Although I am pleased to see this discussion forum emerge out of very heated debate on the LA list groups, I would like to feel assured that we do not have to accept LA policy as given and immutable.

One of the things I have noticed about this debate in general is that, where individual members disagree with LA policy, LA staff will publish a justification for the current state of affairs and this tends to feel like the end of the story. I think there are some issues - advertising in Appointments, collective bargaining, chartering - which at least a few members have expressed concerns about. I would like to see some documented support for the LA position on these issues and, if more than a few members are still not in agreement, some kind of democratic mechanism in place for requesting and voting on changes in policy.

I agree with Kathryn Waugh, and would add that I am concerned that a regular LA response is to imply that the "moaners" have only themselves to blame because they have not put themselves up for election to Council or some other LA committee.

The implication here is that the views of Council members will bear more weight than those of ordinary members - with the best will in the world we can't *all* get elected!

I would like to see more democracy introduced via the use of listservs. When a matter is due for debate, Council members should host a discussion in advance, along the lines of what is happening today, canvassing the views of as many members as possible before decisions are made. Those views should also be published, so that members can see if Council is doing what they really want, or has fallen back on the "smoke-filled room" approach. You never know - with a more open approach, you might actually get more people standing for office!

This is a really important issue and I'm grateful to you Kathryn for adding it to the discussion. I suppose the technical term is "governance" - and the issue is how we can make the governance of the Association more inclusive and responsive. This is actually something I'll be discussing this afternoon - we have a meeting of the Implementation Working Group and structures of governance for the new unified LA/IIS body is on the agenda; so you're both instantly influencing policy!

Which picks up your point John about the use of e-lists. I agree; and one thing we need to do (probably as one of the changes which will make the new unified body different from the "old" LA)is make optimum use of processes of e-governance. We'll also make use of lots of advisory panels which will, we hope, be more involving and inclusive - and less bureaucratic and time consuming - than the existing structure of committees.

Currently the formal answer on structures of governance is that the policies of the LA are determined by the Council of the LA as the democratically elected body which represents the members of the LA. This will always be the case. What is important is that we create a network of routes by which members' views can be expressed to Council which is as inclusive and accessible as possible. Today's experiment is part of that process; and everything that comes up in today's discussion will be fed in to next week's meeting of the LA's Policy & Resources Committee. On that, you have my word.

Thanks again for your comments. My next meeting (the IWG one) is in 40 minutes and I haven't had any lunch yet. So I'll sign off until later in the afternoon. Talk to you all later..

I agree with Kathryn and John very much. We are not 'moaners', we are people, like others, who are very concerned about our profession. Much of the L.A.s response to matters of concern to members seems to be this is how things are and should always be. Something which I feel was a bit undemocratic (rather like censorship) was when I sent an item about salary and status for publication in the June L.A. Record and it did not appear - not even the last paragraph which invites people to contact me with their views on this and union representation. I have worked in a newspaper and, therefore, know something about editorial decisions and how they are reached.
You may have seen my message in another discussion area which really should be in two discussion areas. It was seeing what has already been said that led me to do this - I hope it has not unduly inconvenienced you.

Confession is supposed to be good for the soul - so I gladly confess that in my 25-year long membership of the LA I have never once voted for anyone in a Council election. This is partly laziness on my part, but mainly because I have never come across a single person who has stood for Council in that time. This year marks a signal departure for me in that at long last we have a President whose name meant something to me before he/she became President! (We met in 1974, so I don't expect to be remembered!)

The point of this comment is that there must be plenty of us out here who are in the same boat. We work in relatively small units and don't get out much. We don't therefore come across the great and the good of librarianship in our daily lives and so don't know them from Adam and Eve. We don't therefore feel as involved in the profession as others might do, so we don't vote and we don't volunteer.

I therefore welcome moves to put this situation right, and I await with interest more details about the "advisory panels" that Bob mentions. I would be concerned if these turn out to be Labour-Party-stlye "focus groups" which say little that is controversial and are ignored when they do, and I would certainly hope that these make use of available technology so that they don't become "London centred". If they look to be a useful medium for real progress, I would certainly consider volunteering for inclusion on such a panel.

I ought to mention that the formation of local groups like SLIM, SLIL and SLIC is a positive move to break down communication barriers in the industrial and commercial sector, and let's hope that more such groups arise [Can I suggest SLITHER - Special Librarians in The Highlands and Easter Ross - and SLIPPER - Special Librarians in Pudsey, Pontefract and the East Riding. OK, we don't have to be serious all the time, do we?]

I love the acronyms John - this could start a new topic area! I agree with you about breaking down the "great and the good" syndrome - I hope we can do this through the advisory panels and through local groups - and also through e-communication which does seem to have the effect of democratising debate. I take your point Trevor about correspondence being curtailed in the Record. It's very frustrating to have to fit news and views into a preordained packages of pages and spaces - which is one reason why we're integrating our Record team and our website team; using the web will enable publication of more extensive correspondence.

Thanks both.

Having read through the various posts and from chatting with other librarians I wonder how successful a single issue candidate would be for LA Council or President? A useful analogy is the success of the UK Independence Party in forcing one issue up the political agenda. Obviously such a candidate would focus on radical action on low pay for librarians rather than the EU!! I think one would be surpised just how many members would support such a candidate.

regards,
Ian A. Jones