SRRT (Social Responsibilities Round Table)

Original Message:
Sent: 6/29/2025 12:07:00 PM
From: Derek Wilmott Montoya
Subject: RE: Yesterday's Action Council meeting

Original Message:
Sent: 6/29/2025 11:39:00 AM
From: Al Kagan
Subject: Yesterday's Action Council meeting

Good morning. Do people realize the seriousness of what happened at yesterday's Action Council meeting? An ALA staff member took over the meeting and prevented freedom of expression about a resolution on freedom of expression. Further if anyone had a chance to actually read the resolution, they would have seen that it is unlikely that any SRRT member would disagree with the content, at least in principle. This was a very bad day for SRRT.
Al

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"Resolution reaffirming ALA's support of the right to protest as a necessity in a free society" was inexplicably "withdrawn" from the agenda by SRRT Councilor, Tara Brady, despite the fact that she knew quite well that several SRRT members wanted such a resolution to be discussed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

Hi, Elaine: 

There's a lot here, but for now I'm just going to raise a few factual and procedural corrections. 

 First, a deliberative body owns a motion as soon as it is moved in a meeting and not before. I notified Olivia prior to the meeting that the resolution might not come forward due to the circumstances I laid out on Saturday, and when we  got to  that point in the agenda I confirmed I was not moving it.  If you all had wanted, you could have asked to add your private working group's version under new business, but attempting to simply take over the agenda and start debate on a motion with no mover in the way you did was inappropriate. Just because you want to discuss something right now doesn't mean the rest of the deliberative body has to accommodate you. Your working group was out of order, plain and simple.  

Cory's patience, kindness and insight are valuable assets in dispute resolution and I'm glad he was there: we went off the rails, procedurally speaking, and when the private working group completely ignored Olivia and tried to hijack her agenda, somebody had to step in. Maybe all of that was due to a lack of understanding of procedure on your parts, in which case, now you know. We have procedure to govern what and how and when we debate. We were following that procedure. If you want to work with us, you have to as well, and while it's not neccessary to know every in and out of parliamentary procedure to participate in SRRT action council, it is vital to remember one simple rule - when in doubt, listen to the chair. 

As for the other resolution (which we would have had more time for on Saturday if your group had respected the chair, fwiw) it was still on the agenda for Sunday. Olivia brought it up, but the mover and the seconder were both absent and without them we couldn't discuss it. In her statement at the start of the meeting I only recall Olivia stating that individuals could and would be removed if they violated conduct expectations. We could have and would have continued to debate the resolution if anyone had been there to move it, but you all walked out. 

And just a side note, I think if Olivia's very calm, measured tone can be called a 'tirade' the bar for that term is incredibly low - especially by SRRT standards, haha! 

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

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

Where Elaine sees a glorious past of "deliberation, consultation, open-mindedness, debate, democratic processes," my own experience of Action Council since I became FTF coordinator in 1989 and the SRRT Action Council coordinator in 1991 is a subculture of bullying and intimidation. This most recent episode seems to have been triggered when some members decided to attempt to subvert AC processes when they didn't like how the agreed-upon by AC "start fresh" resolution was being developed. When Tara updated AC on her progress, she was berated, not only in AC but on SRRT social media, for doing things in a way that they disapproved of. And apparently they started working in secret on revisions to a draft she shared with us but did not put on the floor because she was not ready to do so. The outcome of this was Saturday's outright attempt to take over the meeting by claiming that a "working group" was bringing forward a revised resolution. But there was no "working group" and the repeated assertion that this action was coming from some legitimate-sounding entity seemed calculated. Only when challenged directly did Al stat this was coming from a group of IRTF members. If IRTF had wished to bring forward a resolution, while it would have been in conflict with AC's previous decision to start fresh, they could have done so and that action could potentially have been within the framework of democratic process and collegiality. Instead they attempted to take over and impose their own process. They did so because they disapproved of how Tara was approaching the process of developing the resolution and weren't willing to even try to be open-minded about someone else's process. This group also chose to wait until the meeting to initiate their takeover, rather than posting on Connect, alerting the coordinator that they had something to introduce, or consulting with the person charged by AC to develop the resolution. (As a side note I also point out that by initiating this action via passing out paper copies those of us attending virtually would have been essentially excluded from informed participation in any discussion).

I'm sorry that Corey Stevenson stepped in because I believe we would have put a stop to this on our own. But perhaps Corey's clear sense that something was out of line with typical democratic process was more expedient.

Sh

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

Where Elaine sees a glorious past of "deliberation, consultation, open-mindedness, debate, democratic processes," my own experience of Action Council since I became FTF coordinator in 1989 and the SRRT Action Council coordinator in 1991 is a subculture of bullying and intimidation. This most recent episode seems to have been triggered when some members decided to attempt to subvert AC processes when they didn't like how the agreed-upon by AC "start fresh" resolution was being developed. When Tara updated AC on her progress, she was berated, not only in AC but on SRRT social media, for doing things in a way that they disapproved of. And apparently they started working in secret on revisions to a draft she shared with us but did not put on the floor because she was not ready to do so. The outcome of this was Saturday's outright attempt to take over the meeting by claiming that a "working group" was bringing forward a revised resolution. But there was no "working group" and the repeated assertion that this action was coming from some legitimate-sounding entity seemed calculated. Only when challenged directly did Al stat this was coming from a group of IRTF members. If IRTF had wished to bring forward a resolution, while it would have been in conflict with AC's previous decision to start fresh, they could have done so and that action could potentially have been within the framework of democratic process and collegiality. Instead they attempted to take over and impose their own process. They did so because they disapproved of how Tara was approaching the process of developing the resolution and weren't willing to even try to be open-minded about someone else's process. This group also chose to wait until the meeting to initiate their takeover, rather than posting on Connect, alerting the coordinator that they had something to introduce, or consulting with the person charged by AC to develop the resolution. (As a side note I also point out that by initiating this action via passing out paper copies those of us attending virtually would have been essentially excluded from informed participation in any discussion).

I'm sorry that Corey Stevenson stepped in because I believe we would have put a stop to this on our own. But perhaps Corey's clear sense that something was out of line with typical democratic process was more expedient.

Sh

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

Where Elaine sees a glorious past of "deliberation, consultation, open-mindedness, debate, democratic processes," my own experience of Action Council since I became FTF coordinator in 1989 and the SRRT Action Council coordinator in 1991 is a subculture of bullying and intimidation. This most recent episode seems to have been triggered when some members decided to attempt to subvert AC processes when they didn't like how the agreed-upon by AC "start fresh" resolution was being developed. When Tara updated AC on her progress, she was berated, not only in AC but on SRRT social media, for doing things in a way that they disapproved of. And apparently they started working in secret on revisions to a draft she shared with us but did not put on the floor because she was not ready to do so. The outcome of this was Saturday's outright attempt to take over the meeting by claiming that a "working group" was bringing forward a revised resolution. But there was no "working group" and the repeated assertion that this action was coming from some legitimate-sounding entity seemed calculated. Only when challenged directly did Al stat this was coming from a group of IRTF members. If IRTF had wished to bring forward a resolution, while it would have been in conflict with AC's previous decision to start fresh, they could have done so and that action could potentially have been within the framework of democratic process and collegiality. Instead they attempted to take over and impose their own process. They did so because they disapproved of how Tara was approaching the process of developing the resolution and weren't willing to even try to be open-minded about someone else's process. This group also chose to wait until the meeting to initiate their takeover, rather than posting on Connect, alerting the coordinator that they had something to introduce, or consulting with the person charged by AC to develop the resolution. (As a side note I also point out that by initiating this action via passing out paper copies those of us attending virtually would have been essentially excluded from informed participation in any discussion).

I'm sorry that Corey Stevenson stepped in because I believe we would have put a stop to this on our own. But perhaps Corey's clear sense that something was out of line with typical democratic process was more expedient.

Sh

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

Is there a recording of this meeting for those of us unable to participate?