Here's Your Chance to Be Heard

As the new AALL Consumer Advocacy Caucus prepares to present its first recommendation to the AALL Executive Board at the upcoming annual conference, it is important to solicit input from AALL members about grievances we have against legal information vendors. Which practices hurt law libraries most? What is your most pressing concern? What is your most longstanding concern? Michael Ginsborg, Caucus Chair, is asking that comments be posted on the Caucus blog, or sent directly to him at michaelginsborg@yahoo.com. The Caucus will respect all requests for confidentiality by those who request it.

Victory for the Consumer Caucus

On Saturday, November 5th, the AALL Executive Board unanimously approved a motion to recognize the new AALL Caucus on Consumer Advocacy. This wonderful result was the culmination of efforts led by Michael Ginsborg that built on years of work by other law library consumer advocates: Kendall Svengalis, Jack Montgomery, and Joe Stephens, who continue to guide and inspire us. We should also express appreciation for the instrumental endorsement of the Caucus by the Private Law Libraries Special Interest Section under the leadership of Steve Lastres. As a long-time member of the Academic Law Libraries Special Interest Section, I would have liked to have seen ALL-SIS join PLL-SIS in endorsing the petition. That did not happen. However, no law library today is immune from the pressures of the marketplace, and we need to stand together in advocating for the needs of our institutions and users. I hope that the ALL-SIS leadership will come around to this point of view. In the meantime, however, although I know that the really hard work is still ahead of us, it feels good to savor the victory.

There is Still Time to Sign the Consumer Advocacy Caucus Petition!

You have until November 2 to sign the Consumer Advocacy Caucus petition that seeks to have the group recognized as an official AALL Caucus. The AALL Executive Board will consider the petition during the November 5th Executive Board meeting in Chicago, at which Michael Ginsborg, our chair, will be in attendance.

A final version of the petition will be submitted to the Board on November 2, but it will NOT contain names of individual AALL members who support the petition. AALL has asked that the group simply provide the total number of AALL members who support the petition. AALL Chapters, Sections and Caucuses that have endorsed the petition will be listed, but individual members' names will not.

If you are considering whether to support the petition, but have been hesitant to add your name as a signatory, this development will help you make up your mind. Please contact Michael Ginsborg at michaelginsborg@yahoo.com if you would like to be counted as a supporter of the petition.

For more information about the history of and reasons for the Caucus and the petition, go to my earlier blog post on the subject. And if you're wondering what any of this has to do with you and your library, read Laura Orr's cogent post on the Oregon Legal Research blog.

Sign the Consumer Caucus Petition!

I am reproducing below the petition of the Caucus of Consumer Advocacy to the AALL Board. Please read the petition, and if you agree with the position of the Caucus, sign it by emailing your approval to Michael Ginsborg at michaelginsborg@yahoo.com. The names of all signatories will be kept confidential, as explained in the petition. Time is of the essence. We have a short deadline by which to gather signatures (September 16th) to allow AALL time to place the petition on the agenda of the Board meeting for November 3rd-5th. The Caucus's statement of purpose must be strong and unequivocal so that we can be effective consumer advocates for law libraries.

Request To Support A Petition For An AALL Consumer Advocacy Caucus

We are a group of over 50 AALL members who need your support in a crisis affecting all types of law libraries. Our libraries cannot indefinitely sustain the escalating costs of unfair and anticompetitive business practices by some sellers of legal information. AALL has unique promise to champion the interests of legal information consumers. We have matched its promise with an opportunity. In April, we registered to become an AALL Caucus on Consumer Advocacy. AALL members have achieved earlier successes at consumer advocacy. Based on their examples, we proposed several consumer advocacy initiatives as our goals. AALL's leadership initially raised concerns about our goals. We were told that our Caucus would violate antitrust law and make policies on AALL's behalf. To answer these objections, we changed our
statement of purpose. Former AALL President Joyce Janto subsequently approved our revised statement for an Executive Board vote. AALL President Darcy Kirk recently rejected it and offered a substitute that compromises our effectiveness. We need your support as we petition the Board to reverse Darcy's decision and approve our revised statement of purpose. We ask that you endorse the following petition to the Executive Board. We will instruct the Executive Board to keep signatory names strictly confidential.

A Petition Of Undersigned AALL Members To AALL’s Executive Board

As AALL members, we petition AALL’s Executive Board to approve this statement of purpose for the creation of the AALL Caucus on Consumer Advocacy: "The AALL Caucus on Consumer Advocacy will recommend to AALL that it petition appropriate governmental bodies for specific remedies to anticompetitive and unfair business practices by legal information sellers." We do not consent to any disclosure of our names as signatories. Disclosure could allow legal information sellers to retaliate against us by singling out our employers for less favorable business relations.

Reasons For The Petition

1. The Caucus has a strong factual basis for its proposed purpose.

2. Although AALL has three venues on “vendor relations,” none can effectively address unfair and anticompetitive business practices in the legal information industry. First, the Vendor Colloquium did not discuss consumer advocacy, and the membership had no opportunity for digital participation in any of its sessions. Caucus members asked a Vendor Colloquium task force to consider our proposal of a robust consumer advocacy equal to AALL’s promise. The
task force did not respond, closing an opportunity for their participation. Second, CRIV does admirable work to help individual institutions resolve complaints against legal information sellers. But CRIV can not use information from these complaints to advocate for a change in AALL policy. Third, despite significant anti-consumer practices in the industry, AALL’s Vendor Liaison has reduced related membership concerns to a problem in public relations. In March 2011, Vendor Liaison Margie Maes reported that unidentified “vendors” were “frustrated with the airing of public complaints,” but hoped that a “vendor relations program” would “stem the flow of that negative communication.” (March 25-26, 2011 AALL Executive Board Meeting Board Book, Tab 17)

3. We need a new approach. Caucus members seek the opportunity to independently influence AALL policymaking in a matter of high importance to the membership. An AALL Caucus would provide AALL members a forum to fully exchange their views on consumer advocacy, and a transparent venue to reach consensus on a policy recommendation to the Executive Board. The Caucus would not decide policy for AALL or act on its behalf. Caucus members seek only to have their voices heard; to open a new outlet for member participation in AALL; and to collaborate with AALL’s leadership in developing an effective consumer advocacy.

4. Over 50 AALL members have twice requested AALL’s recognition of the Caucus. Valuing AALL as their best ally, they have worked with its leadership to develop an acceptable statement of purpose. Former AALL President Joyce Janto provisionally approved their latest submission, but her successor, Darcy Kirk, has rejected it. Darcy suggests that the Caucus accept yet another statement of purpose: "The purpose of the Caucus on Consumer Advocacy is to provide a forum for AALL members to exchange ideas and information regarding the legal information industry and to represent its members’ interest and concerns within AALL."

5. Darcy objected to the "negative tone" of the Caucus’ latest purpose and faulted the Caucus for suggesting "actions regarding policy." She says that her substitute purpose “does not prevent [the Caucus] from from making recommendations to AALL regarding petitions.” But it would prevent the Caucus from candidly declaring its real purpose - to recommend a consumer advocacy petition.

6. AALL’s leadership could apply similar objections to any activity our Caucus might otherwise pursue, especially given the recent history of changing positions by AALL Presidents.

7. Darcy's rejection of the Caucus' proposed purpose would harm AALL in the following ways:
a. It would violate the implied right of members to engage AALL in matters they find fundamentally related to its mission;
b. It would violate AALL’s principle of transparency and openness;
c. It would create a chilling effect on Association speech, as members will not be allowed to discuss consumer advocacy issues, must less pursue them, for fear that AALL will not approve of candid discussion;
d. It would create the appearance that AALL is afraid of candor in matters that affect sellers of legal information;
e. It would deprive members the indispensable status and perceived “protection” that AALL recognition confers on an activity that some legal information sellers can be expected to disapprove; and
f. It would deter members from otherwise acting together to pursue their vision of a robust consumer advocacy.

8. These harmful consequences prevent Caucus members from accepting Darcy's substitute purpose. So unless the Board reverses Darcy's decision, the Board will deny over 50 AALL members an opportunity they eagerly want to participate in their Association; will deprive other AALL members the benefits of allowing the Caucus to organize; and will undermine member trust and interest in the Association.

Consumer Advocacy Caucus Meets

The new Consumer Advocacy Caucus met during the recent conference of the American Association of Law Libraries in a swank conference room at the Drinker Biddle law firm in Philadelphia. It was nice to see how the other half lives! It was also a pleasure to meet members of the Caucus in person and to learn that all different types of law libraries are represented in our organization. We had two reasons for meeting: the primary reason was to discuss our options for organizing, and the secondary was to establish priorities for the Caucus.

Before deciding how to organize, we reviewed the drama surrounding the drafting of the Caucus’s statement of purpose and the Executive Board’s rejection of the statement submitted for approval in April. The April statement was rejected on two grounds: legal (mainly antitrust) and administrative (only AALL can make policy, and no other group can speak on behalf of AALL). The most recent statement of purpose reads as follows: “The AALL Caucus on Consumer Advocacy will recommend to AALL that it petition appropriate governmental bodies for specific remedies of anticompetitive and unfair business practices by sellers of legal information.” This new statement of purpose was submitted to AALL President Darcy Kirk on August 3. I do not know whether she has responded.

To give some context to the day’s discussions, the meeting began with a brief summary of the history of consumer advocacy on behalf of purchasers of legal information. Consumer advocacy goes back to an article by the law librarian Raymond Taylor, Lawbook Consumers Need Protection, A.B.A.J., June 1969, at 553. Taylor recommended voluntary guidelines and action by the FTC, which was accomplished without any involvement by AALL. In the 1980s, other individuals and groups stepped forward to evaluate products and help consumers determine whether they were getting their money’s worth. One of the best sources of information remains Ken Svengalis’s Legal Information Buyer’s Guide and Reference Manual, which is still being published. Unfortunately, today many consumers get their product information from vendors, and there is no independent voice speaking on behalf of the consumer. AALL is not advocating for its members’ interests in this regard, and we have all felt the results of its lack of attention in the form of shoddy products, rapidly escalating costs, restrictive licensing agreements, and other dubious practices of legal information vendors. Everyone in attendance felt that it was time to speak up and mobilize. The Caucus is a step in this direction.

In terms of organizing, we determined we could either seek recognition as an AALL caucus with a new statement of purpose, or form an organization independent of AALL. Michael Ginsborg, the convener of the Philadelphia meeting and the prime mover behind the organization, passed out a thoughtful document that laid out the pros and cons of each type of organization.

AALL Caucus

Advantages:

Substantive

• Reclaiming AALL as a consumer advocate increases the long-term odds of success because the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission recognize AALL as the official representative of our institutions, and because it would be easier to partner with organizations such as the American Bar Association and the American Library Association.
• The sentiment of AALL members has changed in favor of the Caucus.

Procedural

• We can tailor almost all of the initially-proposed actions to the new statement of purpose.
• If necessary, the Caucus can bypass the Board's failure to act by proposing a resolution. In fact, Michael Ginsborg plans to offer a procedural reform to allow electronic ballot votes on AALL resolutions.
• The Caucus can attempt to elect its own slate of AALL officers.

Disadvantage:

• The Caucus would have to overcome AALL’s institutional barriers to consumer advocacy.

Independent Organization

Advantages:

Substantive

• The Caucus would improve the long-term chances of success if it builds support without trying to overcome AALL’s limitations.
• Even if the Executive Board approves our recommendation, AALL may do nothing.
• AALL might try to marginalize our group even if the Board lets us form an AALL Caucus.
• AALL has a history of opposing strong consumer advocacy.

Procedural

• An independent Caucus could take any consumer advocacy actions it deemed appropriate.

Disadvantages:

• It would be a challenge to build a wide base of support.
• The Caucus would have to create its owninstitutional framework and make it viable.
• AALL could marginalize the Caucus as an “outlier” organization if the Caucus pursues remedies with the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission.
• The Caucus would have less leverage to strengthen the Fair Business Practices Guide and monitor the work of the Price Index Committee.

After some vigorous discussion of the pros and cons of the two organizational types, the members present voted to form a caucus and to seek recognition from AALL. This is our first priority. The indefatigable Michael Ginsborg was elected Chair of the Caucus.

Ken Svengalis attended the meeting, and raised ongoing issues with AALL’s Price Index for Legal Publications, which has suffered because of Thomson’s unwillingness to supply the information requested, i.e., the prices of discounted supplementations. Without this information, the Price Index is not nearly as useful as it could be. Ken has asked for volunteers to help him gather prices for the next edition of his book.