best wishes, Emma Emma Davidson, SLA NY President-Elect, Answers to SLA NY's questions at the Town Hall on 5/27:

Transcription

1 Jill Strand prefaced the Q&A session with an appreciation for all the members who had taken time to submit questions and comments and to attend the meeting. She set the context for this process - previous steps taken to address the decline in member numbers and revenues haven't worked, the choice facing SLA now is change or die. The consultants were asked to review EVERYTHING, and the Board feels that their recommendations are comprehensive and forward-looking (whilst also acknowledging that some of them raise eyebrows and induce heartburn). There are no easy answers. Jill also reminded us that the report sets out a strategic direction, they haven't begun to look at operational-level details yet. As soon as we receive the link to the recording we will share that, meanwhile here are some notes made during the live session. I've rearranged them slightly, with the questions posed by SLA New York first, and the other questions following. I believe I captured most of the points raised and addressed, though if you were listening and have different impressions please let me know! best wishes, Emma Emma Davidson, SLA NY President-Elect, emmadavidson2010@gmail.com Answers to SLA NY's questions at the Town Hall on 5/27: When will the consultants provide source materials / back up data for the recommendations provided? Cindy Shamel: No new source materials or data were created, rather the consultants went back over existing material - Governance reports, member surveys, Conference and Leadership feedback, Board documents, budget filings, also staff input, comments and s from members, and research into association best practices more generally. Since other Information Professional Organizations appear to be experiencing the same difficulties as SLA, reduction in Membership, Support from Business Partners, short fall in support for Annual Conference, was a merger considered? Cindy: All options were considered, a future merger hasn't been ruled out but they don't recommend it at this point. These recommendations would mean major changes for SLA as it currently exists - why is the time frame for discussion and comments so brief? Why have the thoughts of SLA members as well as current chapter and division leadership not been solicited at the broadest level? Tara Murray: This process began in January, since which point members have been encouraged to submit comments and suggestions. The process was upfront about referring to material which has already been created (with input from Chapters and Divisions) Under these recommendations, what is the vision for how the Chapters would operate and what they would be expected/encouraged to deliver? What would be the process for financing Chapter activities? I didn't see this addressed in the report. John di Gilio: Chapters deliver the most meaningful impression of SLA to its members, and Chapter activities need to continue and flourish. <some comment missing as John dropped out> Member participation needs to be prioritized over that by non-members. John noted that less than 1/3 of SLA members attend the national conference so local programs are critical.

2 Have there been any alternatives considered by the Consultants to look at a regional approach to creating an organization that supports all members at the local level? Simply encouraging members to attend the Annual Conference is not the answer. Cindy: There are lots of opportunities and options to deliver services and content including online courses; text based documents and webinars. Regional events are definitely worth considering as part of the wider strategy. What is the ROI and accountability for the use of up to 40% of chapter funds which SLA HQ will assess as well as chapter/division sponsorship money that SLA HQ will share based on the "franchise model". There is a lot in the report about how units benefit form the SLA brand, but very little about the ways in which the large chapters and divisions work to strengthen that brand, drive membership and contribute to volunteer efforts. John di G: the 40% is only an illustration of the concept of leveraging existing resources for the benefit of all members. WE ARE ALL ONE SLA. An assessment of this nature would enable units to participate in the further success of SLA. As conference related sponsorships & exhibit income are sharply down as noted on p 34 of the Consultants' recommendations report why will centralizing sponsorship address the threat of business partners adopting sales strategies not involving SLA exhibits and/or abandoning SLA altogether and addressing customers via other channels as mentioned as a threat on p 11 from the CRTF Final Report. Ulla de Stricker & John di G: Centralized relationships with business partners are intended to create long-term relationships, and move away from one-off sponsorships. Upselling by HQ allows for an increased $$ amount as well as imporving the ROI for the business partner. Units are definitely part of the bigger picture, and business partners can still choose to support local events, but increased collaboration should bring a win-win situation for all concerned. The saying that all politics is local, can also be applied to association memberships. However, the Membership Levels section (7) neither acknowledges this nor recommends strategies for enhanced communication and relationship building between HQ membership staff and chapter membership volunteers. This is a vital section of the new member pipeline that needs to be addressed. How will SLA HQ ensure that member recruitment and retention strategies are effectively communicated to and carried out with the help of chapter volunteers? Jill Strand: Membership Director, Paula Diaz, has a program underway which addresses this, and which will be helped by the new technology they're implementing. SLA doesn't just exist to have members but to deliver value to them, and living out this message should help with both retaining and attracting members. They are also planning to bring in better training for unit leaders, and take away some of the administrative burden of running units, both of which should free up time for more local activities as well as improving the chapter volunteer experience. Answers to questions submitted by other members and Chapters: If these changes go ahead, what infrastructure will be needed? Tom Rink: although no details have been worked out yet, HQ would need to hire more staff and reassign some of the current responsibilities. There would also be new ways for member volunteers to get involved. SLA will first make a commitment to the strategic vision and then fill in the particulars.

3 Are these recommendations a foregone conclusion? Jill Strand: The Board will vote on June 24th, taking into account member input, and then the implementation will be planned. Members will be able to vote on any bylaw changes which become necessary as the process moves forward. There is a perceived lack of support for new professionals, and advertised jobs seem mainly to be aimed at those with experience. Tara Murray: this doesn't mean that initiatives for new professionals such as the First Five Years Council would disappear, also the conference will continue - attending events and networking is the #1 way to increase your profile and access opportunities. How will Chapters seek sponsorship? Tara: The specifics will be worked out later, but the main idea is to free up Chapter leadership from the administrative burden of seeking/managing sponsorship and thereby giving them more time to focus on networking and other events. The proposed points/badge system for education is not a good idea as everyone will start with a blank slate, thereby disadvantaging more experienced members. Jill: Appreciate this perspective... <I'm afraid I didn't catch the rest of this response as the line went dead - was it just me? Please fill in if you did hear what Jill said!> What is the vision for the certification scheme? An ALA-style scheme would be welcomed, Click-U was supposed to provide this but the report proposes this should be terminated. Cindy Shamel: Recommendations are not currently including a certification scheme. A competencies-based approach to continuing professional development requires a deep commitment from SLA, and the plan is to take a phased approach to this. Will there still be provision for Divisional programs at conference? Also what will be the impact on social events like the IT dance party?! Tom R: Divisions will continue to recommend relevant topics and speakers, and social events will definitely remain an important part of the networking opportunities provided. Conference content should be specific and relevant, not generic. Also, what impact would these proposals, if adopted, have on the planning for the 2016 conference? Tom R: Agreed. The purpose of centralizing conference planning is to increase continuity (at present each conference is organized by a different group of people), not to make the content less relevant. The new framework would also see conference as the cornerstone of a year-round cycle of comprehensive and coordinated learning opportunities. Impact on 2016 remains to be determined by how implementation progresses. What is meant by the line in the report which mentions "working closely with vendors on content"? Jill: This is meant to acknowledge that vendors have expertise too, and recommends that SLA seeks to collaborate to increase learning opportunities by working with vendor partners. There does need to be a balance between the desire of event attendees not to be "sold to", but also a recognition that business partners do have a product to sell. This is part of the bigger point of encouraging deeper, mutually-beneficial relationships with the vendor community, not merely looking to them as a source of funding.

4 SLA members seem to sub-divide into two broad categories, those who work for corporate/legal firms and those in the non-profit/educational sectors - should the organization consider dividing along those lines, given the great differences between the two groups? Jill: Sure, there are cultural and operational differences between companies in the non-profit and for-profit sectors, but at the end of the day the work we do as information professionals has more in common than not (e.g. demonstrating our value, being customer/user-focused), and there are many benefits to sharing information and practices across the divide. One commenter was surprised by the suggestion that the Solo Division was slated for dissolution, felt that conference content is not very relevant, and reiterated that the glory days of financial stability are over (so will people please stop going on about them). Jill: No one is suggesting that the Solo Divison (or any other) should be disbanded - the revised categories were provided as an indication only. The conference content for this year sets the bar very high, and the idea behind centralization aims to make this more consistant going forward. This whole process is about sorting out the finances, as well as aiming both to grow and to offer more value to members. The flat dues structure sounds like a welcome initiative, but what will be included - will we still need to pay extra to join more Chapters or Divisions? The proposal for better educational content also sounds good, as long as the price point is affordable and the content immediately relevant to the workplace. Tara and Jill: The aim is certainly that online content will be targeted and relevant. There is some discussion of this in the report. The new membership fees have not been set yet, and comments are welcome about what might be included in the basic membership fee. The SoCal Chapter offers an annual student sponsorship, funded by a business partner and kept separate from their regular operating budget. What would the future look like for this award, would they have to share 50% of the fund with SLA HQ? Jill: They are not suggesting that units should stop awarding this kind of thing, or that HQ would take away money designated for this purpose. BUT, they are interested in looking at initiatives which would be more widely beneficial to members across the organization. Looking at the proposed slogan "SLA is the organization for information professionals seeking to be the best they can be...", is this sufficient to differentiate SLA from all the other information professional organizations? Cindy: The slogan is really a matter of focus - intended to help us think about who we are and what we value. SLA is about creating opportunities for professional development, being the best, delivering the most value. And yes, this is enough of a differentiator to define our value. Why does the report fail to address the role of the CEO vis a vis the Board? Tom R: The request for information asked consultants to review all aspects of SLA's governance, and there will be an update on this at the Open Board meeting in Boston. The Transition Committee is currently looking at multiple options for leadership going forward, whether this be a new figurehead (e.g. CEO) or engaging an association management company. What alternatives were considered other than a forced assessment of funds, and how were the % amounts calculated? Cindy: The context behind the assessment was a consideration of how to address immediate financial concerns, and was 1 of 3 options evaluated. They admit it's radical, was not recommended lightly, and it's up to the Board to monitor the situation and decide how they want to proceed.

5 It's understood that the Board-level Chapter and Division cabinet positions will be removed, but will the cabinets themselves continue? Tom: The Board is being streamlined to improve agility, but units will remain in the decision-making process - the nuances of this will be worked out in implementation. What are the timings of this process? Tara and Jill: As per the timeline set out in communications, prior to the June deadline. They aimed to provide as many different opportunities and channels for comment as possible. Who is envisaged as holding Board positions? Cindy: The Board will still be drawn from within the membership, but with the competencies identiying particular skills and experience required for the different roles. If business partner relationships are to be managed centrally, how does this affect industry-specific vendors? John: Transactions will be handled centrally, but support of individual units is still possible. Information Outlook was better in print format than the online version. Jill: Many people have commented on this, but the online version is easier to keep current. The Editorial committee are currently looking at options to improve content, and methods for content-sharing, and perhaps move to a more frequent posting schedule. (Improved content could also help it work as a recruiting tool.) We need more detail on the recommendations for Chapters - the Division plan is consolidation, with conference expenses transferred to HQ, but there's no indicaiton of how chapters will fund local events, especially with sponsorships consolidated in HQ. John and Jill: These recommendations are looking at the higher levels, details to be addressed in next phase. These are exactly the kinds of things we need to be considering. They understand these concerns - people are clearly anxious about what they're losing, but need to focus on what might be gained. This is definitely not a power grab! Please keep asking these questions. Has consideration been given to the risks attached to these proposals and how they might be managed? There also seems to be an overvaluation of the SLA brand against some of the unitlevel strengths. Cindy and Jill: There are always risks, and they were considered, but the aim is to leverage opportunities to secure a the long-term future for SLA. If we waited until everything was perfect nothing would ever get done.