To tenure or not to tenure

So, I've worked in academic libraries where the librarians have faculty rank and can earn tenure as well as in libraries where librarians have rank, but no tenure per se.

Tenure systems encourage librarians to engage in the profession beyond their library and institution, whether by publishing, presenting, serving on national committees, or just getting out to conferences and expanding their horizons. Funny thing is, the librarians at the school sans librarian tenure did the same things and to the same extent. In both cases, people want to build a CV to get promotions (particularly if those promotions aren't dry), but even after achieving tenure or permanent appointment or whatever you want to call it, the same people generally continue to set a high standard for themselves.

So what's the difference, i.e.- what does having "real" tenure do for one? The cynic in me (well-fed, I might add) would say that the salient difference is that at the tenure-granting places I spent/spend 30-50 hours per year or more in meetings related to tenure and its machinations, while at the other place, I didn't. Add to that the fact that few libraries ever reject anything but the rare loser librarian for tenure, and that cynic gets all riled up. Oh sure, some committees talk tough, but when push come to shove librarians are nice folk. I've seen hands go up in favor of granting tenure to people for whom some of those with raised hands would not have braked if they had stepped in front of their car. At that point, the cynic screams "what the fuck!"

Can someone please give me some refreshing reason why tenure is really worth the meetings and silly document assembly? Spare me the academic freedom crap, too. Show me an academic librarian that for out on a limb.