What is my job? A question for Board members

I don't currently serve on a Board for any organizations, nor do I work for one. However, for much of adult life (certainly since 1985), I was intimately involved in Boards. I was both an employee for a Board, and in many cases served on Boards of other organizations either where I lived or in my professional life.

Actually, it was during that board service that I met Eli Mina. Eli is the current professional Parliamentarian employed by the the American Library Association. But, he is more than just a Parliamentarian. He helps groups to work effectively together, and is an insightful observer of organizational dynamics.

I subscribe to his e-newsletter, and would highly recommend it. There are also some great resources on his web site: http://www.elimina.com/

In the most recent newsletter he has this:

A corporate board member asked me this question: "Isn't my primary duty to the shareholders, to ensure their investments are protected and their dividends are maximized?" A similar question was raised by an elected municipal official: "Isn't my duty to vote as per the wishes of the citizens who elected me?" A third example is a Member of Parliament who, ahead of a vote on a contentious issue, said: "I have to go back to my riding [i.e. district] and find out how my constituents want me to vote."

I looked around on his web site and did not find this article (there is other great stuff...). The second paragraph is key. It is the concept that so many in governance on the larger scale seem to forget:

The above examples reflect a widespread misconception that the primary duty of elected officials is to please their constituents. In fact, the primary duty of elected officials is not to one constituency or another, but to the organization as a whole.

As a Board member, or representative, your job while acting on the Board is to consider the good of the organization as a whole. I just think what Congress could accomplish if they were to act this way. Now, this still let's people disagree about the idea, but would mean that the discourse would be different.

Here are a couple of the concluding paragraphs:

And what about that Member of Parliament? His/her duty is to the country as a whole and not exclusively to constituents back home. Basing one's vote solely on their preference would politicize the process (i.e.: develop perceptions that political leaders will do anything to appease voters in order to boost their re-election prospects). It may ultimately be unfair to the country as a whole.
The above comments mean that elected decision makers who perform their roles correctly (i.e.: placing the organization's interests ahead of narrow interests) can become targets of harsh criticisms by their constituents: "You did not keep your campaign promises" or "You capitulated and did not stand up for us" or "You can be sure we'll campaign against you at the next election." Being punished and chastised for doing your job correctly is not fun. This can make it feel very lonely in elected positions.

How can elected officials do their jobs correctly while coping with abuse and personal attacks? The typical advice is to develop a "thick skin" and not be swayed by criticism that may arise from widespread misconceptions about the roles of elected officials.

Can this problem be addressed differently? Yes, possibly by educating constituents, electors and shareholders, and by making them aware of the complexity of the work of elected officials and the fact that their duty to the organization as a whole must come first.
In an optimal setting, constituents will adjust their expectations and abandon the culture of personal entitlement. Given the prominence of the culture of entitlement, eradicating it would require sustained educational efforts by elected leaders. Such efforts would be a good investment that will strengthen the foundation and the backbone of your organization or community.

While ALA Council and the EB get bashed in some circles, I have seen much more of a move towards the healthier behavior of considering what is good for the organization rather than what helps the individual.

ALA Elections - Part 4 aka Why no "parties" in Council

Ok, so sue me. I couldn't resist a subtitle on this post, and especially to talk about "parties."

You would think that ALA Council, with 190 or so members would have some sort of organizing mechanism or groups like other legislative bodies. But, there are no "parties" in Council.

Not that it hasn't been tried.

Back in the 1980s or 1990s there were a group of folks who campaigned together. They were all folks who agreed on some basic principles, and agreed to work together if they were elected. I.m not sure what happened. I think some were elected and some not. My memory is fuzzy enough to not even remember who was in that group. I vaguely recall that it included folks like Jim Rettig (former ALA President), the late ... from Georgia, and others who are very thoughtful reasonable people.

There is a group trying to do it again this year, they are theALA Think Tank Caucus for Council (a Facebook account will be needed to follow this link, I think). The members of this group are:

• Erica Findley
• Mel Gooch
• John Jackson
• Lynda Kellam
• Kate Kosturski
• Chris Kyauk
• Coral Sheldon-Hess
• Manya Shorr
• Patrick Sweeney

They are a part of the ALA Think Tank which describes itself a:

facebook's largest active group of info-sharing for librarians. we #makeithappen and #partyhard TOGETHER.

DISCLAIMER: WHILE we love the American Library Association, we are IN NO WAY affiliated with them. ALA, in our case, stands for "Awesome Librarians Associated" because everyone here is awesome. You do NOT need to be an American Library Association member to be here. You don't even need to be American!"

So why are there no parties (well, organized blocks) in ALA Council? I think part of it is the way in which Council is constructed. Like Nebraska, the legislative body is unicameral, but unlike Nebraska, members are chosen by a variety of routes. First, there are 100 Councilors-at-Large. That is the largest single block, and approximately 1/3 are elected each year to serve a 3-year term.

Then there are Chapter Councilors. There are 54 Chapters covering the states and territories. After they pay dues (as a chapter), they are permitted to send a Councilor to represent that chapter. Those Chapters that are multi-state (New England Library Association, Mountain Plains Library Association, etc.) do not have a councilor since each of their constituent territories already does. That is the second largest group.

Then there are the Division and the Round Table Councilors. Each ALA Division has a Councilor (12) and the five largest Round Tables also each have a Councilor with the remaining Round Tables choosing a joint councilor (the "Small Round Table Councilor"). There are a total of 18.

All ALA Executive Board members are members of Council as is the Executive Director (who typically does not vote). The Executive Board consists of 8 members chosen by Council from its membership plus the Association-wide elected officers (4). The latter are the President-Elect, President, Past President, and Treasurer.

In my service on Council, and I started as a Chapter Councilor, the Chapter Councilors and the Division Councilors meet as groups to discuss issues which affect them in their roles. I believe that the Round Table Councilors meet along with the Round Table Coordinating Committee to talk about their issues.

My experience has been that as a Chapter Councilor, I was representing a group which was as diverse as ALA is as a whole. I reported back to the Chapter, at Chapter Board meetings, and received informal input regularly. Also as an Executive Board member, I received informal input from both Councilors and from ALA members.

In my service and memory, there has never been an issue facing ALA and ALA Council around which there would be polarizing and competing views to the extent that a "party" would form. There are often alliances. When I first joined Council there were a group of folks who generally agreed and sat together. (They sat in the back row or rows, in the middle.) It was more noticeable then because if it were not clear from a voice vote, we voted by standing rather than raising a hand. That group fairly uniformly voted as a block on some issues, the one I remember is that they would never vote in favor of closing debate.

That is my perspective. For what it is worth.

ALA Elections - Part 3

I was handed an unexpected gift this morning. I was actually going to make ALA Elections - Part 3 a different topic (now it will be Part 4), and will do a list of endorsements for Council once I review the final list of candidates. Here is some info about the process.

• Elections open on Tuesday, March 19.  Between March 19 and March 21 all eligible members will be sent an email with voting instructions.  
• This year ALA is offering members the option to access the ballot by using their individual credentials and URL that will be contained in the email, or by going to the ALA website and using their ALA member ID.  
• When you have finished voting you will be able to download an “I Voted in the ALA Election” web badge that can then be affixed to your Facebook page, Twitter, email, or what have you!
• The election closes on Friday, April 26 with the results being announced on Friday, May 3.

There is an election guide on the ALA web site. That page includes links to all the Association-wide candidate pages, plus a link to a document with the bios of Council candidates.

Among other gems on that page is a list of the 2014 Nominating Committee (on which you can serve only once in your life). If you want to run for something, they are the folks to ask!

Just for fun...

I found this from one of my Facebook Friends. I got three results, which do you think I really am? I kind of like the middle one, but I know some folks who would argue for the first or last one...after "unassigned" offers a lot of possibilities!!

A.

Michael Golrick's Dewey Decimal Section:
803 Dictionaries & encyclopedias
Michael Golrick = 39381527528931 = 393+815+275+289+31 = 1803

Class:
800 Literature

Contains:
Literature, criticism, analysis of classic writing and mythology.

What it says about you:
You're a global, worldly person who wants to make a big impact with your actions. You have a lot to tell people and you're good at making unique observations about everyday experiences. You can notice and remember details that other people think aren't important.

Find your Dewey Decimal Section at Spacefem.com

B.

Michael Golrick's Dewey Decimal Section:
877 Latin humor & satire
Michael Golrick's birthday: 9/24/1953 = 924+1953 = 2877

Class:
800 Literature

Contains:
Literature, criticism, analysis of classic writing and mythology.

What it says about you:
You're a global, worldly person who wants to make a big impact with your actions. You have a lot to tell people and you're good at making unique observations about everyday experiences. You can notice and remember details that other people think aren't important.

Find your Dewey Decimal Section at Spacefem.com

And...C

Michael Golrick's Dewey Decimal Section:
013 [Unassigned]

Class:
000 Computer Science, Information & General Works

Contains:
Encyclopedias, magazines, journals and books with quotations.

What it says about you:
You are very informative and up to date. You're working on living in the here and now, not the past. You go through a lot of changes. When you make a decision you can be very sure of yourself, maybe even stubborn, but your friends appreciate your honesty and resolve.

Find your Dewey Decimal Section at Spacefem.com

ALA Elections - Part 2 - President

I am enthusiastically supporting Courtney Young for ALA President in this election. I am excited about her candidacy. If elected she would become ALA's youngest President. Yet at the same time, she has built an incredible track record in the Association already.

Let me pause for a moment to talk about my history of public endorsements. For my first seven years of service on ALA Council I was the Connecticut Chapter Library Association. In that role, I worked to connect the state association with the national one, and worked to help the chapter members to become more active in their national association. In that role, I did not think it was appropriate to campaign for any candidate for ALA office (well, except when I was running). I then served three years on the ALA Executive Board. As one of those chosen from ALA Council to help govern the Association, it was not appropriate for me to choose one candidate over the other since I would be working with the winner, no matter who it was. Since then, I have actively worked for some ALA candidates.

As in many past years, there are two very good candidates for ALA President. My endorsement of Courtney does not diminish my respect (personal and professional) for her opponent.

Here are some of the reasons why I am supporting Courtney:

1. Courtney has vision and an understanding of where the Association needs to go.
2. Courtney has had leadership experience, particularly through the New Members Round Table which is an important source of engaging new librarians.
3. She has a great deal of background in the financial issues which will continue to be important in setting ALA's direction. (She has served on many of the same committees on which I have served.)
4. She is very articulate. As ALA President you never know what external event will shape your ALA President, and I am sure that Courtney will handle whatever comes her way with complete confidence and aplomb.

Here is a link to the debate held at ALA Midwinter. (Fair warning that it automatically plays...) Courtney is the first of the two ALA Presidential candidates to speak.

Finally, for Facebook fans (yes, I am powerless over Facebook, and my life there has become unmanageable), Courtney's campaign has a Facebook page. That is in addition to the traditional web page.

I have one final observation about ALA Presidential candidates. Usually the candidates are chosen to give some choice. Rarely is it male versus female (although that does happen). More often it is an ALA insider versus an outsider. In this case the insider is Courtney. I am supporting her because of this. An ALA President realistically has only a little more than 2 years to accomplish any specific goals. The winner of the election has the two months (or so) between the results being announced and Conference to get up and running. There is one year as President-Elect to set the stage, and one year as President to get something done. I have seen enough to realize that once the spotlight is off (as immediate Past President), not much new is accomplished on any specific goals. Some ALA leaders have effectively worked with their predecessors and successors to accomplish more than would be expected. And Courtney is one of those who will be able to do this because she understands both how important it is, and how to actually do it. With a short window, the insider has a much better chance of achieving results.

Please vote for Courtney.