Committee to consider the importance of a risk whose contours neither the Committee nor theBoard may foresee. This is the risk that such policies would discourage AALL members fromgrassroots engagement through AALL caucuses. Two simple balancing tests should apply.First, exactly how, under such new policies, would the Board's responsibility to the Association justify any risk to harming such grassroots participation by AALL members, whether or not theBoard can foresee the risk? Second, would the policies represent a proportionate response bythe Board to the perceived risk of Associational harm by proposed or recognized caucuses?An example will illustrate the difficulty of satisfying these balancing tests. Under the 2007proposal, proposal authors Steve Anderson and Catherine Lemann speculate on a "hopefullyimprobable" scenario involving a caucus: "Because of Caucus’ use of AALL resources and amount on influence with the membership,it is possible—but hopefully improbable—that a Caucus might bring some type of disreputeor liability on the Association. For example, one might envision awkward speeches at Caucusbusiness meetings or inappropriate website postings. These unfortunate circumstances likelywould be minimized somewhat if the purpose for the formation of a Caucus closely mirrored theobjectives of the Association itself." But under the balancing tests, does the Board need
caucus
policies to cover "hopefullyimprobable" scenarios like this one? The weight of available evidence suggests that it doesnot. AALL has since adopted a“Speaking For AALL” Policythat applies to
any
AALL entitywhose participants might be wrongly thought to speak for the Association. Does the Boardneed new policies targeting
just caucuses
for comparable “scenarios” of concern, no matter how “improbable”? Do caucuses raise concerns for the Board about “disrepute” or “liability” thatno other AALL entity does? Would the policies represent a commensurate response to suchconcerns?These questions should be considered in light of the facts. AALL members have significantconstraints on their time and resources. As a result, AALL receives few requests to recognizecaucuses, and caucuses have rather limited time and means to pursue their shared interestswithin the Association. So it is rather unlikely that caucuses will implicate the Association inexpressions or actions harmful to its interests. In addition, caucus members do not need newpolicies to clarify an understanding that they already have - that, as AALL members, they mustcomply with AALL’s requirements. The recent experience of the Consumer Advocacy Caucusconfirms this understanding. The “informality” of caucuses does
not
mean that caucus membersare somehow more likely than members of other AALL entities to incur disrepute or liability for AALL; indeed, given their practical constraints, caucus members are
less
likely to do so. As aresult, caucus policies would appear to represent a disproportionate response to a problem thathas little or no chance of happening. At the same time, unless carefully crafted, these policies would incur the greater risk of deterringAALL members from forming caucuses or from pursuing caucus interests even in ways AALLwould approve. It remains unclear how the Committee can craft policies with sufficient careto avoid this greater risk. To demonstrate the difficulty, consider Anderson's and Lemann'ssuggestion that "the Board may consider whether the proposed number of initial memberswould be sufficient to carry out the Caucus’s objectives." Can the Committee now recommendthe threshold for member interest in a caucus? The new Environmental Libraries Caucus
Leave a Comment