ALIA National Policy Congress

Report for the National Policy Congress May 2000

from the ALIA Division Structure Subcommittee

Introduction

In November 1999, ALIA distributed a discussion paper on alternative divisional structures for the organisation. ALIA's move to incorporation provided an opportunity to examine the present structure and to discuss the influence of societal changes on membership involvement. This report presents an overview of responses to the discussion paper and outlines a number of issues for consideration and possible future directions.

Thirty five responses to the discussion paper were received; eleven from individuals, six from branches, two from regional groups, fifteen from sectional groups and one from a special interest group. Although this is a small number of responses in relation to the total number of divisions, it should be recognised that many more divisions and individuals contributed to discussions at the branch level, from which only one response may have been submitted.

The variety of responses and ideas reflected the diversity of the Association's members and their interests. The reality that ALIA caters to members with very specialised professional interests as well as broad sectors is apparent in the expression of members' desires to maintain their particular division and not to be merged into larger sectoral groupings. Throughout the responses the general theme was a desire and support for change, as long as 'my division' was not affected.

Six models were proposed in the discussion paper, with three others being submitted as part of responses. Responses to all models were mixed with no model receiving a majority of support.

This report discusses the responses in general and identifies a number of issues which must be addressed if ALIA wishes to move forward.

Overall there was general support for:

• greater flexibility
• greater accountability
• financial autonomy and program budgeting
• retaining branches and national sections/special interest groups in some form
• a forum for cross-sectoral discussions
• eliminating 'double-handling' in terms of division activities
• short-term issue based working groups
• having sunset clauses and criteria for divisions
• a regular review of ALIA's structure

It must be recognised that ALIA members are geographically dispersed throughout Australia and that the nature of their participation is often governed by their location. For example, members in large capital cities have the opportunity of involvement in a number of more-focussed sectional groups; those in a country town may have a regional group which must attempt to be all things to all members. Member numbers and state demographics also play a role in determining the activity level and the number of divisions which can be supported. Responses indicated that the Association needs to maintain its geographic relevance by allowing members to belong automatically to a geographic grouping, for example: state or regional and then subsequently to their special interest groups. The subcommittee favours a flexible structure which allows members in these groups to find their own level of organisation and activity.

Local presence

The manner in which divisions are funded has implications for local presence operations. At present each branch receives a local presence allocation in addition to the per capita allocation. Model 4 floated the idea that local presence could become a resource utilised by all groups in that state and be appropriately funded. A number of responses affirmed this suggestion. The role of local presence will be different in each state but could include a variety of roles such as photocopying, minute-taking, response service for activities, activity planning and more.

Flexible structure

Discussion

One of the few common threads running through the submissions from members and divisions is that the association's structure needs to be flexible. There is recognition that our association has to be able to make structural adjustments quickly to meet the needs of a rapidly changing industry.

There was no consensus for divisions to be forced to merge in the interests of rationalisation and administrative efficiency. Mergers, if they are to occur, should be organic and self-initiated from the members themselves. They should be facilitated by simple rules and procedures. Flexible rules should allow groups to align themselves as they see fit. This should apply both functionally and geographically. For example, state-based Cataloging and Acquisitions might want to merge into a technical services group, or a regional group might want to align itself with a nearby branch across a state border. Our association needs simple rules for the birth, death and resurrection of divisions. The life-span of a division should be determined by the activity and interest level of the group and the life-span of the topic around which it is formed.

Based on the work of the committee and the submissions received it is apparent that the need for national sections within the Association is a contentious issue. Some parties believe that national sections are an unnecessary structural layer within the Association while others hold the view that national sections play a seminal role in the delivery of service to members. In keeping with our contention that there should be no forced mergers and that flexible rules are the key to the development of a relevant structure for the Association, it should be the interest groups themselves that decide if a national section is necessary. A continuation of the present funding situation where national sections are not funded on a per capita basis but are funded by the local sections and the proceeds of conferences seems appropriate.

How it might occur

There is a trend in a number of the submissions for a flatter structure with fewer hierarchical levels. The committee was of the opinion that there could be advantages in having a common name for all groups or divisions. One possibility is to use the term 'forum'. This could lead to the following 'fora':

• Victorian Cataloguers Forum
• Northern Tasmanian Library Forum
• Distance Education Forum
• South Australian Library Technician's Forum, ...

Alternatives for the word 'forum' could be division or group. The aim is to avoid the hierarchical terms 'branch' and 'section', and to mark a clean break from the past.

It is recommended that the basic rules for the creation and continued existence of a forum should be a minimum number of members (this should not be set too low), a set of objectives which fit with those of the Association (for example, Web Design would fit but Wine Tasting may not) and a committee of office bearers. If a committee cannot be raised for an existing group for a year or two then that forum can go into abeyance until interest in that issue picks up. With a centralised financial system this would not be difficult to handle.

Groups or fora should be funded with a small per capita grant with, in many cases, most of their funding coming from a simple program budgeting setup which recognises the actual costs of running programs. For example, it is more expensive to fly a nationally-recognised speaker to a seminar in Port Hedland or Portland then it is to find one in Sydney or Melbourne.

Whatever the structure is that the Association finally agrees on, it is essential that somewhere within it there are fora which have the responsibility of mentoring or fostering the creation of new fora. For exmple, under our present structure, new sections for Web Design and Document Delivery could be set up. It is presently understood that branches have this role even if they do not always exercise it. It needs to be recognised that not withstanding the existence of simple procedures for the 'bottom-up' creation of new fora, there is also the need for some 'top-down' fostering of new groups. This role needs to be built into the structure somewhere.

Options for implementation

Implementation of a flexible structure may include processes such as:

• formation of simple rules, procedures and criteria regarding the formation, operation and cessation of fora
• deciding on one common name for divisions (section, SIG, forum...)
• giving divisions time to consider how they wish to exist in the future (as the same division, aligned with a different group or merged in some way...)
• asking divisions to consider their means of communicating with members, some may want a newsletter as their focus of activity, others may use discussion lists and a website
• asking divisions in each state how they wish to interact (continuation of a Branch Council with sectional representatives or an issues-based state forum...)
• a review of the structure of ALIA National Office and its ability to support a more flexible organisation.

Accountability

Discussion

In attempting to provide models for discussion, one of the key issues which the restructure subcommittee attempted to address was the issue of increased accountability of divisions in terms of planning, reporting actions and financial accountability.

One respondent likened ALIA to an 'expensive wine- and cheese-tasting club with a newsletter' and while this has never been the fact, accountability to ALIA National Office by divisions has not been a strong point. The perceptions that providing information to ALIA National Office on divisional activities provokes a 'big brother is watching over you' and 'why should we tell them how we use our money' reaction may be real for some divisions and this needs to be overcome if accountability issues are to be addressed. The notion of performance review may not be palatable to some but nonetheless needs to be incorporated into divisional thinking.

Some divisions have been more diligent than others in reporting plans and actions and the restructuring process now provides the opportunity for processes to be established which will make it easier, and more palatable, for all divisions to follow in reporting plans and actions and for the more efficient allocation of resources.

Throughout the responses to the draft models, the idea of operational issues, reduction of administrative burdens, need for business plans, audits of activities and clear reporting responsibilities were common concepts. At the same time, there was a perception that requests for information of this type from ALIA National Office are often apparently without purpose.

How it might occur

Performance review needs to be 'sold' to divisions as a non-threatening process which will benefit the division and ALIA National Office. The key issue in implementing a strategy which will ensure greater accountability, several factors need to acknowledged:

• the desire for less administrative processes
• clear purpose for reporting
• flexibility (the ability to change plans during the reporting period)
• accountability processes fit within the planning and reporting process of the division as well as ALIA National Office

Options for implementation

The restructure subcommittee suggests that implementation of formal accountability processes could be as simple as requiring divisions to:

1. Complete a planning form at the beginning of each year which indicates
   • continuation of the division for the current year,
   • names of office-bearers,
   • outline of planned activities and possible timelines,
   • meeting dates,
   • proposed budget (including how the budget will be financed),
   • extra budgetary requirements (recoupable grants which may be required, seed funding for activities...).
   It is important that flexibility is built into this process and perhaps a mid-year review of the plan can be made if the changes are significant during the first six months.
   
   
2. Reconcile the planning form against actual activities including:
   • a short annual report,
   • budget reconciliation.
   This is a similar process to current practices but if the two forms are interrelated they will provide the basis for a type of performance review of each division on an annual basis. Making the process simple and easy to do will be a key element in its success. Providing the forms electronically is one method which may assist the process.

Funding

Discussion

The funding of ALIA groups was not included in the committee's original brief but it is a crucial issue and was raised in several of the submissions from members and divisions. It is very important for ALIA's survival and growth that members consider that they receive value for their membership fees.

The committee supports the use of a common name for all groups and suggests that there be no differential funding for groups. Groups should be funded with a small per capita grant with most of their funding coming from a simple program-budgeting process which recognises the actual costs of running programs.

Direct funding should be provided to the groups by the Board of Directors and not by Branch Council as under the current system. If a group decides to form a national group, similar to a national section, the national group will not be funded on a per capita basis, and the current system of self-funding of national groups by organising conferences and special events should continue.

How it might occur

With the introduction of a centralised funding system and the recognised need to improve accountability, funding by program budgeting should be implemented. To help facilitate this, the ALIA National Office needs to make program budgeting as easy and simply as possible for the groups to implement and understand. By providing an information kit on program budgeting which includes templates and examples will help encourage groups to use program budgeting. Specific funding criteria and parameters should be set to ensure that groups are funded fairly and equitably.

Within the program budgeting guidelines, groups would be expected to conduct a mix of free and income generating activities with any income generated kept within the group's account at ALIA National Office.

The Board of Directors would have responsibility for ensuring equitable funding for groups including consideration of past performance.

Options for implementation

Implementation of a new funding scheme requires consideration of:

• how members join and fund each group (should members continue to pay an additional sum for each group they wish to be part of and how would this would work in a more flexible structure?),
• keeping a per capita allocation or moving solely to program budgeting.

Conclusion

The responses to the discussion paper were many and varied. It is clear that members do want ALIA to move forward and to be a vibrant and relevant professional body.

The Division Structure Subcommittee is proposing a move to a more organic but still familiar structure. It is a move away from any fixed hierarchical model to a format which allows members to find their own level of activity. It recognises that individual members throughout Australia are the ones responsible for the majority of ALIA activity and that they require the freedom and funding to act.

Recommendations

1. That the National Policy Congress accept the report
   
   
2. That the National Policy Congress consider the reorganisation of ALIA divisions taking into account:
   • the need for a flexible structure
   • accountability issues
   • funding arrangements
   • the role of local presence
   • the implementation of simple procedures for accountability and funding
   • a regular review process for ALIA's structure.