DC/SLA Response to SLA Recommendations Report
Please note that while this report is being submitted by the DC/SLA Board on behalf of DC/SLA, this response does not necessarily reflect the individual opinions of its members.
DC/SLA would like to commend the SLA Board and Transition Committee for seeing a need to evaluate the structure and operations of the chapter at this critical juncture and for the time they have taken to acknowledge member feedback and address questions and concerns.
We would also like to thank the consultants, de Stricker Associates and Shamel Information Services for conducting the assessment, presenting their recommendations in a straightforward manner, and bringing new thoughts and creativity to different aspects of the organization.
While the DC/SLA Board feels that many good ideas were presented throughout the Recommendations Report, we also disagree with many of the proposals and see an insurmountable cost associated with implementing the recommended changes. Overall, we felt there was not enough emphasis placed on the importance of the units and the members who are part of SLA for the localized or specialized aspect. SLA needs to be very careful not to disenfranchise some of its most active members. Furthermore, too many responsibilities were allocated to SLA HQ, which is already understaffed.
Process Used to Conduct Assessment of the Organization
The DC/SLA Board feels that the consultants did not have enough time to conduct a thorough assessment of the organization. In addition, while we appreciate that multiple internal and external resources were consulted during the process, the consultants used outdated sources in some instances and neglected to consult the very heart of the organization—the units and members. Even if they did not have time to talk to units individually, they could have sent out a survey for units to complete or gleaned feedback using other methods. And while the consultants’ knowledge, experience, and stake in SLA may have been beneficial to a certain degree, an evaluation conducted by external consultants would have been more objective and more likely to bring a fresher perspective.
The Board also feels that not enough time was given for members to respond to the report, especially with the little knowledge they had of its implications and the annual conference approaching. Even after all the explanations that were given at the annual conference, it is still unclear what it means to receive the framework and which portions of the Recommendations Report constitute the framework, as opposed to examples of implementation. We also find it difficult to provide an educated response on a framework without an explanation of an implementation timeline, costs, or proposed processes.
Area I: Business Partnerships
We agree that SLA needs to form more mutually beneficial relationships with business partners and applaud the idea of involving them in educational opportunities. DC/SLA has invited sponsors to share in some of its programming and has seen successful results. DC/SLA also recently presented its annual Board of Directors Award to a partner, making it clear that we appreciate their continued sponsorship and our relationship with them.
1
While centralizing sponsorships has benefits, we do not see how an already understaffed organization could carry the burden of an endeavor that requires such a great level of management and communication responsibilities. This model also seems controlling for an organization that has separate unit boards and unfair to those who worked so hard to obtain the sponsorships. Furthermore, the funding criteria and policies set by SLA may hurt the units. We have already seen instances where a sponsor may have supported an individual conference program, but because they were not an exhibitor at the annual conference, they were denied the opportunity to assist with other sponsorship opportunities at the annual conference.
Our principal concern is the suggestion to share sponsorship revenue 50/50. This requirement, in combination with
eliminating the allotment and taxing units on assets will make it very difficult for
chapters to provide adequate services at the local level. The SLA brand does have value, but sponsors
often place greater weight on the local, in-person opportunities to connect with members. While SLA
branding changed little from 2014 to 2015, DC/SLA was able to double sponsorship amounts because of
the local based benefit package we put together. DC/SLA may be amenable to a small share of revenue
sharing.
In the spirit of a mutually beneficial relationship with business partners, DC/SLA also feels it is important
to ask sponsors what kind of model THEY would prefer. At the Annual Conference in Boston, several
vendors shared their feelings of uncertainty with the long-term health of SLA and wondered if it would
be wise to continue future sponsorship of the organization in general. Others wanted the opportunity
to recreate the Vendor Relations Roundtable/Committee that used to exist. Vendors stressed their
desire to work cooperatively with SLA. DC/SLA suggests that SLA reconsider the benefits of welcoming
vendors into the fold and re-launch an improved hybrid Vendor Relations Committee to decide how the
revenue sharing model may by readjusted and maximize the long-term benefits for HQ, divisions, and
chapters. This committee should require membership representation from the largest of the divisions
and chapters, and smaller divisions and chapters would have the opportunity to provide representation.
Area II: New Products and Services
We agree that SLA should hire an educational content manager and engage business partners, academic institutions, and units in the development of the content. Thoughtful, well-designed professional education adds an immense amount of value to membership, and has the potential to set SLA apart.
We also feel that SLA should create more opportunities for continuing education credits and certificate programs. A digital repository of educational content by topic would be extremely helpful and should include the capability for units to contribute content. It would also be beneficial for members to have the ability to subscribe to alerts for upcoming educational opportunities.
Whatever new offerings SLA provides, it is important to keep the cost low. We worry that membership in SLA will become a kind of Sam’s Club membership, where members pay for the privilege of having educational courses marketed to them, which they then have to purchase. While paying for individual services can sometimes create a sense of value, it is the complimentary products and services that members of organizations often value most and which create a sense of value for the organization as a whole. For example, members of the Medical Library Association (MLA) receive free access to the
2
vibrant MEDLIB mailing list and the peer-reviewed Journal of the Medical Library Association. The journal not only provides benefits to members on an individual basis, but it makes the profession appear more credible to employers and other external parties.
Area III: Conference Models
We agree that Leadership Summit should be eliminated in conjunction with an increased effort towards creating more training resources for unit leaders and offering leadership skills sessions at the annual conference. If Leadership Summit were to reconvene in the future, more emphasis needs to be placed on training for roles and responsibilities in the units.
We agree that smaller venues in more affordable locations need to be sought for the annual conference. We also support the suggested career levels and topics, the opportunity for unit volunteers to exchange ideas, and a reduction in the number of sessions.
Because SLA places such a large emphasis on the annual conference, there should also be a greater effort made towards collecting and preserving conference content (e.g. central repository) and encouraging the submission of contributed papers. This adds value for all members and is especially important for those who cannot attend. Even if membership is strong and costs are reduced, SLA should not assume that members will be able to attend the conference, especially if they are paying for CE courses or certificate courses throughout the year. Employers have tightened budgets, and in many libraries, professional development is one line item on a budget, so spending funds on courses detracts from funds for conferences and vice versa. Instead of focusing so much effort on the annual conference becoming “the must-attend conference,” SLA needs to place greater emphasis on providing many of the benefits of the conference to members who cannot attend in person (e.g. bringing back the virtual option), offering additional resources outside of the annual conference, and dispelling the belief that most of the assets of membership are only available to those lucky few who can attend the annual conference.
Area IV: Organizational Review
We feel the units are the very life of the organization and the consultants greatly underestimated the value of unit leadership experience, the specialized needs of units, and the potential for units to reach other units. While membership may not be as large compared to organizations such as ALA, the organization can still be overwhelming, and chapters and divisions offer a more comfortable and advantageous approach for many members. The report fails to address the fact that many informational professionals join associations such as SLA for the local aspect, and some other organizations offer the opportunity to join at the local level, often at a cheaper price (e.g LLSDC, DCLA).
We support increased virtual offerings and chapters which are not as robust to become caucuses or part of other chapters. We feel the issue is not the decentralized structure, but a lack of adequate coordinated technology and communication resources. For example, a unit should not have to post a webinar on their local calendar and the SLA calendar, and unit leaders should not be spending so much time forwarding program announcements to the membership. Improved resources and communication
3
would also help to reduce duplication in programming across the organization. An investment in improved technology will have a very high ROI within SLA.
While we appreciate the advantages of combining certain divisions, this merging detracts from the specialized nature of the divisions, which are their greatest asset. We felt the groupings of the divisions showed a lack of understanding of the divisions’ focuses and membership.
We support adopting an application-based and skills-focused selection process for the SLA Board and agree with eliminating the director-at-large positions. We do not believe the cabinet positions on the SLA Board should be eliminated. Instead, these roles need to include a greater responsibility to proactively reach out to units throughout the year, as well as facilitate communication among units, such as encouraging inter-chapter virtual chats. Furthermore, should the structural changes disenfranchise units and members of SLA, units need a strong advocate on the Board, and the Board needs a representative that can engage the chapters in strategic planning.
We disagree that the SLA Board micromanages HQ Staff. If anything, they should hold them more accountable by establishing performance-based goals for SLA senior staff and directing them to do the same for other staff.
Area V: Revenue Model and Financial Review
Although we understand the plight of the SLA organization as a whole and agree with the elimination of allotments to units, we strongly disapprove of SLA accessing unit funds, even if they legally belong to the greater organization. The units have worked hard to accumulate these funds and have made budget decisions based on their current and planned levels. SLA should think carefully about how a reduction in chapter funds will impact our ability to recruit new members and to retain existing members. Furthermore, we have reservations about placing additional funds in the hands of an organization that has come to units for funds in the past and did not resolve whatever cash flow issues were occurring at the time.
We feel we need to know more about the impact the sale of the HQ building would have on the Association’s finances, including whether it would affect long-term changes needed to keep SLA solvent. We may be able to be more strategic with needed revenue generating measures.
While the membership tiers could be simplified, we feel it is important to offer discounted pricing for certain groups, including those with low income. Members should also have the opportunity to receive a discount by paying for multiple years at one time.
Again, the consultants want to assign more financial management responsibilities to SLA HQ without clarifying how an understaffed organization without appropriate expertise is going to successfully handle this role. SLA should explore the possibility of outsourcing the management of the Association to see how that will affect overhead costs and long-term stability. Organizations such as Association of Independent Information Professionals (AIIP) already do this.
4
Area VI: Market Viability
We agree that we need to focus on becoming the organization dedicated to professional development for information professionals. The value of the membership has to be there before we can become THE organization for information professionals.
SLA should also explore the possibility of creating a professional certification akin to the Project Management Institute’s (PMI’s) Project Management Professional. This type of program would require a large investment at the onset to get up and running, but it has the potential to become a solid annuity for the organization over time. This will allow tangential new business to start-up to help professionals prepare for the certification as well as developing continuing educational tools for professional development credits. Educational tools can be developed by HQ, divisions, and chapters and provide an additional revenue stream for each.
Area VII: Membership Levels
We agree that the focus of the organization should be on delivering value to its members, not on using the number of members as a primary metric. Also, in addition to the renewal and rejoining suggestions presented, it is important to find out why members are leaving.
We disagree with the statement “When a member says $200 is too much to belong to SLA, it signals that he or she does not perceive enough value in member benefits to justify a dollar per working day in a year.” We believe this statement disregards the fact that members often pay extra for programs and a large sum for the annual conference, even if they are at a discounted price. Members will perceive more value in the $200 if more services and products are included for free or at very cheap rates.
In summary, we feel that strategic, operational changes are essential for the viability of the organization, but SLA needs to recognize the importance of units, the varied needs of its members, and the limitations of HQ.
Submitted June 23, 2015 by 2015 DC/SLA Executive Board of Directors
Deena Adelman, President
Beth Maser, President-Elect
Chris Vestal, Immediate Past-President
Ramona Howerton, Treasurer
Alicia Pappas, Assistant Treasurer/Treasurer-Elect Claire D’Mura, Recording Secretary
Rick Kowalski, Communications Secretary
Layla Heimlich, Program Director
Morgan Grimes, Technology and Innovation Director
5