ACRL College & Research Libraries News

College & Research Libraries News

ACRL Board of Directors

MIDWINTER MEETING LOS ANGELES, 1971

Brief of Minutes

Monday, January 18, 1971—8:30 p.m.

Present: President, Anne C. Edmonds; Vice- President and President-Elect, Joseph H. Reason; Past President, Philip J. McNiff; Directors-at-Large, Mark M. Gormley, Norman E. Tanis, David C. Weber; Directors on ALA Council, Page Ackerman, Andrew J. Eaton, Warren J. Haas, James F. Holly, Robert K. Johnson, Sarah D. Jones, James O. Wallace; Chairmen of Sections, Carl H. Sachtleben, Mrs. Joleen Bock, Julius P. Barclay, Eleanor Buist, David W. Heron; Chairmen and Chairmen-Elect of Sections, Carl R. Cox, Hal C. Stone, Lee Ash, Wolfgang M. Freitag; Executive Secretary, J. Donald Thomas; Professional Assistant, Jordan M. Scepanski; Administrative Assistant, Elaine Swanson.

Absent: Robert H. Blackburn, Herbert A. Cahoon, Ralph H. Hopp, Andrew Horn.

Visitors: Warren Boes, Brendan Connolly, D. Davisson, Stuart Forth, Beverly Johnson, Arthur Plotnik, Eldred Smith, W. B. Walker.

President Anne C. Edmonds presided.

The meeting was called to order, and the minutes of the Detroit meetings were approved as published. Miss Edmonds then asked Mr. Thomas to report on the mail votes of the ACRL Board of Directors during the fall. Mr. Thomas noted some concern about mail ballots and asked for opinions on this procedure. Mr. Holly supported the procedure as a means of expediting Board business and thus reducing time requirements at regular meetings. Mr. Weber asked who approved mail ballots. Mr. Thomas answered that the first set of ballots was sent upon the decision of the executive committee, while the second was sent out at the request of the Committee on Academic Status. Mr. Weber expressed the opinion that the officers should always determine what should be brought to a mail vote. He further stated there should be a requirement for a statement by an individual in opposition to a particular resolution. Statistical studies would seem to indicate that resolutions sent without such opposition statements are always supported he said, citing as examples the nearly unanimous approval of the various resolutions. Mr. Weber then moved that a majority of the Executive Committee concur in submitting a mail ballot to the Board, and, when possible, a member of the association be found to provide a written statement of opposition. Mr. Tanis SECONDED.

Mr. Eaton then asked if, instead of merely an opposing viewpoint, a statement of the problem with advantages and disadvantages of the resolution set forth might not be better. Mr. Weber replied that he assumed a committee wishing to submit an issue to a mail ballot would want to support it; that what would be lacking is a contrasting view. Mr. Tanis did not believe the officers would necessarily be in favor of an issue submitted for a mail vote. He stated that both the pros and the cons of the given issue should be included with the ballots. Mr. Freitag asked what would happen if it were not possible to find an opposing viewpoint. Mr. Weber then amended his motion to make it incumbent upon the executive secretary to try to find two individuals willing to present contrasting opinions on each issue. The amendment was seconded and carried. The motion passed without dissent.

Announcing a joint venture with unique advantages for librarians:

The NewYorkTunes and Congressional Information Service.

The only service of its kind

Congressional Information Service offers a unique and vital library service-one that has been extraordinarily well received in a short time by librarians. Since January 1970, when CIS published the fitst monthly CIS/Index, nearly one thousand libraries have subscribed.

The story behind this acceptance is an exciting one.

Legislation and policies in our nation are usually shaped behind the scenes-in the offices and hearing rooms of almost 300 congressional committees and subcommittees. The legislative acts of Congress are but the tip of an enormous iceberg; hidden beneath them lie months of intensive fact gathering and analysis.

Now, thanks to CIS, this w’ealth of information is readily accessible to you for the first time.

Summarizes the information output of Capitol Hill

Every day, the CIS professional staff collects, analyzes, indexes and abstracts the current working papers of Congress-an outpouring that exceeds 450.000 pages per year.

CIS cuts through a maze of information to provide in-depth, accurate summaries of every congressional report, hearing and document. These summanes are so useful that often no further research is necessary. CIS indexes everything for immediate retrieval. And because the most valuable documents published by

Congress are often not distributed to the public-or even to U.S. document depositories-CIS makes all the documents themselves available on microfiche.

Using the simple CIS access system, students, researchers and the public can find the authoritative information they need on virtually any public issue in a matter of seconds.

Hailed by critics

Choice says:

"Researchers and librarians… will be astonished by this current bibliographic tour de force.”

Bill Katz evaluated CIS for the readers of Library Journal this way:

"This one's a winner.It’sa fine new reference tool that opens up the contents of the 450,000-ρlus pages of hearings, reports, committee prints and other documents produced yearly by the U.S. Congress. This easy-to-use service will be welcomed by librarians, students and the public alike.”

Joe Morehead summed up the CIS/Index in RQ, published by the ALA’s Reference Service Division, in these words:

"CIS/Index is quite simply a masterful, major break-through in the congressional mazeway and offers to librarians, students, scholars and the laity an access to information hitherto difficult or arduous to attain.”

And Richard Sloane had the following to say in Law Library Journal:

"CIS/Index is professional, comprehensive, accurate, easy to use, legible and fast. Congressional research problems that used to take hours to solve-it handles in seconds. I vote it the years most useful and most imaginative new' library tool”

Now represented by the New York Times

Since much of the "real work” of Congress is not reported in the press or covered anywhere else, any library with a stake in current affairs will find the CIS/Index indispensable. The New York Times is proud to play a role in making it more widely available to the American public. Effeσive immediately, representatives of The New' York Times Library and Information Services Division will bring to American libraries the services that CIS provides.

Now ready—The 1970 CIS/Annual

The first CIS/Annual is now ready. It is a "one-stop” reference tool that provides a complete record of the year on Capitol Hill. Cumulating all the information published by the monthly CIS/Index during 1970, it unlocks material not available anywhere else. For example, your library users will find more than 40,000 pages of reports, testimony and studies on environmental pollution and control alone, abstracted and indexed in the 1970 Annual.

In addition, the CIS/Annual contains a special section which offers the most complete coverage of legislative history ever published for an entire Congress, going well beyond the research materials available until now. Furthermore, all 695 Public Laws enacted by the 91st Congress are indexed, not only by major subject, but analytically.

Take advantage of this special saving

To mark this first joint venture between CIS and The New York Times we are happy to offer the 1970 CIS/Annual at a 25# pre-publication saving. Place your order before July 15, 1971, and we will bill you only Si20. After July 15, the regular price of $160 will apply.

Use this 1450-page, two-volume set in your library for 30 days. If you are not satisfied with the exceptional job it does, return it to us. There will be no cost or obligation.

Mr. Reason reported on the Sunday afternoon meeting of the ALA Committee on Program Evaluation and Support. At that meeting the comptroller, Mr. Gaertner, reviewed income and expenditures. Although membership in ALA decreased in 1970 due to an increase in dues, income was up over last year. However, the Publishing Department is experiencing difficulty and is not optimistic about improving its situation because of the continued tightening of library budgets. Mr. Reason noted that the Publishing Board questions whether ALA can continue to support all of the unit journals and newsletters. He pointed out that this may create difficulties for College & Research Libraries and the News edition. He then made a detailed presentation of the budget which would be submitted by ACRL for fiscal year 1971-72. A major item will be the request for funding of a position for an Associate Executive Secretary, whose primary responsibilities will be in the area of academic status. Other items on the proposed budget were reviewed and compared with requests made last year. The Executive Committee seeks an increase in their budget to enable it to meet more frequently. The Standards and Accreditation Committee also requested additional funding. Mr. Tanis said the committee hopes to establish more effective relationships with accrediting agencies. He added that the committee wishes to achieve support for ACRL Standards. Mr. Thomas then explained the budget item concerning representation to the Committee on Scientific and Technical Information. After clarification of the other funding requests, the Board was asked to assign priorities to the various items.

Mr. McNiff, reporting for the Advisory Committee for the Publication of a Book catalog for Core Collections, stated that Richard W. Tetreau had been hired as editor. Mr. McNiff gave a short review of Mr. Tetreau’s background and said the new editor had been given guidelines to aid him in getting the project underway.

Mr. Forth, chairman of the Committee on Academic Status, spoke about areas the committee considers to be of major concern to ACRL members. He emphasized the importance of additional staffing for academic status matters. The committee has been under considerable pressure to produce standards which will be approved by membership and the ALA Council, he said. A meeting of the committee was held in November to review reactions to the published draft of “Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians.” All of the suggestions were discussed, and modifications were made in the published version. He went on to say that ACRL has talked about status for academic librarians for many years, and now it was imperative that the organization become active in this area. He mentioned the many difficulties librarians are experiencing in either obtaining or retaining their status as faculty members. The committee has been unable to provide any substantive support to those who have appealed for assistance. Mr. Forth then reviewed some of the changes made in the published standards, particularly mentioning educational requirements and the area of professional responsibility and self-determination. He stated that several professional and accrediting associations have been approached concerning the issue of faculty status for librarians, and there has been a reasonably good response from them. (See EXHIBIT I for “Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians” as presented to the Board.)

Replying to the question of how the standards will be enforced, Mr. Forth said that they must first be adopted by membership. The next step would be the establishment of investigative procedures and sanctions. Implementation of the standards depends to a large extent upon the approval of the budget request for additional staffing. Expressing concern that other units of ALA were charged with investigating cases involving intellectual freedom and tenure, Mr. Forth said he believed all matters relating to academic librarians should be under the jurisdiction of ACRL. He submitted the following resolution for the Board’s consideration:

Resolved: that ACRL be officially recognized as the body within ALA which HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH AND ENFORCE ALL STANDARDS WHICH AFFECT ACADEMIC LIBRARIES.

At this point Mr. Forth added that he personally hoped reorganization of ALA will result in a federation of library associations. He sees this as necessary if the key problems facing academic libraries are to be solved. He further stated that his committee requested permission to speak as a representative of the Board on matters relating to academic status. Pointing out the necessity of acting in crisis situations where time is of the essence, Mr. Forth said such permission would be of great help in answering the pleas of librarians in difficulty.

Mr. Sachtleben expressed interest in the letters received after the initial publication of the standards. Mr. Forth said these ranged from all-inclusive letters of support to thoughtful, point-by-point consideration of each item. Replies were received from individuals and groups of librarians. He said there were a number of objections to certain statements made in the standards, but that this was to be expected. Only standards so bland as to be worthless would be completely acceptable to everyone. He did not believe the committee would be willing to make any extensive revisions of the document.

In a discussion concerning approval of the standards, Mr. Weber stated he was under the impression that ACRL could speak for ALA in areas of its specific responsibility. Mr. Thomas replied that the areas were ambiguous. He recalled that at the Atlantic City meeting Council sent the entire matter of academic status back to ACRL and expressed the hope that a statement they could approve would be brought before them.

Mr. Forth reiterated the need for action and urged the Board to give its approval of the standards and of the budget request which would implement them. He pointed out that it had already endorsed the standards in principle at Detroit. Mr. Holly moved that the Board of Directors approve the report of the committee and recommend it for endorsement by the membership. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Bock. Mr. Weber commended the committee for its work, said most of the items set forth in the standards were needed, and strongly supported the association in taking a position like this. He then proceeded into a detailed review of the document. Expressing some editorial criticism, he also made known his reservations about a number of specific items including the section on library governance, which he felt reflected such a sharp change in present library structure as to weaken what was trying to be achieved. He took strong exception to the section dealing with educational requirements. Mr. Forth acknowledged Mr. Weber’s remarks, stating that the committee was not in complete agreement on all points and that he also had certain reservations about a number of items. He again pointed out, however, the necessity of presenting a strong statement to the membership. Miss Ackerman remarked that since this was a tentative document to be revised again on the basis of membership response, there was little to be lost in presenting a stimulating document. Mr. Haas supported Mr. Weber’s comments and offered his own criticism of the wording in the section on compensation. At this point a vote was called for on the motion. The motion carried with two dissenting votes.

Mr. Forth then again suggested the Board consider a resolution declaring ACRL to be the body within ALA which has responsibility for establishing and enforcing all standards affecting academic libraries. Mr. Thomas stated that what is involved is clarification of item four of the ACRL statement of purpose: “Coordination of the activities of all units within ALA as they relate to academic and research libraries.” Mr. Tanis took exception to the word “standard,” and Mr. Wallace pointed out that ACRL was not yet in a position to enforce the Standards for College Libraries and Standards for Junior College Libraries. Mr. Forth then said his only intention was to alert the Board to the difficulties his committee will experience if other units of ALA become involved in matters pertaining to academic librarians. It was agreed that the matter should be postponed until the next meeting.

Miss Edmonds then brought up Mr. Forth’s request that his committee speak for the Board on all matters of academic status. Pointing out that the Board had just discussed mail ballots, she asked Mr. Forth if his request would exempt the committee from this policy. Mr. Forth replied that it would. He again mentioned the necessity for quick action in crisis situations. A discussion of the time involved in passing the November resolutions ensued, and Miss Edmonds suggested the matter be taken up in Dallas. It was mentioned that Mr. Forth had the right to speak as chairman of his committee, but the Board was reluctant to grant the committee authority to speak for it. The matter was dropped.

Mr. Reason reported as chairman of the Planning Committee. He said two items had been discussed at the meeting held that morning: ACRL committee roles and ACRL’s recommendations concerning ALA reorganization. In discussing the first item, he stated that most of the time was devoted to the Subject Specialist Section and its relationship to the subsections. They also discussed the committee on Cooperation with Educational and Professional Organizations. At this time there were no recommendations from the Planning Committee concerning these units.

The second matter, possible reorganization of ALA, was discussed with Pearce Grove, a member of ANACONDA. It was the consensus of the Planning Committee that more autonomy should be the primary concern of ACRL. It was decided to request that the Board reaffirm its statement on federation and submit it to Council. The resolution as amended was then read. (EXHIBIT II.)

Miss Edmonds offered some background on the resolution. She reported that the Executive Committee felt ACONDA had misinterpreted ACRL’s position on what would be the financial relationship of the division to ALA under a federated organization. She was invited to meet with ACONDA and explain ACRL’s views. It was also learned that the American Association of School Librarians passed a resolution supporting the concept of reorganization as a federation. In view of these events the Planning Committee felt ACRL’s resolution should be presented to council the next day. She further explained that the section on the percentage of dues to be allotted to ALA headquarters, found in the original resolution, had been omitted.

STUDIES IN BIBLIOGRAPHY

Volume XXIV

Edited byFredson Bowers, and L. A. Beaurline, University of Virginia. 240 pp., illus. $15.00

(Bibliographical Society)

This latest volume of the Studies includes nineteen articles and a Check List of Bibliographical Scholarship for 1970. Topics range from Collier’s forgery in the Second Folio of Shakespeare, to the importance of paper analysis in descriptive bibliographies, and an examination of trade practice of eighteenthcentury London printers. All twenty-four volumes of the Studies are available from the Press.

COLERIDGE ON SHAKESPEARE

The Text of the Lectures of 1811-12

ByR. A. Foakes, University of Canterbury, x, 166 pp., plates, apps. $5.75

(Folger Library)

Coleridge’s famous lectures on Shakespeare, given during the winter of 1811- 12, were compiled by John Payne Collier under the title of Seven Lectures on Shakespeare and Milton and not published until 1856. The accuracy of Collier’s text has always been in question, however, and recently R. A. Foakes began to study Collier’s shorthand notes. He uncovered their code, transcribed them himself, and discovered that his transcription differed considerably from Collier’s. Here for the first time is the accurate text of Collier’s original notes. Truer to Coleridge’s actual lectures, it makes more sense and is livelier in style than Collier’s embellished transcription.

WILLIAM BYRD OF WESTOVER

1674-1744

ByPierre L. Marambaud, University of Nice, France. 344 pp. (tnt.), index $12.50

William Byrd, a prominent eighteenth-century Virginia planter and politician, was the most noteworthy writer in Southern Colonial America. His letters, diaries, and publications are witty, skillfully written, and have proved to be valuable historical sources. Despite the historical importance of Byrd’s writings, his last biography was published in 1932 just before the discovery of three secret diaries. It has long been out of date. Now, Marambaud has studied all of Byrd’s writings thoroughly and has finally fashioned this comprehensive, unbiased history of Byrd and eighteenth-century Virginia. This history justifies Byrd’s position in American letters and gives a complete and honest picture of the man.

University Press of Virginia Charlottesville

Library of Congress / National Union Catalogs on Microfiche

Each section is available for immediate delivery on 105 x 148mm (4” x 6”) positive microfiche, negative microfiche or microopaque cards. Order from NCR/ Microcard Editions, 901 26th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037.

A CATALOG OF BOOKS REPRESENTED BY LIBRARY OF CONGRESS PRINTED CARDS ISSUED TO JULY 31, 1942. Ann Arbor, 1942-46. 167 vols. This is the first of three series containing reproductions of printed catalog cards produced by the Library of Congress from 1898 to 1952. “Because of the immensity of the collections, the excellence of the cataloging and the full bibliographic descriptions, the catalog is an invaluable work in any library and indispensable in those where research is done.” Winchell, pp. 7-8. $699.00

A CATALOG OF BOOKS REPRESENTED BY LIBRARY OF CONGRESS PRINTED CARDS: SUPPLEMENT: CARDS ISSUED AUG. 1, 1942-DEC. 31, 1947. Ann Arbor, 1948. 42 vols. The second of three series (233 volumes total) which essentially list all books held by the Library of Congress as of the end of 1952 except for a small percentage for which printed cards had not yet been issued. $199.00

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS AUTHOR CATALOG: A CUMULATIVE LIST OF WORKS REPRESENTED BY LIBRARY OF CONGRESS PRINTED CARDS, 1948-52. Ann Arbor, 1953. 24 vols. The last of three series which together contain reproductions of nearly 3,000,000 catalog cards describing books held by the Library of Congress. $119.00

NATIONAL UNION CATALOG: A CUMULATIVE AUTHOR LIST REPRESENTING LIBRARY OF CONGRESS PRINTED CARDS AND TITLES REPORTED BY OTHER AMERICAN LIBRARIES, 1953-57. Ann Arbor, 1958. 28 vols. The NUC continues the above series and expands the coverage to include books held and reported by some 500 other libraries. Thus the NUC is an attempt to list all books acquired for and cataloged by major North American libraries from 1953 onward, and to identify the library holding each book. $125.00

NATIONAL UNION CATALOG: 1952-55 IMPRINTS: AN AUTHOR LIST REPRESENTING LIBRARY OF CONGRESS PRINTED CARDS AND TITLES REPORTED BY OTHER AMERICAN LIBRARIES. Ann Arbor, Edwards, 1961. 30 vols. “This series, supplementary to the regular set, and not included in its chronological sequence, lists titles previously included in earlier catalogs with additional locations, as well as newly reported titles, many not represented by L.C. printed cards.” Winchell, p. 8. $199.00

NATIONAL UNION CATALOG: A CUMULATIVE AUTHOR LIST REPRESENTING LIBRARY OF CONGRESS PRINTED CARDS AND TITLES REPORTED BY OTHER AMERICAN LIBRARIES, 1958-62. New York, 1963. 54 vols. $265.00

NATIONAL UNION CATALOG: A CUMULATIVE AUTHOR LIST REPRESENTING LIBRARY OF CONGRESS PRINTED CARDS AND TITLES REPORTED BY OTHER AMERICAN LIBRARIES, 1963-67. Ann Arbor, Edwards, 1969. 72 vols. $393.00

The resolution, previously moved by Mr. Reason, carried. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

Brief of Minutes

Thursday, January 21, 1971—8:30 p.m.

Present: President, Anne C. Edmonds; Vice- President and President-Elect, Joseph H. Reason; Past President, Philip J. McNiff; Directorsat-Large, Norman E. Tanis, David C. Weber; Directors on ALA Council, Page Ackerman, Andrew J. Eaton, Andrew Horn, James F. Holly, Robert K. Johnson, Sarah D. Jones, James O. Wallace; Chairmen of Sections, Carl H. Sachtleben, Mrs. Joleen Bock, Julius P. Barclay, Eleanor Buist, David W. Heron; Chairmen and Chairmen-Elect of Sections, Carl R. Cox, Hal C. Stone, Wolfgang M. Freitag; Executive Secretary, J. Donald Thomas; Professional Assistant, Jordan M. Scepanski; Administrative Assistant, Elaine Swanson.

Absent: Lee Ash, Robert H. Blackburn, Herbert A. Cahoon, Mark M. Gormley, Warren J. Haas, Ralph H. Hopp.

Visitors: Brendan Connolly, D. Davisson, Beverly Johnson, E. J. Josey, Roy L. Kidman.

President Anne C. Edmonds presided.

The report of the second meeting of the Planning Committee was presented by Mr. Reason. It was recommended that the composition of the conference program committee be changed to include the past president. He would serve in an ex-officio and advisory capacity. The proposal was moved, seconded, and CARRIED.

Mr. Reason then moved that the Library Services Committee be discontinued. The members of that committee had recommended it be abolished and the Planning Committee concurred. Mr. Weber seconded. The motion CARRIED.

Mr. Reason reported on the visit of Mrs. Jessie Carney Smith, who had been invited to speak to the committee about a program of library internships for blacks. He said it was his understanding the Board had suggested ACRL look into the matter of continuing this type of program. Headed by Mrs. Smith and Virginia Lacy Jones, the program had been financed by the Ford Foundation. The possibilities of financing by the J. Morris Jones-ALA-World Book Encyclopedia Goals Award or through a government grant were mentioned. In answer to Mr. Holly’s question, Mr. Reason said the internship would be from four to six weeks in length. Mr. Weber urged ACRL’s support, stating his belief that federal funds would be made available. He suggested the formation of a committee to consider the program. Mr. McNiff pointed out the benefits to the individual in being exposed to situations in larger libraries and the corresponding benefits to the larger libraries in learning of the problems facing smaller institutions. After further discussion about the program and possible financing of it, Mr. McNiff made a motion instructing the president to move the project ahead as energetically as possible. In seconding the motion, Mr. Johnson suggested that the program might be expanded to include all minority groups. Miss Edmonds pointed out that this would result in a different program from the one presented, but should be considered. The motion carried without dissent.

The next item on the agenda concerned academic library statistics. Mr. Reason explained that a statistical survey would be made by the National Center for Educational Statistics in the fall. Unlike in the past, these surveys will be conducted biannually instead of annually. Information about individual salaries will not be included. He said NCES hopes to involve state agencies in the collection of these statistics. Previous difficulties encountered when the state agencies had gathered these data were pointed out by Mr. Heron and Miss Ackerman.

The resolution offered by the Committee on Academic Status at the Monday evening meeting of the Board was brought forth for reconsideration. Miss Edmonds read a revision of the resolution submitted by the committee:

Resolved: that ACRL be officially recognized AS THE BODY WITHIN ALA WHICH HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH AND ENFORCE ALL STANDARDS WHICH AFFECT THE ACADEMIC STATUS OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANS.

Mr. McNiff offered the information that the committee felt they had not clearly stated their intent and perhaps had been misunderstood. He said they had no intention of pulling all standards under their aegis, but seek to emphasize ACRL’s responsibility within ALA for all matters concerning libraries in institutions of higher education. ACRL’s statement of purpose would be reinforced by the resolution, he stated, and it would help to strengthen the posture of academic status. He moved that the resolution be approved. The motion was seconded and carried.

Mrs. Bock remarked that there should be a representative from the junior colleges on the Committee on Academic Status. She noted that junior college librarians are encountering problems similar to those faced by other academic librarians seeking to gain or retain status as faculty members.

Mr. Holly asked whether consideration should now be given to how the resolution just passed will be implemented. Mr. Tanis said the Standards and Accreditation Committee is working on a paper concerning problems in this area. It was hoped that the committee would be able to make future recommendations to the Board on how they could best act on these matters. Miss Edmonds mentioned the resolution brought before council by a member of the Intellectual Freedom Committee requiring that all matters of intellectual freedom and tenure come under its jurisdiction. She said that ACRL had been given assurance by council that a meeting would be held of all units involved in questions of investigations, status, tenure, etc., and that action would be deferred until after this meeting. Consideration will be given as to whether these should be handled by the divisions. Mr. Kidman, speaking for the Committee on Academic Status in the absence of Mr. Forth, stated that the committee needed to proceed with a methodology for handling requests for assistance. He said intellectual freedom and tenure are only two of the committee’s concerns. An ALA committee set up to investigate these areas would not be able to cover all of the intricacies of academic status. He suggested that his committee could better accomplish the tasks given it by implementation of the resolution bringing all matters affecting academic libraries in ALA under ACRL.

Referring to the committee set up to investigate the goals, structure, and finances of ACRL, Mr. McNiff said a concrete program for implementing the resolution will probably be recommended to the Board. In connection with Mr. McNiff’s remarks, Miss Edmonds explained that when the resolution urging a federated structure of ALA was passed, it was agreed that task forces be set up to study particular areas. She mentioned that a number of individuals had agreed to do this work.

Returning to the subject of investigations, tenure, and intellectual freedom, Miss Ackerman informed the Board that she was chairman of a Library Administration Division Committee set up to make recommendations as to how investigations of complaints could be handled by ALA and what LAD’s role in this area should be. She said she thought jurisdiction was a problem in this area, but that it wasn’t the major problem. She stated that what happens to people is the major problem and that she wasn’t convinced a central agency could not do a better job. Mr. Johnson stated that he had been surprised to learn LAD was involved in matters of intellectual freedom and tenure, but decided that perhaps this was appropriate. He pointed out, however, the danger of fracturing the effort if too many groups became involved. Emphasizing the importance of ALA having a strong arm in this area, he expressed the thought that perhaps the Intellectual Freedom Committee should be the central agency for all investigations. Requests for assistance might go to the member’s division, where preliminary data would be gathered and then forwarded on to the IFC. Mr. Heron said he was concerned about the cost of properly conducted investigations. He stated there should be careful coordination of effort and that he wasn’t entirely sure the divisions of ALA ought to be doing these things separately.

Mr. Holly expressed primary concern with the individuals involved and wondered what liaison existed between the committees. There has to be some way for ACRL or ALA to respond to arbitrary dismissals and similar matters, he said. There must be immediate attention given to requests for assistance. He stated that this was a very crucial period for academic librarians. The major concerns and interests of the Intellectual Freedom Committee are such that many of the important problems of academic librarians, problems of status, would get no hearing if IFC was the sole investigating agency. There are a great many problems still to be studied, he said, and he cautioned against hurried decisions. Mr. Heron pointed out that the form ALA takes if there is a reorganization will have a bearing on how investigations should be handled. Mr. Tanis felt ACRL’s activities, studies, and reports on questions of status and standards were extremely important and should continue. He too was concerned that IFC as a central investigating agency would not involve itself in certain problems academic librarians deem important.

Mr. Thomas reminded the Board of the situation of the California librarians. The lack of real action by ALA in that case led to the formation of ACRL’s committee on Academic Status. He said the committee is concerned about ACRL’s inability to carry out investigations and is mainly interested in seeing that investigations are properly funded and handled. Mr. Holly mentioned David Berninghausen’s remarks in the Intellectual Freedom section of American Libraries and stated he would be very reluctant to see a resolution pass council which would assign additional responsibilities to the IFC. Miss Edmonds stated that the IFC resolution could come before council the next day, and she reviewed the action of membership in first defeating an amendment to exclude ACRL from the resolution and then defeating the resolution itself. Miss Ackerman stated what her position would be if the issue were brought before council. She said she thought it would be premature to decide at this council meeting which agency of ALA should do all of the complex things that have to be done in this area. If the Office of Intellectual Freedom which, she pointed out, has more experience and has gone further in the development of procedures than any other agency, feels it should have overall responsibility for investigations, then it certainly should define the scope of its activity. There were areas related to academic status, she said, that had nothing to do with David Beminghausen’s proposals. Since the matter is so important, Miss Ackerman concluded, there should be conversation among the members before a decision is reached.

Mr. Wallace expressed his strong feeling that any ALA activity which concerned academic institutions should be carried out through ACRL. Mr. Horn said that with requests for assistance it was terribly important to know where to refer various items. He was not aware of any provision for making such references. Miss Edmonds answered him saying she had been informed a staff committee had begun doing this. Mr. Weber asked if the resolution on matters affecting academic libraries should be reconsidered at this time. After some discussion the Board decided that the matter could be brought up again at a later date if circumstances warranted. The resolution stood as passed.

The next item on the agenda was a request for approval of the Adult Services Division’s document “Library Rights of Adults, A Call for Action.” It was decided that the wording of the statement was ambiguous and that it seemed to pertain mainly to public libraries. Mr. Weber moved to table the document. The motion was seconded and carried.

Mr. Tanis requested permission to disseminate a draft of the proposed “Guidelines for College Libraries” in order to obtain comments and suggestions. He said the document would be sent to accreditation and other associations and to individual librarians. Mr. Holly moved that permission be granted. Mrs. Bock seconded and the motion carried.

Miss Edmonds brought up a proposal of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee. She pointed out that the committee had been asked at Detroit to prepare a procedure enabling membership to more rapidly amend the constitution and bylaws. Miss Edmonds submitted the following for Mr. Pullen:

Article IX Amendments. Section 1. Constitution. All proposals for amending the Constitution shall be referred to the Board of Directors. A proposed

“AMENDMENT SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE WHEN IT SHALL HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD PRESENT AND VOTING AT TWO CONSECUTIVE MEETINGS HELD NOT LESS THAN TWO MONTHS APART, FOLLOWED BY RATIFICATION BY THE MEMBERS OFthe Association either by a vote by mail OF A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS VOTING, OR BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING AT A MEETING OF THE Association. At least two months written notice shall be given to the Association OF THE TEXT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT BEFORE FINAL CONSIDERATION.”

Miss Edmonds said this amendment would liberalize the present rules. With the approval of the Board, it would be submitted to the membership at the Annual Conferences of 1971 and 1972. Miss Ackerman moved that the Board approve the amendment as read. The motion was seconded and carried.

The programs of the various ACRL sections and subsections to be held in Dallas were next on the agenda. A meeting of the section and subsection chairmen was to be held the next day, and their plans were to be submitted by Miss Edmonds and Mr. Thomas to the Dallas Program Committee later that day. After short reports from some of the units’ planning programs, Miss Edmonds asked the Board’s approval to submit all those programs she judged to be worthwhile. Mr. Weber moved she be given this authority. The motion was seconded and carried.

Miss Edmonds then told the Board of the Library Education Division’s request that ACRL cosponsor a program on legislation and the Higher Education Act. After a discussion of the Washington Office’s activity and the possibility of needed legislation, the Board agreed ACRL should cosponsor the program with LED.

Mr. Holly asked when the ACRL resolution on federation would be submitted to Council, Miss Edmonds answered that it would come up tomorrow. She said it had been sent to the Executive Board, which ruled this should be considered as part of the ACONDA report.

The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

EXHIBIT I

Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians A proposal of the Academic Status Committee of the Association of College and Research Libraries

With publication increasing at an exponential rate, with the variety of forms of publication proliferating rapidly, with significant scholarly and information material appearing in all of the world’s languages, with the bibliographical apparatus of many fields and subfields becoming increasingly difficult to use, with the growing sophistication of library and information technology, and with the development of academic libraries into large and complex organizations, the work of the academic librarian has become highly specialized and demanding.

The academic librarian makes a unique and important contribution to American higher education. He bears central responsibility for developing college and university library collections, for extending bibliographical control over these collections, for instructing students (both formally in the classroom and informally in the library), and advising faculty and scholars in the use of these collections. He provides a variety of information services to the college or university community, ranging from answers to specific questions to the compilation of extensive bibliographies. He provides library and information services to the community at large, including federal, state, and local government agencies, business firms and other organizations, and private citizens. Through his own research into the information process and through bibliographical and other studies, he adds to the sum of knowledge in the field of library practice and information science. Through membership and participation in library and scholarly organizations, he works to improve the practice of academic librarianship, bibliography, and information service.

Without the librarian, the quality of teaching, research, and public service in our colleges and universities would deteriorate seriously and programs in many disciplines could no longer be performed. His contribution is intellectual in nature and is the product of considerable formal education, including professional training at the graduate level. Therefore, college and university librarians must be recognized as equal partners in the academic enterprise, and they must be extended the rights and privileges which are not only commensurate with their contributions, but are necessary if they are to carry out their responsibilities.

The Committee on Academic Status of the Association of College and Research Libraries strongly endorses the formal recognition of the college or university librarian’s academic status by all institutions of higher education and their governing bodies. It urges that the Association of College and Research Libraries and the American Library Association adopt as standards the following rights and privileges for all academic librarians:

1. Professional responsibilities and self-determination.Each librarian should be assigned general responsibilities within his particular area of competence. He should have maximum possible latitude in fulfilling these responsibilities. However, the degree to which he has fulfilled them should be regularly and rigorously reviewed. A necessary element of this review must be appraisal by a committee of peers who have access to all available evidence.
2. Library governance.College and university libraries should adopt an academic form of governance. The librarians should form as a library faculty whose role and authority is similar to that of the faculties of a college, or the faculty of a school or a department.
3. College and university governance.Librarians should be eligible for membership in the academic senate or equivalent body at their college or university on the same basis as other faculty.
4. Education.Because of the dual demands upon librarians for both professional and subject field competence, two master’s degrees—one in librarianship and one in a relevant subject field—shall be the minimum educational requirement for tenure for all librarians appointed after the adoption of these standards by ACRL.
5. Compensation.The salary scale for librarians should be the same as that for other academic categories with equivalent education and experience. Librarians should normally be appointed for the academic year. If a librarian is expected to work through the summer session, his salary scale should be adjusted similarly to the summer session scale of other faculty at his college or university.
6. Tenure.Librarians should be covered by tenure provisions the same as those of other faculty. In the pretenure period, librarians should be covered by written contracts or agreements the same as those of other faculty.
7. Promotion.Librarians should be promoted through ranks and steps on the basis of their academic proficiency and professional effectiveness, A peer review system similar to that used by other faculty is the primary basis of judgment in the promotion process for academic librarians. The librarians’ promotion ladder should have the same titles, ranks, and steps as that of other faculty.
8. Leaves.Sabbatical and other research leaves should be available to librarians on the same basis, and with the same requirements, as they are available to other faculty.
9. Research funds.Librarians should have access to funding for research projects on the same basis as other faculty.
10. Academic freedom.Librarians in colleges and universities must have the protection of academic freedom. Library resources and the professional judgment of librarians must not be subject to censorship.

To implement these standards, the Association of College and Research Libraries and the American Library Association will:

1. 1. Publicize these standards to all colleges and universities and their libraries, all library schools, all library organizations, all higher education organizations, and all agencies which accredit academic institutions.
2. 2. Seek to have these standards formally adopted or endorsed by all colleges and universities and their libraries, all library schools, all library organizations, all higher education organizations, and all agencies which accredit academic institutions.
3. 3. Investigate all violations of these standards which are reported by members of the Association of College and Research Libraries. Such investigations will be coordinated and supervised by the Committee on Academic Status of the Association of College and Research Libraries.
4. 4. Invoke the following sanctions against institutions of higher education which are found, after such investigation, to be in violation of any or all of these standards:

a. Publicize the violation and the institution concerned in CRL News and other appropriate publications.

b. Refuse to accept advertisements in any ALA publication for positions at that institution.

c. Discourage its members from accepting employment at that institution, through notices in its publications and other means.

A reasonable amount of time—three to five years—should be provided college and university libraries which do not currently conform to any or all of these standards, to enable them to do so. However, no such grace period should be provided to libraries which currently do conform, either wholly or in part, and which seek to deny or withdraw any such rights and privileges.

EXHIBIT II

ACRL Resolution on Federation

WHEREAS, the ACRL at its membership meeting in Detroit 1970, approved the concept of reorganizing the ALA in the form of a federation of associations of types of libraries, and

WHEREAS, time did not permit the presentation of this resolution either to council or to membership,

BE IT NOW RESOLVED that the ACRL reaffirms its resolution as amended: Academic libraries, as well as other types of libraries, are institutions having a configuration of problems which make them unique institutions in terms of priorities, personnel, and professional aims. Failure to recognize this principle and gear the reorganization of ALA to respond to this particular set of requirements would produce general mediocrity throughout the work of the association.

It is THEREFORE recommended that:

I. ALA become a federation of library associations with a strong, central headquarter’s secretariat.

II. Each of the federated associations determine policy in all matters concerning its areas of interest.

III. ACRL as a federated association be headed by an executive director appointed by the Association of College and Research Libraries. The executive director is responsible to the membership of the association and is responsible for executing policies and programs initiated by the membership, providing staff and setting salaries.

IV. Membership in ACRL be open to individuals holding a library degree or individuals who by their professional appointment may be designated as having rank equivalent to one holding such a degree.

V. A dues structure be developed, determined by the Association of College and Research Libraries, which would permit it to finance its own programs and provide for the staffing and activities of the central headquarters.

VI. The officers of the federated associations form an executive committee to the ALA secretariat staff. Meetings of this executive committee should be frequent, and task forces (with terminal dates) should be appointed by this advisory body to study interdivisional problems.

VII. Among the responsibilities of the ALA secretariat be the maintenance of central offices offering various professional and administrative services to the federated association. The advisory group to each office should be composed of representatives appointed by each of the federated associations and should have the responsibility of reporting back to the parent association.

It is further recommended that position papers should be prepared by ACRL proposing a possible organizational structure, developing goals, directions, and responsibilities of ACRL, and outlining the financial implications of federation. ■ ■