ACRL College & Researc Libraries News

Association of College & Research Libraries

ALA Proposes New Dues Structure

Financial matters and dues proposals dominated the Midwinter Meeting of the American Library Association, held in Chicago, January 20-26, 1974. Predictions of bankruptcy in two to three years were made by the ALA Treasurer Frank B. Sessa, the Chairman of the ALA Committee on Program Evaluation and Support (COPES) William Chait, ALA President-Elect Edward G. Holley, and ALA President Jean E. Lowrie. A motion to present a balanced budget for fiscal 1974/75 without dipping into the endowment principal, made by Councilor George

M. Jenks, Bucknell University, was narrowly defeated. President Lowrie pledged that the ALA Executive Board would do everything it could to reduce the deficit and to present a budget for 1974/75 as close to being balanced as possible.

The dues proposal presented by COPES was passed by ALA Council and will be presented to the membership of the association in a mail vote in the spring. The proposed schedule, for personal members, is as follows:

Under this proposal, ACRL members will pay annual dues of $50, giving them all rights and privileges afforded ALA members and all rights and privileges afforded ACRL members. The divisional fees will go directly to the divisions for their own use.

A substitute dues proposal presented by the American Association of School Librarians was similar in concept to the COPES plan but lower in actual fees. Under that proposal, members would have paid a basic fee of $35, which would have included membership in one division. Of the $35, $15 would have gone directly to the division for its own use. The AASL proposal was similar to the one presented by ACRL at the Las Vegas meeting. Bernard Franckowiak, president of AASL, called the COPES proposal “a guaranteed annual wage” for central ALA headquarters personnel, since approximately 40 percent of the current ALA budget supports the administration and operations of central ALA. ACRL supported the AASL proposal, but the two divisions were unable to muster enough votes in Council to pass the AASL proposal.

ACRL and AASL both stand to gain under the COPES proposal, since for the first time in several years divisions will have fiscal autonomy. Both divisions pledged to work for the reduction of the enormous overhead costs at headquarters.

The ALA Council was charged by some members of the association with being fiscally irresponsible, since in recent years Council has passed policies which also mandate expensive methods of implementation. It was argued during debate on the floor of Council that the ALA Executive Board should refuse to implement policies that ALA cannot afford. The Executive Board gave every indication that it would accept that responsibility in the future. The draft ALA policy on equal employment opportunity, brought forward to Council for adoption during the meeting, was amended to exclude methods of implementation. ACRL supported the amendments.

Few social issues were considered by Council during the Midwinter Meeting. Council refused to admit to its agenda a resolution supporting the impeachment of President Nixon.

The power struggle between the divisions and central ALA continues, with increased strength being given to the argument that there are some matters that concern all librarians and some that concern librarians in different working environments, i.e., in different types of libraries. Clearly, the COPES dues proposal supports the argument for the decentralization of authority and power.