This past weekend, November 12th and 13th, 2011, Ashley and I attended the California Library Association conference in Pasadena, California. What follows is my wrap up of the conference experience broken out by themes. It is not a comprehensive guide to everything I experienced, just brief (well, brief for me) expostulations on the conference as a whole and broken into parts.

On Being My Second Conference
My very first library conference was the 2009 CLA conference two years ago also in Pasadena. I went into it having just graduated library school and not knowing very many people at all. I wandered through the exhibit hall and the sessions in a daze of solitude interrupted by activity. I did meet a few people, but didn’t make any very solid connections. The experience was as overwhelming as it was underwhelming; even though I had not worked as a professional librarian yet, the sessions I attended seemed strangely lightweight. I only kept going to them because I didn’t know what else I was supposed to do. That definitely wasn’t the case during this conference.

After almost two years of working as a librarian and being a relatively active part of the library world online and off, I came to this conference with the primary goal of making personal/in-person connections. Certainly, there were sessions, but due to my previous conference experience I felt no qualms putting them on the backburner. This resulted in my inserting plenty of free time into my conference schedule. Contrary to the 2009 conference where I spent far too much time with my nose buried in a book, this year I was able to spend time around the conference center’s main thoroughfares and be sure to run into people I knew. Being at a regional conference like CLA, I really got the sense of how small the library world is. The good thing about that is the opportunity it affords to chance upon well-known people doing wonderful things and have insightful conversations with them (lots if superlatives there, I know).

Interest Groups (impact groups)
As a person who has never had anything to do with CLA interests groups I was surprised how much I enjoyed the ones I attended at this conference. Being a small section at the beginning of the conference booklet (as opposed to being put in-line with the sessions) they’re easy to miss, but my feeling is that interest groups have the potential to be the best thing that the CLA Conference offers attendees. My rationale is that because most of the sessions are either too basic for the working librarian (read: they are for library students), not interesting to me, or case studies of one or several library projects that may or may not be applicable to anything I’m doing, and hallway conversations are generally much too informal, interest groups provide the perfect outlet for advanced librarians looking to have serious conversations about their topics of interest.

The best thing about interest groups is that they can do whatever you want them to do within reason. The ones I went to were pretty small, about six people each, so there was discussion aplenty. In the new Volunteer Engagement Interest Group, we sat together shared answers and suggestions for specific questions. We also learned from each other about useful resources. At the end, my notebook was full of stuff to follow up with and I felt like I had gotten some of my sticking points as a Volunteer Coordinator off my chest.

The Information Technology Interest Group was a little different; it was longstanding group that had dwindled to a few members and was being reinvigorated by new leadership. Here, our discussion centered not so much around shop talk as program ideas for the Spring Fling and in what direction did we want to take the group. I think maybe I talked too much for a group that is for me more a personal (rather than professional) interest. Still, Mathew and Suzana are capable leaders and were able to reign me in giving everyone else a chance to talk as well as furthering their own ideas.

My suggestion for anyone reading this who is a member of the California Library Association and an advanced librarian is to get involved in at least two interest groups now, when the planning process for upcoming activities is still underway. And next year, forgo a session or two to attend your interest groups. You’ll find it well worth the time.

Sessions
Bookview 101: An Author Panel: Highlighting Authors of Books that Expand our View of Our Neighbors, our World and Ourselves

Was going to let the afternoon go by without attending a session but saw Ron Koertge‘s name in the program and him being a poet I recognize (I saw him read his off-kilter humorous poetry at the HAMMER museum a while ago and bought a book), I wandered in. The session featured two more Los Angeles-based writers discussing their books, how they work, and all kinds of other stuff including Los Angeles literary places (Libros Schmibros was mentioned) and “accessible” poets to add to library collections and pitch to patrons. Though the temperature in the room was very hot, the back-and-forth between the authors and the audience kept me too engaged to worry about discomforts. I ended up buying a book about the history of poetry in Los Angeles and promising to buy another about Los Angeles “saint” street names.

California Reads from the California Council for the Humanities and the California Center for the Book

This was actually a program to discuss a grant and most of the audience-members represented libraries that were in some stage of receiving the grant. I only found this out when I was in the session and since I liked the presenters I decided to stay, listen, and learn. All I learned, I already knew and that is that the California Center for the Book and the California Council for the Humanities are two organizations that do exemplary work for our state’s bookpeople.

SCAN Jose – Augmented Reality Brings History to Life

The potential of augmented reality is a continuing interest of mine and so I attended this program in which IDEAS Manager (what a job title!) Sandra Stewart and Web Librarian Nate Hill explained step-by-step how they created their SCAN Jose initiative, in which they combined geo-location capabilities of smartphones and tablets with their local history collection to get a smooth walking tour (browser-) app. Maybe when I have time I’ll ask Nate to let me study the code. As a general note, though, more libraries should be doing projects like this; relatively low-threshold coding / collection mashups that are easy for patrons to access and infotastic to use.

Exhibit Hall
The Exhibit Hall is actually the least interesting part of the conference for me. I wandered through it for a total of maybe twenty minutes, looked at a few things, and left without much enthusiasm. I’m not in a position to buy anything for my library and even if I was, I don’t think I would do it at a conference. To me, the exhibit hall is basically a giant waste of space. I can understand why it would be useful for some people though..

Battledecks
Battledecks is a competition in which competitors must deliver a presentation from slides they see for the first time on stage. It’s the ultimate in improvisation because no theme is given; all that exists is the competitor, the slides, and of course, the audience. Each performer is given five minutes to talk about ten slides. Because I’m a big show-off, I volunteered to be a competitor. While I highly recommend you watch the whole competition, my part starts at around 9:15. Enjoy!

As you can see, a couple of slides stopped me cold. I didn’t see the joke in the book burning slide and the social media one I just didn’t “get” (see all the slides at MC Patrick Sweeney’s blog). It was fun though I didn’t win. Still, definitely a good public speaking workout. Maybe sometime I’ll even do it again, this time with the advantage of experience behind me.

And in Conclusion…
Ashley and I had a good time at CLA 2011. I’m not sure if we’ll be going to the 2012 conference in San Jose due to the necessity for time off and funds. We will, however, very likely be heading to the 2012 ALA Annual conference in Anaheim.

On Friday, June 17th, my job at the Lancaster Regional Library is coming to an end. This has caused me to spend some time lately thinking about my first year and three months as a professional librarian. Though my hour-long commute makes reflection a normal occurrence, allowing me to mull over the doings of the day, a definite end to my term has made deeper contemplation of the experience as a whole much more meaningful. Combing through my successes and failures, the lessons I’ve learned and the people I’ve met, I keep coming back to a familiar concept: commitment.

To that end, the last year and three months have only served to reinforce what I had expected to feel since I began volunteering at my local library as a teenager, that I love being a librarian. The daily grind tells me that there is nothing I’d rather do then what I’m doing now, which is why I am saddened by what the current circumstances mean for me and my patrons. Though I knew from get-go that mine was a temporary position, the initial year for which I was hired seemed like such a long time. Like any good tree there was just no way I could avoid doing what came naturally; I found a nice place at the Lancaster Library and began to take root.

From the beginning, I sought out interesting people and made connections. I met people at the reference desk, I met them when out to lunch, and, most of all, I met them at my programs. After establishing the Lancaster Library Writers’ Group, my branches began to sprout; many of the well-known local writers came through the group at one point or another and some even stayed. Reaching out to the local paper scored a couple of articles…Always fascinating new people. The life of a librarian, like a busy spider weaving, weaving.

And then the Santa Clarita situation began to unfold. Throughout the major activity, us rank-and-file librarians were privy to pretty much the same information as the public. It was only about two months ago, after the dust began to settle, that I found out I was being forced out by a Santa Clarita librarian. Actually, it was not that librarian pushing me out as much as the circumstances above both of us.

Still, what is one to do in this situation? Do I drop everything and vegetate, walking like a zombie back and forth from the reference desk? How do I continue my work knowing that I will soon be gone. Now, for some this may not pose a problem, but for me, doing a good job requires commitment. My feeling is that part of customer service in a community organization like the library is actually getting to know people; as a librarian, I am part of people’s lives on a monthly, weekly, and sometimes even daily basis which means I’ve grown friendly with many people during my time in Lancaster both in the library and just around the Antelope Valley. Moreover, I’ve developed a personal geography of the area, becoming intimately involved with places I visit practically daily.

Since finding out about my fate, I’ve been doing what I feel is right, remaining my usual friendly self though not completely without reservations. So here I am, stuck dutifully zooming around the library with a residue of discomfort because, as I’ve said, commitment means fully giving of myself and I just can’t. On a day-to-day level, I’ve scaled back the publicity for my programs, and have stopped building up my to-do list and jotting down ideas. I’m slowly cleaning out my work area, taking the variety of doodads and pictures I’d pinned to my cubicle walls in happier days off. All in all, I am gently vacating my space in the same way I hope to make my exit, gracefully – leaving things just as I had found them.

This is not so difficult with cushy gray walls. It’s harder when I tell my favorite patrons that later this month I’ll be gone. Lacking psychic abilities and hindsight, I can’t tell exactly what part I played in their lives or if they’ll remember me in five or ten years…Maybe: “That librarian, what was his name? Oh yeah, Oleg…He was nice,” would be okay. I could live with that. As for me, I can’t say who I’ll remember when I think back to my first librarian job; there are so many great people to choose from.

I’ll remember the library staff, of course. Everyone with their unique personalities thrown boiling together in the summer heat. Of course there was plenty of drama (not related to me, mind you) that I, an oblivious male, only noticed emerge a few months into my time on the job. That stuff was never really at the forefront of my experience at Lancaster though. Instead, I tried to learn a little bit from everyone and I think I did. After learning everyone’s peccadilloes and developing intricate, and sometimes not so intricate, inside jokes, it’s downright tragic to think that soon it’ll, poof, be gone – the people outlined daily in your eyes no longer there. How will they remember me? I wonder. I was the young librarian who was always smiling and joking around. Maybe, but like with my favorite patrons, there’s really no telling what will stick. I know what I want to stick: that I loved being there; that I never lamented having to go to a job that wasn’t really work. The truth? I want my co-workers to occasionally think back and say, “That guy…(long pause, savoring the memories)…that guy really liked it here,” and be temporarily lifted above the hassles of the everyday.

Before I came to work at the Lancaster Regional Library, I was told that it was “umm…interesting,” that there were a lot of homeless people, that other people transferred away. In fact, I wasn’t told, it was more like I was warned. Having worked there for all this time, I’m still not exactly clear what they were going on about. In the end, I figure it doesn’t matter what “they” said. I came here expecting to like it and I did. That’s what matters in the end, isn’t it?

And still the question lingers: How does one just up and leave? I don’t know. Will the other librarians continue my programs? I don’t know. A tightness in the chest comes from relinquishing control over a part of the world which, if you don’t have it figured out by yet, I actually cared about. My feeling is that librarianship feeds on that kind of commitment; good librarians care about what they do and where they do it. But that’s not something that can be measured in beans, its something that can only be measured by the undefinable stuff of memories, those byways of experience we travel down. The hope that maybe, that perhaps, we’ve had an influence on someone’s day somewhere out there in the windy Valley.

UPDATE (13 June 2011) – I got a call last week telling me that the County was not intending to release me. All I know at this time is that after I finish at Lancaster on June 17th that I’ll be transferred to the Lomita branch (as a Children’s Librarian, no less, which is pretty cool) for an indefinite amount of time.

Introduction

A little while after the 2011 ALA Election, Erica Findley posted a message to the Facebook group ALA Thinktank lamenting the lackluster voter turnout (approximately 1/5 of ALA members voted). Reasons for the low turnout were discussed (mostly by people who voted) until Andy Woodworth challenged us to stop the conjecturing and do something. Reading that, I pondered for a minute or two and decided, per the #makeithappen philosophy, to find out why people didn’t vote. The best way that I could think of how to do that was to simply ask.

I spent a few minutes brainstorming and wording the questions/answer choices and creating the survey. Using Google Forms I got a tool which was both free and conveniently deposited the answers into a downloadable spreadsheet. Naturally, the questions I came up with aren’t perfect, but I felt that the survey had to directly address voting (not general ALA gripes, though those came in too), be short enough so even the worst of I-don’t-care-niks would take a moment to fill it out, and be useful for future Election committees.

After coming up with the survey, I posted a link to the Thinktank for a people to review before giving the word to let the survey loose into the world. The distribution was completely voluntary and started via social media as several Thinktankers posted a link on their Twitter and Facebook feeds, as well as their blogs. After this first wave, I can’t say exactly how the survey spread but I do know that several state library organizations received it as well as some general library list-servs. A huge boost in responses came when the folks behind AL Direct included the survey in their weekly round-up. A completely online distribution means, of course, that offline non-voters were not represented within the results. This is a trade-off that had to be made since a direct mail and/or phone campaign would have made a turnaround of just under two weeks impossible. This is just one of the issues that we must take into account when considering the validity of our results, feel free to post others in the comments.

Between the time the survey opened May 4th and closed May 16th, a total of 521 responses were received. This was brought down to 502 after I removed the entries from respondents that were clearly not part of the sample population (those who voted or were not eligible to vote) and obvious duplicates. The only other edits I made were to insert a paragraph to a respondent’s answer for question two per her request by email, and to correct the occasional typo and spelling mistake when I caught them (I didn’t, however, systematically correct spelling, my name not being “Spell Check”). The complete cleaned-up spreadsheet of responses is here(.pdf, 233KB), the raw responses are here(.pdf, 240KB). A cursory glance will reveal very few differences between the two, but keep in mind that the calculations below are based on the cleaned-up version. Also, I tallied the the following statistics by hand so please excuse the human error that probably hides there. If you catch anything, do let me know.

My more specific analyses are below and in the conclusion, however, a general word or two before the results. Reading through the responses (which I did, several times…Yes, all five hundred of them) was at once demoralizing, enlightening, and hopeful. It’s true that some respondents were very forthcoming about their apathy, but this was tempered by the respondents who, despite being hampered by various things, were truly earnest in their desire to vote. My intention and hope in doing this survey and taking the time to calculate and write up these results is that future election committees, ALA administration in general and, most importantly, candidates would use them to spur change in the election process in order to draw more turnout. 502 responses is an amount that, at least statistically, is said to represent the approximately forty thousand non-voters. Now that we are in possession of this information, let’s take the initiative and increase future voter turnout. #makeithappen

-o

The Results

Question 1:
Why didn’t you vote in the 2011 ALA Election? (respondents could choose all that applied so results do not add up to 100%)

75%   I was unfamiliar with the candidates
38%   I don’t understand what, if elected, the candidates would do.
24%   Voting takes too much time.
23%   Other*
17%   I forgot
9%   The voting interface was clunky
3%   I didn’t know there was an election
2%   Circumstances beyond my control prevented me from voting

* 23% of respondents wrote in their own responses in the open field marked “Other.” These loosely break down in the following way (responses were categorized twice when appropriate, see Appendix for all responses):

25%   (6% of total) Apathy (“Didn’t care,” “Not interested in outcome”) or something similar
21%   (5% of total) Time Pressure (“Too busy,” “Low priority”) or something similar
12%   (3% of total) Candidate Issues (“too many,” “no difference,” “don’t represent me”) or something similar
11%   (2.6% of total) Online Voting Issues (“Paper ballots,” “Won’t vote online”) or something similar
8%   (2% of total) My fault (“I didn’t take the time,” “laziness”) or something similar
8%   (2% of total) General disconnect from ALA as a whole (“not involved with,” “don’t feel part of,” “doesn’t impact my professional life”) or something similar
7%   (1.5% of total) Did not perceive oneself part of voting public (“retir(ing/ed),” “student,” new) or something similar
7%   (1.5% of total) Bureaucratic Issues (Couldn’t login, etc.) or something similar
3%   (<1% of total) Timing of Election (“Voting Window too short”) or something similar
2%   (<1% of total) Other

Analysis:
Based on the simple tallies and categorization carried out for question one, the overwhelming problem for non-voters is a lack of connection to the candidates, if not the organization as a whole. The sample population (ALA members who were eligible to vote but didn’t) did not recognize the names of those who were running and were unfamiliar with the position for which they were running. In their follow-up comments, a number of respondents felt that they should not vote for candidates and issues on which they are not educated.

Time was another major issue according to question one. The 24% and the 5% in the “Other” field (note that respondents could have marked off, “Voting takes too much time” in addition to writing a related comment in the open field) that indicated not voting due to time-related issues had a variety of reasons including too much to do at home or at work (staffing shortages, etc.), as well as the size of the ballot, and time necessary to do adequate research on the candidates and their positions. The voting interface, or size of the ballot, could also have contributed if the non-voter had started a ballot but did not have time to go back and finish it.

Related to time issues were cases of “information overload” that led to forgetfulness or lost emails, and a range of bureaucratic issues like absence of login information. Likewise, the “information overload” factor was also likely related to the amount of candidates which might have a link to the respondents who blamed themselves for being too lazy or simply not taking the time to give voting due diligence (2%).

A small faction (2.6%) of the non-voter population were exclusively adamant about paper ballots. This percentage increases a little when the responses that mentioned paper ballots in the other questions (but did not write them in to the “Other” field in question one) were tallied with this. The ease of reading offline, “email overload,” and a distrust in the integrity of online voting were the main reasons for this group.

More information could be taken from the raw data provided in question one if the amount of respondents who marked the same two (or more) options were counted (i.e. How many respondents that marked “I was unfamiliar with the candidates” also marked “I don’t understand what, if elected, the candidates would do”?). Having that information would allow further conclusions to be drawn about non-voters. If anyone would like to take that on, just email me and I’ll send you my Excel spreadsheet with the data. I’m sure plugging the responses into a database would make finding links quite easy (by searching for two strings using an AND operator in the appropriate field, for example). As with everything, post any results you get into the comments and I’ll incorporate them into what’s already up here.

Question 2:
Please expand on the items you selected above.

Approximately 2/3 of the respondents to question one also responded to question two. Instead of forcing you to read all 334 of the responses to this question, I broke them down and tallied them using similar categories as those in the “Other” field above. If they fit in one or more of the categories, I put them there, if they explained an item in question one I didn’t mark them down unless they fit snugly into one of the other categories. Many of them ended up fitting into more than one category. Below the quantified results I’ve highlighted responses I felt were representative or noteworthy in some way.

23%   Time Pressure (“Too busy,” “Low priority”) or something similar
22.6%   Candidate Issues (“too many,” “no difference,” “don’t represent me”) or something similar
18%   General disconnect from ALA as a whole (“not involved with,” “don’t feel part of,” “doesn’t impact my professional life”) or something similar
10%   Did not perceive oneself part of voting public (“retir(ing/ed),” “student,” new, foreign) or something similar
8%   Bureaucratic Issues (Couldn’t login, etc.) or something similar
7%   Apathy (“Didn’t care,” “Not interested in outcome”) or something similar
7%   My fault (“I didn’t take the time,” “laziness”) or something similar
5%   Online Voting Issues (“Paper ballots,” “Won’t vote online”) or something similar
4%   Other
1%   Timing of Election (“Voting Window too short”) or something similar

Time Pressure:
“I’m just so busy, it’s really hard to find the time to become more informed about the candidates.”

“I belong to two divisions and several sections within those divisions, which means a lot of ballots and a lot of races. Most of the time I don’t know much about the candidates and reading through their list of accomplishments is tedious. Unlike political elections, I feel most candidates are generally on the same page with me and there aren’t controversial issues or enough clear differences between the candidates to compel me to vote.”

“The election falls in one of the busiest times of the year for my library, and I didn’t have time to look up all the candidates, learn about them and their positions (not just what they say publicly as part of their platform, but their larger presence in the library world, etc.)”

Candidate Issues:
“I feel anyone willing to run for the positions listed has already decided to commit themselves fully to undertaking the responsibilities necessary to their elected position. Any differences between the candidates would be like deciding what flavors of dessert you wanted after you’ve already committed to eating dessert: they are all equally yummy.”

“To read and make informed decisions about who to vote for and why would have taken more time than I have whether at work or at home. My other priorities take precedence. There is little encouragement or interaction at work to discuss candidates, their importance as elected ALA officers to do what for us that has meaning and impact for us at a local level.”

“I honestly don’t see any difference between any of the candidates. They all take a very standard, middle-of-the-road approach to our profession and supply the same answers to the same questions.”

General disconnect from ALA as a whole:
“…I am not convinced that the leadership of ALA (especially at the very highest levels) really makes any difference in my day-to-day work and the constraints that my library faces.”

“The ALA is some ambiguous, amorphous organization that I really have no contact with. I don’t see how it helps me in the day to day; it focuses almost solely on public libraries; and some of its stances are frankly embarrassing and ridiculous. (Why in the world does a library organization need to pass resolutions on unrelated political happenings? A resolution on the war in Iraq? Really?) I guess I feel that the ALA is out of touch. They talk a good game, but it’s the same game they’ve been talking for the last twenty years, albeit with a different vocab. I can’t think of a demonstrable difference they’ve made in my life, professional or personal, and if they have, they have failed to communicate it.”

Did not perceive oneself part of voting public (“retir(ing/ed),” “student,” new) or something similar
“I’m a new ALA member. I don’t have much familiarity yet with the organization, the elected positions, or the persons running. I hope to become more familiar after attending this summer’s conference.”

“I just became a student member about two months before the election and the little blurbs sent out requesting my vote did not differentiate the candidates. I couldn’t tell what difference it would make to vote one way or the other. I usually vote in EVERY political election, and I hope to know more next year so that I can vote. I felt guilty for not voting, but did not want to make an uninformed decision.”

“I am a retired life member who is no longer active in ALA. I keep up on some of the news, and read parts of the online weekly newsletters; but ALA is not a focus in the way it was prior to my retirement. I will continue to support various units of ALA through paying for membership (& publications) but voting on the scale that ALA elections ask is something I no longer feel compelled to do.”

Analysis:
The clear takeaway from the responses to the second question is that many of them feel different aspects of candidate issues mixed with being “unfamiliar with the candidates” – how are they different, what they do, that there are too many are all strains that can be felt in nearly every response that mentions candidates at all. Respondents felt overwhelmed by the amount of candidates and with no way to easily distinguish them did not want to be “uninformed voters.” But without an easy way to get informed and with the added weight of time pressure, most respondents opted-out of voting.

In fact, the concept of the “uninformed voter” was huge in question two. Wanting to take their voting responsibilities seriously, many non-voters were curious about what their elected officials did, who they were besides what was written in their statements, and how they differed from the other candidates. This seemed to be a thread through many of the contests but particularly when selecting the Councilors – several people mentioned starting the ballot and not finishing it because they were unable to find time to research all of the candidates for those positions. As to how non-voters wanted the statements changed, there were mixed responses; some wanted longer ones, some shorter. Fairly few people explained exactly what kind of information they wanted to know about candidates.

Moving to a larger scale, the issue of being disconnected from ALA was consistently brought up: it’s relation to day-to-day life, the size of the organization, and the complexity of its governance structure was a mystery and a turn-off to many non-voters who, as a result, indicted that they felt distant from the candidates and ALA’s everyday achievements. Even members who were heavily involved in a specific area of ALA appeared wary of the whole. For some of these members (though not all of them), political stands perceived as being unrelated to library issues played a part in their disillusionment.

Two groups that were notable in removing themselves as part of the “voting public” were students and retired (or almost retired) members. Students who were still in school or had recently graduated (Congrats!!), for the most part, did not feel that they knew enough about the candidates in particular and ALA in general to cast an “informed” vote. Many students that responded, however, mentioned that they expected to be voting members in the future once they got settled. Retired members, on the other hand, while remaining involved and passionate about libraries, did not expect to return to being voting members in the future.

7% of respondents reported being in some way apathetic, demoralized, or cynical about the voting process. For many, this was as a result of systematic problems within ALA, for some, it was a matter of representation. A small number of school and academic librarians felt that ALA represented primarily public libraries. A few respondents with non-traditional library jobs likewise felt disenfranchised.

The number of technical/bureaucratic issues such as lost logins, uncertain membership info, or some other technical mishaps were a slightly larger percentage of question two responses than write-ins for question one. The number of folks interested in paper ballots was very slightly higher in question two (13 in q1 versus 18 in q2) though a negligible amount when looking proportionally at the number of responses.

Question 3:
What would need to happen for you to vote in the next election?

Of the 300 responses to question three, only fourteen (~5%) were flat-out against voting in the future. Mostly everyone else who responded had some condition that would lead that respondent to vote in the next election. The majority of these conditions fell into the following categories:

24%   Learn more about the candidates / their responsibilities
19%   Demonstrate ALA/Election relevance
8%   Other
8%   Clear differences between candidates / different candidates
8%   Simpler voting process
7%   More time in my schedule
6%   Nothing, I’ll vote in the future
6%   Paper ballots
5%   Less/more/different reminders
4%   Less candidates
3%   Fix login issues
2%   If someone I know has running

Analysis:
Again, as we saw in the previous questions, the biggest obstacle for non-voters was becoming “informed voters.” Various suggestions were given as to how voters could be informed about the different candidates including: A widely distributed voters’ guide, candidate’s campaigning, “Meet the Candidates” forums for more of the candidates, using different methods to connect to voters, particularly online (YouTube, Twitter, audio, etc.). Non-voters wanted to know who they were voting for and most, when they found this to be too difficult or time-consuming, decided not to vote. Kim Leeder had made a spreadsheet outlining the various candidates for Councilor-at-Large and this was mentioned by a respondent (though not by name), it seems like the spreadsheet is close to what some non-voters were looking for. Dovetailing into knowing more about the candidates is the 8% of respondents that wanted to see a clearer difference between the candidates or different candidates in general.

The second most important condition that would encourage respondents to vote is for ALA to demonstrate it’s relevance. This was a hazy issue for most non-voters, but was often related to paying dues and not seeing noticeable differences in their workplaces especially when held up against the budget issues many of the respondent’s libraries were facing. A sizable group within this percentage were new ALA members who were feeling lost in the shuffle. Several suggested a new member’s guide or something similar to give them an idea why the American Library Association matters. Though, as mentioned in the introduction, this survey was not intended to be a place for general ALA gripes, it appears that not voting in the election is directly related to them. This became clear in the “Other” category in which respondents mentioned ALA’s political stances, and again, dues-related issues. In the same category were requests for changes to ALA governance with special emphasis on increasing term limits. My personal favorite response that was categorized as “Other” was that “filling out this survey” was what needed to happen for that person to vote in the next election. If only the other 501 respondents made it so easy.

The final batch of categories to cover are those to refer to “process”: “fix login issues,” “less/more/different reminders,” “simpler voting process,” and “paper ballots.” The latter is another thread that has been going since question one, though here a few “paper ballot” respondents clarified that they prefer ballots or voters’ guides printed out, but are okay with voting online. The difference in this group is between respondents who do not trust online voting inherently and those who, for various reasons, prefer to make their decisions offline but are okay with expressing those decisions using the online system. Some of the frustration of the “paper ballot” group was similar to those that could not vote because of “login issues” which is described under bureaucratic issues above in question two.

“Simpler voting process” is several suggestions rolled into one category: some respondents felt that the emails explaining how to vote were unclear, while others felt that the ballot was too long and should have been broken down into chunks so as to be managed easier, a few respondents suggested that the voting be open from one day to a week to even longer. Rarely were opinions about process explained in detail, probably due to size of the input field. A few sentences to a paragraph or two was the general length of responses – not long enough to indulge in deep discussion about how long to keep voting open. In general, the reminders were also a point of contention for a few non-voters. Sending more to aid in remembering or sending fewer to add immediacy were proposed, but like the other opinions about process, explanations did not run very long. A third suggestions, of sending reminder using different social media was brought up – this is an idea that was anticipated by Patrick Sweeney and a few others, the efficacy of which could not be measured in this survey.

Conclusion

Bearing in mind that the American Library Association and its election committee cannot control the country’s economy, clear a few hours in librarian’s schedules, or, on its own, get unemployed librarians fulfilling work, there are still enough items gleaned from our results that those responsible for future elections should strongly consider. Readers may draw myriad conclusions based on the results as outlined above, as well as their own perusal of the 502 responses, but what follow are my recommendations as they stand after spending many hours reading, categorizing, and analyzing the survey’s results:

Election Committee: Create an easily accessible (read: a link from the ALA main page) election home page that contains a voters’ guide that is available both in HTML and downloadable as a .pdf, links to candidate’s home pages, short videos explaining what each positions does, instructions explaining the voting process, and a “Contact Us” area for those are having trouble logging in or finding the voting email. A little link to a survey asking “How was your voting experience?” wouldn’t hurt either. After you’ve created the page, get the word out about it far and wide. If nobody knows about it, nobody will use it.

Candidates: Actively campaign! Non-voters WANT to know who you are and what you’re going to do. Put up a simple WordPress site, throw a few essays on there that tell voters more about you than your CV does. Go in person or online wherever ALA members are and engage people in discussion. ALA can only do so much to get your name out there, the onus is on you to show why you and the position you hope to fill matters.

ALA: Do whatever it takes, but please do not put so many candidates on the ballot. Are members really expected to go through forty candidates in choosing the Councilors on top of the other positions they’re voting for? It’s a lot to ask even for dedicated members. As respondents suggested, stagger the elections, extend term limits, “streamline” the organization (I interpret that as a call to cut down the number of positions, committees, round tables, task forces, and whatever other groups ALA contains). I’m not informed enough about ALA governance to give specific recommendations about this here, but I know that some people reading this will be. All I can say is next time, less candidates for Councilors please.

(Non-)Voters: It’s been said before, and I’ll say it again…ALA is not a panacea. Most folks filling volunteer positions in the organization truly care about libraries and librarians and want to help but there is no way they can come to your library and, for example, take an hour at the reference desk or edit your libguides. ALA is a national organization that lobbies for libraries on the national-level – state orgs lobby at a state level and local advocacy groups are most effective locally. The fact is that most day-to-day library funding is done at the state or local levels, not nationally. That doesn’t mean that ALA can’t do anything to help your organization or you personally. I’m a new member of ALA and a new librarian, but the folks from ALA that I’ve encountered (pretty much exclusively online since I can’t afford conferences at this point) have been eager to do what they can. Shoot them emails with your ideas, including how to make ALA more relevant to YOU (and that includes thoughts about candidates and elections). As the survey indicates, there are many reasons why people didn’t vote. Hopefully everyone will take on the responsibility to make the path to voting a simpler one.

Finally finally finally, if you filled out the survey, a BIG thank you. Without you sharing your thoughts, no one would know that non-voters thought. Also, a BIG thank you to all of those who helped distribute this survey, I read a lot in books about the power of social media and crowdsourcing, but to see it happen beats all. Way to go, folks.

All the downloadable docs together:
Results Spreadsheet (cleaned up)(.pdf, 233KB)
Results Spreadsheet (raw)(.pdf, 240KB)
The Results w/ Appendix (.pdf, 146KB) – This post as a .pdf, for readers who love to do it offline.

Despite the obvious mission of public libraries, the unmeasured and often unmentioned return-on-investment with regards to them is the effect they have on the quality-of-life of the population which they serve. Individual and group happiness are only recently becoming viewed as economic indicators (see this article in the Guardian of London) though Positive Psychology, the study of happiness and the causes of positive life experiences, has been a growing movement within, at the very least, American psychological research for the last decade (see the Positive Psychology Center’s list of readings). With all the news about depression and stress rates in the United States soaring, it makes sense that a counterbalance is offered. To that, and into the general fracas I am throwing in my unscientific opinion that public libraries have an important role to play in both the physical and mental health of communities.

But what is quality-of-life and how is it determined. Scientists most often study this through qualitative methods, which is to say, analysis of interviews or journals. Another way is to attach beepers or some way of communicating with subjects that tells them to report on their state of being at regular or irregular intervals. That data, whether subjects rate their happiness on some scale, or say a few words about it is then considered and reports are written. For me, however, it is much more a manifold state of being than how we feel at any one moment. When we think about our personal happiness, we remember how we felt when we woke up this morning, whether the drive to work was satisfactory, the fulfilling aspects of work, a fight with the spouse, maybe – all of these elements come together to color our myriad moods. Basically, I believe that as long as we get enough sleep, are well-fed, and have something we feel is useful to do, happiness is just around the corner. It is that extra boost, the time we must fill when we aren’t eating, sleeping, or working where the library fits.

The aspirational rhetoric that has so long defined public libraries as havens of knowledge and self-improvement is not a bad place to point when it comes to how libraries improve quality-of-life. Through this basic level of access to “knowledge,” people can make themselves more useful to society, which is to say, each other. And as I mentioned previously, being useful is a leading cause of happiness. Going further into how libraries improve quality-of-life, we look towards the prevalence of genre fiction in our circulation records. If we simply go by what gets the most check-outs, it is easy to see that many people love filling their time living vicariously through the heroes in romance novels, detective thrillers, and inspirational fiction (think Richard Paul Evans, or Debbie Macomber). Finally, the exploration of identity, whether that is through genealogical research, or exploration of place, is a large part of what local public libraries allow. Through subscriptions to genealogical databases, collections of how-to books, and archives or records and ephemera, libraries preserve the heritage that teaches us who we are. It is no other organization in the world but the public library that brings about these contributions to people’s happiness in quite the same unfettered and obvious way.

To hammer that idea home, we should look at how other people’s happiness affects our everyday lives. Maybe 42-year old lawyer, Jeff, is having a bad morning. His clients are late, the case load is high and nothing is going right. Lunch is boring and the afternoon is no better. After work, however, Jeff remembers that he skimmed an article from the library earlier. A book that he had ordered a few weeks ago had arrived and was waiting for him. Dropping by his local branch, Jeff finds the book and is about to leave when he hears strains of beautiful music coming from the library’s meeting room. Wandering in, he takes a seat in the back of the room and I implore you to answer me this. How can the harried Jeff remain agitated in the face of the relaxing and melancholy dirges delivered by a local string quartet and performed, for free, at the public library. As his breathing evens out and the stresses of the day subside, Jeff decides that his wife hasn’t had flowers in way too long. He looks forward to just-before-bed when he can relax with his long-awaited novel and as the quartet concludes, Jeff joins the rest of the audience in giving them a well-deserved standing ovation.