Newbery Social Media “Guidelines” — How Strict Is It?
Roxanne:
A recent Newbery committee member’s experience reported by the member herself, on social media, and by industry outlets such as School Library Journal, reminds me of a line from the movie Pirates of the Caribbean: ‘the code is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules.’ What is the difference between Guidelines and Rules? When a section in the Newbery Committee Procedural Manual is named “Guidelines for Award Committees,” does that mean that the committee members have some liberty to interpret these guidelines as they see fit, even if the terms do not seem negotiable?
#6 in the “GUIDELINES” section clearly states:
Members should not engage in any print or electronic communication outside of the committee regarding eligible titles during their term of service, although they may verbally express their personal opinions regarding eligible titles at any time. This includes, but is not limited to, professional and general journals/magazines/newspapers, electronic discussion lists, blogs, and social networking services (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.).
However, it seems that the Committee member who took to her twitter account and reported on her library patron’s reaction to an eligible book didn’t believe that she violated this particular term (and continued to engage thusly after being privately asked to stop this form of endorsement.)
Sharon and Steven, what was your initial reaction when you first learned about this situation?
Sharon:
My first reaction was definitely shock and then I sort of went straight into, “I need to gather details before I make a decision on how to feel” mode.
I agree that it’s complicated when things are called “Guidelines” and not “Rules” and I think when there’s any ambiguity it becomes hard to enforce things and ensure that people will see it as fair. I definitely understand why this committee member was beyond upset – I can’t even imagine how devastating it must be – and I also understand people rallying to her side.
We give so much of ourselves to these committees, and we want to feel valued, honored, and appreciated, and so I think this feels like a slap-in-the-face to some people who donate their time (and money to get to conferences, and to pay their membership dues) to ALA and ALSC.
I can also see the other side, though, and understand that the integrity of these awards being compromised is also not OK and does not show respect to the people who serve on committees. It’s hard, for me, to say a lot more because I don’t know what really happened. I don’t know exactly what she was told, and what the first warning was. I don’t know how the decision was made to remove her and I can’t compare it to other similar situations because I simply don’t have that information.
I do think, though, that this makes it obvious that these Guidelines need to be more straightforward and with less left to individual discretion if the consequences are so severe.
Roxanne:
Although I also don’t know exactly what happened in this case, I can speak from personal experiences that ALSC leadership does not take removing anyone from an award committee lightly. As a pretty avid blogger myself, I got into a couple of situations and had to remove content from my blog while serving on award committees, even when I thought I did not violate the guidelines. Once I was asked, I complied — with initial indignation, of course, but also knew that it’s not the end of the world if I cannot review/blog about eligible books for a year. It is, after all, just a year. And I could still recommend and gush my heart out over beloved titles to my students and friends. Great books do rise up to the top, promoted by many people who are not serving on award committees and blogs and online lists, etc. When serving on an Award committee, I can see dedicating my energy toward those final winning/honored titles without publishing additional materials that could potentially be construed as inappropriate.
Sharon:
I agree and do think that she made a poor decision. Given the newest guidelines around this, I think if I were to serve now, I would pretty much shut down any blogging I was doing (on books or awards) and avoid mentioning any eligible books anywhere online. When I served on the Caldecott Committee these guidelines were in the works, but what was in place at the time was even more murky. I can say from experience that it was confusing.
In this case, I think that most of our children’s lit community feels real empathy for her and this situation even if it was the right call.
I do trust ALSC and have a hard time believing that this decision was made lightly or hastily. I just wish we could have more information and understand how it did.
Steven:
I don’t know enough about this year’s situation to comment, except to echo that yes, it would be crushing to miss out on an opportunity that for most of us is a high point of our careers (and even our lives). And that ALSC, in my experience, takes a decision like this with a high level of consideration.
The guidelines sure are interesting, though. In one way, the difference between “verbally expressing opinions” and sharing opinions online doesn’t seem that great. If I were a Committee member I could say, “I think Vincent and Theo is a wonderful book, but that’s just my view, not a reflection of the Newbery Committee” to a friend or in a book discussion group, that’s okay. But the same words in a blog or a tweet are not okay. I’m saying the exact same thing, so why should it matter where or how? But it does matter. The posted version can get reposted, reinterpreted, taken out of context, and eventually be seen as real inside information about the workings of the Committee. It does seem counter-intuitive, if you regularly share book opinions online and all of a sudden, during the year in which you’re doing more reading and more deep thinking about books than you ever have before, you have to stop. But as Roxanne says, it’s just a year.
Roxanne:
Sharon and Steven, thanks for your words on this. There is a ALSC Task Force, working on reviewing the revising award committee manuals on Confidentiality and Promotion in the 21st Century, Refresh Eligibility Interpretations, Batchelder e-Book eligibility, Wilder Committee changes, and Other housecleaning as identified.
I would love now to invite Heavy Medal readers to weigh in.
Filed under: Process
About Roxanne Hsu Feldman
Roxanne Hsu Feldman is the Middle School (4th to 8th grade) Librarian at the Dalton School in New York City. She served on the 2002 and 2013 Newbery Committees. Roxanne was also a member of 2008-2009 Notable Books for Children, 2015 Best Fiction for Young Adults, and the 2017 Odyssey Award Committees. In 2016 Roxanne was one of the three judges for the Boston Globe-Horn Book Awards. You can reach her at at roxannefeldman@gmail.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
SLJ Blog Network
Top 10 Posts of 2024: #1
In Memoriam: Remembering Those Lost in 2024
History Comics: The Prohibition Era | Review
When Book Bans are a Form of Discrimination, What is the Path to Justice?
Take 265: What Amanda Read in 2024
ADVERTISEMENT
I had the same take as Steven: That she followed the guidelines for *in-person* talk about the books, instead of the online guidelines.
The whole situation scared me silly – since I’m just beginning my committee service. I’ve got a website of reviews, and I’m very active on Facebook, and a little less so on Twitter. I’m taking the whole thing as a cautionary tale. I reread the guidelines when this happened and am going to be very, very careful. As it happens, I am so far behind on posting the reviews I’ve written, I figure I can post old reviews the whole year without running out of material.
Sondy, I don’t think you need to worry. Just do what Sharon said: don’t blog or tweet. It’s kind of freeing, actually, to not have to engage in social media that way for a long stretch of time. Also, the Task Force might come up with different rules for your year!
If she was indeed asked to stop and continued then her removal was justified.
I was unaware of this incident and am saddened that someone simply stating that a child was captivated by a book had to face such repercussions. I suppose she shouldn’t have mentioned the title or author, and that might have been what caused the trouble. I am a teacher, and I recommend books to children all the time in hopes that they will find something that will spark their interest. However, I understand that an award’s integrity has to be maintained, and people might fear conflict of interest.
This reminds me of how a committee involves teamwork and not just an individual. So, I respect the librarian’s decision to resign but don’t feel it was necessary. Seems as if people overreacted. She could have argued her case for the book, but the final decision wouldn’t have just rested with her, would it? In 2015, I was so captivated by a book called Bone Gap that I wrote about it constantly and talked about it just as frequently. I suppose I would have had to resign, too!
I hope the librarian does not allow this incident to influence her future work as it is the job of all librarians and educators to encourage self-expression and to help children find role models not only in real life but in literature.
This is such a dilemma. I started my blog in 2007 thinking naively that I’d feature a series on my Newbery reading (being on the 2008 Committee). Roger Sutton, on Caldecott, similarly had just started his blog. I remember vividly sitting with a bunch nascent bloggers at Midwinter that year where the Board was contemplating a rule that we could not blog at all. Happily they saw reason and we were allowed to blog non-award stuff. Since then I’ve watched the rules be strengthened and have puzzled about them. Why, I have wondered, can we talk in person about our preferences, but not online?
Sorting out what happened in this instance has helped me to understand. At first I was outraged, but then better understood how she had broken clearly delineated rules. And these conversations about what happened also makes it clear to me that for those with major social media following it is problematic to think of the platform in the same way as talking to a group of colleagues in RL. It is all that amplifying that is the problem. Your words go out to hundreds and thousands. So now sadly (because I too felt horrible for Angie) I better understand the need for this in some form. I look forward to seeing what the taskforce comes up with. Back in Roger’s and my day my sense was the Board was very vague on the nature of blogging, but now I assume there will be task force members who understand the situation thoroughly and thus trust their recommendations.
One of my problems with the verbal versus social media distinction is it favors folks who live in large cities or work for big systems. Those of us who don’t are being shut down in conversation in ways that others are not, because of where they live and who they work for. Was a rule broken? Yes. Are the rules fair? Do they privilege some over others? That is the question, and one that was raised at the time.
That’s an excellent point, Liz!
People who live in NYC see writers all the time! I see the posts, the photos, the gatherings… And, they can talk about those books with other librarians at gatherings all the time, too!
Sometimes it feels like NYC versus the rest of the country, when I look at the landscape of who goes where, who has meet-ups, etc.
Funny, I have been just thinking about Urban vs Rural and how so few children’s books seem to be really about contemporary rural life in the U.S. — those kids do not see themselves mirrored in children’s literature. And we wonder why the country gets more and more divided and people do not understand each other.
Another theoretical – librarian has to booktalk as part of their job. That includes having the list on the library website and social media to promote it. Does the inclusion of eligible titles mean this list is a violation?
Roxanne, yes – these are all the ways that the way things always have been gets reinforced. If publishers know that a committee members comments in a NYC preview don’t indicate a preference for author, title, publisher, why does the publisher think otherwise when the info is in a tweet? The difference is who gets to be in the room.
I wonder whether the ill-advised action on Ms. Manfredi’s part was not the initial tweet but her later action (by her own account) of talking “in twitter replies with a handful of people about it, including the author of the book and someone from the publishing department.” Without seeing the tweets, I believe that creates far more of a perception problem re: conflict of interest than the initial tweet (which is still problematic, but perhaps less consequential.) it’s sort of like the Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch “tarmac meeting.” It could have been completely innocent and innocuous, but the simple fact of interactions with author and publisher makes it hard to maintain the required independent image.
I’ve read a little into this, but one big question remains for me:
Did the member/ex-member specifically state the title of the book in her blog? Or did she just mention that the child liked “a book being considered,” omitting such specifics as title, author, give-away plot points? Because I’d say that would make the difference of how fair or unfair her removal was.
On a personal opinion note: I find it creepy that The Newbery Man is monitoring the online activities of committee members so closely as to catch something like this. It almost feels like cyber stalking. But, of course, that’s just me.
I believe that the title/author was mentioned, and there was some public engagement between the said member and the author/publisher via twitter. I don’t believe there is anyone actually spending their time monitoring social media activities from ALSC (Association of Library Services to Children, a national organization that sponsors and administers the Award). However, it is a large division with many members who are actively engaging in social media, especially children’s library services and children’s books. I know that when I served on the Odyssey Award this past year, certain blog posts from my site were brought to the attention to ALSC Board by an ALSC member and they reviewed those posts, decided that it was revealing too much of our process and some titles might be guessed via my (not so) vague descriptions and assessments. We had a few exchanges and I agreed to not blog about my Odyssey Committee experiences for the year. I went on and served my full term, had the best time, and learned a whole lot during the year of listening and committee work. I hope this makes it less “creepy”?
With all that’s said here, and my support for ALSC’s decision re this particular incident, I have to say that I would LOVE to be able to “talk”/”post” publicly regarding titles that I am reading — even when I serve on a Committee.
I feel that it is invaluable for Award Committee members to be able to express their personal, expert, and thoughtful opinions on the books they read. They are probably reading more broadly during their tenure on the Committee then others and than when they read just for themselves. They have to keep a more critical mindset while they read the eligible titles than if they’re reading for work (getting books that kids will love into their library system, etc.) So, I feel that it is a loss to the entire children’s literature community that we cannot access critical views on the many excellent books of any given year from the Committee members.
However, I can totally see how public gushing, endorsement of author friends’ books, and flaunting personal relationships with authors/editors without the backing of critical assessment and constant disclaimer as crossing the line of professionalism and should be curtailed.
Not talking about the situation, but the guidelines. I am surprised that the guidelines allow verbal communication about eligible titles. For example, my school has two librarians. Let’s say I am on the committee. My colleague listens in on class that I I tell about an eligible book and say how amazing it is. What is stopping my colleague (putting aside professional ethics) from tweeting out that such and such a title looks to be a contender! Isn’t that violating the confidentiality of the committee? I think the verbal part of that guideline is murky at best.
Lisa, you brought up real life scenarios here — thanks! The fact is, this happens all the time. Close friends/colleagues to a committee member might have an inkling on which books this friend is rooting for. But, he/she should never divulge whether the Committee is considering the book as a contender. Every book published in the U.S. by a U.S. author is “eligible” but whether any book actually gets nominated and discussed in Midwinter Conference when the 15-member committee meets should not be public information. If one is a good friend to a Committee member, one would most likely not want to jeopardize your friend’s position on the committee by tweeting. And when I served on the committee, I definitely told my colleagues to not publicize via social media what transpires in more private/in person settings. If someone does go that far as to take what they hear as endorsement from the entire Committee, I could see it being a case for ALSC leadership to consider and hopefully they would have enough faith in the Committee member’s professionalism to know that it’s beyond their control. And make it widely known that personal opinions is just that — one person in a group of 15.
The lovely thing about being on a Newbery Committee is that your mind is constantly being changed by the other 14 people. You go in with clear ideas of which titles are your TOP 7 (that you have nominated) but come out of the weekend surprised by what you have chosen as a team and how your views on many books have changed because of added perspectives.
A sort of fun thing – our library marketing head arranged for me to go on a county podcast next February about being on the Newbery committee. I said that yes, I will – but to make it clear that I will not talk about any eligible books. I *do* see part of committee service as publicizing the award. I think it will actually be fun to talk about how I cannot mention online what my favorites are and how seriously the award deliberations are taken.
So if a disclaimer is stated at the beginning that you will not talk about any eligible book, and you mention a title or someone asks about a title and you do respond and talk about it that must mean it is NOT eligible then. Right? So really you can not talk about ANY book or you will be providing a status.
Wouldn’t it be splendid to have a blog called OLDBERY in which last years Newbery committee could blog about books they discovered and loved in the process of reading that they might not have come across otherwise. I know they can’t talk about the content of their deliberations but it would be cool to hear about the breadth of their reading and how they grew as a reader over their term of service as well.
Honestly, Rosanne, I crave this. I think it would be so interesting to be offered insight into the process – to learn what was discussed. Sometimes the Newbery bubble/vacuum seems a bit silly to me. We’re talking about literature here, not life and death.
My hope is that the awards committees, like all good things in life, continue to evolve and change be ever more attuned to the world. And haven’t we already seen this evolution in the last few years? Such refreshing winners and honors! I’d love to hear the stories behind those winners (and those that came to the table but were eventually dismissed).
Rosanne & Joe, add my voice to this call. I had to take my post-Newbery, top 40 titles from the year (2012 pub date) down from Fairrosa Cyber Library. It’s still sitting in my “draft” pile on wordpress. I think it will be fine if I bring some titles to light and talk about how much I appreciated them now, individually, and not tie them back to my Newbery tenure. And yes, it will actually be fantastic if ALSC has an official content site so we can promote titles that did not win but equally fantastic. I guess, in a way, Notable Children’s Books list serves that function well, too. Do you feel that a Newbery Committee member’s (or as some people call us, Newbery Judges) endorsement will carry more weight in promoting excellent titles?
Heck, I wouldn’t limit it to notable books that didn’t make it… I’d love to see some thoughts from former members about the books that have won and been honored and see what it was about certain titles that rose to the top.
I’ll have to look back over the guidelines – but I was under the impression that I can write reviews of eligible books – if I wait to post the reviews until after the decision has been announced, and if it makes absolutely clear this is my opinion only. (I would only write such reviews *before* any committee discussion had happened.)
Honestly, I’m so far behind at posting reviews right now – I think I’ll just permanently swing into being a year behind.
I have a problem with the rules as they are, period. I feel the rules penalize those who are active in the book world, and disallow those who are knowledgeable and engaged. And those who have experience with book evaluation beyond a book’s cuteness or message. As a disclaimer, and I admit my view of the rules are rather jaded. I was disinvited to be a member of the Sibert Award committee because I have an existing website that facilitates author appearance bookings. The year I did serve on the Caldecott committee I had the same website; and the chair was a children’s book author (and a college professor of children’s lit). We had no problems as we were professionals who understood our role.
Mostly I am bothered that we have eliminated some of the most knowledgeable people from the committees — i know there was a problem after my Caldecott term but do think the powers that be have overreacted. The same problem could still occur — the day after the decision is made someone could still disregard the “rules” and tweet out the winner. Are you going to take them off the committee then?
And frankly I seriously doubt that anyone who is in the children’s book world firmly enough to be selected for the committee would undoubtedly have friends who are authors or illustrators. The bias in that regard is just hidden. – Tell me that someone such as Roger Sutton who surely has a closer connection to many many book writers/illustrators and publishers than any of us do does not have any more “connections” and reasons to be bias and who could arrange for a “star” on ALL the books being considered for the award — tell me that his involvement can be regulated. Or do you just trust that he will not do such a thing? And if I can talk about books to my friends and colleagues could I not ask a friend to send out my comments if I wanted to engage in dialogue or get the reactions of others? Somewhere along the line we must trust that members will do the right thing.
If dialogue about books were totally opened up the committee would gain a lot of insight that might not have been gained otherwise. I do not advocate a committee member being allowed to say “we are considering this title for the award” – but I do wish … normal conversations could go on.
And that book people are not excluded from the committee. Professionals are professionals and if not they should not be considered for the committee anyway.
Just regarding Roger Sutton: he can never serve on any ALSC Award Committee any longer due to the new rules. Am I right, Roger? (I know he occasionally read this blog so perhaps he’ll jump in and let us know.)
That’s sort of my point. Roger can’t, I can’t and too many others who know the field well can not. So who is choosing the awards? Those who are experts or those who love children’s books but …
Also – yes, ALSC contacted me after my 2013 tenure on the Newbery Committee and asked me to take down a post-Newbery blog entry that listed 40 of my favorite books of the year. I thought I was “in the clear” but I guess it still revealed too much of what I thought about each book and when I read them (I had linked to the original, cryptic posts about the books through the year). I took the post down and felt very much like a little school girl being admonished by a teacher (not quite feeling like an adult or a professional then.)
Sharron, I share quite a bit of your concerns, especially about this aspect, ” I feel the rules penalize those who are active in the book world, and disallow those who are knowledgeable and engaged. And those who have experience with book evaluation beyond a book’s cuteness or message.” However, once in a while, I wonder if perhaps I am being too self-aggrandizing, considering myself as one of those highly knowledgable professionals (with a Master’s degree in Children’s Lit and having taught Children’s Lit classes in Graduate Schools) who have MORE to contribute to the field of children’s literature and its critique than perhaps librarians/professionals who are newer to the field or who have not had the same “training”?
Looking back to the past few years’ of Newbery winners/honored books, I would have to say that I don’t think the Social Media rules have negatively impacted on the quality of the yearly selections. I don’t see how the “book’s cuteness or message” had surfaced as the deciding factor. Yes, great literature always contains profound messages (hopefully) as long as they are delivered with high literary quality. And I have to say that The Girl Who Drank the Moon, Last Stop on Market Street, Crossover, Flora and Ulysses, and The One and Only Ivan (the past 5 winners) all have distinguishing literary qualities that make them worthy winners. Would you argue otherwise? Which titles would you have chosen/pushed for if you were on each of the last 5 Newbery committees? Would they have been sure winners given that there are still 15 members of distinct and different tastes and experiences? This is just my kind of “from back to front” way of looking at the impact of such rules.
I’m not going to suggest that there might have been other choices that were better than the ones chosen; frankly I always think that there are several possible outcomes of any award discussion. Given another make-up of the committee another winner would be the result. I think with the guidance of those who are especially knowledgeable that the discussions would turn in other directions.
And because of that I think it behooves those administering the awards that the most knowledgeable people should be among those who are making the decision — the rules as they stand now virtually preclude any participation. Or penalize those that actively share their knowledge and who have publicly made known their friendships and interests. My point is anyone who has the knowledge to be on the committee likely has some personal relationships with some authors/illustrators — is there a limit on how many one can have before they are allowed on the committee? The rules only penalize the ones who are open about their affiliations. Anyone who has ever hosted an author visit has an opinion one way or another — where does the bias begin and where does it end. It’s one thing to regulate social interaction but another to restrict membership based on perceived unprofessional conduct.
The participation in the committees should be opened up. Regulations should be restricted only to discussing committee discussions. Personal/professional comments should be allowed as long as not tagged to the committee membership.
So really two issues here: membership of the committee, and the big brother attitude.
I think we need to open up membership period.
And the rule: Don’t discuss any book any where during your year within the same sentence, paragraph, or lecture, etc. – as the word Caldecott, Newbery, Sibert or whatever committee one is on. Otherwise all books are eligible so let’s assume all books are eligible… and freely discuss.
And while some may think my stance is self-serving – it may have been at one time but since I was denied full-participation in the ALA/ALSC organizations I have ceased my membership and no longer promote membership in these organizations with my students, and within my workshops and seminars. If I can spend a lifetime becoming an active knowledgeable participant in the childrens/young adult literature community and then not be considered professional enough to use that knowledge without prejudice then I was a member of the wrong organization — so I no longer am. When and if the organization changes their discrimination then I will reconsider rejoining.
To my mind, there are two things at stake here. 1) The Newbery is perceived as the highest honor out there. 2) The Newbery is awarded by the ALA. One could hold the opinion that the highest honor should be awarded by the widest range of knowledgeable children’s lit professionals out there. That’s how I read Sharron’s comments. But 1) and 2) are completely separate things. The Newbery could lose its reputation and prestige for whatever reason. (Certainly, every now and then, somebody puts out a piece about how the Newbery is becoming “irrelevant.”) Another award, awarded by a different group, might become more prestigious. These things could happen. But the current reality is that the Newbery is given by the ALA until they decide they don’t want the job (the process of which is described in the Manual.) To be a committee member, you have to be a member of the ALSC, so my expectation is that committee members are childrens’ librarians. The Manual allows for educators and reviewers, but that’s going to be the exception. And by and large, they do a good enough job that I don’t see the ALA having any strong motivation to open up the selection committee, even though other disciplines might wish otherwise. As Roxanne and Sharron both seem to agree, it’s not like a different committee makeup would have made “better” choices.
For baseball fans, I would make the analogy to the Hall of Fame. It’s considered the highest honor out there, and it’s voted on by the BBWAA, a group that excludes very many, very knowledgeable people — and people have complained about that (broadcasters can’t vote, players can’t vote, online baseball writers can’t vote, academic historians and scholars and “sabermetricians” can’t vote…) But the fact is, it’s the BBWAA’s award to give for now. If they consistently do a terrible job, it may cease to be taken seriously. If a rival award, by a broader selection committee, does a better job, with a good PR push, that award may become viewed as the better, more serious award. I think that situation has strong similarities with the Newbery. Similar analogies could be made to other well-known awards (e.g. Oscars).
Regarding the Guidelines: the Newbery does have a potentially large financial impact on authors and publishers. It sucks, but for that reason there has to be strong conflict-of-interest rules in place, and that’s what I think that Guideline is for. As I said before, I think the most concerning action on Ms. Manfredi’s part was interacting with the author and publisher after the positive tweet. If there is any reason to think that a committee member can be “lobbied” it’s easy to imagine publishers will pounce given what’s at stake. I think that must be the intent behind the no print or electronic communication rule — those media are going to be readily seeable by those who could genuinely profit from it and respond accordingly.
Leonard: I believe that ALSC leadership strives to diversify the committee membership as much as they could — geographically, experience-wise, professions (in both my Newbery years, we had non-librarians – professors and critics, for example,) etc. So, no, ALSC’s membership is not exclusively children’s librarians. And, the rules only apply to one year of publication when you’re serving on the Committee. So, um, for librarians and non-publishing critics, this should not be a huge hardship. However, it does mostly exclude professional reviewers and those who rely hugely on their on-line publication to maintain their critic status or livelihood. Then the current rules do apply and definitely make it pretty much impossible to serve on the committee and does one’s day job simultaneously. Whether it’s a real loss to the “quality” of Newbery Award Selection, it really is hard to verify. Since it’s not a quantifiable matter.
I think perhaps not every reader on Heavy Medal knows this, so I want to clarify:
ALSC is a much bigger organization than just giving out Newbery/Caldecott/Sibert/Geisel/Carnegie/Odyssey/Belpre/Wilder/Betchelder awards and jurying many other Notable Lists. ALSC is a Library Association that also hosts workshops, conferences, publications about Library Services to children — from pre-school story time to homework help best practices and advocating for more funding, better condition, better professional development, etc. for Children’s Librarians nationwide. As an active ALSC member for the last 20 years, I served on Newbery twice and Notables two years and Odyssey once. The other 15 years saw me working for other Committees (Organization & Bylaws, Membership, and currently Website Advisory). I don’t find that not serving on a Literary Award Committee for all those years made me less of a professional. I also don’t see is as ALSC’s duty to grant me Award Committee Membership.