-35-11. Due to the confusion of
>> the President, no vote was taken on the motion as amended. Then the
>> meeting adjourned, and another meeting will be held within 45 days to
>> finish the agenda, including this item.
>>
>> At this time, it appears that the amended version will pass. This means
>> that those currently elected by round tables will finish their terms, and
>> that future elections will only be for president/chair, treasurer, and
>> secretary. That means the end of the SRRT Action Council as we know it.
>> Others could be appointed by the elected officers. This also means that
>> all the round tables will have to change their bylaws again.
>>
>> The rationale for this change is efficiency and cost-cutting in terms of
>> staff time. It is hard for me to see how this could save much money. In
>> any case, I don’t see why the Executive Board thinks it is OK to intervene
>> in round table elections in any way.
>>
>> But because the president forgot to call for a final vote, there is still
>> a slight chance to save the Action Council. That could only happen if the
>> Action Council instructs the SRRT Councilor to vote against this motion
>> and if the SRRT officers mobilize support from other round tables and
>> interested groups. Mobilization might also be done through the ALA Members
>> Connect space. It seems to me that this is very unlikely, but it would be
>> good to at least go on record that we oppose the dissolution of the Action
>> Council from on high.
>>
>> Al
>>
>> Al Kagan
>> SRRT International Responsibilities Task Force
>> SRRT Councilor, 1999-2009, 2011-2015
>>
>> African Studies Bibliographer and Professor of Library Administration
>> Emeritus
>> University of Illinois Urbana/Champaign
>
>
> Elaine Harger
>
> 509-893-8862 (landline)
> 425-221-8294 (texts)
> eharger at drizzle dot com
>
> "I'd say I'm a revolutionary optimist. I believe that the good guys - the
> people - are going to win." Amiri Baraka, 1934-2014

Dear all,

ALA is losing it all to "efficiency"! Just try navigating the new
"streamlined" website. _No_ navigational links at the top. _No_ "learn
more" link or any other link under "Offices" to the Exec Board. And even
finding "Offices" takes a hunt.

So, the first thing on the ALA website is: "Frequently Asked Questions on
the Executive Order Targeting IMLS"

I've got a mind to post "Need FAQs on the ALA Exec Bd Order Targeting
Round Table Governance"!

The reason given for this step was to "align" round table elections and
elected officers with those of ALA. Well, will the Exec Bd now propose
that Council _eliminate_ ALA Council elections?

It is bad enough that processes and practices of democracy are being
ditched in Wash DC. Now having ALA follow suit, is just so depressing
and infuriating.

Elaine



> And I was actually just planning to run for Action Council because I want
> to make SRRT what it used to be.
>
> She also said “
> SRRT can't always be the Round Table that fights against every change
> to ALA.” Well I say we fight when ALA is not acting socially responsible.
> Otherwise why exist as a round table?
>
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 11:18 AM Kagan, Alfred <akagan@illinois.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> P.S. Tara claims that she objected to adding members at large for
>> election
>> would have meant the defeat of the entire amendment. That is unknown.
>> But
>> either way it means the end of the Action Council. Since she also said
>> that
>> Action Council meetings are meaningless because they are not contested,
>> perhaps she is happy to get rid of it. She will not have to deal with
>> people like us anymore.
>> Al
>>
>> > On Aug 28, 2025, at 11:09 AM, Elaine Harger <eharger@drizzle.com>
>> wrote:
>> > This is absolutely outrageous! Are they doing away with election
>> _ALA
>> > Council_ members also?
>> > And, why the hell did Tara oppose the amendment?
>> >
>> > Do you know if the Exec Bd come up with this idea in one of their
>> secret
>> > sessions?
>> >
>> > Al, thanks so much for paying attention to the fact that this special
>> > meeting was happening and for attending and for letting us know about
>> > this. What shall we do?
>> >
>> > Elaine
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> To my colleagues, comrades, and friends,
>> >>
>> >> The ALA Council met for a Virtual Special ALA Council meeting today.
>> At
>> >> that meeting, the ALA Executive Board put forward 5 actions. Only 4
>> were
>> >> voted or discussed due to running out of time. The 4th action was for
>> >> “…aligning the elected Round Table officers with ALA elected
>> officers.”
>> >> What that means in practice is that round table elections would only
>> be
>> >> held for president/chair and treasurer. There would be no other
>> elections.
>> >> Others could be appointed to various positions. However an amendment
>> was
>> >> put forward to add a secretary as an elected officer. Then a second
>> >> amendment was put forward to include elected members at-large.
>> >>
>> >> The amendment to add members at large failed by a vote of 33-65-8.
>> The
>> >> SRRT Councilor spoke up against this amendment. Then the vote on the
>> >> original amendment passed by a vote of 55-35-11. Due to the confusion
>> of
>> >> the President, no vote was taken on the motion as amended. Then the
>> >> meeting adjourned, and another meeting will be held within 45 days to
>> >> finish the agenda, including this item.
>> >>
>> >> At this time, it appears that the amended version will pass. This
>> means
>> >> that those currently elected by round tables will finish their terms,
>> and
>> >> that future elections will only be for president/chair, treasurer,
>> and
>> >> secretary. That means the end of the SRRT Action Council as we know
>> it.
>> >> Others could be appointed by the elected officers. This also means
>> that
>> >> all the round tables will have to change their bylaws again.
>> >>
>> >> The rationale for this change is efficiency and cost-cutting in terms
>> of
>> >> staff time. It is hard for me to see how this could save much money.
>> In
>> >> any case, I don’t see why the Executive Board thinks it is OK to
>> intervene
>> >> in round table elections in any way.
>> >>
>> >> But because the president forgot to call for a final vote, there is
>> still
>> >> a slight chance to save the Action Council. That could only happen if
>> the
>> >> Action Council instructs the SRRT Councilor to vote against this
>> motion
>> >> and if the SRRT officers mobilize support from other round tables and
>> >> interested groups. Mobilization might also be done through the ALA
>> Members
>> >> Connect space. It seems to me that this is very unlikely, but it
>> would
>> be
>> >> good to at least go on record that we oppose the dissolution of the
>> Action
>> >> Council from on high.
>> >>
>> >> Al
>> >>
>> >> Al Kagan
>> >> SRRT International Responsibilities Task Force
>> >> SRRT Councilor, 1999-2009, 2011-2015
>> >>
>> >> African Studies Bibliographer and Professor of Library Administration
>> >> Emeritus
>> >> University of Illinois Urbana/Champaign
>> >
>> >
>> > Elaine Harger
>> >
>> > 509-893-8862 (landline)
>> > 425-221-8294 (texts)
>> > eharger at drizzle dot com
>> >
>> > "I'd say I'm a revolutionary optimist. I believe that the good guys -
>> the
>> > people - are going to win." Amiri Baraka, 1934-2014
>>
>


Elaine Harger

509-893-8862 (landline)
425-221-8294 (texts)
eharger at drizzle dot com

"I'd say I'm a revolutionary optimist. I believe that the good guys - the
people - are going to win." Amiri Baraka, 1934-2014

Dear SRRT members,

First, I must apologize for inadvertently posting to the SRRT Connect email comments not intended for public distribution.  

That said, here, now, are my reactions to the step the ALA Exec. Board and Council have taken to restrict decision-making and governance processes for round tables.

First, how was it that a proposal of this magnitude was allowed to creep into a "special" Council meeting without (as far as I know) first being brought to the attention of the round tables themselves?  

Of course, perhaps I've not been paying close enough attention to SRRT Action Council communications?  (BTW, my name and contact info are missing from the list of SRRT AC members.)

Second, "efficiency" is increasingly being (has always been?) used to actually _limit_ decision making autonomy, whether in government or workplaces.  Efficiency is often a cover for lockstep compliance with a higher authority, and the lack of notice about this Exec. Board decision certainly supports that possibility.  

Third, I echo Derek's comments about the role serving on SRRT Action Council has played in fostering the professional development of those who have been elected.  The same was true of service on ALA Council.  Those opportunities have been continuously constricted for several years now.  When will that end?

As for Tara's comment that this newly voted on policy can always be overturned, yes, that is true.  But doesn't SRRT have better things to do than spend time and energy working to undo something that shouldn't have been done in the first place?  Or, at least, something that deserved much more consideration by the units impacted than was given?

Sincerely,

Elaine Harger

SRRT AC Member, 2025-2028

------------------------------
Elaine Harger
Librarian (retired)
She/Her/Hers,we/all
------------------------------

Dear all,

I've just seen that two days ago Tara did post the Exec. Bd. memo that describes the actions taken in the special Council meeting of the other day.  Clearly, I wasn't paying as close attention as I should.

That said, I see from the document that a "conversation" with the Round Table Coordinating Assembly on August 5 was planned to take place.  Seems to me that some kind of notice (if not an alarm!) might have been given to SRRT sometime in July, so that we had an opportunity for discussion.  Did the Exec. Bd. plan this momentous change purposefully for a time when many are taking a break?

Elaine

------------------------------
Elaine Harger
Librarian (retired)
She/Her/Hers,we/all
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 29, 2025 09:03 AM
From: Elaine Harger
Subject: Say Good-Bye to the SRRT Action Council

Dear SRRT members,

First, I must apologize for inadvertently posting to the SRRT Connect email comments not intended for public distribution.  

That said, here, now, are my reactions to the step the ALA Exec. Board and Council have taken to restrict decision-making and governance processes for round tables.

First, how was it that a proposal of this magnitude was allowed to creep into a "special" Council meeting without (as far as I know) first being brought to the attention of the round tables themselves?  

Of course, perhaps I've not been paying close enough attention to SRRT Action Council communications?  (BTW, my name and contact info are missing from the list of SRRT AC members.)

Second, "efficiency" is increasingly being (has always been?) used to actually _limit_ decision making autonomy, whether in government or workplaces.  Efficiency is often a cover for lockstep compliance with a higher authority, and the lack of notice about this Exec. Board decision certainly supports that possibility.  

Third, I echo Derek's comments about the role serving on SRRT Action Council has played in fostering the professional development of those who have been elected.  The same was true of service on ALA Council.  Those opportunities have been continuously constricted for several years now.  When will that end?

As for Tara's comment that this newly voted on policy can always be overturned, yes, that is true.  But doesn't SRRT have better things to do than spend time and energy working to undo something that shouldn't have been done in the first place?  Or, at least, something that deserved much more consideration by the units impacted than was given?

Sincerely,

Elaine Harger

SRRT AC Member, 2025-2028

------------------------------
Elaine Harger
Librarian (retired)
She/Her/Hers,we/all
------------------------------

We can and should certainly discuss this at our AC meeting. We sent a survey to all AC members regarding scheduling last week. Unfortunately there was not a single meeting time that achieved consensus, so Olivia and I will review the results and propose the time next week. The good news is that we are experimenting with recording AC meetings, which should help for those who cannot attend. We are all trying our best. Thanks,

------------------------------
Rachel Rosekind
Educator, Editor, Writer, Activist, Library Commissioner
Write You Are / Contra Costa Library Commission
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 30, 2025 02:04 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: Say Good-Bye to the SRRT Action Council

What are we going to do at the next AC meeting? When is it, btw?

Mark R

On Aug 28, 2025 at 3:49 PM, Kagan, Alfred <akagan@illinois.edu> wrote:

Exactly, no more reason to exist.

Al

On Aug 28, 2025, at 2:46 PM, Katharine Phenix <kjphenix@gmail.com> wrote:

And I was actually just planning to run for Action Council because I want to make SRRT what it used to be. 

She also said "

SRRT can't always be the Round Table that fights against every change to ALA." Well I say we fight when ALA is not acting socially responsible. Otherwise why exist as a round table?

On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 11:18 AM Kagan, Alfred <akagan@illinois.edu> wrote:

P.S. Tara claims that she objected to adding members at large for election would have meant the defeat of the entire amendment. That is unknown. But either way it means the end of the Action Council. Since she also said that Action Council meetings are meaningless because they are not contested, perhaps she is happy to get rid of it. She will not have to deal with people like us anymore. Al > On Aug 28, 2025, at 11:09 AM, Elaine Harger <eharger@drizzle.com> wrote: > This is absolutely outrageous!  Are they doing away with election _ALA > Council_ members also? > And, why the hell did Tara oppose the amendment? > > Do you know if the Exec Bd come up with this idea in one of their secret > sessions? > > Al, thanks so much for paying attention to the fact that this special > meeting was happening and for attending and for letting us know about > this.  What shall we do? > > Elaine > > > >> To my colleagues, comrades, and friends, >> >> The ALA Council met for a Virtual Special ALA Council meeting today. At >> that meeting, the ALA Executive Board put forward 5 actions. Only 4 were >> voted or discussed due to running out of time. The 4th action was for >> "...aligning the elected Round Table officers with ALA elected officers." >> What that means in practice is that round table elections would only be >> held for president/chair and treasurer. There would be no other elections. >> Others could be appointed to various positions. However an amendment was >> put forward to add a secretary as an elected officer. Then a second >> amendment was put forward to include elected members at-large. >> >> The amendment to add members at large failed by a vote of 33-65-8. The >> SRRT Councilor spoke up against this amendment. Then the vote on the >> original amendment passed by a vote of 55-35-11. Due to the confusion of >> the President, no vote was taken on the motion as amended. Then the >> meeting adjourned, and another meeting will be held within 45 days to >> finish the agenda, including this item. >> >> At this time, it appears that the amended version will pass. This means >> that those currently elected by round tables will finish their terms, and >> that future elections will only be for president/chair, treasurer, and >> secretary. That means the end of the SRRT Action Council as we know it. >> Others could be appointed by the elected officers. This also means that >> all the round tables will have to change their bylaws again. >> >> The rationale for this change is efficiency and cost-cutting in terms of >> staff time. It is hard for me to see how this could save much money. In >> any case, I don't see why the Executive Board thinks it is OK to intervene >> in round table elections in any way. >> >> But because the president forgot to call for a final vote, there is still >> a slight chance to save the Action Council. That could only happen if the >> Action Council instructs the SRRT Councilor to vote against this motion >> and if the SRRT officers mobilize support from other round tables and >> interested groups. Mobilization might also be done through the ALA Members >> Connect space. It seems to me that this is very unlikely, but it would be >> good to at least go on record that we oppose the dissolution of the Action >> Council from on high. >> >> Al >> >> Al Kagan >> SRRT International Responsibilities Task Force >> SRRT Councilor, 1999-2009, 2011-2015 >> >> African Studies Bibliographer and Professor of Library Administration >> Emeritus >> University of Illinois Urbana/Champaign > > > Elaine Harger > > 509-893-8862 (landline) > 425-221-8294 (texts) > eharger at drizzle dot com > > "I'd say I'm a revolutionary optimist.  I believe that the good guys - the > people - are going to win."  Amiri Baraka, 1934-2014

Original Message:
Sent: 8/30/2025 3:48:00 PM
From: Rachel Rosekind
Subject: RE: Say Good-Bye to the SRRT Action Council

We can and should certainly discuss this at our AC meeting. We sent a survey to all AC members regarding scheduling last week. Unfortunately there was not a single meeting time that achieved consensus, so Olivia and I will review the results and propose the time next week. The good news is that we are experimenting with recording AC meetings, which should help for those who cannot attend. We are all trying our best. Thanks,

------------------------------
Rachel Rosekind
Educator, Editor, Writer, Activist, Library Commissioner
Write You Are / Contra Costa Library Commission
------------------------------

Al,

Thank you for this careful and detailed account, and for continuing to provide not just reporting but historical and structural interpretation of what is unfolding inside ALA governance. That kind of clarity has always been essential to SRRT's ability to understand itself as something more than an administrative unit inside a professional association.

I want to begin by stating directly that I agree with your analysis, and I appreciate the steadiness with which you are naming what is at stake without accepting the framing that has been placed around it.

What is being decided here is not a procedural adjustment to Round Table governance. It is the effective termination of the SRRT Action Council as a democratically elected body with real governing capacity.

That is a strong claim, but I think it is the only honest one if we take the structure of the proposal seriously. The reduction of Round Table elections to only president/chair, treasurer, and secretary-and the conversion of all other positions into appointed roles-does not preserve the Action Council in modified form. It removes the structural basis on which the Action Council has functioned: broad member election, distributed accountability, and internal plurality of mandate.

Without those elements, "Action Council" becomes a name attached to a fundamentally different organizational reality.

This is where it is important to situate the change historically. SRRT was never simply an internal advisory body within ALA. It emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s as part of a wider insurgent current in librarianship-one that insisted that libraries are not neutral institutions and that librarianship itself is implicated in struggles over war, racism, labor, censorship, and international solidarity. The Action Council was one of the mechanisms through which that insurgent energy was organized into sustained internal governance rather than episodic protest.

Its elected structure mattered because it allowed SRRT to function as a contested democratic space inside ALA rather than as a curated or delegated one. It created a base of legitimacy that did not depend solely on officer appointment or institutional permission. That structure was always fragile inside ALA, but it was also one of the few mechanisms that allowed SRRT to remain meaningfully member-driven.

What is now being proposed breaks that logic.

We should be clear about the nature of that break. Appointment-based governance is not a neutral alternative to election. It is a different political form. Elections distribute legitimacy downward; appointments consolidate it upward. Elections produce accountability to a membership base; appointments produce accountability to those who appoint. Over time, this shifts not just who participates, but what kinds of participation are even possible without permission.

This is why the language of "efficiency" and "cost-cutting in staff time" is so inadequate as an explanation. Even if taken at face value, it does not engage with the scale of what is being altered. But more importantly, it functions as a familiar institutional idiom for changes that are fundamentally about governance control rather than administrative burden. The effect is to translate a political restructuring into a managerial optimization problem, where questions of democracy and power are rendered invisible.

This is part of a broader pattern that many member-driven associations have experienced: a slow but persistent shift from messy, participatory governance toward streamlined, officer-centered administration. It is often justified in terms of sustainability, efficiency, or coherence. But the underlying direction is consistent: reduce the number of points where membership can directly elect or meaningfully contest leadership, and increase the proportion of roles filled through internal selection mechanisms.

In that sense, what is happening to SRRT is not isolated. It reflects a wider managerial rationalization of professional associations, where democratic excess is treated as inefficiency rather than as the substance of the organization itself.

But SRRT is not just any administrative unit inside ALA. The Action Council, in particular, has functioned as the operational and political core of SRRT's activist identity. It is where positions are debated, campaigns are coordinated, priorities are set, and internal disagreements are worked through in a structured way that remains accountable to an elected membership base. It is precisely because SRRT has sometimes been in tension with ALA leadership, dominant professional norms, and institutional neutrality claims that this internal democratic structure has mattered.

Removing that structure does not simply "streamline" SRRT. It changes its political character.

Even if appointed members continue to work diligently, they do so within a fundamentally different logic of legitimacy. They are no longer accountable to a broad electorate of SRRT members in the same way. Their presence is mediated through officer selection, not direct membership mandate. That matters particularly in moments of disagreement or political tension, when the question is not only what is being done, but who has the authority to define what SRRT is doing in the first place.

That is why I do not think it is accurate to describe this as an adjustment or realignment. It is a restructuring that removes the conditions under which the Action Council functioned as an elected governing body. And if those conditions are removed, then what remains may retain continuity of name and some continuity of personnel, but not continuity of democratic form.

Even the procedural uncertainty you describe-the absence of a final vote due to confusion, and the pending completion of the agenda-does not alter this trajectory. At most, it leaves open a narrow procedural window, but it does not change the substantive direction of the proposal or its underlying logic.

This is also why your point about going on record is important in a way that goes beyond symbolism. If this proceeds, it should be recorded clearly that there was informed opposition to what many of us understand as a fundamental alteration of SRRT's internal democratic structure. That record matters not only for immediate contestation, but for how this moment is understood later-whether as an administrative refinement or as a turning point in the governance of SRRT within ALA.

I want to close by acknowledging your long commitment to SRRT and to the International Responsibilities Task Force, and your decades of engagement in ALA governance more broadly. That continuity of perspective is especially valuable in moments like this, when institutional language tends to flatten history into procedure.

I share your reading of the seriousness of what is being decided here, and I think it is important that we are explicit that this is not merely about structure, but about the future conditions under which SRRT can continue to exist as a member-governed, activist-oriented space inside ALA.

In solidarity,
Mark R.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig
------------------------------