SRRT (Social Responsibilities Round Table)

Dear all,

In attempting to understand what happened to Trevor and Beth's resolution, I've waded into the weeds.  Just came up with something interesting, and pertinent.  

The charge of the Resolutions Committee is:  

"To provide an advisory and channeling function for all resolutions presented for Council's consideration, reviewing all resolutions submitted to Council pursuant to the criteria established by Council.  To advise the makers on how to bring their resolutions into compliance with the guidelines adopted by Council. All resolutions shall go to Council with a notation that the resolution has been processed through the committee. To determine the policy or non-policy nature of all resolutions to be presented to Council and transmit the resolutions with the appropriate indication. To review all resolutions passed by Membership to determine those that are clearly policy matters and therefore should be forwarded to Council for action. Any challenge to the determination of the committee shall be voted on by councilors present at the meeting."

This charge says nothing about reviewing resolutions going to membership meetings,  only that the committee reviews "all resolutions passed by Membership" for possible Council action.  

So, this entire submission process for resolutions intended for membership meetings certainly appears to be out of order and a violation of the committee's charge.  

Elaine

Dear all,

In attempting to understand what happened to Trevor and Beth's resolution, I've waded into the weeds.  Just came up with something interesting, and pertinent.  

The charge of the Resolutions Committee is:  

"To provide an advisory and channeling function for all resolutions presented for Council's consideration, reviewing all resolutions submitted to Council pursuant to the criteria established by Council.  To advise the makers on how to bring their resolutions into compliance with the guidelines adopted by Council. All resolutions shall go to Council with a notation that the resolution has been processed through the committee. To determine the policy or non-policy nature of all resolutions to be presented to Council and transmit the resolutions with the appropriate indication. To review all resolutions passed by Membership to determine those that are clearly policy matters and therefore should be forwarded to Council for action. Any challenge to the determination of the committee shall be voted on by councilors present at the meeting."

This charge says nothing about reviewing resolutions going to membership meetings,  only that the committee reviews "all resolutions passed by Membership" for possible Council action.  

So, this entire submission process for resolutions intended for membership meetings certainly appears to be out of order and a violation of the committee's charge.  

Elaine

Hmmm, that makes this situation all the more interesting!  

Tara, do you recall what bylaws change might have prompted the change in the policy manual?  I can find nothing in the bylaws that references resolutions at membership meetings.  Nothing either about the resolutions committee.  Given that, and given that members we allowed to bring resolutions to membership meetings without vetting of this sort, I'm wondering what motivated and by what authority the changes were made.

Elaine

Hmmm, that makes this situation all the more interesting!  

Tara, do you recall what bylaws change might have prompted the change in the policy manual?  I can find nothing in the bylaws that references resolutions at membership meetings.  Nothing either about the resolutions committee.  Given that, and given that members we allowed to bring resolutions to membership meetings without vetting of this sort, I'm wondering what motivated and by what authority the changes were made.

Elaine

Hmmm, that makes this situation all the more interesting!  

Tara, do you recall what bylaws change might have prompted the change in the policy manual?  I can find nothing in the bylaws that references resolutions at membership meetings.  Nothing either about the resolutions committee.  Given that, and given that members we allowed to bring resolutions to membership meetings without vetting of this sort, I'm wondering what motivated and by what authority the changes were made.

Elaine

What concerns me about this discussion is that it is being framed largely as a question of procedural interpretation when the underlying issue is political and historical.

Those of us who came into ALA through the Social Responsibilities movement remember a very different understanding of the Membership Meeting. The Membership Meeting was never intended to be merely a ceremonial gathering or a carefully managed forum where only pre-approved matters could be discussed. It was understood as one of the few places where ordinary members could directly raise questions, challenge leadership, and force issues onto the Association's agenda.

The history of SRRT itself is inseparable from that understanding. Many of the positions that later became accepted ALA policy first entered the Association through controversy. They were often opposed by established leadership, criticized as divisive, ruled inappropriate, or attacked as outside the Association's proper sphere. Yet members fought to have those issues heard. The democratic principle at stake was not that every resolution should pass. It was that members should have the right to debate, amend, reject, or adopt resolutions themselves.

That is why the central issue here is not whether one agrees with Trevor and Beth's resolution. Reasonable people may disagree strongly about its content. The issue is whether members retain the right to bring controversial matters before the membership for discussion.

I keep returning to Patricia's observation that ALA has witnessed many heated and contentious debates. Resolutions have been defeated. Some deserved to be defeated. Others eventually prevailed. But I cannot recall a tradition in which a committee was empowered to determine in advance that members could not even discuss a matter.

What is particularly troubling is the apparent transformation of a review function into a gatekeeping function. Review, advice, and recommendations are one thing. Preventing a resolution from reaching the floor is something quite different. The former assists democratic deliberation. The latter substitutes administrative judgment for democratic deliberation.

Some have argued that the relevant authority resides in the Policy Manual. Yet even if one accepts that interpretation, a larger question remains. When and why did ALA move from a model in which members could bring resolutions to their fellow members to one in which committees possess the practical ability to prevent such discussion from occurring? That is not a minor procedural adjustment. It represents a significant shift in the balance between member initiative and institutional control.

Historically, democratic organizations often justify such shifts in the language of efficiency, order, consistency, or compliance. The language changes from era to era, but the result is frequently the same: fewer opportunities for members to initiate debate and greater authority concentrated in committees, governing bodies, and administrative structures. The question before us is whether ALA is moving in that direction.

For decades, SRRT and later the Progressive Librarians Guild argued that librarianship is not strengthened when controversy is managed away. It is strengthened when difficult issues are openly confronted. The answer to a controversial resolution is not suppression. It is discussion. The answer to a resolution with flaws is amendment. The answer to a proposal that lacks support is a vote against it.

Democracy is not measured by how an organization treats resolutions that everyone supports. It is measured by how an organization treats resolutions that make people uncomfortable.

The issue raised by this episode therefore extends well beyond a single resolution. It concerns whether ALA continues to regard its members as active political participants in the life of the Association or increasingly as spectators whose role is limited to discussing only those matters that have already passed through multiple layers of institutional review.

Whatever one's position on the substance of this particular resolution, that question deserves serious discussion. If the authority now exists to prevent resolutions from reaching the Membership Meeting, members should know precisely where that authority comes from, when it was granted, and whether it is consistent with the democratic traditions that many of us believe the Membership Meeting was created to protect.

Mark C. Rosenzweig

What concerns me about this discussion is that it is being framed largely as a question of procedural interpretation when the underlying issue is political and historical.

Those of us who came into ALA through the Social Responsibilities movement remember a very different understanding of the Membership Meeting. The Membership Meeting was never intended to be merely a ceremonial gathering or a carefully managed forum where only pre-approved matters could be discussed. It was understood as one of the few places where ordinary members could directly raise questions, challenge leadership, and force issues onto the Association's agenda.

The history of SRRT itself is inseparable from that understanding. Many of the positions that later became accepted ALA policy first entered the Association through controversy. They were often opposed by established leadership, criticized as divisive, ruled inappropriate, or attacked as outside the Association's proper sphere. Yet members fought to have those issues heard. The democratic principle at stake was not that every resolution should pass. It was that members should have the right to debate, amend, reject, or adopt resolutions themselves.

That is why the central issue here is not whether one agrees with Trevor and Beth's resolution. Reasonable people may disagree strongly about its content. The issue is whether members retain the right to bring controversial matters before the membership for discussion.

I keep returning to Patricia's observation that ALA has witnessed many heated and contentious debates. Resolutions have been defeated. Some deserved to be defeated. Others eventually prevailed. But I cannot recall a tradition in which a committee was empowered to determine in advance that members could not even discuss a matter.

What is particularly troubling is the apparent transformation of a review function into a gatekeeping function. Review, advice, and recommendations are one thing. Preventing a resolution from reaching the floor is something quite different. The former assists democratic deliberation. The latter substitutes administrative judgment for democratic deliberation.

Some have argued that the relevant authority resides in the Policy Manual. Yet even if one accepts that interpretation, a larger question remains. When and why did ALA move from a model in which members could bring resolutions to their fellow members to one in which committees possess the practical ability to prevent such discussion from occurring? That is not a minor procedural adjustment. It represents a significant shift in the balance between member initiative and institutional control.

Historically, democratic organizations often justify such shifts in the language of efficiency, order, consistency, or compliance. The language changes from era to era, but the result is frequently the same: fewer opportunities for members to initiate debate and greater authority concentrated in committees, governing bodies, and administrative structures. The question before us is whether ALA is moving in that direction.

For decades, SRRT and later the Progressive Librarians Guild argued that librarianship is not strengthened when controversy is managed away. It is strengthened when difficult issues are openly confronted. The answer to a controversial resolution is not suppression. It is discussion. The answer to a resolution with flaws is amendment. The answer to a proposal that lacks support is a vote against it.

Democracy is not measured by how an organization treats resolutions that everyone supports. It is measured by how an organization treats resolutions that make people uncomfortable.

The issue raised by this episode therefore extends well beyond a single resolution. It concerns whether ALA continues to regard its members as active political participants in the life of the Association or increasingly as spectators whose role is limited to discussing only those matters that have already passed through multiple layers of institutional review.

Whatever one's position on the substance of this particular resolution, that question deserves serious discussion. If the authority now exists to prevent resolutions from reaching the Membership Meeting, members should know precisely where that authority comes from, when it was granted, and whether it is consistent with the democratic traditions that many of us believe the Membership Meeting was created to protect.

Mark C. Rosenzweig

Resolutions that are 'controversial' can be introduced at membership meetings, and regularly are. The issue with this resolution is not that it's 'controversial.' It's that five of its six resolved clauses are simply not permissible under the bylaws. The membership meeting uses Roberts Rules of Order just as council and the EB do, and any motion that conflicts with the association's bylaws is out of order. The authors still have the option move forward with the one clause that isn't prohibited by the bylaws, and to try to find another approach for the others if they want. 

The ALA staff are people who who work very hard for this association, and they deserve - among other things - a clear and predictable reporting structure. We as an association created one for them, and the resolutions committee, bylaws committee, and the governance office are simply upholding that. 

This is not about the resolution being 'unpopular' or 'controversial;' there's just nothing particularly 'democratic' about ignoring the bylaws. 

Resolutions that are 'controversial' can be introduced at membership meetings, and regularly are. The issue with this resolution is not that it's 'controversial.' It's that five of its six resolved clauses are simply not permissible under the bylaws. The membership meeting uses Roberts Rules of Order just as council and the EB do, and any motion that conflicts with the association's bylaws is out of order. The authors still have the option move forward with the one clause that isn't prohibited by the bylaws, and to try to find another approach for the others if they want. 

The ALA staff are people who who work very hard for this association, and they deserve - among other things - a clear and predictable reporting structure. We as an association created one for them, and the resolutions committee, bylaws committee, and the governance office are simply upholding that. 

This is not about the resolution being 'unpopular' or 'controversial;' there's just nothing particularly 'democratic' about ignoring the bylaws. 

What concerns me about this discussion is that it is being framed largely as a question of procedural interpretation when the underlying issue is political and historical.

Those of us who came into ALA through the Social Responsibilities movement remember a very different understanding of the Membership Meeting. The Membership Meeting was never intended to be merely a ceremonial gathering or a carefully managed forum where only pre-approved matters could be discussed. It was understood as one of the few places where ordinary members could directly raise questions, challenge leadership, and force issues onto the Association's agenda.

The history of SRRT itself is inseparable from that understanding. Many of the positions that later became accepted ALA policy first entered the Association through controversy. They were often opposed by established leadership, criticized as divisive, ruled inappropriate, or attacked as outside the Association's proper sphere. Yet members fought to have those issues heard. The democratic principle at stake was not that every resolution should pass. It was that members should have the right to debate, amend, reject, or adopt resolutions themselves.

That is why the central issue here is not whether one agrees with Trevor and Beth's resolution. Reasonable people may disagree strongly about its content. The issue is whether members retain the right to bring controversial matters before the membership for discussion.

I keep returning to Patricia's observation that ALA has witnessed many heated and contentious debates. Resolutions have been defeated. Some deserved to be defeated. Others eventually prevailed. But I cannot recall a tradition in which a committee was empowered to determine in advance that members could not even discuss a matter.

What is particularly troubling is the apparent transformation of a review function into a gatekeeping function. Review, advice, and recommendations are one thing. Preventing a resolution from reaching the floor is something quite different. The former assists democratic deliberation. The latter substitutes administrative judgment for democratic deliberation.

Some have argued that the relevant authority resides in the Policy Manual. Yet even if one accepts that interpretation, a larger question remains. When and why did ALA move from a model in which members could bring resolutions to their fellow members to one in which committees possess the practical ability to prevent such discussion from occurring? That is not a minor procedural adjustment. It represents a significant shift in the balance between member initiative and institutional control.

Historically, democratic organizations often justify such shifts in the language of efficiency, order, consistency, or compliance. The language changes from era to era, but the result is frequently the same: fewer opportunities for members to initiate debate and greater authority concentrated in committees, governing bodies, and administrative structures. The question before us is whether ALA is moving in that direction.

For decades, SRRT and later the Progressive Librarians Guild argued that librarianship is not strengthened when controversy is managed away. It is strengthened when difficult issues are openly confronted. The answer to a controversial resolution is not suppression. It is discussion. The answer to a resolution with flaws is amendment. The answer to a proposal that lacks support is a vote against it.

Democracy is not measured by how an organization treats resolutions that everyone supports. It is measured by how an organization treats resolutions that make people uncomfortable.

The issue raised by this episode therefore extends well beyond a single resolution. It concerns whether ALA continues to regard its members as active political participants in the life of the Association or increasingly as spectators whose role is limited to discussing only those matters that have already passed through multiple layers of institutional review.

Whatever one's position on the substance of this particular resolution, that question deserves serious discussion. If the authority now exists to prevent resolutions from reaching the Membership Meeting, members should know precisely where that authority comes from, when it was granted, and whether it is consistent with the democratic traditions that many of us believe the Membership Meeting was created to protect.

Mark C. Rosenzweig

Out of curiosity, I just dug out my old (paper!) policy manual from 2008-09 to see what it had to say about resolutions going to membership meetings.  Here's a photo!