SLA Name Will Stay: Alignment of Association to Continue

Voting in record numbers, SLA members failed to approve a proposal to change the organization’s name to the Association for Strategic Knowledge Professionals.  50 percent of those members eligible to vote participated in the referendum, with 2071 voting yes and 3225 voting no.

“The active discussions, online and in local meetings, are a testament to the passion and commitment that knowledge and information professionals feel towards their association and their profession,” said Gloria Zamora, SLA 2009 President. “This level of engagement will help make SLA and its members more effective advocates for the information profession in the years ahead.”

The name change proposal stemmed from the findings of the Alignment Project, an intensive two-year research effort aimed at understanding the value of the information and knowledge professional in today’s marketplace and how to best communicate that value. “Our name will remain,” Zamora continued, “but we will go forward with developing opportunities for our members to use the Alignment findings to demonstrate their contributions to the organizations that employ them.”

“Information and knowledge professionals are critical assets to the organizations that employ them, yet their contributions and capabilities are too often underestimated,” said SLA CEO Janice R. Lachance. “The findings of the Alignment Project research will guide SLA in developing services and programs that will more successfully position these professionals in the marketplace and attract the recognition and compensation they deserve.”

Comments

[ArikJohnson]

I hope a new identity can still emerge someday post-alignment (a posteriori knowledge) that might speak more to the shared vision all members have of the value of our work. Looking forward to the alignment process going forward!

[NBrant]

"SLA members failed to approve a proposal to change the organization’s name to the Association for Strategic Knowledge Professionals"

I don't think we "failed".

[Not My Usual Alias]

I voted "no" at least in part to overcommunication. I set up an Outlook rule to divert the dozens of messages away from my inbox.

I'm sure the consultants know best how to have coordinators and get the word from the HQ to the grassroots, but in my case the efforts were not helping. SLA membership is more or less a union card that my employer pays for, otherwise I would not.

[Dorene Smith]

"SLA members failed to approve a proposal to change the organization’s name to the Association for Strategic Knowledge Professionals"

Why wasn't this worded "SLA members defeated a proposal to change the organization’s name to the Association for Strategic Knowledge Professionals" ?

The second sentence is more accurate and more dynamic.

[David M Broussard]

I really don't like the negative twist that has been put on this thing. That we "failed" to approve the name...it was the name that "failed to gain acceptance" not any failing on SLA's membership. It was a bad name, and now it's over with.

[KitKat]

"SLA members FAILED to approve a proposal to change the organization’s name"

WOW what a poor choice of words

[Ken Wheaton]

I feel what we call ourselves is minor but what we do in our profession is what will make a difference. The key now is to keep a positive momentum moving forward with the alignment. Keep in mind what Gandhi (a successful change agent) once said "We must become the change we want to see".

[SBrown]

Presumably someone "failed" to persuade members of the need to change the name, but it's bizarre to say that the membership at large have somehow failed. Members were asked whether they wanted the name to be changed and the majority of respondents said no. Perhaps this is just sloppy writing, but the impression given is one of a rather grudging acceptance the outcome of a democratic process, and that's a pity.

[Joe Kraus]

A colleague of mine (thanks Luke...) noted how different the language was this time from the 2003 press release. Then, we affirmed "our commitment to proud tradition." http://www.sla.org/content/SLA/pressroom/pressrelease/2003pressrelease/2317c.cfm Why the glaring difference?

[Maura Kennedy]

I wrote the "failed to approve" lead and apologize to anyone who found it offensive. In my own defense, it is a common way to report the findings of a referendum--Google it and you will find thousands of examples. Dorene's suggested "defeated" might have been a better choice.

[Ann Coppin]

I agree that the membership decided, not "failed," on the name change proposal. As we go forward with the alignment process, I hope all viewpoints and stituations - from a more traditional library setting to a corporate setting to most far out non traditional setting - are included.

[cgsullivan]

The language really pits the two sides against one another. I think SLA needs some new PR staff. Way to go, ticking off so many due paying members. Personally thinking of not renewing.

[Rita Evans]

I'm not particularly concerned with the wording used in blog entries, but why does SLA's official press release http://www.sla.org/content/SLA/pressroom/pressrelease/09pr/pr2923.cfm use this language? Leadership may have "failed" to sell the name change, or the alignment project may have "failed" to deliver an effective choice, but the members didn't fail at all (and we can use Google to find thousands of examples of poor choice of language.) The press release should be retracted and rewritten.

[Chuck]

We FAILED alright. We failed to elect suitable leadership who in turn succeeded in wasting a lot of money.

This was the right decision.

[Debra Schiff]

"SLA members failed to approve"

the 3225 members who voted against the proposal have committed a negative action in the eyes of the SLA, having failed to approve the proposal that was handed down to them... That's what it sounds like
the announcement is saying.

Shouldn't it be more like: the 2071 members in favor of the change failed to build sufficient support to pass the proposal?

Because so many people are objecting to the language used in the press release (in addition to the no vote), perhaps the SLA ought to be re-thinking its path.

[Susan Fingerman]

OMG people! Can you be more negative?! Ok, maybe poor choice of words but if we put all this energy into working for the organization we'd really get somewhere both for ourselves and our profession.

[David Midyette]

Here! Here! Failure or success sets up an unacceptable dichotomy between "Us" and "Them." I can see where someone writing from their own biased opinion on the topic (I certainly have my own opinion as well), would write the statement as a "failed" initiative. In fact, it did fail. However, we need to move quickly past this vote, accept that perhaps we need to be more selective in our leaders, and start working collectively towards a positive change in the future.

I have been VERY MUCH against the name change, mainly because of the way it was handled, but also because of the "data" and the marketing juggernaut coming out of HQ. There have been quite a few change at HQ, and perhaps we need more. This is association is by, for, and of the membership and as members, we need to take a more active role in it's management.

I have been involved at several levels and have always found the association useful, but the membership reticent. Very few people seem to want to take the time to get involved, and that is how we have come to the current point. Yes time is scarce and membership dues are costly, but paying dues and sitting still is the same as getting a paycheck and sitting at your desk.

Attitudes about who we are and what we do will never change based on marketing or name changes. You MUST get out from behind the desk and start building networks in your institutions, academic, corporate, or otherwise. Until the folks in positions of power have a name, a face, and a solid performance to connect, you and we will be on the bottom of the list.

Yes we are librarians, researchers, knowledge managers, analysts, etc. but until "they" know what we do and how valuable it is to the institution things will never change.

The leadership of SLA and the folks at HQ can and should be out there at all kinds of conferences proselytizing the value and merits of our membership, but we as individuals need to be pounding the pavement as well. Get out of you office and join committees, request meetings with key players in the institution, take on difficult challenges for special projects, and show your worth to the institution. THAT is the only way attitudes will change.

This is the same thing that I struggle with as a gay man. I can sit around and wait for the laws to change, forcing people to accept me, or I can get out there in the trenches with my co-workers so that they can see that I have the same problems, issues, struggles, challenges, etc. that they face every day. It may not change how they feel about homosexuality, but at least they will be inclined to understand that I am just like they are and worthy of respect.

It has been my experience that lasting and meaningful change comes from hard work and building personal connections. Things are no different with SLA. We can call ourselves whatever we want as an individual or as an association, but in the end, it is the demonstration of our abilities to key people that will change their minds, not a new acronym.

Let's work together to celebrate our diversity, keep a portion our history, and work towards a bright and industrious future. No on ASKPro, but YES to our association!

[KLS]

I was thinking about joining SLA, and may do so. But I did not like the proposed name and certainly it appeared as though the people behind it thought it was a done deal. -They- failed to persuade the association that the change was the right one. How effete to use such phraseology as "members failed to approve". The -measure- failed and that distinction is important. Still, time to toss the sour grapes and move on.

[Lynn M. Lewis]

Yes, I agree with Arik. Perhaps we can look at this adventure as a first step in developing an organizational name which will more clearly represent all of us. I hope internal (member) dialog will continue and, perhaps, from that internal discussion an acceptable name will emerge which will more truly reflect our diverse membership.

[Shannon Walker]

The first rule of marketing is to know your customer, in this case the general membership, SLA's customer base. This outcome seems to have been known before the vote was launched.

Ironically, I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of the project, that members need to focus on improving and communicating VALUE to their clients. I'm a student soon to graduate into a field with few jobs because value hasn't been communicated well in the past and libraries are downsizing and closing. A "library" by any name smells sweet if it does the job. My corporate coworkers joked I was the "information goddess;" that was pretty sweet!

Perhaps, as with the Matarazzo studies, there are methodological issues in this round of research. Were certain segments of the corporate sector over-represented? Bias may be revealed by what questions are asked (and not asked) and of whom, as well as how they are phrased.

Leading SLA is like herding cats and I don't envy the job of leadership. I thank the leadership for their efforts; I know their aim is to improve the status of members and their work. Please, survey the membership to better understand their values, goals, and knowledge gaps with respect to alignment, even and perhaps especially if it means sometimes these hurt us in the marketplace. At this point, we need researchers willing to ask tough questions more than we need sales pitches.

[WJR]

I agree with Ken Wheaton - SLA members/leadership should focus on modelling the behaviour the proposed name implied, and the actual name will not matter a whit.

[Not My Usual Alias]

Putting on my parliamentarian hat for a moment, "Failed to approve" is a correct term to use.
See http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&num=100&q=%22Failed+to+approve%22+vote&aq=f&oq=&aqi= that I could encode into html, but I prefer to be persnickety.

Had the vote gone the other way, the membership would have approved the motion.

[Betsy R]

The biggest problem with this initiative is, the way it was presented, it exposed the wide divide within the association. Those for this name were painted as forward-thinking association patriots by supporters and as haters of librarians by opponents. Those against the name were backward, neanderthals unable to cope with a new world by opponents and the true defenders of the profession by supporters. That the truth lies somewhere in the middle is irrelevant; the hurt feelings and schism will not go away because the vote is over.

The association leadership has opened this potentially explosive can of worms seemingly without a plan for putting the association back together. Were they caught by surprise? Given the "L" vs. "I" debates just within my small MLIS program, I can't believe they were.

Incredibly harsh words have been said by both supporters and opponents, people are angry, hurt and upset. How can the association move forward and get beyond this disaster?

[Sharon Faye Wilbur]

I am a life member of SLA. I am also retired after 45 years of being both a special librarian and a public librarian. I was dismayed with the new name. I was one of those who opposed it. I am happy that the majority of librarians took pride in the term .

[Johnny Hill]

I am a student and will be graduating next year. I have been a member for only one year now. I was whole heartedly against the new proposed name. I also do not like the term "failed" in the press release whether it is "proper" to use the term or not should not have been the issue. The point is that this has been a very devisive topic and has truly hurt the associaion very deeply. Those at HQ should have realized this in wording the press release in this manner would only increase the tension. There are a great many things that are "Ok" to do, but common sense tells us not to do so. I was very excited to join SLA and to get involved because it had a great reputation. However, the millions of emails about this issue were not only annoying but also showed that this issue had caused the members and administrators to behave like petulent children. I currently plan to continue my membership and continue to try to find ways to get involved. I hope that we can move forward and work together.