SRRT Councilor’s Report on ALA Council
ALA Council Report to SRRT, Anaheim, June 2008
ALA met at Disneyland, whoops, I mean Anaheim, June 27th to July 2nd. The ALA and APA Councils passed several resolutions that are particularly important to SRRT concerns. As Council goes, it was a remarkably tranquil meeting and Council III finished its business in record time, adjourning around 10 am on Wednesday morning. In fact, I immediately thought that since we had extra time we should have worked harder and got more SRRT resolutions on the agenda.
Our SRRT Resolution Concerning ALA Policy Opposing Sweatshop Labor and Support for Union Businesses passed in modified form. At the Council Forum where Councilors informally discuss forthcoming resolutions, it was quite clear that there was a lot of support for the sweatshop provision but vehement opposition to including anything about unions. Jonathan Betz-Zall and I therefore deleted the union language before it came up on the Council floor. So this as a step in the right direction, but it is unclear on whether we can ever get a union provision. ALA itself is not unionized. Keith Michael Fiels, ALA Executive Director, is quite pleased about our resolution and he is eager to begin implementing it.
Another SRRT initiative came up again as part of the usual ALA Implementation Report from the Midwinter Meeting. It seems that although we had substantial documentation and included a short bibliography, our resolution demanding the return of confiscated Iraqi documents had several inaccuracies. These were pointed out by Dr. Saad Eskander, Iraq’s National Archivist. Jonathan and I revised the resolution and resubmitted it to the International Relations Committee. The IRC reported it out, and the Council passed the revised version without much comment.
The never-ending Cuba discussion came to Anaheim in the form of another resolution in support of the so-called “independent librarians,” who are neither independent nor librarians. Rather they are mostly politicians and journalists, funded by the US Government, who happen to have small book collections in their homes. Although proposed by three Councilors, both seconders were new to ALA Council and when given full information about ALA’s longstanding record and the covert motives of the powers behind the effort, both seconders withdrew their support. The resolution therefore had no second, and was never included in the official agenda. I want to complement Peter McDonald, Chair of the ALA Resolutions Committee, on his excellent work on this matter. Peter explained the background to the debate at the Council Forum to new Councilors and the old ones chimed in to note their disgust in having to deal with this again and again. Peter also initiated a discussion at the Council Forum and on the Council floor exposing the anti-Cuba lobby’s dirty tricks. This time they seem to have crossed a line when they revised an ALA document, and then distributed it as if it were a real ALA document. They even sent it with a simulated ALA Council subject line in their e-mail messages.
The document is Michael Dowling’s (Head of the ALA International Relations Office) extremely well researched report titled Cuba Update for ALA Annual 2008. The original document shows that 98% of the funds of these “independent librarians” come from the US Government. And it also shows how US Government funds have been used to try to influence library associations. Peter explained how this lobby has targeted new ALA Councilors and even candidates for Council. They have bullied them and tried to get them to sign on by asserting that their support would get them elected to Council. Two new Councilors came forward to publicly decry these tactics from their personal experiences. Keith Fiels will write a letter to Steve Marquardt who doctored the document noting ALA’s displeasure, possibly including the legal issues involved. Keith will work on ways to alert new Councilors of these dirty tricks, and he will also alert big name ALA speakers so they are not duped as in the past.
I was particularly happy to see the passage of the ALA APA resolution, “Endorsement of a Living Wage for All Library Employees and a Minimum Salary for Professional Librarians.” This follows-up on a resolution passed last year endorsing a salary minimum of $40,000 adjusted each year for inflation. The rate stated in the new resolution is $41,680 for librarians and $13.00/hr. for hourly workers.
The Intellectual Freedom Committee brought and Council passed six revisions to interpretations of the Library Bill of Rights. Most of these involved only very minor language changes. The most important change added “gender expression” to the interpretation now titled, “Access to Library Resources and Services Regardless of Sex, Gender Identity, Gender Expression, or Sexual Orientation.” The Council passed a separate resolution on pending legislation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). The resolution calls for the reinstatement of protections for transgender persons regarding gender identity and expression. Evidently, these protections were in the original bill but subsequently deleted.
The Committee on Legislation brought and Council approved resolutions on funding support for the National Agricultural Library and outreach to the five national libraries regarding the @Your Library campaign, support for the E-Government Reauthorization Act of 2007, and support for preservation and access to the US audio heritage by bringing these materials under federal Copyright jurisdiction.
Finally, Council passed the “Resolution Adopting the Definitions of Digital Preservation and the Revised Preservation Policy for the American Library Association,” and a resolution expanding Council transparency which might eventually lead to live streaming of Council sessions.
As always, I will try to answer any questions.
Al Kagan
SRRT Councilor
akagan@uiuc.edu
11 comments on “SRRT Councilor’s Report on ALA Council”
Proof, gentlemen, proof. Our profession is based on sources, and seeking proof for assertions.
None of any of the rubbish that Old McDonald spewed in his Animal Farm act before Council had a single shred of proof.
He didn’t even know the name of the group that was leading the recent effort, and he tried to put everyone who dissents from the ALA’s hypocritical record as some sort of mindless cohort of that evil “Robert Kent.” (The ridiculous charges against him, by the way, have never been confirmed either, unless Council members wish to be on record that a simple Google search is all the average citizen really needs to be informed?)
Gentlemen, tell us in detail: What are the powers that be behind our nefarious actions promoting free speech, our own and for those on Cuba who don’t have the luxury of blogs like this?
By “us” I mean the group FREADOM, which was co-founded by that terribly conservative Councilor, Karen Schneider (no longer active), and receives moral support from that wicked neo-con fundamentalist, Sandy Berman.
Since there is no proof behind the ignorant attacks (in that he is ignorant of the facts, not an ignorant person), I suppose the great champions of intellectual freedom which lead the ALA will spend wasted time sending legal threats to people whose have caused them displeasure.
If Rory or Peter or anyone on Council will post a reply from Mr. Marquardt (although I don’t speak for him) I suppose he would be happy to explain his actions and even apologize for any confusion which he might have inadvertently caused. The once-again unsubstantiated charge that his posting was some sort of planned deception just shows how out of touch any of these criticisms are with true dialogue and discussion.
Marquardt is welcome to speak for himself here.
Gentlemen, on the day after Mr. Rosensweig attacked Steve on the Council list, Mr. Marquardt sent the following clarifying email to all those he had sent his report to. It also included an apology. It is below. For anyone in ALA leadership to now write some sort of reprimand would make such a person look pretty silly and vindictive. But hey, the 2nd Amendment gives people the right to shoot themselves in the foot.
Cuba Update v.2 apology, clarified v.2.1 attached
ALA Council members, I apologize for any confusion among ALA Council members who received my “Cuba Update for ALA Annual 2008 Version 2.0, revised June 20, 2008 …” [sic]
I did not intended to confuse, nor to “manipulate the reputation of the IRC,” of which I have been inaccurately but understandably accused. Rather, my intent was to provide additional information, as indicated clearly in the heading and by my signature at the bottom. I wanted to include information about events on the ground in Cuba in the same document as Mr. Dowling’s information about financial support from outside Cuba, to unify the story.
My intent was and remains also to provide a more complete picture of Cuba’s violations in intellectual freedom, for the following reasons.
The history of ALA and IFLA deliberations about Cuba’s independent libraries has been published this month in Peter McDonald’s American Libraries article, “ALA’s Stand on Cuba’s Independent Libraries.”
The financial history U.S. government and support from other sources for the independent libraries has been presented in the ten-page document by Michael Dowling, “Cuba Update for ALA Annual 2008.”
The history of the actual events in Cuba itself, however, is mostly missing in both of these very recent official documents from ALA.
That is why I have now put together additional information for the benefit of Council members, in a new “Version 2.1,” attached herewith, wherein the additional information in Arial font, while all of the information in Mr. Dowling’s and the IRC’s original “Cuba Update” is preserved in Times Roman font.
I hope that Council members find this comprehensive document useful as an explanation of the history and current state of the issue.
If anyone is still confused by my “version 2.1” after previously having heard only one side of this story, this is entirely understandable, but on a positive note, confusion can be considered a necessary stage on the transition to a more complete level of understanding, in a dialectical sort of way.
— Steve Marquardt, etc., etc.
Marquardt’s response here is simply not credible. Using the [ALACOUN] subject heading prefix in emails on the issue is undeniably deceptive. And the way he reissued the IRC report as a “version 2.0” without acknowledging that he had in fact modified it himself was also undeniably deceptive. There is no way for Marquardt to wriggle out of this. He has permanently damaged his reputation (and the reputation of your lobby), and to a severe degree. ALA has quite a lot of ground to cover in pursuing him.
Those who are curious can read Steve Marquardt’s “Cuba Update Updated to version 2.1, for ALA Annual 2008” here:
http://groups.google.com/group/Cuba451Letters/web/cuba-update-updated-to-version-2-1-for-ala-annual-2008
I guess you did not read the actual report, Rory. Or maybe you did. Anyway, the statement you have made is objectively false. He acknowlegded in his report that he made changes.
Methinks you all are just a little worried that his argument is the superior,, and you want to use this change to “permanently” harm his reputation.
You wrote, incorrectly: “And the way he reissued the IRC report as a “version 2.0? without acknowledging that he had in fact modified it himself was also undeniably deceptive.”
You’re wrong, Walter. I saw the email he sent out when he sent out the report – I was one of the recipients. He sent it out as though it was an official update, under the same title, as though it were authorized. It was deceptive, just as sending out emails with a fake [ALACOUN] subject prefix was deceptive. The body of the report didn’t show where he had made changes or additions to it. He simply modified it as though it was his to modify, and sent it out looking like an official revision.
Rory, I contend that you are still ignoring the “apology” sent out the very next day. I never claimed that you didn’t receive the first critiqued report, which confused some people.
The issue now, going forth, seem to be this: You and others have charged him with deception and dirty tricks. So, it is not a matter of me being “wrong”; i am irrelevant to the facts in the case. It boils down to a situation where you do not believe in the sincerity and veracity of Mr. Marquard’s explanation to your charges. He clearly explained his intent, his method, and his apology for any misunderstanding. You are basically calling him a liar and a manipulator, are you not?
Cuba Update v.2 apology, clarified v.2.1 attached
ALA Council members, I apologize for any confusion among ALA Council members who received my “Cuba Update for ALA Annual 2008 Version 2.0, revised June 20, 2008 …” [sic]
I did not intended to confuse, nor to “manipulate the reputation of the IRC,” of which I have been inaccurately but understandably accused. Rather, my intent was to provide additional information, as indicated clearly in the heading and by my signature at the bottom. I wanted to include information about events on the ground in Cuba in the same document as Mr. Dowling’s information about financial support from outside Cuba, to unify the story.
You’ve got it right that I don’t find Mr. Marquardt’s explanation credible. If you want to try to make an issue of that, go right ahead. But I don’t think a debate over his honesty would work out to his or your advantage.
I also do not find Mr. Marquardt’s explanation credible. As for believing him to have been purposely manipulative, well—when it comes to this issue, he has shown that he does not “fight fair.” Sadly, I can personally attest to this. And this applies to a number of his cohorts as well.
Comments are closed.