you loose some
for the past two days i have been victoria attending my third bcla conference. this year marked the 100th anniversary of the association, and was an opportunity for bcla to celebrate and to highlight “our collaborative and innovative spirit, [and] our excitement about the future”1. i would like to say i left with renewed spirit for bcla, but instead i am leaving with a full belly and a kind of frighting cat bag from baker & taylor.
the sessions were all good to excellent, and at least two of the presenters truly inspired me. one was brooke ballantyne scott, who put together an informative presentation on serving clients with mental health issues, and whose presentation style just really spoke to me. the other was dr. ann curry, whose two sessions on censorship and andrew carnegie were impressively researched and super informative.
i got to catch up with colleagues i hadn’t seen in nearly a year, meet a few new faces i had only previously met online, and spend time with my awesome surrey colleagues whom i normally only see at work (and who enjoy good eating as much as i do!). it was excellent to catch up with people, and i should add i’m leaving happy and well socialised.
this morning, however, brought the bcla agm. after more than a year of ltaig’s campaign to become a section of bcla (a step up in the organisation’s hierarchy that would, presumably, give us a more influential role in the association) we found our resolution for section status denied due to an insufficiency of valid signatures. add to this the third page of my agm package announcing that the executive had decided membership fees were going up by 5-25% (no discussion at the agm, no voting, and to my knowledge, no report to membership after the meetings and surveys about this issue), and i began thinking to myself that i better pick up all the complimentary bagels i can– this might be my last bcla conference.
things can move quickly when it comes to bcla’s finances, but apparently not when it comes to bcla’s members. there were kind words to ltaig regarding the failure/delay of our section status, but nothing changed and there was no push from the bcla powers to move forward. yes, there is a process set out in the constitution, but there is always the option to ask for exceptions or grace periods. we were six signatures shy due to expiring memberships, and despite gathering an additional 40 or more signatures at the conference, there was no chance to allow us the vote at the agm.
in conjunction with the membership rate increases is the reality that ltaig has been operating on a budget of near zero for the past year and more. how can bcla ask technicians to pay $60 – $100 (or more) to an association that does not recognise us as sufficiently integral to give us a small pot of money to work with through the year, let alone a seat on the bcla board?
it isn’t just that this was a disappointment, it’s that it was a waste of our time and energies. we are being forced to spend our resources campaigning for bureaucracy inside the association where we could instead be working on developing opportunities for continuing education, advocacy, and building our social networks.
i believe strongly in association. i value having a professional community, and believe in working hard to keep our connections alive and lively. during paul whitney’s keynote friday afternoon he spoke of the split that formed bclta (the trustees’ association) as a separate sister organisation, and i am left wondering if this is where the future of technicians in bc is headed? do we also need our own space where we will not have to spend our time and resources convincing our librarian colleagues of our importance to the association? i would like to see technicians accepted and recognised in the association, but i don’t think technicians should have to pay for it at the cost of building other real initiatives.
