Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:47:27 -0500
From: Brent Mai
To: sla-leadership@gatekeeper.sla.org
Subject: RE: Bylaws Threaded Discussion
Greetings!
In general, I approve of the revised Bylaws changes, but do have some
questions and comments regarding Chapters and Divisions:
1. What happens to the specifications of how a "special" meeting of the
Division or Chapter Cabinets can be called (Articles VII & VIII -- both
Sec. 3)? What about Joint Cabinet meetings and who can call them?
These are "powers" granted to specific members or officers, are they
not, and as such need to be mentioned in Bylaws rather than Board
Policies (although that isn't mentioned either)?
2. I'm not convinced that the protections that by-laws provide to the
existence of sub-units of Chapters and Divisions should be removed from
current Articles VIII & IX, both Sec. 4. Without mention of sub-units
in the Bylaws and the fact that the Chapter or Division itself controls
the establishment of such sub-units, both the right of existence and the
role of creation are significant alterations to the powers granted to
the Chapters and Divisions by the current Bylaws. I don't think that
this structure and function should be removed and made simply a Board
Policy. A Board Policy does not protect the existence of such entities
within the organization.
3. Where are the provisions for dissolution of a Chapter, Division, or
Caucus and disbursement of remaining funds mentioned (current Articles
VIII, IX, & XI, all Sec. 7)?
............Brent...........
Member, SLA Finance Committee
Brent Mai, Director
Walker Management Library
Owen Graduate School of Management
Vanderbilt University
401 21st Avenue South
Nashville, TN 37203
615-322-3635
615-343-0061 (fax)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:46:50 -0400
From: Hope Tillman
To: Brent.Mai@owen.vanderbilt.edu, sla-leadership@gatekeeper.sla.org
Subject: RE: Bylaws Threaded Discussion
Brent,
Much of the text of Articles VII, VIII, IX, XI etc. of the current Bylaws
will be moved with little or no change to a Board policy document. This
will cover the issues you raise: special meetings of the Division or
Chapter Cabinet, Joint meetings of the Cabinets, Subunits, Dissolution.
There is no legal reason these need to be in the bylaws. We do understand
their importance and that is why we see putting them in a board policy
document. There will be opportunity to discuss the policy document as
with any that come before the board, and as situations change, there
will be the flexibility to act of changes desired by chapters and
divisions. Our goal is to make life easier for you, our leaders.
Hope
Hope N. Tillman, SLA President
Director, Libraries
Babson College
Babson Park MA 02457
781-239-4259
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:32:59 -0500
From: Brent Mai
To: Hope Tillman <tillman@babson.edu >, sla-leadership@gatekeeper.sla.org
Subject: RE: Bylaws Threaded Discussion
Greetings, Hope and fellow SLA members!
I don't want to belabor this discussion, but I believe that this is
another example of a communication lapse related to this entire process.
The points that I raised are not addressed in the side-by-side
comparison and justification document
http://www.sla.org/documents/propbylawscomp.htm. They simply vanish.
That's why I asked about them.
Another communication issue to be raised is that we're being asked for
our approval of these Bylaws changes without seeing the often-referenced
accompanying Board policy documents that will "fill in the gaps" for
what has been removed from the Bylaws. Do these policy documents
already exist? I would hope that they do since we're more or less
discussing their content here. Can we see them?
Now, on to my substantive question. I believe there IS legal reason
to have some of the points that I addressed included in the Bylaws.
Division and Chapter activities are the lifeblood of our organization --
at least for me. I don't think that there should be so much
flexibility, as provided by Board policy documents, that governance of
the Divisions and Chapters could be changed at the discretion of the
Board.
My rationale for not putting this much power in the hands of our Board
is exemplified by what happened at the Winter Meeting in Chicago. The
content of the changes proposed at that time was an issue bigger than
the admittedly poor communication about them. This was an unfortunately
clear indication that the Board was out of touch with what at least the
Division and Chapter leadership in attendance felt were critical
governance issues. For this reason, if none other, I believe it
important to protect the structure and governance of Divisions and
Chapters -- and the Bylaws are where this protection is granted.
I would like to hear/see some discussion about the specific merits of
removing these particular items from the Bylaws; something more concrete
than just providing more flexibility. Thanks!
...............Brent.............
Member, SLA Finance Committee
Brent Mai, Director
Walker Management Library
Owen Graduate School of Management
Vanderbilt University
401 21st Avenue South
Nashville, TN 37203
615-322-3635
615-343-0061 (fax)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 16:24:23 -0400
From: Frank Spaulding
To: Boardfeedback@sla.org , SLA-FELLOWS@gatekeeper.sla.org
Subject: SLA Communicate and Fellows Bylaws response
I was pleased when I heard that the SLA Board of Directors (Board)
created in 2000, the five Task Forces (Branding, Conference Planning,
Membership, Simplification of Association Unit and Structure and
Partnerships). All of them have strategic and operational value in
enhancing this Association and the information profession.
Yet, we have heard little or none of the thinking, deliberations and
tentative proposals of these task forces - now 2 years since their
formation. Why not publish preliminary white papers of each task force
in Information Outlook? If the members had had these thought pieces
before being presented and "pressured" to agree to or support bylaw
changes, we would have been professionally far more enlightened.
Now to the proposed Bylaws. In general I agree with them with the
following comments:
1. Article II Section 1 (i): change wording "interest in the
strategic use of information;" to "interest in the strategic and
operational use of information;". Many members work on both levels and
some solely on the operational level.
2. Article V Section 16: last sentence states that the Board create
and appoint other committees. In the present bylaws the President
appoints the members of these committees. I do not find such a
responsibility in the new bylaws. This is an authority issue.
3. Article IX and X Chapters and Division subunits: establishment and
dissolution should be retained in the new bylaws to give the respective
Chapter and Division explicit authority and responsibility. I am
pleased if the Chapter boundaries are eliminated - they are senseless
and were only instituted for the benefit of the former Executive
Director, Frank McKenna who said "I can not process new membership
applications when individuals do not chose a desired Chapter". Oh my
goodness!
Hope these recommendations are helpful to the Board.
I end on a plaintive plea. We need a PRINT "Who's Who Directory of
Special Libraries". Many of the members do not have or access to a
computer. It is one of the Association's most effective and beneficial
member services.
Frank H. Spaulding
From Juanita Richardson (from SLA's threaded discussion list)
juanitar@phase-5.com
"Clean up our bylaws"
"As I see it, a lot of the changes have to do with cleaning up our bylaws
-- bringing us into compliance with NY state laws, positioning us to take
advantage of changes to these laws (eg. electronic voting), moving
operational items out of bylaws into policy, changing some other items
that pertain to the operation of the assoc to clarify the language.
"And some of the changes reflect our streamlining initiatives -- opening
up membership categories, changing Chap and Div requirements to only one
mtg per year (we can always have more if needed!), removing requirement
for mail-in ballot.
So, the only item of note is that of the Board setting dues amounts within
limits without having to go to the membership: I wholeheartedly endorse
this idea. I can't even imagine the amount of energy we spent getting the
last dues increase passed -- and the dollar amount per member was nominal
(even when I translate it into Cdn $ -- and I pay my own membership).
Surely we need to entrust our ELECTED Board to serve us responsibly. And
to do so, they need the ability to raise funds when required -- keeping in
mind that any member has the ability to vote with their feet when they
disapprove of any action the Board has taken. Let's not handcuff our assoc
from moving us into the future. And let's not waste any more (volunteer!)
energy." By Juanita Richardson
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 14:11:14 -0400
From: Hope Tillman
To: Hurst@hurstassociates.com,
"SLA Leadership Discussion List (E-mail)"
<sla-leadership@gatekeeper.sla.org >
Subject: RE: Bylaws (legal compliance; look in appendix)
Jill,
Until two years ago SLA did not have a law firm specializing in
association matters. We have known about the bylaws being out of compliance
for this two-year period, but by the time we learned this, we expected
to be proposing changes to go along with the strategic initiatives and planned
to fold the out of compliance issues in with that.
Probably we have been out of compliance for 15 years but we did not know
about it until two years ago.
Hope
Hope N. Tillman
President, Special Libraries Association
Director, Libraries
Babson College
Babson Park MA 02457
781-239-4259
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 04:37:06 -0400
From: Sylvia Piggott
To: semonch@metalab.unc.edu , SLA-FELLOWS@gatekeeper.sla.org
Cc: Brent Mai
Subject: Re: Bylaws Threaded Discussion (fwd)
Hello Fellows and Board Members
I share the concerns of Brent Mai who outlined the diminishing involvement
of the Chapters and Divisions in administering the units as set out in the
proposed Bylaws.
From my experience in observing the workings of the
Association the Division and Chapter provisions in the current Bylaws work
very well. These two units of the Association take the activities assigned
to them in all seriousness and perform the jobs exceedingly well.
While there may be some changes needed in this area the proposed Bylaws take too
much of the control from the units and are proposing to put them somewhere
else which does not seem to improve anything and could well result in people
loosing interest in leading these units because of the new bureaucracy
surrounding their operations. I firmly believe that we should only fix the
parts of the Bylaws that are broken and leave the rest alone. I would
consider the broken parts to be those which prevent us from moving ahead in
a timely and cost-effective manner or if they are demoralizing the
membership thereby resulting in loss of interest.
In short I do not believe the proposed Bylaws covering the Chapters and
Divisions are necessary. In addition, they do not clearly cover the
important aspects of the workings of these units.
Sylvia Piggott
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 16:29:27 -0400
From: "Dimattia, Susan (Cahners-NYC)"
To: ,
sla-leadership@gatekeeper.sla.org
Subject: RE: Bylaws Threaded Discussion
Note to SLA leadership--PLEASE read the bylaws documents. They are well
outlined and explained. Ask any questions that occur to you, either on the
threaded discussion that Hope refers to, or here on this discussion list.
No question is inappropriate. The Board has given all of us an opportunity
to express our opinions. It is our responsibility to do so prior to the
April 19 deadline.
Hope, I appreciate your reminder about the threaded discussion. I tried to
sign on the other day and the system was down. I did sign on today, but it
occurs to me that the format is making it more difficult than necessary
for members to participate. My concerns are with the technology, not the
content of the site.For example, why does there have to be a separate
registration process? Why can't the site recognize our usual sign-in
process to the "members only" section of the SLA web site? Also, after I
composed my message and sent it, I logged off. There then appeared a
screen that said there had been a problem and that I should go back and
repost my message. Before doing that, I checked, and my message was in
fact right where it should have been. If I hadn't checked first, I would
have wasted time repeating a message that was already posted.
I understand that there is not time before April 19 to change the
requirements of the technology. However, in the future when member input
is called for, I think it might be well for SLA to do multiple tests of
proposed systems in order to be certain that they are as quick and easy as
The most important issue here is to encourage members/leaders to read the
bylaws documents, to see the changes that have been incorporated since
January, and to ask questions and express opinions. If they are more
comfortable doing that via postings to this leadership discussion list,
they should be encouraged to do so. Having something like 12 postings to
the threaded discussion since its inception is not significant.
Susan DiMattia
212-463-6813
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:56:29 -0500
From: "Weinberger, Leslie A"
To:
sla-leadership@gatekeeper.sla.org
Subject: RE: Bylaws Threaded Discussion
I second Susan's comments about the threaded discussion. The sign on
process and technical difficulties don't serve to encourage people to
share their thoughts. I must admit I found discussing the bylaws much
easier on the leadership discussion list. I plan to share some comments
on the revisions as soon as I have a chance to review them.
Which brings to another thought. Two weeks just isn't sufficient time to
give people to review, process and react to the changes. Let's face it we
have jobs and busy lives. I applauded the board for listening to the
membership and making changes that they believe accommodate our concerns.
As we get closer and closer to conference I am concerned that many of us
have other SLA responsibilities to focus on.
Finally, I am concerned that we don't have drafts of the new board
procedure documents to review. Some of my thoughts about the changes are
bound to be shaped by those documents.
I appreciate the boards desire to put these changes before the membership
at the annual meeting but it is frustrating that this whole process --
presentation of initial revisions to chapter and divisions leaders, major
changes, reconsideration, voting in June -- is all expected to happen in 4
months.
Lee Weinberger, Chair-Elect IEB Division
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:14:03 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
From: Dorothy McGarry
To:
SLA-FELLOWS@gatekeeper.sla.org
Subject: Re: Bylaws Threaded Discussion (fwd)
I just wanted to say that the Bylaws Committee responded as a committee
to the liaison we were assigned (Karen Kreizman). We had about four or
five pages of notes and/or concerns and/or questions, so it's too much
to reproduce here. I was glad to see they put a great deal of what
they had taken out of the bylaws back.
Dorothy (Note: McGarry is on the SLA Bylaws Committee]
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 21:45:09 -0400
From: "Ladner, Sharyn J"
To: "'SLA-FELLOWS@gatekeeper.sla.org '" <SLA-FELLOWS@gatekeeper.sla.org>
Subject: RE: Bylaws Threaded Discussion (fwd)
I really appreciate Barbara Semonche's forwarding of some of the comments
from both the leadership and threaded discussion lists. I also have found
the comments from my fellow fellows thought-provoking and enlightening.
So now I'll jump in with some of my own thoughts, prompted by Dottie Moon's
question on the threaded discussion list about the phrase "strategic use of
information" in Article II of the proposed bylaws.
Here is Dottie's posting:
"I do want to ask the current Board members something. I was disappointed
with one section of the rationale column in the comparison table. It's the
first section. There doesn't seem to be a clear rationale for omitting so
much specific description from the "objectives" in Article I and instead
using the phrase "strategic use of information" in the "purpose" in Article
II.
This, of course, is a fundamental change in the focus of the
association; it broadens the potential community from which we might draw
our members. However, it deletes the terms "library and information
science," and I'm surprised nobody has brought that up in the discussion
list. Of course, as long as we're called the Special Libraries Association,
that interest is implicit--but what happens when the name changes? Will we
have broken all formal ties with library and information science? Also, I
wonder about such a vague phrase as "strategic use of information." That can
mean almost anything to anybody, and I guess that's why someone came up with
it. Wouldn't it be good, though, to describe what that covers or give
examples somewhere? I'm worried that potential members would see that phrase
as so broad that it wouldn't mean anything to them and they would pass us by.
I'm posing these questions because I haven't really heard them discussed by
the Board, although I assume you have talked at some length about them."
Sharyn's reply:
Yeah, this phrase bothered me too. "Strategic use of information" is so
vague. What about "non-strategic" uses of information? I may be too literal
in my interpretation of the meaning of the word "strategic," but many
information provision activities in which we engage support operational,
rather than strategic, goals of our organizations.
I support the adoption of the revised bylaws, particularly since the Board
has recognized the need to keep the Chapter and Division structure
intact--diversity of SLA's Divisions contribute to the association's
strength.
I am concerned, however, that the vagueness in terminology describing who we
are may contribute to a further erosion of our share in the information/LIS
professional association market through the desertion of our traditional
core. What I heard at Winter Meeting, particularly during the heated
discussion of annual conference programming in Division Cabinet, is that
some of the niche groups who have long considered SLA their professional
home, may look elsewhere if SLA loses relevance for them. Our diversity is
our strength--I believe that we need to provide a place for our traditional
groups as well as broaden our focus to attract new information
professionals. Can we do this by defining ourselves as an "association of
individuals and organizations having a professional interest in the
strategic use of information"?
I don't have an answer to this question, but I think it's important to ask
it anyway.
Sharyn Ladner
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:22:32 -0400
From:
To: owner-sla-leadership@gatekeeper.sla.org
Subject: Re: bylaws discussion
My turn -- the association is NOT ENTIRELY funded by member dues.
There is substantial support by information industry vendors for the
operation of the association. This is most clearly visible with the annual
conference. But the SLA website is also supported by vendor funds. As a
matter of fact, there used to be - I don't believe it currently exists - a
staff person at Headquarters whose job it was to solicit vendor funds to
support association functions. He was very good at his job. It came to
the point where his initiatives challenged the ratio between association
dues and non-dues income in order to be in compliance with federal laws
regulating non-profits organizations.
However, I hear you quite clearly. Member dues DO make a substantial
difference in how well we can manage ourselves. And a substantial portion
of those dues come back to our respective chapters and divisions for our
own operation.
-- Peter Moon, Past-President of the Connecticut Valley
Chapter
Peter S. Moon, Manager e-mail:
Virtual Information Center web: http://www.hsb.com
Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Co.
One State Street, 9th Floor tel: 860-722-5486
Hartford, CT 06102-5024 fax: 860-722-5530
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:25:04 -0400
From: "Moon, Mary G. (Dottie)" >
To:
sla-leadership@gatekeeper.sla.org
Subject: FW: Potential Reply to Pat Parker's comment
Pat --
I've had the opportunity to sit in on the branding task force since its
inception back in a brainstorming session at the St Louis Winter
Meeting in 1999. To boil all that activity down to "dollars spent on
an image consultant" misses the importance of that effort to the future
of our Association.
Why? Because the goal of the branding (briefly image) task force is
about positioning the Association for the future. A future in which
the Association provides value to members, attracts new members and
is a recognized force in the information industry. An Association
that provides for life-long learning, ideas exchange, etc. in an
inclusive environment.
That is so much more than image.
In reality, the branding effort has underlined the importance of our
strategic plan and our need to create more effective business plans
that are communicated freely throughout the Association. We, as an
Association, have allowed ourselves to avoid focusing on several key
issues -- who our target members for the future, what we need to do to
offer the most value and how to make it happen faster and easier. We
recognize that SLA has a comfortable culture and altering might
alienate a segment of members. Thus, we dodged the issues.
However, that lack of clarity in our business plan was evident at
Winter Meeting in some of the proposed changes Lack of clarity was
also extremely apparent during our discussions with the first branding
partner, Source, Inc. Both were failures of vision and planning --
Winter Meeting and the inability to move forward with Source brought
the Board to its special session in March. There, we stopped dodging
the issues.
We are clearing seeing the need for simplification and our by-laws
discussion is bringing that to the members. Soon, you will be seeing
more from the Branding effort and members will be integral in that
effort.
This is strictly my perspective on events seen with the biased eye of
one involved in the Branding issues. I am extremely pleased that our
efforts with the new team from CPM are projected to come it at 1/2 the
cost of working with Source. The outcome of this initiative will
affect the Association's efforts for a long time and I am confident
that we will get our money's worth out of it.
Best regards,
Dottie Moon
Manager, Competitive Analysis
Pratt & Whitney
Group Strategic Planning
400 Main Street -- MS 105-37
East Hartford, CT 06108
860-565-4252
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 10:14:36 -0400
From: Sara van der voort >
To: sla-leadership@gatekeeper.sla.org
Subject: Re: Branding Survey
Congratulations to the branding team on sending out a survey - I see this is
as a positive step forward......however my initial reaction is that most of
the choices seem to involve the word "innovation". It is in almost every tag
line!
While I am all in favor of innovation - I think that most of us can more
reasonably justify claims with regard to decision making rather than
innovation. I'd like to believe that we have all influenced some innovations
but wonder if we are "over claiming" here??
For example - I can point to number of decisions that have been made in the
last week or month as a result of research I have conducted, but I don't
believe I can take credit for bringing about any "substancial" innovations?
Are you pressuring members to just take what they are being offered?? It
feels like that to me!
I would like to see:
(1) A none of the above button
(2) Encouragement for members to submit their own suggestions for names and
taglines
Just my thoughts, which of course I have sent back on the
survey...........but I also wanted to share them with other leaders to see
if you have the same reaction.........
Sara van der Voort
President, SLA - Fairfield County Chapter
Arras Associates
svandervoort@arrasassociates.com
203 972-ARRAS
A rras
R esearch
R esources
A nd
S ervices
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 10:49:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mary Tucker
To: sla-leadership@gatekeeper.sla.org
Subject: Re: Branding Survey
Here are my comments on the branding survey.
I understand the reasons behind the effort to give an updated/upscale
image to the library profession, and the special libraries community in
particular. I welcome participation in our association by information
professionals whose professional and educational backgrounds vary from the
library track.
That said, there are many special libraries that maintain physical and
virtual information collections. They are active, nurturing parts of their
organizations, places where innovative ideas and initiatives are grown.
Their collections and users need professional librarians to manage and
serve them. There are NEW librarians who are coming into the profession,
who need an organization with a CLEAR IDENTITY AS A -LIBRARIANS'-
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, one that addresses their professional concerns
and interests, and that gives them a venue to meet and associate with
those who share similar professional needs.
The name "Special Libraries Association" has withstood the test of
time. Anyone that devotes a little thought to considering what libraries
and librarians do knows that they are very much a part of the worldwide
information net. We need to strengthen, reinforce, and maintain our
identity as serving the -LIBRARY- community. Partnership with other
organizations that serve the larger information community is, I think,
good and necessary, but SLA is unique in being oriented towards providing
special communities of users with creative and effective LIBRARY SERVICE.
BTW, I voted for the following name and tagline: SLA. Connecting
information professionals worldwide.
Thanks for letting me step up on my soapbox!
Mary Ellen Tucker
Chair, Transportation Division
Special LIBRARIES Association
*****************************
Mary Ellen Tucker, M.L.S., Librarian
University of North Carolina
Highway Safety Research Center
730 Airport Road, Suite 300
Campus Box 3430
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27599-3430
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 18:10:19 +0200
From:
Subject: RE: Branding Survey
Just a few brief points:
· "SLA" as a name is risky business, with the resurgence in the
news of the Simbianese Liberation Army. Why should we compound the
confusion?
· If we're to keep as close to the current name as possible,
why not "Specialized Libraries Association." I, for one, tire of
having to explain what a "special" library is or of responding to jokes
about "special" librarians.
· Also, I would very much like to see the association indicate
an international perspective in its name. The international arena is a
largely untapped one and one in which this association could provide an
invaluable service. So, perhaps "International Specialized Libraries
Association" or "Specialized Libraries Association International" might
work.
· The name of the association should immediately convey its
purpose and makeup.
· On the survey, in the Comments portion, I suggested
"International Information Professionals Association" or "Information
Professionals Association International" with the tagline "Linking
Information to Innovation Worldwide" and the abbreviation "InForm
International"-combining several of the suggested names and taglines.
Personally, I don't see a problem with broadening the membership
concept beyond librarians.
Just a thought or two.
Ann R. Sweeney
Chair-Elect, Social Science Division
Special Libraries Association
(Webmaster, Librarian & Information Officer
European Commission Delegation
2300 M Street, NW
3rd Floor
Washington, DC 20037
Phone: 202-862-9546
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 15:30:09 -0400
From: Susan Fournier
To: sla-leadership@gatekeeper.sla.org
Subject: RE: Branding Survey
HERE, HERE! Mary's comments very much mirror the comments I made on the
survey. I am a LIBRARIAN and PROUD of it. When I make presentations to the
members of the Association I work for, I give my title and also say it is a
fancy name for Librarian. Then they know just what I do!
And I know that there are other members who feel the same way about this. I
hope everyone of them responds to the survey in the same way.
Susan R. Fournier
Director, ICBA Information Center
One Thomas Circle, NW Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005-5802
voice: 202-659-8111
fax: 202-659-1413
email:
the industry information resource for the community banker
