ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 318 / C&RL News ALA a n d its divisions: R ela tio n sh ip s p a st, p resen t, a n d fu tu re By th e ACRL E xecu tive C om m ittee A statem ent passed b y the A C R L Executive C o m m ittee a t its Spring M eeting, A pril 16,1987. W h e n the ALA Council accepted ACRL as the first of its divisions in 1940, a period of organiza­ tional growth and change began w hich led to m a­ jor improvements in program and sendees to m em ­ bers, b u t also to c o m p lic a te d o rg a n iz a tio n a l relationships which are still not clearly understood by members. This statement is a brief exposition of the nature of ALA and its evolving relations w ith its divisions. It is designed to increase understanding (without oversimplifying), and to inform mem bers about the im portant “O perating Agreem ent” issues to be discussed in San Francisco (Annual Conference, 1987) and voted on in San A ntonio (M idw inter 1988) . Under its present organization, the American L ibrary Association is one legal and fiscal entity. Its assets are indivisible. Its “divisions” are analagous to divisions of a corporation or branches of a library in th a t they enjoy autonomy over their program ac­ tivities, they are responsible for the m anagem ent of certain financial resources, and they serve defin­ able user groups w ith a range of products and ser­ vices. But they are also inseparable legally, fiscally, or even program matically from the rest of ALA. Division members must join ALA; the m em bership of any division therefore has 100% overlap w ith ALA. And much of the program of ALA is carried out by divisions—in sessions at annual conference and in the products and services developed by divi­ sion members and staff (standards, publications, conferences and pre-conferences, and advisory ser­ vices, to nam e a few). Conversely, divisions benefit from the work of the rest of ALA—the W ashington office, the Offices for Research, Intellectual Free­ dom, Outreach Services and L ibrary Personnel Re­ sources, and ALA Publishing, for instance. Although ACRL becam e a division in 1940, it only hired its first staff m em ber in 1948. O ther di­ visions also moved in this direction. Before 1976, division budgets were based on allocations from ALA general funds. T hen Council adopted the ALA Dues Schedule Transition docum ent, which established the principle th a t divisions are respon­ sible for their own budgets. It provided for division membership dues and placed divisions in a position of having to generate sufficient revenue—from dues and other sources—to cover their direct ex­ penses, including staff salaries. This changed their budgeting philosophy from th a t of receiving an al­ location and limiting expenses to live w ithin th a t allocation, to th at of being “revenue-driven,” a condition in which growth and expansion are lim ­ ited only by the ability to develop revenue sources June 1987 / 319 w hich can finance operations. However, the question of w h at items w ere legiti­ m ately expenses of divisions and w h at w ere ALA’s was clarified only in 1981 w ith the adoption of the “O perating Agreem ent” w hich specified certain “Basic Services” supplied by ALA to divisions. These included space, office equipm ent, financial accounting and reporting, personnel services, and certain publishing and com m unications services, in short, all of th e indirect costs of divisions. The agreem ent also supported the principle th a t ALA w ould, w hen it acquired an adequate accounting system, pay divisions interest on w h at cam e to be know n as division fund balances, and on revenues received in advance of division national confer­ ences. T he agreem ent specified th a t it should be re­ viewed after 5 years. Accordingly, at th e M idw in­ te r M eeting in 1985 COPES asked ALA program u n it heads to review it and m ake suggestions. For several reasons, th e process has taken a long time. G row th and technological changes have affected th e concept of Basic Services, clouding the issue of w h at should be provided free of charge by ALA to divisions. ALA leaders have grown in sophistica­ tion concerning ALA’s overall financial condition, realizing th a t th e total financial position includes division monies, w hich have been commingled, though separate division funds are accounted for. Identification w ith divisions am ong m em bers has increased, yet ALA’s attorneys have explained th a t there can be no legally binding agreem ent am ong its parts, only a set of policies w hich impose a m oral obligation. In fact, the present O perating Agree­ m ent has only such m oral force, b u t its provisions have been duly honored since 1981. However, ALA and division m em bers are not well inform ed about the O perating Agreement. The Pream ble to the new policies defines th e philo­ sophical basis for th e relationships betw een ALA and divisions and am ong divisions themselves. The docum ent also defines m ore clearly th e policies about w hich services ALA provides, w hich ones di­ visions support, w hich ones divisions pay ALA for, w h ic h a r e s h a r e d , a n d w h ic h a r e o th e rw is e funded. U nfortunately, an uneasy tension has p er­ m eated discussions to this point. The key issues are: 1) W h at basic services should be provided by ALA? W h at obligation does ALA have to upgrade such services as th e technology and other factors change? 2) W h a t financial obligations do divisions have? 3) Are divisions of value to ALA? If so, does this value have any financial com ponent? 4) W h at is th e n atu re of division fund balances? 5) W h at responsibility do divisions have to m an­ age th eir resources well? W h a t is the incentive to do so? 6) By w h at process m ay these policies or agree­ m ents be changed? ACRL viewTs these issues in the following ways: 1) The ACRL position is th a t the spirit of the 1981 agreem ent should prevail in the m atter of “basic services.” T h a t is, ALA should provide equipm ent and services to divisions w hich are the technological equivalent of those provided in 1981. Divisions should provide the increased services to ALA mem bers dem anded by the grow th in m em ­ bership and in the sophistication of the dem and. 2) ACRL believes divisions have an obligation to operate w ithin the constraints of ALA Bylaws A rti­ cle IX, w hich provides: “ ...a n n u a l estimates of in­ come shall be based upon the unexpended balance rem aining from the previous year plus anticipated revenues for th e next budget year. In no case m ay expenditures be budgeted in excess of the estimates of income arrived at in this m an n er…” It supports the principle th a t divisions whose fund balances have slipped into deficit because of the im plem en­ tation of accrual accounting have 3-5 years to rem ­ edy th a t condition. ACRL’s fiscal policy requires th a t each year’s budgeted operating revenues equal or exceed budgeted expenses, except only for one­ tim e expenses or projects specifically approved by Board action, for w hich a clearly specified am ount of the fund balance m ay be used. The policy fu r­ th er specifies th a t ACRL is to m aintain a fund bal­ ance equal to a t least 50 % of the average operating expenses over the preceding three years, and th at any ex traordinary expenses m ay not reduce the fund balance below th a t m inim um . 3) ACRL believes division benefits to ALA are qualitative and quantifiable. ALA is a far stronger association, pow erful advocate for libraries, lib rar­ ians and librarianship, and attracto r of members because, together w ith its divisions, it represents li­ braries of all types and sizes, and library functions and services of all kinds. Association program s, w hich a ttra c t ever-larger num bers of conference a tte n d e e s e a c h y e a r, a r e la rg e ly d iv isio n - sponsored. Division national conferences, courses, workshops and institutes, funded program s, and publishing operations satisfy m em ber needs and generate significant revenue. Divisions w ith sizable fund balances have m ade these available to ALA, obviating the need to bor­ row and pay interest. F or instance, the fund bal­ ance of ACRL w ithout Choice, after accruals, was $583,652 on August 31, 1986, as stated by ALA. For Choice it was $198,235. 4) ACRL believes fund balances are cash assets. If these funds are not represented by liquid assets of ALA, it is because they have been used for the good of the entire association in being transform ed into non-liquid assets of ALA. They rem ain cash to the units involved, representing as they do the sum of the differences betw een annual operating revenues and operating expenses for all fiscal years 1977 to 1986. (COPES has asked ALA Fiscal Services to de­ term ine w hether division fund balances include any non-cash elements.) 5) ACRL believes divisions have the strongest possible fiduciary responsibility to m anage their fi­ 320 / C&RL News nancial resources. To provide an incentive to do so, ACRL suggests th at the principle of paying interest on division fund balances, stated in the 1981 Oper­ ating Agreement, be implemented in the following manner: “a. In order to be eligible to participate in the interest–generating program , a division w ould have to m aintain for at least one year (i.e., show at the beginning of two consecutive years) a fund bal­ ance equal to at least 50 % of the previous year’s ex­ penses. b. The division would then be perm itted to place up to a maximum of 20 % of its fund balance in the Endowment Fund. c. Rules for moving monies out of the Endow ­ ment Fund would have to be observed by divisions, as they are by any units having funds there. d. Divisions would be allowed to use the interest from Endowm ent in any m anner they wish. e. In order to allow ALA Fiscal Services to plan for the implementation of such a procedure, it will not go into effect until FY 1990.” (Passed by the ACRL Board of Directors, January 1987). This would rew ard divisions for good m anage­ ment, would build ALA’s resources, since division fund balances are ALA monies, w ould enrich ALA’s Endowm ent, and would provide some in­ terest revenue for divisions to use for special proj­ ects. 6) ACRL believes that policies relating to divi­ sions and ALA should be changed only by a process in which divisions have a part, specifically: “In the spirit of the Preamble to the Policies of the American Library Association in Relation to its Divisions, the ACRL B oard recom m ends th a t charges to divisions for new services be established only after m utual discussion and agreement be­ tween ALA and its divisions. “As specifically applied to the charges for Order/ Billing Subscription Services, the ACRL Board rec­ ommends th a t a com m ittee of division officers meet w ith representatives of COPES to discuss such charges.” (Passed by the ACRL Board of Directors, January 1987). Conclusion At San Francisco members will have an opportu­ nity to discuss the ALA/division relationship and to suggest w hat should be in a policy document repre­ senting th at relationship. By the time ALA meets in San Antonio in January 1988, members must coa­ lesce around a position which unites rather than di­ vides the Association. We hope this statement clari­ fies the ACRL point of view on key issues and helps to dispel some of the fears based on misunderstand­ ing of that point of view. We recognize that a bet­ ter common understanding may not necessarily lead to agreement, but our intent is to contribute to a dialogue based less on fear and distrust and more on a desire for m utual advantage. ■ ■ We Are Professionals We at EBS a re d e d ic a te d to providing libraries w ith th e f a s te s t service, the b e st d is c o u n ts , b u t a b o v e all, th e accuracy a library demands. With all this in your favor you owe it to y o u rs e lf to try us …