Every year, ALA members elect a new president from within its ranks. This role, currently held by Emily Drabinski, is a key position in the leadership of The American Library Association. As part of our coverage of library issues, we asked four questions of Sam Helmick and Ray Pun, candidates for the 2025-2026 term. Both Helmick and Pun are sophisticated digital leaders, and candidates who are active in the fight for more equitable infrastructure and policy for libraries and our users. Thank you for your thoughtful answers, Ray and Sam!
We'd also like to thank Emily for everything she does for libraries as the ALA's current president. Emily has helped so many communities tap into their collective power and build new alliances. She brings an energy and values forward mission to the field that inspires us. Thank you for your service, Emily! Looking forward to seeing what's in the year ahead!
Sam Helmick
Helmick is a current member of the ALA Executive Board and president of the Iowa Library Association. They previously served as chair-elect on the Freedom to Read Foundation and chair of the Iowa Governor’s Commission of Libraries. They have served on committees for the Network of the National Library of Medicine, the Stonewall Book Awards, the ALA Policy Monitoring Committee, Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA) Michael L. Printz Committee, on the Reference and User Services Association (RUSA) Sophie Brody Award Committee and on the YALSA Fundraising Task Force. Helmick is a 2017 Emerging Leader as well as an author, consultant, and instructor for social media marketing and graphic design.
Helmick holds a Bachelor of Science in Human Services from Iowa Wesleyan University and a Master of Science in Library and Information Science from the University of Illinois.
In a world of complex and expensive licensing agreements for ebooks, databases, and other electronic library resources and increasing media consolidation, how do we ensure that the digital future is accessible and inclusive?
Engaging our service communities about the complexities and costs of digital information access in key. Helping our stakeholders understand licensing agreements, data leasing, and copyright is essential to leveling the discourses around consumer rights, proprietary platforming, user privacy, and fair, inclusive access.
As the Iowa Chapter Association president ( a state that experienced the second-most library adverse bills in the nation last year), my role has been to connect legislators, city councilors, community stakeholders, and library Board Trustees with library workers engaged in collection development and database curation on behalf of their service communities. The goals of that connection are to form stronger awareness of licensing agreements and better understanding of collection development practices, as well as to draft proactive legislation seeking a seat at the table for libraries in order to better negotiate terms with vendors and publishers.
As the Community and Access Services Coordinator at the Iowa City Public Library, I work toto amplify this technical information by uplifting the voices and efforts of library staff engaged in licensing and privacy work on behalf of our community. I’m particularly excited about the recent article in the ICPL Winter Window newsletter “Library Digital Collection Access and Publisher Pricing” as well as our Confidentiality and Privacy page, which outlines patron data protections levels through library services and lists the privacy statements of our vendors for easier access.
Libraries rely increasingly on outsourced services and platforms for digital content–services that often control library collections and lending practices. How do you see the move to platforms and other outsourced services affecting our profession and our patrons?
As library collections are hybridized—by which I mean they contain both physical and digital materials and they circulate by means of both collecting and leasing content—the measures by which we evaluate content as a society continue to grow increasingly commercial. Without a seat at the table for libraries to navigate and negotiate consumer rights, proprietary lenders are in a way subletting public spaces without paying rent. In fact, the public is paying a high value to those lenders both economically and philosophically.
While libraries are modeled upon the public leasing of knowledge, the societal retainment and ownership of that knowledge for cultural, educational, and historical reasons becomes murky in the streaming or metered access structures. Purveyors of outsourced collections must by their nature build catalogs and platforms for profitability rather than for reader interest, public education, community access, and intellectual opportunity.
This in turn influences how the public thinks about and estimates content. I think we should linger on the emerging precepts regarding what is content versus data versus information versus knowledge. The profitability or virility of content is an increasing factor in the value we place upon it—for example, the ratio of a tweet or the shareability of an infographic compared to a research paper referenced in a specialized publication.
As we know access is a matter of intellectual freedom and serves as the beating heart of librarianship. Ensuring that libraries can administer digital access directly to those we serve in ergonomic, economic, and equity methods will be best achieved if library workers can facilitate discourse between those who produce and publish (vendors) and those who consume (the public).
Library Futures has released model state level legislation to create a fairer environment for library ebooks. How do you view legislative solutions to the library ebook problem, wherein libraries hold very little power in comparison to the publishers and platforms that set the prices and terms?
Drafting digital licensing bills at the state level is useful for a few reasons. It is a form of “joyful offense” in areas experiencing library-adverse legislation. It also starts a broader conversation for the public to become informed about the intricate funding structures related to digital licensing for library collections. Engaging legislators and the public creates an impetus for publishers and platforms to invite libraries to the table to negotiate on behalf of those they serve before federal regulation of consumer (patron) rights sets course. Engaging legislators and our communities on the exorbitant costs and double standards associated with library contracting for electronic content also creates a runway to discuss sustainable funding to meet the informational needs of an increasingly digital world.
As platforms are doing away with traditional library privacy practices, from Overdrive keeping records of patron checkouts to LexisNexis compiling and selling data to ICE, how do you see ALA’s role in defending privacy in the digital age?
I believe three roles the American Library Association holds in defending privacy are to establish standards, to maintain those standards, and to lean into our affinity groups to help membership address and train for emerging methodologies to meet those standards.
The American Library Association has a long history of championing the ideal that free people read freely. In 1939, ALA adopted the Library Bill of Rights (drafted in Des Moines, Iowa) which outlines the professional requirement to champion privacy in article VII, “all people, regardless of origin, age, background, or views, possess a right to privacy and confidentiality in their library use. Libraries should advocate for, educate about, and protect people’s privacy, safeguarding all library use data, including personally identifiable information.”
The Library Bill of Rights is embedded in ALA’s Core Values. In fact, Article III of the ALA Code of Ethics states that confidentiality extends to “information sought or received and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired or transmitted.” Patron privacy includes reference interactions, circulation records, and digital queries. Patron privacy is a lens to review how or if we maintain records regarding the use of any library resource, service, program, or facility. Routinely, these standards are reviewed and interpretations are adopted by ALA Council to support the infrastructure and needs of our current era.
Leaning into affinity partners to provide training and lend their voices to privacy-adverse policy making seems like sound delegation and advocacy. When power mapping an ALA privacy coalition, I think of excellent institutions like Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Library Freedom Project, the International Association of Privacy Professions (IAPP), Privacy International, Center of Democracy and Privacy, University of Washington Libraries, and the Digital Library Federation.
What role do you see for ALA in determining the future of equitable digital access, and what steps would you take as ALA President to make that happen?
The American Library Association occupies a strategic position to facilitate the work taking shape between legislative bodies and media providers. ALA holds deep relationships with each which foster awards, grants, and gathering opportunities. We can leverage these opportunities to platform digital equity and provide a privacy lens to the good efforts already in play.
Developing a coalition to inform and advocate on digital equity and privacy matters would be one of my initial steps in ensuring ALA has the adequate resources and connections to keep our seat at the table in determining the future of equitable digital access. We must continue to be a voice of authority in these matters, but we must also lean into those doing the good work in complimentary spheres. Joining our voices together provides more social efficacy for our members and for those we serve.
To provide membership tools that instruct and inform their communities about equitable digital access, I would also focus on collaborating with our partners to support train the trainers workshops and robust webinars on digital equity and privacy best practices.
Lastly, while funding, book banning, and strategic incapacitating of our profession is taking place through library-adverse legislation, we must ask our ALA Committee on Legislation to keep privacy at the forefront of their legislative review and reporting to ALA Council.
Ray Pun
Pun currently serves as the immediate past president of the Chinese American Librarians Association and was past president of the Asian/Pacific American Librarians Association. Pun previously served on the ALA Council, ALA Policy Corps, and as a member of the advisory committees for two ALA past presidents. Pun is a member of the American Association of School Librarians (AASL), the Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC), and the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). Pun is a member of the California Library Association (CLA) Advocacy and Legislation Committee, the Library Freedom Project (LFP), and other ALA affiliates including the American Indian Library Association (AILA), the Black Caucus of ALA (BCALA), the Association of Jewish Libraries (AJL), the Association of Rural and Small Libraries, and REFORMA: The National Association to Promote Library and Information Services to Latinos and the Spanish-Speaking. Pun is also a member of the International Relations Round Table (IRRT) and the Ethnic and Multicultural Information Exchange Round Table (EMIERT). In addition to librarianship, Pun is a member of the Committee of 100’s Next Generation Leaders program and a speaker for The Weave Speakers Bureau.
In a world of complex and expensive licensing agreements for ebooks, databases, and other electronic library resources and increasing media consolidation, how do we ensure that the digital future is accessible and inclusive?
When I read this question, I immediately thought of “access” and “equity,” core values of ALA, when looking at licensing agreements. Is there a way for us to share digital resources and objects seamlessly from one library to another? Can we ensure licensing agreements offer to do that? Can platforms and publishers ensure that there is content from underrepresented communities made available and accessible? Library workers have to work together and raise awareness of these issues affecting all types of libraries. We have to partner and think creatively too. I’ve been following and reading ongoing conversations and legal implications from NISO, NASIG, Authors Alliance, Library Futures, and the Internet Archive.
Let’s take a look at the promise of controlled digital lending (CDL), a model that benefits readers and authors by allowing a copy of a digitized material from one library’s collection to be borrowed by a user from another library system for a limited time, just like they would a physical book, particularly works that are commercially unavailable. (See Majors & Easley, 2023 for potential implications on CDL). CDL could ensure timely digital access. Another critical area to consider is licensing strategies on contract override and ensuring that licenses do not restrict or eliminate exceptions and limitations in copyright law under fair use and other provisions.
As a teacher educator and librarian at the Alder Graduate School of Education (CA), I am always thinking about the value of social justice and how to use and promote digital collections that are inclusive and reflective of diverse voices. We must work with publishers to ensure access and increase materials from underrepresented communities. We also need to recognize the concept of information privilege and how some libraries may have larger budgets and access to more resources and legal counsel compared to smaller institutions and how to think about these partnerships to advocate for access to diverse collections. For the digital future to be accessible and inclusive, we must hone our core values on access and equity, communicate and form partnerships on these matters, and collaborate to ensure libraries offer diverse digital resources in feasible and creative ways.
Libraries rely increasingly on outsourced services and platforms for digital content–services that often control library collections and lending practices. How do you see the move to platforms and other outsourced services affecting our profession and our patrons?
Institutions are going through challenging times financially, such as keeping up with subscription costs and inflation. Budgets are changing due to various factors. Unfortunately, other tools such as generative artificial intelligence tools are also entering this space and they may create promises and challenges in budgets and learning implications. The issue of patron privacy is a concern as there are increasingly outsourced services and platforms for digital content-services. We must hone in on the value of privacy and address issues of surveillance and data scraping/collecting that vendors may be interested in.
Our digital rights matter. Library users may not have a voice or realize this issue as they download ebooks, but we must advocate for them and safeguard our trust. The platform shift may require more training for library workers, such as understanding how to read terms of service/contracts, develop negotiation skills, and stay up to date with all these changes in technology policies.
Sam and I are proud to be members of Library Freedom Project (LFP) where we were trained to become privacy advocates in the library field and to train others. Resources are out there to prepare library workers and advocates to become knowledgeable and confident about digital rights and privacy issues impacting libraries. This issue is not only an academic/research library issue but a library-wide matter.
Library Futures has released model state level legislation to create a fairer environment for library ebooks. How do you view legislative solutions to the library ebook problem, wherein libraries hold very little power in comparison to the publishers and platforms that set the prices and terms?
In preparation for a February 2023 invited meeting hosted by Library Futures in San Francisco, I was reading about these issues regarding digital equity and rights to eBooks, and the landscape has started changing. It’s true, the trend hasn’t been favorable for libraries, but we are strong in numbers.
Libraries have a long history of collaboration. We partner in consortiums and must partner and communicate with publishers and platforms to address these issues collectively. The case in Maryland’s eBook library law felt promising initially but was struck down. We need to look at more pending state legislative matters and partner with local groups and ALA State and Regional Chapters to communicate this issue and reinforce state consumer laws to local representatives who may take these considerations seriously.
Groups like eBook Study Group, composed of dedicated volunteers and library advocates, have been studying these issues critically and identifying potential solutions to provide some resources and ways to think about these issues and to partner with organizations like ALA and State Chapters in strategizing communications and raising awareness to communities at large.
As platforms are doing away with traditional library privacy practices, from Overdrive keeping records of patron checkouts to LexisNexis compiling and selling data to ICE, how do you see ALA’s role in defending privacy in the digital age?
As I mentioned previously, one of ALA’s core values is privacy, and unfortunately, data brokering, and data breaching are happening in library spaces where collected data on usages and users could be compromised. I see ALA potentially hosting listening tours in partnership with State Chapters, and in these listening tours, attendees would hear the issues locally and understand what library workers are going through. ALA has a central role in mediating conversations.
To ensure privacy within contracts, we need training on understanding terms of service and contract negotiations. Terms of Service can be confusing and may change often. In addition, not all have been taught how to read these documents and LIS courses could offer such training. Most recently, I participated as a pilot tester for the Open Negotiation Education for Academic Libraries (ONEAL), an IMLS-funded project, and it’s been a joy collaborating with others in learning about these skills. Library leaders in this area could offer these types of training to all interested library workers and advocates in the future. In addition, as an ALA Policy Corps member, I’ve collaborated with and highly valued the ALA Public Policy and Advocacy Office colleagues. They are resourceful and will alert and inform folks of policy issues, encourage folks to connect with their local stakeholders and offer training in partnership with external groups to address these matters together.
What role do you see for ALA in determining the future of equitable digital access, and what steps would you take as ALA President to make that happen?
I truly believe that libraries transform lives for the better based both on my own experiences and those from countless others. ALA can foster transformative experiences within libraries for their communities. ALA is and has been the voice of thousands of library workers across library types in a collective for over a century. We also have organizational members, LIS educators, students, library advocates, library foundation/board members, and publishers as ALA members because we believe ALA is a community that can advocate for libraries and library services for our communities for equitable access. I’ve been part of different groups over the years, internally and externally, from ALA, and there is something amazing about sharing information among other groups to raise awareness and the power in numbers when it comes to advocacy work as a community guided by core values.
As ALA President, I would champion coalition building and working together with the ALA Executive Board, Council, members, and partners to continue strengthening ALA’s partnerships with organizations and groups, including State Chapters and Affiliates, to raise awareness of the national and local issues impacting libraries that we discussed as well as other ones like open access models and green access because they are all interlocking issues affecting our communities. Equity is not a destination but a committed journey. A big question is “who gets to decide what is equitable digital access?”
We need everyone to be involved–ALA and potential ALA members–to share these issues globally, nationally, and locally in discussions so it motivates others to take action and bring meaningful change. It’s not going to be easy, and not everyone will be convinced immediately but it’s important to form global and local collaborations on these issues. A working group charged by the ALA Executive Board or Council and made of members can host discussions, bring everyone together about these issues and to draft a unified educational, legal, and legislative approach, and understanding for libraries to converse with publishers and platforms. I would also continue to strengthen ALA’s relationship with stakeholders at the federal level because we need coalitions to fund and support library services and resources for technological and broadband access, especially for equitable digital access. For me, library work is relationship-centered work.
