September 27, 1999
Proceedings of the 92nd Annual Meeting of the American Association of Law Libraries
Held in Washington, D.C. July 17-22, 1999
Wednesday Afternoon Session Two
President Heller: In the interest of managing time for this item, 40 minutes have been allotted for discussion of Article IV. No member may speak for more than two minutes. For each amendment, we will allow four speakers: a proposer, two individuals to speak in opposition to the proposal, and one more individual to speak in favor of the proposal. If we wish to extend discussion beyond the 40 minutes, it will require a two-thirds vote of those present. Any objections? Hearing none, we will begin.
Here's where we left off. At level one, we had the Board proposal, which is the yellow colored document distributed earlier and published in AALL Spectrum back in April. At level two, we have Estes #1, the Open Membership proposal. When we concluded our business yesterday, we had a third level, the Albert Brecht proposal on blue paper, which was submitted to replace the Estes proposal.
No amendments can be brought for a level three motion. We will vote it up or down as it is written. A 'yes' vote on the Brecht proposal kills the Estes #1 proposal. It can't be considered again. A 'no' vote on the Brecht proposal means we will vote on the Estes #1 proposal. If that happens, that would then be a vote to replace the Board proposal.
If the Brecht proposal succeeds, other amendments, except for Estes #1, which would be replaced, may be introduced. If there is a 'no' vote on the Brecht Proposal and Estes #1 succeeds, other amendments-except the Executive Board proposal which will have been replaced-may be introduced.
Everybody got that? Well, I can't say it any clearer.
Unidentified Speaker: Mr. President, I just noticed there was no Estes #2 addressed in your description.
President Heller: That's right. Estes #2 has not been brought forward. There may never be an Estes #2, or there might be. We'll see.
So here's where we are. We are voting on the Brecht proposal, which would be a substitute for Estes #1. The proposer, Albert Brecht, may speak for two minutes. Then we may have two other individuals speak in opposition to it. I suggest that those two individuals be from the-if I may say this-two different camps-the Board support camp and the Estes support camp, and then another person may speak in favor of it from the Brecht camp.
Are all those your people over there, Al? (Laughter) You've got two minutes.
Mr. A. Brecht: Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, let me thank everyone for their indulgence. As a firm believer in democracy, I know this is messy, but I think if people get heard on these important issues, at least we can live with the results better, whatever the vote is. I know I feel that way.
Just to go through my proposal very quickly, at the very top of the first amendment, by adding 'educational institution' there, my intention is to have qualify as active members people who work at such institution'in the library, in the school (or whatever name they're being called this week), in teaching legal research, and in doing other such things in the institution.
A second amendment is basically to delete the right of associate members to serve as committee chairs and to vote in elections.
The third amendment on that page is to make that language-being a committee chair and voting in elections-limited to the rights of active members.
Just a couple of things. The Board did a wonderful thing, I guess it was a year and a half or so ago, by conducting a major survey that showed a large majority of our members want a somewhat more open membership, and they do not want vendors to have the right to serve on the Board. I think we are obligated to send the membership a mail ballot which reflects their wishes. I think we must approve amendments that reflect the members' wishes, either by going with amendments that reflect those wishes or by following the Board's proposal which again reflects the goals of opening the membership more while at the same time prohibiting vendors from actually being Board members. Thank you.
President Heller: Thank you, Albert. Those wishing to speak against it?
Mr. Kenneth Hirsh (Duke University School of Law, Durham, North Carolina): I would like to speak against this proposal because many of us who work in computing services, either in in law libraries or in support of them, fear that by attempting to restrict vendors, you may be restricting us in the role we play in the organization. And to that end I just want to briefly read a resolution adopted this morning by the Computing Services Special Interest Section:
Whereas law librarians and legal information services professionals dealing with computing technology and serving the legal information needs of lawyers, law students, faculty, the courts and the public, are on the leading edge of a changing profession; and
Whereas such librarians and information professionals believe the American Association of Law Libraries is the professional organization that best represents their interests and affords them the best opportunity for professional growth and leadership; and
Whereas restrictions on rights and pillages of law library and legal information services professionals will deny AALL the leadership services of the next generation of these professionals.
Therefore be it resolved that the Computing Services Special Interest Section recommends adoption of a Bylaws amendment granting all rights of membership, including the right to serve in all elective offices, to all its members who further the objectives of the organization in their professional capacity.
President Heller: Thank you. Is there a second person wishing to speak against the Brecht Proposal?
Ms. K. Todd: I would vote 'no' to this Brecht proposal for reasons which have been stated eloquently by Ken Hirsh. For another reason, I think it defines too closely those who can belong to this Association.
One point that's not been made before but which another librarian raised with me was the fact that when law librarians lose their jobs, they must immediately take associate status and lose the ability to serve on the Board. Under this proposal, they would also lose the ability to chair a committee or to vote. I would urge a 'no' vote to this proposal.
President Heller: Thank you. Is there a second person who wants to speak in favor of the Brecht proposal?
Mr. A. White (Howard University, Washington, D.C.): Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the Brecht Amendment. I think it is worthwhile to take into consideration the concerns that the Computing Services SIS raised. By including educational institutions, we encourage those people who work in libraries, for libraries, and in information centers, to be members-active members, full-fledged members'with all voting rights. It further takes into consideration those people who work in law schools who are not librarians, but have been long time librarians and continue to work for the interest of the institution.
I think it's imperative that we exclude those people who have inherent conflicts of interest from holding membership, from being members of the Board, and from serving as committee chairs. We should be encouraging them to be associate members. I don't believe that we have encouraged that fully enough. We should welcome our vendor friends and those people interested in joining us, but they should join us as associate members. Thank you.
President Heller: Thank you. It is time to vote.
The Brecht proposal substitutes for the Estes #1 proposal. If there is a 'yes' vote on the Brecht proposal, it replaces Estes #1. It does not replace the Board proposal.
We'll do this by standing. All those in favor of the Brecht proposal, please stand. You may sit. All those opposed? You may sit. Opposed wins. The Brecht proposal moves off to the side.
Now we have before us Estes #1. The motion for Estes #1 would have that proposal substitute for the Board's proposal. If Estes #1 succeeds, it kills the Board's proposal. Mark.
Mr. M. Estes: I urge the adoption of this proposal because it opens full rights of membership to all persons who support the objectives of the Association. In these trying times of many challenges from many sources, we must have as much creativity as we can to bring to bear on the issues before us.
We must be able to vote for those we find most qualified to serve on the Executive Board. We must permit the president and vice-president to appoint people to serve on committees who they feel best meet the needs of the Association.
We must trust individual members to comply with ethical policies adopted by the Board concerning conflict of interest.
We can trust ourselves to vote intelligently for the best people. This gives us all the most rights and opportunities and gives us a chance to flourish as an Association. Thank you.
President Heller: Thank you. We have two speakers in opposition. Let me ask that if what you are hearing from the first speaker is the same thing that you want to say or you're in that camp, consider letting someone else speak.
Ms. L. Chanin: I would urge the membership to vote against this proposal regardless of your attitudes toward the initial Board proposal.
As many of you know, I opposed the original Board proposal. However, even though it is far more open and contains things I find extremely objectionable, I would prefer to have the Board proposal for this reason. This amendment, as drafted, is extremely strange. It defines an active member as someone who 'supports' the objectives, et cetera, of the Association and an associate member as someone who is 'interested in' them.
Now I guess the Board is going to have to make the subjective decision between one who 'supports' and one who is 'interested.' In reality, you don't have to make any distinction, because what we're really discussing as an Association is not who is a member but the rights of membership, which is an important difference. In reality, it doesn't make any difference whether you're an active member or an associate member because Mark's proposal then states the right of members with one exception, of course, and that's the right to hold elective office, which only active members can do.
In my opinion, with all due respect to my colleague Mr. Estes, it is a poorly drafted Bylaw, one that we would have to live with for at least one year and maybe two, since it takes a long time to draft a Bylaw. I would urge members, whatever their attitudes toward open or closed memberships, to defeat this particular amendment. (Applause)
President Heller: Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak against Estes #1? Hearing none, is there another person who wants to speak in favor of Estes #1?
Ms. K. Todd: The language in this amendment, in the associate definition, actually comes from our current Bylaw. I would suggest to the proposer a friendly amendment, if you will accept it, which would take out the first category of associate member, since anyone who supported the objectives of the Association could fold in as an active member. That would leave us with only the two categories, which, for either monetary or other process reasons, should be separated: the student and the honorary categories. Mark, would you take that as a friendly amendment?
Mr. M. Estes: Mr. Chair, is that permitted under Sturgis?
President Heller: We will need a motion.
Ms. K. Todd: I move that the Estes Proposal #1 be amended to delete sub-subsection number 1 under Article IV, section 1, subsection (b), and to change the following two sub-subsections to numbers 1 and 2.
President Heller: We need a second.
Unidentified Speaker: I second.
President Heller: We are now voting on the Todd Amendment to Estes Proposal #1. Does everyone know how it reads now?
Unidentified Speaker: No.
President Heller: We're voting on the Todd Amendment. What Kay has proposed is that in subsection (b), Associate Members, everything under number 1 disappears. So where it says 'other persons who are interested,' everything up until 'library governing boards' disappears. Correct? And then number 2, a 'student member' is renumbered 1, and 3, a 'person who has made extraordinary contributions,' et cetera, is renumbered 2.
Right? Everybody got it? So what we're voting on is the Todd Amendment to Estes #1.
Unidentified Speaker: Open to discussion?
President Heller: Discussion is in order.
Unidentified Speaker: I would like to point out that that would also delete the specific mention of the category of 'Members of Library Governing Boards.' We've had some members of library governing boards that have been coming to the meetings for the last several years, and it's been very helpful to us.
President Heller: I would suggest that with the Todd change, anybody can be a member of the Association, be a full member of the Association, except for student members and except for honorary members. Is that correct?
Mr. A. Brecht: Mr. President, just a clarification. Does this then mean that everybody except the students and a person who has made extraordinary contributions, et cetera, everybody else will come in as an active or retired member?
President Heller: I believe that is correct, that everybody would have all rights and privileges, including the right to receive our publications, to sit on and chair committees, to vote, and to run for elective office.
Mr. A. Brecht: So, then, if you go to the very bottom of the page, then everybody including the vendors is an active member, and the vendors can be on the Board, which I would just argue again is in opposition to our membership survey that showed that the vast majority of our members do not want the vendors to be able to serve on the Board.
Mr. A. White: Mr. President, I'm concerned that if we delete number 1, then we've relegated students to having no voting rights whatsoever and we've elevated vendors to those rights. Furthermore, I'm concerned that we would be virtually eliminating associate membership for those people who were interested in the objectives of the organization but weren't prepared to be full voting members, to be full members. I think that might have cost implications for those members as well.
President Heller: I think we need to honor our rules about the number of people speaking for amendments to amendments, which means that no one else may speak. Right? Right. Okay, we're going to vote on the Todd Amendment.
Mr. A. White: Question?
President Heller: Yes?
Mr. A. White: I'm unclear at this point what I'm voting on.
President Heller: Okay. We're taking out section 1 of (b). We're taking out section 1(b)(1).
Mr. A. White: Right. Now, I want to clearly understand. So what we have done is said that any person who supports the objectives of the Association can be a member. Correct?
President Heller: That is the proposal.
Mr. A. White: Maybe my question, just to make everyone think for a second, you're saying if you have an objective you support it. Then let's look down and just think about your associate members. I can be a student, I can be anything else and have an objective to support the thing. So why . . .
President Heller: You are arguing, you're talking about substance now.
Mr. A. White: No, I . . .
President Heller: You asked'quiet please. You asked for a clarification. I gave it. We're not talking about substance anymore.
Mr. A. White: Okay. So the question is . . .
President Heller: Sit down, please. Do we need any more clarification on this?
Mr. A. White: A point of clarification, I guess I should say first. How is the issue of whether someone supports the objectives of the Association to be determined?
President Heller: That is a substantive question. We're not going to discuss it. This is what you have before you. If you like it, pass it. If you don't like it, don't pass it.
Are we ready to vote? All in favor please stand. Be seated. All opposed please stand. Be seated. Now that vote was for the Todd Amendment. Now we will go to Estes #1 as written.
Unidentified Speaker: What was the result of the vote on the Todd Amendment?
President Heller: The result is we have this the way it appears. The motion for the Todd Amendment was defeated.
Okay. Now we're voting on Estes #1 as it appears on the orange sheet. If you like it and if you want this to defeat the Board proposal, vote yes. All in favor please stand. Please be seated. Those opposed, please stand. The Chair rules that this is defeated.
We are now left with our level one proposal, which has been moved and seconded. Now we can accept other amendments. Mr. Estes?
Mr. M. Estes: Mr. President, I move the adoption of a substitute for Article IV, as you shortened the nomenclature, Estes #2. That's on your green sheets.
This proposal would implement the Board proposal in a way that clearly permits the active membership of deans of library schools and chief knowledge officers in law firms. You'll note that the exceptions who are denied, if you will, full active membership, are clearly enunciated in the associate membership category. Those categories denied active membership are those which we appear to prefer not to grant that status to at this time, but it does permit and extend full active membership to anyone else, including those who are between jobs.
President Heller: Thank you. This was seconded yesterday. We'll now have up to two people speak against it, for up to two minutes.
Ms. L. Chanin: Mr. President, would you please rule if I can move an amendment to Mr. Estes' proposal? I wish to amend Section 2(a), a section that has not been discussed up until this time. Am I permitted to move an amendment to his proposal?
President Heller: Could you clarify what you wish to do?
Ms. L. Chanin: On page two of the yellow Board proposal, I call the attention of members to Section 2(a), which begins with 'Members in All Categories.' That's on page two of the yellow Board's proposal. The final sentence of Section 2(a) is a change in our Bylaws. Under this Board proposal, it says Special Interest Sections may adopt policies governing the rights of their members.
My problem with that, Mr. President and members, is that the present Bylaw states that they may adopt policies governing the rights of their members; and then the second section, which has been deleted by the Board proposal, is that they may not conflict with the Association rules or the Association Bylaws.
I think it is a bad omission when you say that they do not have to harmonize with the Association rules because we are one Association. Our chapters are separate entities, although affiliated with us, but our SIS sections are nothing more than our arms. What we have done here by taking it out of Article X and putting it in II, which is fine, and saying merely Special Interest Sections may adopt policies but leaving off the provision regarding the conflict, is to allow Special Interest Sections to have different membership rules, different rights of memberships than the Association has.
If I'm permitted to amend the motion, I will move to strike the Special Interest Section sentences and let the Bylaws Committee wrestle with what they're going to do. Just leave the present thing there because I would suggest that they put that back in.
President Heller: What is your motion specifically?
Ms. L. Chanin: My motion is to strike 'Special Interest Sections may adopt policies.' Strike that sentence.
President Heller: So you just want to leave the part that says 'governing the rights of their members?'
Ms. L. Chanin: I want to leave it alone because then by implication, whatever the body adopts ultimately will apply to all parts of the Association. I wish to strike the sentence that begins 'Special Interest Sections' on page two.
President Heller: What's going to be in its place, nothing?
Ms. L. Chanin: Mr. Estes proposal would really be amending section 2, Rights of Members. On his green sheet, it's the same thing. It says 'Special Interest Sections.' Under his proposal, section 2, 'Special Interest Sections may adopt policies . . .'
President Heller: What is on the table is the green sheet. You need to suggest what you want that to say, or that it doesn't say anything.
Ms. L. Chanin: I suggest we strike it. I don't want to be drafting Bylaws on the floor of this conference.
President Heller: So you would have us delete the sentence in section 2a, Rights of Members, which reads 'Special Interest Sections may adopt polices governing the rights of their members?'
Ms. L. Chanin: Yes, sir. That's my motion.
President Heller: Okay. Do we have a second?
Unidentified Speaker: Second.
President Heller: Discussion?
Mr. James Milles (Case Western Reserve University Law School Library, Cleveland, Ohio): I'd like to speak to the substance of Leah Chanin's objection here. I do not believe that there is any conflict with AALL Bylaws. As I read this, this would permit a Special Interest Section to have a rule that associate members may run for chair of the SIS. An SIS may not adopt a rule that says a member may run for the Executive Board of the Association. I don't believe there's a conflict here.
President Heller: Okay, thank you. Any other comments?
Okay. We're voting on the proposal. The motion is to strike the last sentence in section 2a, so that provision would end with...'belong to Special Interest Sections, to serve on and chair committees, and to vote in elections.'
All in favor, please stand. Thank you. All opposed? That motion is defeated.
Now we're back to comment on Estes #2. I believe we have still two people who may speak against it and another person who maybe speak for it.
Mr. F. Drake: Mr. Chairman, may I propose another amendment to the second section?
President Heller: Yes, you may. At the risk of severe bodily harm, you may. (Laughter.)
Mr. F. Drake: Well, I can stand to lose a little here. I am proposing an amendment to section 2, Rights of Members, paragraph a, to make it read, 'Members in all categories have the right to receive the Law Library Journal and AALL Spectrum, to belong to Special Interest Sections, to serve on AALL committees, and to vote in elections.' In other words, to delete the words 'and chair' and to delete the final sentence.
President Heller: And to delete the final sentence?
Mr. F. Drake: And delete the final sentence.
President Heller: Which final sentence?
Mr. F. Drake: Of that paragraph.
President Heller: The Special Interest Sections sentence?
Mr. F. Drake: Yes, sir.
President Heller: We already turned that one down.
Mr. F. Drake: No, that was not this amendment. This amendment, besides deleting that, also deletes 'and chair.' It's two deletions.
President Heller: Hold on a second. I need to figure out exactly what you're proposing. We have already voted on your proposal.
Mr. F. Drake: I would only then delete the words 'and chair'.
President Heller: Okay. Thank you. Do we have a second for that?
Unidentified Speaker: Second.
President Heller: Here's the proposal. I'll read the whole thing for you. We are at section 2, Rights of Members, subsection a. 'Members in all categories have the right to receive LLJ, AALL Spectrum, to belong to Special Interest Sections, to serve on AALL committees and to vote.' Correct?
Mr. F. Drake: Yes.
President Heller: Okey. We are going to vote on that amendment. Any further discussion of that amendment?
Unidentified Speaker: You didn't read the rest of the paragraph as it stands.
President Heller: Oh, you're right. I'm sorry. And the Special Interest Section sentence stays in.
Mr. Jerry Dupont (Law Library Microform Consortium, Kaneohe, Hawaii): I'm just bringing up a practical objection. That means we will have no chairs on our committees because no members will have the right to serve as chair. (Laughter)
President Heller: All's I do is report what's going on. (Laughter)
Mr. F. Drake: As an idiot, I stand to withdraw that amendment as stated. (Laughter)
President Heller: Is there any objection to withdrawing the amendment? For the Nominations Committee, please take note of extreme common sense when deciding who to nominate. (Laughter)
Okay. Now we still have an opportunity for two people to oppose Estes Proposal #2. Does anyone want to speak against it? Does anyone else want to speak on behalf of it?
Mr. K. Hirsh: Mr. President, speaking on behalf of myself, I believe this proposal addresses the issues raised earlier by me and voiced in the Computing Services SIS resolution. Thank you.
Ms. C. Nicholson: I am speaking in opposition to this amendment because the way it's written it seems like if you're interested in legal information, you can be a member, unless you're in one of these three categories. So it's like everybody else in the world can be an active member except people in these three categories, and I think that's a little bit strange.
President Heller: That is the proposal.
Ms. K. Todd: I support this proposal as being a clean way of dealing with what has been felt to be the sense of the members about the ethical concerns of having someone from the information industry serving on our Executive Board.
I would urge its adoption because what I think it does is provide for those who are not quite in the traditional mode of working in a law library but may actually be training legal researchers. They may be chief knowledge officers and others. It also provides for those who have a continuing allegiance to our profession but may take a leave of absence or lose their jobs to continue their participation. So I would urge a 'yes' vote on this amendment.
President Heller: Thank you. As Chair, I think it's my prerogative to ask a question. If a person who supports the Association and who works with or is interested in legal information, et cetera, can be an active member, an active member does not have to work in a library, right?
Now, when you get to your retired part, it says 'any person who: (a) has been an active member for more than 10 years, and (b) has retired from library work.' So this seems to imply, by my interpretation, that if you were an active member but you were not in library work, you cannot be a retired member. Am I reading this wrong?
Mr. M. Estes: Mr. President, I believe you are reading that correctly. This language is virtually directly out of our current Bylaws. What the retired membership category accords are certain rights and benefits to a member, which typically means that they pay less dues. We have historically felt that there was some serious concern with people working for a short time as a librarian, being an active member, and then retiring from librarianship and getting full rights and benefits but without paying full dues.
To avoid addressing this particular issue of what a retired member really is or is not, I propose the same language as we have in the current Bylaws. Not the Board proposal but the existing Bylaws.
President Heller: Okay. I just wanted clarification. So in order to be in the retired category, you have to be retired from library work. Okay.
We have concluded our discussion, unless there is any clarification needed.
Unidentified Speaker: Mr. President, I was going to offer an amendment to substitute for the language of (A)(2)(b). Rather than have 'retired from library work,' I would substitute the language 'and is no longer professionally active.'
President Heller: That needs to be moved.
Unidentified Speaker: So moved.
Unidentified Speaker: Second.
President Heller: We have a second. Do you want to repeat it again so you all understand what you're proposing.
Unidentified Speaker: Yes, and I may not have the best language for it so I'll also state my intent.
President Heller: No, you've got to give us the language.
Unidentified Speaker: First, I'm giving you the language. Substitute for Article IV, Section 1(A)(2)(b) 'has retired from library work,' the alternative language of 'no longer professionally active.' That's the amendment.
President Heller: Okay.
Unidentified Speaker: The intent is if you retire from whatever work you are doing that let you be an active member, you can be a retired member regardless of whether that was, quote, 'library work.'
President Heller: Do we have a second on that?
Unidentified Speaker: Second.
President Heller: Yes, we do. So section 1, subsection A(2) would read as follows: 'Retired: any person who: (a) has been an active member for more than 10 years, and (b) is no longer professionally active.' Correct? Discussion?
All in favor please stand. All opposed? I think we're going to have to count. Would everybody please be seated again. Can I get clarification myself at this point? Under this proposal, a person does not have to be a, quote, 'professional' in order to be an active member. Is there a problem when you use the words 'is no longer professionally active?'
Unidentified Speaker: There may be, and I don't know that there's an easy way to address it, but the point is, obviously, you want a way for people who no longer have sufficient income or activity to pay full dues to have an alternative way to be members, and perhaps there's a better way to do that. But that's why I offered the amendment.
President Heller: Thank you. One of the risks of drafting on the floor. Do we have the counters ready? All right. All in favor of that amendment, please stand. (Votes counted by proctors.) All those opposed, please stand. (Votes counted by proctors.) Okay. You all may be seated. The vote is 69 in favor, 133 opposed. The motion fails.
So I believe we are left with Estes Proposal #2, in the green. We've had discussion of this. The only questions now are for clarification unless someone wants to make amendments to it. I don't know who was at the microphone first. Center microphone.
Mr. C. Dyer: I just had a question under Associate Members. One of the definitions is 'employed as a non-librarian member of the information industry.' If a member of the information industry has an M.L.S., does that mean they can be an active member? Maybe Mark wants to answer that.
President Heller: Well, he's the only person who can, I think.
Mr. M. Estes: 'Employed as a non-librarian' should address the employment requirement. To be direct and explicit, as proposed, this mimics the proposal the Board has made. It would permit the librarian at West, acting as a librarian, to be an active member. It would not permit Ann Ellis to be an active member because she is no longer employed as the librarian or a librarian. She does very effective work working with us, as does Michael Saint‑Onge for LEXIS, but they're not employed as librarians. This is virtually the same result as the Board proposal.
President Heller: Thank you. For clarification, the language that was used in the Board proposal is 'non-library employees of the information industry.' So the words are different. We're only taking amendments or clarification.
Ms. Donna Trimble (Bowman & Brooke, Minneapolis, Minnesota): This is a proposed amendment. Under section A(2)(b), change it to read: 'Has retired;' strike 'from library work.' That kind of solves your problem and it solves the 'professionally active' question by just saying 'retired.'
President Heller: I don't have a problem with anything. I'm just clarifying things.
Ms. D. Trimble: No, but your question about library work.
President Heller: Do we have a second?
Unidentified Speaker: Second.
President Heller: Okay. This provision on retired members would read: 'Any person who: (a) has been an active member for more than 10 years, and (b) has retired.'
Discussion? All in favor, please stand. All opposed, stand. The motion succeeds.
That section now reads 'Retired. Any person who: (a) has been an active member for more than 10 years, and (b) has retired, and (c) does not fall within any of the categories of associate membership.' That's what Estes #2 looks like now. Right? Okay.
Further clarification or amendments? Here's what we have. The motion is to substitute Estes #2 for the Board's proposal. If Estes #2 wins, the Board proposal is killed. We may have other amendments after that. If Estes #2 loses, we have the Board proposal. We may have other amendments after that.
Ms. K. Todd: A point of clarification, Mr. President. Actually, there is a lot more in the Board proposal. If this Estes #2 wins, then its language is substituted in those few sections that it relates to. The remainder of the Board proposal amending other sections would then be a part of the larger proposal that goes to the membership on the mail ballot.
President Heller: That is correct. This substitutes for Article IV, section 1 and section 2,' in the Board proposal.
Unidentified Speaker: Mr. President, just a point. I believe we're beyond our 40-minute time that you've established for something, and if we are beyond that 40-minute time...
President Heller: Correct. No. We have 3 minutes left.
Mr. A. White: Another clarification. I'm interested in section 1.B.(1)(i), which is 'employed as a non-librarian member of the information industry.' If I am a trucker working in a non-information industry, I can be an active member under this proposal. Is that correct, Mr. Estes? And if I'm working in the information industry, I am excluded. Am I reading that properly?
President Heller: You're welcome to answer that, Mark.
Mr. M. Estes: I ain't touching that one. (Laughter)
Ms. K. Todd: Well, less this be called the Trucking Amendment, let me personalize it further by saying that this proposal would permit Mary Hotchkiss when she goes on to the teaching faculty at the University of Washington and teaches legal research; it would permit Ellen Callinan; it would permit Guiliano Chicco, who's the chief knowledge officer at Monsanto; it would permit Don Dunn, the dean of his law school; and it would permit Roberta Shaffer, the dean of the Library School at the University of Texas, to be full members and it would enable us to benefit from their expertise, their interest, and perhaps, more importantly, their ongoing support.
President Heller: Let me suggest that we seem to be going back into the argument mode, which is not permitted. For clarification, the answer really should be a 'yes' or 'no.' We are going on dangerous ground when we start talking about examples or individuals.
Mr. A. White: Mr. President, I appreciate that. I believe the last comment was unresponsive to my question, and I still seek the point of clarification that I requested.
President Heller: Repeat the question.
Mr. A. White: The question is, am I reading it correctly when I read that a person who is a non-librarian member of any industry other than the information industry can be an active member, and that we are excluding information industry non-librarians only?
President Heller: Let's do this, yes or no.
Ms. L. Chanin: Mr. President, if you're going to have further questions or clarification, I would like you to get a ruling from the parliamentarian as to whether it is proper for members to respond to each other on the floor rather than having the chair respond. In addition, we cannot create a legislative history. What this means, we have to go with what the proposal says. And if you like it, vote yes. If you're concerned about it, vote no. (Applause)
President Heller: Are you ready to vote? All in favor of Estes #2, as amended, to replace the Board proposal, please stand. Thank you. Please be seated. All opposed?
We're going to count just to make sure. Everybody please be seated. Those in favor, please stand. (Votes counted by proctors.)
Will everybody in the middle section please stand again, those who are in favor of Estes #2 as amended. And you can't change sections. (Laughter) (Votes recounted by proctors.)
Now all opposed to Estes #2 as amended, please stand. (Votes counted by proctors.)
The vote is 97 in favor, 131 opposed. The amendment fails. We're left with the yellow sheet, Proposed Bylaws Revisions, Article IV.
Mr. S. Trosow: Is it in order to offer another amendment from the floor?
President Heller: To what?
Mr. S. Trosow: To the Board's proposal as contained on the entire yellow sheet.
President Heller: Only to Article IV. Article IV is before us now.
Mr. S. Trosow: Yes, it's in Article IV.
President Heller: Let me clarify where we are. What we are voting for is to send it to the members for a mail ballot in September. I'm sorry. If there's no amendment to it, it will go to the members. It's already been decided it will. The question now is only in what form it will be.
Mr. S. Trosow: I'd like to offer the following amendment to Article IV.
President Heller: First, I just want to clarify procedure. We're going to have the same rules as we had before. People speaking in favor of it, people may speak against it, and also clarifications or amendments.
Mr. S. Trosow: Section b(1), I would like to delete the following words: 'Non-library employees of the information industry.' And that's my amendment. Speaking in favor of it, if I may...
President Heller: We need a second. The amendment relates to the proposal on page two, where it says 'Associate Members: Other persons who are interested in the objectives of the Association and in legal information, including honorary members, students, and members of library governing boards.' Is that what you're proposing?
Mr. S. Trosow: Yes. I'm deleting 'non-library employees of the information industry.' That is all I'm proposing to delete.
President Heller: So you are suggesting that those individuals will be full, active members; is that right? Or no? What's the effect? Do we have a second?
Unidentified Speaker: Second.
President Heller: We have a second.
Mr. S. Trosow: My intention, if I'm stating it correctly is, I believe, to remedy the problem I stated yesterday, that the classification of non-library employees of the information industry is too broad. It's not my intention to make them active members, it's my intention to delete them from the list of associate members who also have other membership rights.
Now, I think that the language is too broad because it would mean that somebody that works for the Direct Market Association or Microsoft or any other number of corporations that have absolutely nothing to do with our field who are non-library employees, would have associate membership rights, and that disturbs me. I'm more disturbed with the Direct Marketing Association and Microsoft than I am with the truckers.
President Heller: Okay. We have a motion which has been seconded. The motion is to delete from the Associate Member category non-library employees of the information industry. Further discussion?
Ms. L. Chanin: Mr. President, I suggest that we defeat that amendment. Although I would like very much to speak in favor of it I cannot because we are now walking on ground that is very dangerous. We are standing here drafting things, not knowing what we're doing to all the other sections.
The other thing I wanted to say is . . . . My senioritis has taken over for the first time in my life. I can't remember what I wanted to say. (Laughter) I think we should not have any further amendments on this Article IV. That's my opinion. And I speak in opposition to that amendment.
President Heller: Thank you.
Mr. C. Dyer: I'm also opposed to the amendment. I do not think that that amendment has any actual effect in that a vendor could still become a member, as the wording would then read anyway. Those are only examples of people who could be members under that clause.
Furthermore, I would like to note that the American Library Association's Bylaw listing membership groups and associate members who have rights does include vendors, along with members of library governing boards and other honorary members. Thank you.
President Heller: Thank you.
Unidentified Speaker: Again, an inquiry to address the motion. As I read this, that would mean that vendors, therefore, can become active members. Is that what you intended? By taking them out of the associate class where they're explicitly mentioned, they have no place else to go but become active.
Mr. S. Trosow: No. I'm specifically addressing non-library employees. Whatever the first section on active membership says, it's not my intention to change it.
President Heller: Okay, thank you. Let me suggest what former President Chanin so wisely suggests. If you like it, vote it up; if you don't like it, vote it down. Are we ready to vote?
Mr. Nick Triffin (Pace University School of Law Library, White Plains, New York): I have a question. The question is addressed to the Treasurer. Could the Treasurer inform the membership how many dollars would be lost if associate members from library vendors were not allowed to be members?
President Heller: Could I try to do this? I believe we have about 92 associate members. And I believe we don't know what category of employee they are from, but the grand total is fewer than 100. Membership dues are about 140-something dollars. Are we ready to vote? All in favor of the Trosow amendment, please rise. (Laughter) Where's the camera when we need one? All opposed, please rise. Thank you. The motion fails. Coming around the bend.
Mr. Roger Jacobs (Notre Dame Law School, Notre Dame, Indiana): Mr. President, the extension of time having expired, I would like to call the question on Article IV.
Unidentified Speaker: I would second that. (Applause)
President Heller: I need to consult for a second. (The Chair consulted with the Parliamentarian.) There's a motion to close debate. It's been seconded. There is no debate on it. This must pass by a two-thirds vote.
All in favor, please rise. Thank you. Sit, please. All opposed, please stand. The motion succeeds.
Where are we now? We're done with Article IV, is that right? Okay. We'll go through the other articles one by one.
Article V. If you wish to speak, please rise.
There's no change in Article VII.
Okay. That concludes the discussion of the Bylaws issue. This will go to the membership. I will authorize a vote by the members in the fall. Thank you for your full participation and discussion. (Applause)