The ALA Debate on Restructuring:
Which Organizational Structure Will Prevail?

A great deal of discussion and controversy at ALA's Annual Conference in Chicago this past summer was the result of a plan proposing a restructuring of ALA. Formed over three years ago, the Organizational Self Study Committee (OSSC) developed a widely distributed, eight-page "draft proposal" for changing the membership structure of ALA. Although the plan was never formally submitted to ALA Council, the plan attempted to replace the structure of divisions, offices, services, and round tables with a new organizational plan. The OSSC said ALA would be more flexible for members, more friendly to new members, and that the plan would result in a more holistic organization for ALA. Debate was heated on all sides. It was speculated by many round table representatives that the OSSC had a hidden agenda and that the proposal was created to put the round tables out of business. A number of meetings took place in 1995, starting with an open meeting with members of the OSSC and division representatives present, as well as the press. Two primary questions were raised during this meeting about the proposed restructuring: 1) How does the plan address ALA's fiscal issues and 2) How do the round tables fit in the proposed structure?

When the proposal was discussed at ALA's Council meeting in Chicago, representatives of the round tables expressed fierce opposition to the plan, perceiving that they were being relegated to "special interest groups." OSSC members have stated that the committee's intent was to get ALA members involved in ALA in as many ways as possible. Four societies were proposed: Public, Academic, School, and Specialized. Eleven centers were proposed: Technology, Legislation, Intellectual Freedom, Children and Youth, Education for Library and Information Services, International Relations, Library Advocates, Reference/Information Services, Organization/Preservation of Information, Leadership and Management, Literacy and Outreach. A final category was one called "special interest groups." Although round tables generally assumed they were being given the status of SIGS, this was not the intention of the OSSC.

The OSSC did not formally present the plan to Council, but asked for an additional six months to prepare for a final presentation. They also recommended that a follow-up committee be established, and the new Structure Revision Task Force was created, with members from the ALA Executive Board, divisions, round tables, OSSC and staff in equal proportion. The chair of the committee is Sarah Pritchard, and the task force will include two representatives of the round tables. The task force's purpose is to further explore proposals for revising the structure of ALA, to encourage further debate and to bring back a recommendation in the summer of 1997. To read an in-depth article on the restructuring plan, see the lead article written by Stuart C. A. Whitwell, associate publisher of American Libraries, in the July/August 1995 issue of American Libraries. Much of this summary is based upon Whitwell's article in American Libraries which provides extensive details on the plan and the reaction to the plan in Chicago at Annual.