ACRL College & Research Libraries News

College & Research Libraries News

Seventy-Second Meeting of the Association of Research Libraries

KANSAS CITY, JUNE 22

The 72d meeting of the Association of Research Libraries was held in the Linda Hall library in Kansas City on June 22. President Andrew J. Eaton (Washington University libraries) presided.

The program meeting, which began at

2P.M., was devoted to “National Library Issues and the University Library” and was centered around the National Advisory Commission on Libraries (NACOL). All four panelists had had some connection with the Commission: Melville J. Ruggles (Council on Library Resources) had been its executive director; W. Stanley Hoole (University of Alabama library) had been a consultant to the Commission for the “grass-roots” hearings held across the country; Edwin E. Williams (Harvard University library) had prepared for the American Council of Learned Societies one of the studies that the ACLS had made for its report on the needs of research libraries; and Gordon Williams (Center for Research Libraries) had written the report of the ad hoc Joint Committee on National Library Information Systems (CONLIS) which had been submitted to the Commission for its consideration.

Mr. Hoole, who opened the discussion, summarized the mission and the membership of NACOL and described the nine hearings held from Alaska to Florida under the joint chairmanship of Commission members Mrs. Merlin M. Moore of Arkansas and Carl Elliott, former Representative from Alabama. A total of 319 respondents (14 per cent of whom represented twentyeight institutions of higher learning) was heard, and 3,700 pages of testimony were amassed; twenty-nine topics were discussed, and the pattern of response was generally uniform. It was urged, for example, that there be adequate library and information services at all levels—for the public, for education, and for research— including bibliographic access to the national information resources; that public libraries be strengthened as centers of learning; that there be a permanent National Advisory Commission on Libraries; that the Library of Congress be converted into “a truly national library” and that there be a board of advisers for it; that there be recognition and “full acceptance” of the “Critically important role” of the Office of Education in the development of library services; that state library agencies be strengthened; and that a Federal Institute of Library and Information Science be established “as a principal center for basic and applied research in all relevant areas.”

There was special emphasis in the regional hearings on the heavy load that growing research programs place on university libraries, the importance of automation and of cooperative acquisitions and centralized cataloging, the need for space and equipment, the necessity for more federal funding, and the requirement for more and better library schools, with teachers “willing to innovate rather than emulate.” A lot of soul-searching has to be done by all libraries, Mr. Hoole warned, for “the role of libraries must change with the times or libraries will perish.”

Mr. Ruggles spoke on the need for research—not the mere finding of facts, but the meticulous, time consuming examinaion of facts, figures, and ideas in order to find new facts, new patterns, and new ideas. The primary function of research libraries is to serve the needs of research; and he felt that NACOL and CLR should provide guidelines.

There are overtones of dissatisfaction with research by and for research libraries, Mr. Ruggles said. It reminded him of a story about a hard-hitting Churchill campaign against Attlee in which Attlee was not giving a very good account of himself. “But after all,” a friend remarked, “Attlee is a modest man.” “Yes,” rejoined Churchill, “and he has an awful lot to be modest about.” So it is with research about librar-ies, Mr. Ruggles suggested. It could br much more effective.

Not all librarians are skilled in research Their talents lie in other fields, such as administration. Furthermore, Mr. Ruggles said, “librarianship is not a distinct discipline.” In medicine, for example, there are clearer distinctions; there are doctors, nurses, laboratory technicians, and so on Mr. Ruggles said that he was not suggesting a guild system in librarianship, however. There should be mobility, but he fell that there was need for some librarians tc spend full time on research. “Librarianship is not really a subject for research, but highly specialized subjects within the field need to be investigated.” Also, library education “needs to be compartmentalized,” he asserted, with research in the discipline-oriented schools giving guidance. The locus should be the large libraries, such as LC and the New York public library, and there should be independent institutes, both public and private—industrial, such as IBM or Bell Telephone, and federal, such as the proposed Federal Institute of Library and Information Science. “It is time,” he concluded, “to take research seriously and to go about it as professionals should.”

Edwin Williams, who prepared the ACLS study on bibliographic control, observed wryly that now, a year after it had been written, he should attack it, but he could scarcely do so because it has not yet been published. The field is so vast, he observed, that obviously no one agency can do all the bibliographic work of the United States. It is even difficult to obtain facts on which to base planning. Computer technology offers the best hope, with bibliographic data converted to machine readable form. There is need for coordination. A national bibliographic office should be created, and it should be in the Library of Congress, he said, estimating that the cost would be $1 million for the first year. Professional and learned societies have a clear responsibility to play an active role; and international cooperation should be emphasized, for assistance to and from foreign libraries aids scholarship everywhere.

Mr. Williams spoke of the contributions of the MARC (Machine-Readable Cataloging) Pilot Project, the MARC II communications format, and the Shared Cataloging Program. “If libraries do nothing else,” he declared, “they must not let the Title II-C Program, authorized by the Higher Education Act, lapse.” Retrospective cataloging is also needed. The publication of the pre-1956 National Union Catalog is important. It will be imperfect, he said, but delay would have been worse. Other libraries should contribute data on books not now recorded in the NUC, and all the data should eventually be put on tapes. “The value of the National Union Catalog to scholarship cannot be overestimated.” But it should be supplemented by the world list of serials—called the National Serials Data Program by the three national libraries—and by information about manuscripts, maps, music, and other , materials.

Since no one agency can do all the bibliographic work needed, should we divide the work by subject, Mr. Williams asked— for example, as the National Library of Medicine handles medicine? And he closed with a more provocative question: “Will computers and machine readable bibliographic data lead to standardization, or will this produce a more luxuriant jungle?”

Gordon Williams pointed out that although the CONLIS report had been submitted to NACOL, it has no connection with NACOL’s recommendations, insofar as is known. The library community endorsed the CONLIS report, but, because of NACOL’s existence, the question is what should be done with the report.

Limitations of time and money did not permit the committee to propose a detailed blueprint for a national library information system. Furthermore, the report is directed to nonlibrarians. It emphasized that significant information is not limited to science and technology. In fact, “information is a bad term to use, because the humanist does not think of meaningful content as information,” Mr. Williams said.

It is in the national interest for society to have full and ready access to information. It should be possible for any user to identify the pertinent documents he needs and to have access to them. Yet few libraries can satisfy the needs of all users. This problem argues strongly for a national system, Mr. Williams said, but all the elements in the system do not necessarily have to be supported by the federal government. The government should augment local efforts, and local institutions and their users should have access to federal sources. A monolithic system was not envisioned, but the committee’s “fundamental recommendation” was that a responsible agency —called a “capping agency” by some—be established in the government to investigate and coordinate existing channels, as a first step, and later to fill gaps in order to insure ready access to all information by all elements of the economy. The committee felt that mission oriented federal libraries could not give primary attention to national needs, because their first duty would be to their own clientele. The CONLIS report therefore concluded that the proposed agency should be in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, that the agency should have broad authority to act directly, but that responsibility for the agency’s program should be invested in a board, lest the agency be out of touch with national needs and be slow to respond to them. The establishment of such an agency, Gordon Williams and the

CONLIS report concluded, would be the first step in solving the nation’s information problem.

After some discussion, pro and con, of the points made, and a brief coffee break, the program was resumed with a presentation on “Research Library Management” by Warren J. Haas (Charles Patterson Van Pelt library, University of Pennsylvania), with Richard H. Logsdon (Columbia University libraries) and Robert Vosper (University of California at Los Angeles library) as discussants.

Mr. Haas said that what he had to say was not quite a report of not quite a committee. Soon after Fred Cole became CLR’s president, ARL’s board invited him to meet with it. Among the topics upon which he commented was the need for an appraisal of research library management. The board at its December meeting asked Mr. Haas and Stephen McCarthy, ARL executive director, to give some attention to the subject. They recruited Dr. Logsdon and also involved Russell Ackoff, chairman of the University of Pennsylvania’s Management Science Center, who was characterized by Mr. Haas as “one of the country’s most imaginative operations research specialists.”

In presenting the case for management studies, Mr. Haas recalled that Robert Munn, one-time librarian and now a university administrator, had, in the January 1968 issue of CRL, stressed that librarians need to describe more effectively than they have in the past the relationship between library expenditures and the benefits derived from library use. With the intense competition for the education dollar, libraries will not fare well unless they demonstrate that present funds are being spent to good advantage. University administrators are concerned with library costs, especially when they are convinced that “technology will replace or at least serve to control research libraries,” Mr. Haas said.

Librarians, of course, are “all for good management,” but what constitutes good management “is not so certain.” To some, “there is a too-readily-assumed correlation between efficiency and economy.” Some favor flexibility, while others “support a meticulously detailed organization and focus on operational precision.” Mr. Haas felt that one has good management “when all parties involved (faculty, students, university administration, library administration, library staff, and even those ‘outsiders’ we work with or assist) agree that stated library objectives are appropriate and that ongoing operations designed to achieve those objectives are by and large effective. . . . The process of establishing objectives and then employing the right means to attain them is the essence of management.”

Among the techniques of management science that can be brought to bear on library operations are systems analysis and the identification of principal operating functions and the description of their interrelationships. They may be described by charting—for example, by organization charts, flow charts, and manning tables. Charts, said Mr. Haas, “can be impressionistic or abstract, they can describe processes in meticulous detail (often to the point where the woods are obscured by the trees) and they can even be surreal-istic (subconscious thoughts expressed fantastically). Each style has its use. Charts also have their limitations because they are restricted in their frame of reference. From a conceptual viewpoint, they are one-dimensional.”

Another one-dimensional approach is cost accounting. Some of its limitations “are overcome by cost-effectiveness studies and by the far more sophisticated Planning- Programming-Budgeting System (PPBS). . . . Here formal long-term planning is required, priorities are assigned to program elements, periodic performance reviews are conducted, and all of these are related to operating budgets and cost projections.”

Operations analysis—time-and-motion studies, methods studies, standardization— is useful in regard to circulation, purchasing, binding, and other largely technical and clerical activities of libraries, Mr. Haas said. Methods of operations research, including “linear programing, simulation, and modeling, are of potential value for finding the right combination of activities required to best meet a fixed goal and for experimentally judging the effectiveness of alternate ways of achieving a defined goal.” Personnel-evaluation techniques, space-utilization studies, and reviews of communication processes can also help identify parts of the library problem that need study and suggest how a start might be made.

In seeking solutions, one could focus first on objectives and then devise procedures to accomplish them, or one could concentrate on specific problems, Mr. Haas said. Both require information, “only some of which we have.”

Some of the questions that require answers are concerned with the relationship between library performance and academic activity—“the most difficult area and the one about which we know the least.” Specifically:

1. What is the relationship between collection quality, collection size, and staff services on the one hand, and the process of learning on the other?

2. What effect do each of the several elements that determine library quality have on research activity, subject by subject? For this, we have to determine first what the elements of library quality are and establish their relative imnortance.

3. How important is speed of service; reliability of service?

4. What can (or should) librarians contribute to institutional administration and educational program formulation; what can faculty and students contribute to the formulation of library objectives?

5. How can cooperative ventures such as coordinated collecting, and regional catalogs, be judged in terms of their utility and value to individuals who are members of the participating institutions?

Other questions concern library practices, Mr. Haas said, as follows—

Are there any good alternates for the fine system?

What is the relationship between loan periods and library performance?

What can reasonably be expected from computer applications to library operations in terms of more reliable and faster record maintenance, cost reduction, meaningful information services for library management, etc.?

What is the effect on service and costs of storing collections in each one of the several possible ways?

A third group relates to library costs—

What are the costs of carrying out each of the many technical and service functions performed in libraries?

What are the costs of providing collections and services at several levels of comprehensiveness for various subject categories. In essence, how do costs for research support differ from costs for supporting programs of instruction?

What are the projections for worldwide publication and what are the implications for library operations?

What are the facts regarding staff utilization in the context of costs and individual capabilities?

What are the cost implications of some of the special library problems of great magnitude? For example, the paper deterioration problem is one that needs consideration in many quarters. Preserving or replacing existing collections implies real costs for each library.

A management consultant firm, “with sufficient direction and assistance from the customer,” could obtain some of the answers. An unusual approach, one suggested by Dr. Ackoff, would be a “research year,” during which psychologists, computer specialists, educational philosophers, economists, management scientists, librarians, communications specialists, architects, historians, and other specialists from three or four participating universities, “faculty, undergraduates, and graduate students alike, could . . . unleash a research effort unprecedented in both quantity and breadth on this one subject of interest to all. . . . The end result would be new insights into library objectives and procedures, and a great many facts bound to be useful in formulating plans and changing directions in ways dictated by the study itself,” Mr. Haas felt.

“Another suggestion starts with the ends rather than the means.” This “idealization process” has many advocates, Mr. Haas said, including CLR, which is interested in specifying the characteristics of model libraries. In attempting to improve an existing system “one concentrates on apparent deficiences and therefore often ignores or even fails to perceive major possibilities.” Also, changes always seem difficult because they “are looked at almost in isolation rather than in a total-systems context.” In the idealization process, one forgets all feasibility constraints and engages “in the exercise of redesigning the system from scratch, as though it had been destroyed and had to be redone.” This “invariably reveals possibilities that would have been overlooked,” “changes are seen in a total system context,” and “disagreement can be focused on substantive issues and means of resolving them can be designed and executed,” thus reducing conflict and focusing effort where it belongs, Mr. Haas summarized.

Because of the financial problems confronting most universities, it is unlikely that libraries will ever get all the resources needed. The pooling of resources to gain “economies of scale” could improve services and reduce costs. This need not be done by actual mergers but by visualizing and realizing the benefits of multi-institutional cooperation.

The idealization procedure could also assess the market for library services outside the university community. “It is possible that insufficient attention has been paid to the income potential of library services, or of institutional services that might be marketed through libraries, such as continuing education programs for the professions, reference services for industry, etc.” Furthermore, the “Academic library, as the traditional information source for instructional support,” has a stake in the development of technical aids to instruction and “might well prove to be the appropriate base for wide ranging and imaginative instructional innovations.”

“It is time for a concentrated and critical review of the implications for libraries of the technology of teaching. Such an effort would help separate fact from fiction and would provide guidelines for both library and institutional planning.” And in conclusion, Mr. Haas declared that “there seems little doubt that some kind of carefully planned crash program to assess and develop research library management is necessary. It will be unfortunate if that process doesn’t stimulate a managerial evolution in libraries—and thus reduce the possibility that other crash programs will be needed in the future.”

Dr. Logsdon spoke of Project SSCUL, the proposed simulation study of Columbia University libraries, meant to serve as a model for the study of the economics of any research library. He harkened back to the Millett Report on the financing of institutions of higher learning, which was critical of libraries and librarians, alleging that no librarians were found who were interested in economy of operations. ARL’s Allerton House Conference of 1954 was a response to this. However, the problem of pressures on research libraries, despite the fact that they are faring somewhat better, are still with us, only they are more intense, Mr. Logsdon said. It is especially difficult for the private institution to add 10 to 15 per cent to its library budget, and some public institutions are faced with formula budgeting. To meet these pressures and to justify needed budgets, research librarians should use all the modern management tools available, he urged.

Mr. Vosper thought that, in the Allerton Conference and since, academic librarians had been unwise to talk about the “library problem.” It would have been better to take a different tack, to describe needs and the resources for meeting them in terms of “social responsibility.” Today, questions are being asked of all kinds of public institutions. Libraries are not being singled out, and librarians should not be “touchy” about this. The questions revolve around styles of organization and methods of financing and budgeting. Mr. Vosper also felt that full advantage should be taken of the new administrative management techniques and that special attention should be paid to explaining library needs to today’s middle management in the universities, which produces the provosts of tomorrow.

Mr. Vosper spoke of the value of smallness versus the “economies of huge, coordinated, monolithic institutions,” and he felt that decentralization and personalization should be carefully considered. While agreeing that better cost-effectiveness studies are needed and that libraries have much to learn—as well as to question— about PPBS, he was skeptical about turning over library problems and planning to management firms. He also felt that, rather than a “research year,” the institute or seminar focusing on broad problems of libraries would be more productive. Certainly more training, knowledge, and experimentation are needed, especially an awareness of the behavioral sciences. “Participatory management” not only on the campus but in the library, he said, might well be a beneficial development.

Discussion brought out that formula budgeting, as well as PPBS, are already upon research libraries; that outside management studies are proliferating (some outside specialists are needed because of the “esoteric mathematics” involved); that the faculty, which often runs the library, has too often forgotten even what graduate students, much less undergraduates, need; and that questionnaires to faculty and students—asking, for example, if you want more seats in the library with the same budget, what specific service would you reduce?—have value.

After a pleasant dinner in the Linda Hall library, members of ARL reconvened at about 7:20 p.m. for the business meeting, with President Eaton presiding. He paid tribute to Dr. McCarthy for learning his way around the federal bureaucracy so quickly, for his excellent representation of ARL before Congressional committees, and for his general effectiveness.

Dr. McCarthy modestly replied that it was just beginner’s luck. Nevertheless, he was successful in getting P. K. Yu, professor of Chinese history at the University of Hong Kong for the last nine years, into the United States to serve as the head of the Center for Chinese Research Materials, recently established at ARL headquarters with a 5-year, $500,000 grant from the Ford Foundation. Dr. McCarthy reported that the ARL offices were being moved to 1527 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (Area Code 202, 232-2466); that Louis E. Martin (associate director of libraries, University of Rochester library) had been named associate director; that much time had been spent on legislation, especially copyright legislation and that “the more you learn, the more you need to know”; that a modest proposal had been submitted to the Office of Education for a research project entitled “Determination of User Needs and Future Requirements for a Systems Approach to Microform Technology”; that Ralph Ellsworth (University of Colorado libraries) would head a study of book storage costs, funded bv the Educational

Facilities Laboratory; that a proposal for a Slavic Bibliographic and Documentation Center had been submitted to the Ford Foundation; and that, by action of ARL’s Board of Directors, an umbrella committee had been created to coordinate the work of the committees dealing with foreign acquisitions, i.e., the Committees on the Farmington Plan, Shared Cataloging, Foreign Gazettes, and Foreign Newspaper Microfilming, and that a committee on foreign serials would be created.

Philip McNiíf (Boston public library), chairman of the Committee on the Center for Chinese Research Materials, summarized progress. The full committee has met and the librarian members have met with Professor Yu, who visited Japan, Korea, and Taiwan before coming to Washington, where he has spent considerable time at LC. Mr. McNiff suggested that the Center might, as a first step, support the preparation, especially the printing, of a guide to what is available in Taiwan. He then introduced Professor Yu, who reported that at LC it was agreed that “Chinese materials” were (1) publications in the Chinese language, (2) publications from Mainland China, and (3) publications about China published elsewhere. “It is not so much a matter of what is being published now,” Professor Yu said, “but of what is available now.” The flow of materials from Mainland China has been intermittent, and a priority task of the Center is to list publications that are available. Because the Center has a staff of only four, translation may not be possible, but Professor Yu urged ARL libraries to make their needs for materials to support research studies known to the Center.

James Skipper (University of California at Berkeley), chairman of the ARL Automation Committee, reported on the Advisory Committee to the National Libraries Task Force, on which he represents ARL. It met last May at LC. “There is absolute evidence of complete cooperation between the three national libraries, a great deal of time is being put into the effort, and definite progress is being made,” he said. The priorities are a standard for input, and the MARC II format promises to be that, and the Serials Data Program. The Advisory

Committee hopes to be helpful by raising questions, answering inquiries from the Task Force, and serving as a channel of communication to the organizations that the committee members represent.

Mr. McNiff, reporting for the Farmington Plan Committee, noted that the West European Subcommittee was concentrating on newspapers for reproduction, and that the Latin American, African, and Eastern and Southern Asia groups were active. With the Public Law 480 and Title Ii-C Programs covering current monographs in many areas of the world, he said, the Farmington Plan Committee and other committees concerned with foreign acquisitions might well concern themselves chiefly with retrospective and special publications now.

Verner W. Clapp (CLR), chairman of the Copyright Issues Committee and ARL’s representative on the Joint Committee on Copyright, submitted a written report and summarized it. There are two major problems, he said: (1) the Copyright Revision Bill, which is being held up because of the CATV and computer issues; and (2) the Williams and Wilkens suit against the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health Library for infringement of copyright by photocopying. Legal counsel, Philip B. Brown, has been retained by the ARL, whose board has authorized Mr. Brown, Mr. Clapp, and Dr. McCarthy to see how the ARL can assist NLM-NIH in its defense. The Copyright Office has held several meetings with representatives of library interests since the ALA Midwinter Meeting, and the ALA has submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee a proposed amendment to the Copyright Revision Bill. The ARL has drafted but has not submitted one. The ARL Board felt, Mr. Clapp said, that the two should get together.

Mr. Haas, chairman of the Preservation Committee, reported on the April meeting of that committee, at which Richard Smith, who is working on his PhD degree at the University of Chicago, described and showed some of the results of his experiments in paper preservation. Mr. Haas mentioned, among other things, that the final report on the Preservation Project is being prepared, that the Barrow Laboratory is being continued, and that the McGraw-Hill Book Company had announced a shift to “permanent” paper. The board voted that the ARL should commend McGraw-Hill for this action; a resolution to this effect was made and was approved by the ARL membership. A copy was to he sent to Publishers’ Weekly, which is going to identify in its listing those books that are printed on “permanent/durable” paper. In regard to a national preservation program, the key questions, Mr. Haas said, are: (1) Will libraries turn over preservation copies to a central agency? (2) What and where shall the central agency be? (3) Will libraries provide proper storage conditions for preservation copies if they do not deposit them in a central agency? These are knotty problems the committee has to face.

Dr. Logsdon, chairman of the Shared Cataloging Committee, presented the minutes of its January meeting in Bal Harbour, stating that this committee is on a “stand-by basis, ready to act in any way necessary to support LC’s impressive program.” Libraries all over the country owe LC “a real debt for this program.” He stressed the need, however, for statistics to back up requests for funds. Executive Director McCarthy distributed a questionnaire on the National Program for Acquisitions and Cataloging and urged all ARL libraries to report fully on the impact of the program.

Arthur M. McAnally (University of Oklahoma libraries) reported on the Interlibrary Loan Code, formulated by the Reference Services Division of ALA. Majority sentiment, he said, was in favor of liberalizing loans. He felt that the objection raised by ARL members had been met reasonably well and that the national code is now acceptable. A manual is now being drafted. The model state and regional code is still evolving, and it tends to be quite liberal, not limiting loans to use for research. Dr. McAnally suggested that each library draft its own code; that a regional channel, such as the state library, be established for school requests; and that libraries not enter into blanket contracts for service hut rather charge a unit price to eliminate “trivial requests.” Discussion brought out the fact that there are delays of from six to eight weeks in the receipt of microfilm copies from University Microfilms and there was general feeling that this was not acceptable.

David Kaser (Cornell University libraries), chairman of the Committee on Training for Research Libraries, reported that funding for the project had been an onagain, off-again matter. The committee has now been invited to submit a revised proposal for this program, which Neil Harlow (Rutgers, the State University) would direct.

Howard Rovelstad (University of Maryland libraries), chairman of the Committee on Bylaws, called attention to the fact that some changes needed to be made in the bylaws because the board now elects the vice president and president-elect from the membership of the board and this system affects the number of directors. Also, the title “Executive Secretary” is now “Executive Director.” Corrective action was taken by the membership.

Thomas R. Buckman (University of Kansas libraries), chairman of the Dissertations Microfilming Committee, reported that LC, which since 1961 has been supplying (on contract) subject headings for doctoral dissertations, has stated that because of the great increase in the work and the shortage of catalogers, it can no longer continue this activity without impairing the library’s effectiveness in other programs. University Microfilms, meanwhile, has developed the DATRIX (keyword-in-title) system. This system leaves something to be desired, said Mr. Buckman, but LC headings for some subjects did also, and earlier efforts to have each institution assign subject headings to its own dissertations had proved even less satisfactory. A choice, however, must be made. University Microfilms will provide money for an analysis of the suitability of DATRIX descriptors, and, meanwhile, LC will be asked to continue the contract for a year until this investigation can be completed. Directors of ARL libraries were asked to give this matter their personal attention. Mr. Buckman will try to have remedied the six to eight week delays in the delivery of microfilms already mentioned, as well as six to eight month delays in getting dissertations microfilmed by University Microfilms, another serious problem for academic libraries.

G. F. Shepherd (Cornell University libraries) reported that The New York Times would replace any substandard microfilm of the newspaper supplied between September 1, 1967, and April 1, 1968. A team from the Eastman Kodak Company has found that the film now meets archival standards.

Dr. Logsdon “told it like it was” at Columbia during the student sit-in there, and librarians of other universities spoke of some of the consequences for libraries of campus demonstrations, for instance, in regard to insurance.

L. Quincy Mumford, Librarian of Congress, who distributed a summary—but fairly lengthy—report on the library, described the status of appropriations to LC, of the bill to amend and extend the Higher Education Act, including the amendments to Title II-C of that Act requested by LC, and of appropriations for Title II-C. He pointed out that the $2.8-million item in the budget of the Architect of the Capitol for the Library of Congress James Madison memorial library building had been “deferred without prejudice” by the House Appropriations Committee (as later it also was by the Senate), and he spoke of the library’s increasingly dire need for space and the adverse effect that this may have on national programs.

President Eaton, after noting that other reports had been filed, announced that the next ARL meeting would be on January 26, 1969, in Washington, D.C. The Association will spend Saturday, January 25, at LC inspecting activities and being briefed on programs and developments of interest to ARL. After some graceful words of thanks by Benjamin Powell (Duke University library) to the Linda Hall library and its Director Joe Shipman, for “extraordinary hospitality,” the meeting adjourned.—Elizabeth E. Hamer. ¦¦