ACRL College & Research Libraries News

College & Research Libraries News

ACRL Board of Directors

MIDWINTER MEETING WASHINGTON, D.C., 1973

Minutes

Monday, January 29, 1973—10:00 a.m. Shoreham Hotel

Present: President, Russell Shank; Vice-President and President-Elect, Norman E. Tanis; Di- rectors-at-Large, Raymond A. Bohling, Mark M. Gormley, H. Joanne Harrar; Chairmen of Sections, Jeanne J. Henderson, Jacqueline D. Sisson, Theodore F. Welch, John R. Beard, Robert N. Broadus, William J. Hoffman, Judy H. Fair, Howard L. Applegate, Lubomyr R. Wynar, LeMoyne W. Anderson; Vice-Chairmen and Chairmen-Elect of Sections, Richard A. Farley, Lee Ash, Barbara Sevy, Om P. Sharma, Richard C. Quick, Lorraine Mathies, Louise Giles, Nancy Rodgers, Ruth Salisbury, Ray Su- put, J. Richard Blanchard; Executive Secretary, Beverly P. Lynch; Professional Assistant, Lynn C. Kovacic.

Absent: Joseph H. Reason, Herbert A. Ca- hoon, Elsie Bergland.

Visitors: Robert Adelsperger, Donald C. Anthony, Mary Louise B. Cobb, Richard K. Gardner, Johnnie Givens, David Kaser, Thomas Kirk, Frank MacDougall, B. J. Mitchell, Richard A. Ploch, Hal C. Stone, David C. Weber, and others.

President Russell Shank presided. The meeting was called to order, and the minutes of the Chicago meetings were approved as published in the October 1972 issue of CRL News.

President’s Report

Dr. Shank reported on the following matters:

Federal Relationships.In the fall, the ACRL president had been encouraged to arrange a meeting with officials in the United States Office of Education when it appeared that the U.S.O.E. college and academic library specialist would not be replaced at Katharine Stokes’ retirement, that the type of library specialist was being removed from the Bureau of Libraries and Learning Resources, and that funding for college and academic library programs was being eliminated. In October, a meeting was scheduled with Joseph B. Cosand, deputy commissioner for higher education, and representatives of ACRL and the Association of Research Libraries. That meeting was cancelled, however, when Dr. Cosand was unexpectedly called out of town. On January 12, 1973, the meeting was finally held, with Dr. Cosand, John R. Ot- tina, and representatives of ACRL and ARL in attendance. By that time, the administration’s policy regarding funding for library programs was well known.

The National Center for Educational Statistics had expressed concerns regarding its higher education surveys and possible losses in funding. Dr. Shank reported that Frank Schick, director of the Library Surveys Branch of NCES, would discuss these concerns at the ACRL Board meeting on Thursday, February 1.

Earlier, Dr. Shank had appointed an Ad Hoc Advisory Group on Academic Library Statistics, to advise ACRL and its president on the need for statistics and to consider the kinds of statistics needed by college and university libraries. David Kaser, chairman of the group, was to report later during the meeting.

Higher Education Planning Commissions in the States (1202 Commissions).Dr. Shank reported that state planning commissions were being established as a result of the 1972 amendments to the Higher Education Act and suggested that the ACRL Committee on Legislation develop procedures that would insure the representation of college and university library interests on these commissions. In addition, the committee was asked to develop a college and university library network that could be used at a moment’s notice to mobilize librarians to talk with legislators at the state and national levels.

Academic Status.Dr. Shank reported that Brendan Connolly, Beverly Lynch, and he had represented ACRL at the San Francisco meeting of the Association of American Colleges on January 15, 1973. An information meeting on the “Joint Statement on Faculty Status of College and University Librarians” was held during the AAC conference.

Dr. Shank stated that he had received letters from several schools at which the tenure and status of librarians were being threatened. On behalf of ACRL, he had called the librarians at these schools to discuss the problem. Dr. Shank then asked for the Board’s advice on procedures to be followed in similar situations.

William Hoffman stated that, as chairman of the Junior College Libraries Section, he had received a similar letter from a library director at one of the Los Angeles City colleges and that he had responded by writing a letter in support of tenure and status for the librarians in those colleges. He agreed that guidelines or procedures would have been very helpful in responding to the letter.

As a result of the discussion, the ACRL Committee on Academic Status was directed to formulate procedures for ACRL’s use upon notification of a potential loss of tenure or status. The committee was also directed to develop guidelines for local use in selection, promotion, and retention, and to promote the “Joint Statement on Faculty Status of College and University Librarians.”

The Board reaffirmed that formal requests for investigations into loss of tenure would be referred to the ALA Staff Committee on Mediation, Arbitration, and Inquiry, since all investigations are guided by the ALA Program of Action for Mediation, Arbitration, and Inquiry.

Annual Conference Program—Las Vegas.Dr. Shank summarized the many difficulties encountered in planning the ACRL divisional program for the Las Vegas conference. ACRL had originally planned an intensive program, but, due to problems stemming from ALA organization, procedures required by ALA for conference program planning, ALA’s financial difficulties, and space problems in Las Vegas, the program had to be abandoned.

Advisory Group on Academic Library Statistics (Ad Hoc)

David Kaser reported for the advisory group (David Kaser, chairman, Dale Bentz, Helen Brown, Stephen Salmon, and Ted Samore):

This group was brought together to discuss the fact that the National Center for Educational Statistics is now compiling college and university library analytical and institutional statistics biennially rather than annually. The question we asked ourselves was, “What should be ACRL’s response to this fact?”

It was our feeling that it is unrealistic to expect that ACRL or ALA might enter the statistics compilation business at this time, even in alternate years. In the days when ACRL did do its own collection of statistics, and subsequently when the job was subcontracted out of LAD for one year, the cost in dollars and manpower was just too great. On the other hand, we could envision that volunteer groups might be found that would collect statistics within certain small interest groups, e.g., regional, urban institutions, universities, etc.

We would urge, however, that ACRL hand on two recommendations to LAD for its Committee on Statistics for College and University Libraries. These are:

(1) that the Committee attempt a kind of market analysis among academic libraries of the interest, need, and level of concern for annual statistics, and especially of libraries’ willingness to pay for them;

(2) that the Committee address itself to the need for two additional kinds of statistical compilations: first, for correlations of library size characteristics against other institutional data in the HEGIS document, such as faculty and student body size; and second, for more data on productivity and output of libraries that can be used comparatively for purposes of performance evaluation.

In addition, the group recommends that ACRL redouble its efforts to impress upon NCES the importance of frequent, accurate, comprehensive library statistics for many purposes other than to justify and evaluate grant programs and that it make similar representations to the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science.

Richard Blanchard moved that the report be accepted and that the recommendations be referred to the Library Administration Division’s Committee on Statistics for College and University Libraries. The motion was seconded. In the discussion that followed, Mr. Blanchard observed that the field could no longer expect volunteer groups to collect statistics. Dr. Kaser replied that certain volunteer groups do collect and report statistics. Among these are the Association of Research Libraries and a group of Southern university libraries whose statistics are compiled and published by Louisiana State University. Dr. Shank suggested that the 1202 Commissions might collect library statistics. Dr. Kaser replied that these commissions were to focus on planning at the state and regional levels. The advisory group had felt that statistics at these levels would not fill the need, since many libraries compare themselves “to other libraries across the country, not across the street.” There being no further discussion, the vote was called and the motion carried.

Internship Committee ( Ad Hoc )

David Weber, reporting for the committee (Virginia Lacy Jones, chairman, Phyllis Cartwright, Richard Dougherty, James McCoy, Annette Phinazee, Katharine Stokes, and David Weber), brought to the ACRL Board for its consideration and approval in principle a proposal entitled “Academic Library Internship Program for Administrators of Predominantly Black College and University Libraries.” The proposal calls for a three-year project to fund twenty-five internships.

The goals of the project are “to identify those Black colleges and universities which would benefit with improved management, to accelerate the development of management ability in Black librarians who wish to participate in such a project and provide them with adequate internship experiences, to identify librarians who are capable of and willing to serve as a host to the intern and provide him or her with a meaningful experience, and to evaluate the effectiveness of these internship experiences in relation to the development of the libraries in which the interns are employed.”

Mr. Weber discussed the length of the internship, the plans for administering the project, and other details of the proposal. The committee was requesting approval in principle so that the proposal could be presented to the ALA Executive Board at its April meeting and conveyed informally to funding agencies prior to that time.

Howard Applegate moved that the ACRL Board approve the project as reported orally by Mr. Weber. The motion was seconded. Ray Suput asked if the project was limited to blacks or if other minority groups could be included. Mr. Weber replied that, based upon the committee’s charge, only blacks would be included. The motion carried unanimously.

CHOICE

Richard Gardner, editor of Choice, announced that the Choice Editorial Board had approved an increase in the annual subscription price, from $20 to $25 for the journal and from $80 to $95 for the card service. This is the first increase in subscription prices since the journal began in March 1964.

There followed a general discussion of advertising revenue, of subdividing the journal by subject, and of the disposition of review copies.

Budget

The remainder of the meeting was devoted to Agenda Exhibit I, the ACRL divisional budget for 1973/74. The instructions from the ALA Committee on Program Evaluation and Support (COPES), to hold the budget to the 1972/73 levels and to recommend 5 percent cuts from that budget, were discussed. Norman Tanis, vice-president and presidentelect, presented some tentative priorities for ACRL. Several section vice-chairmen supported their budget requests. The Board members were asked to help determine the priorities and recommended cuts and to report their suggestions to the ACRL office prior to the Board meeting on Thursday.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 noon.

Minutes

Thursday, February 1, 1973-2:00 p.m. Sheraton-Park Hotel

Present: President, Russell Shank; Vice- President and President-Elect, Norman E. Tanis; Directors-at-Large, Raymond A. Bohling, Mark M. Gormley, H. Joanne Harrar; Chairmen of Sections, Elsie Bergland, Jeanne J. Henderson, Jacqueline D. Sisson, Theodore F. Welch, John R. Beard, Robert N. Broadus, William J. Hoffman, Judy H. Fair, Howard L. Applegate, LeMoyne W. Anderson; Vice-Chairmen and Chairmen-Elect of Sections, Richard A. Farley, Lee Ash, Om P. Sharma, Richard C. Quick, Lorraine Mathies, Louise Giles, Nancy Rodgers, Ruth Salisbury, Ray Suput, J. Richard Blanchard; Executive Secretary, Beverly P. Lynch; Professional Assistant, Lynn C. Kovacic.

Absent: Joseph H. Reason, Herbert A. Ca- hoon, Barbara Sevy, Lubomyr R. Wynar.

Visitors: Millicent Abell, Gerald L. Bray, Mary Louise B. Cobb, Elizabeth E. Ferguson, Stan Humenuk, Ann E. Kerker, David Oyler, Hans E. Panofsky, Robert M. Pierson, Jasper G. Schad, Frank Schick, Eldred R. Smith, Charles Stevens, Hal C. Stone, Rose Vainstein, David C. Weber, and others.

The meeting was called to order by the presiding officer, President Russell Shank.

ACRL Divisional Budget

The Board continued its discussion of the proposed ACRL divisional budget. Norman Tanis moved that the Board approve the budget as presented in Sections B-V and B-VI of Exhibit I, with the understanding that the priorities assigned by the Board members to each budget line would be applied should cuts be necessary. The motion was seconded.

Dr. Shank summarized the 1973/74 budget request: in essence, ACRL was asking for $72,316 to continue existing programs and for an additional $7,560 to fund new programs.

Eldred Smith, chairman of the Committee on Academic Status, urged a high priority for the academic status program. The additional staff which had been requested in the 1972/73 budget for support of the division’s academic status program had been denied by COPES and the Budget Assembly. In response to Mr. Smith’s question concerning the lack of a similar request in the 1973/74 budget, Dr. Shank replied that the division was requesting funds to support a full-time professional assistant in the ACRL office to assist the executive secretary with the general operation of the association. Mr. Smith urged that ACRL request an additional full-time or half-time professional assistant to promote and coordinate the academic status program of the division, to make available to the membership information on the status question, to deal with the increasing numbers of inquiries concerning academic status, and to strengthen ACRL’s work with other higher education associations on the matter of academic status.

Dr. Shank proposed the following procedure: that the Board vote on the ACRL budget as presented, accepting priorities if necessary; that the Board hear the report of the Committee on Academic Status; and that, if the Board agrees with the committee’s report and if the executive secretary feels that additional staff is required to accomplish the committee’s objectives, the Board then vote on a motion to modify the earlier motion. Mr. Smith agreed to accept the procedure.

Dr. Shank then asked Mr. Tanis what defense he and the ACRL Planning Committee would use before COPES in support of the ACRL budget. Mr. Tanis replied that the following priorities have been suggested by the Planning Committee: (1) additional support for the headquarters staff because of the increased work load caused by the executive secretary’s participation on the ALA Staff Committee on Mediation, Arbitration, and Inquiry; (2) ACRL’s liaison activities with other organizations, particularly in the area of the status of librarians and librarianship; (3) ACRL’s program of communication and publication; and (4) strengthening of ACRL’s section programs.

Theodore Welch asked for a general review of the priorities established by the Board members. Mr. Tanis interpreted the rough tally as follows: items receiving substantial support— staffing and College & Research Libraries; items receiving major support—the AAC/ AAUP/ACRL Joint Committee on College Libraries, the Committee on Academic Status, ACRL membership promotion, and ACRL cooperation with other educational and professional groups; items receiving some support— the AACJC/AECT/ALA (ACRL) Joint Com- mittee on Junior College Libraries and the Committee on Standards and Accreditation; items receiving minor support—the Communications Committee of the Junior College Libraries Section, materials for advisory service, and support for the revision of the 1959 Standards for College Libraries; items receiving little support—the NUEA/ACRL Joint Committee on University Extension Library Services, the ARL/ACRL Joint Committee on University Library Standards, the JCLS Bibliography Committee, and the project to publish state standards for two-year college learning resources programs; items receiving no support or support of little significance—general activities of the College Libraries Section and of the Junior College Libraries Section, the JCLS Ad Hoc Committee on Goals, Program & Procedures, and the project to publish a union list of Slavic serials.

Mr. Welch observed that, if the entire budget were approved, items which the Board had not supported would be approved. He suggested that the budget and its priorities be reviewed again after the presentation to COPES. Following several general comments from other members of the Board, Dr. Shank restated the motion and called for the vote. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

1974 Annual Conference Program—New York

Mr. Tanis reported that the ACRL Conference Program Planning Committee for 1974 had met and that all of the sections except the College Libraries Section had submitted outlines for programs. The committee recommended the approval of two preconferences, one sponsored by the Asian and North African Section and one by the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section. Two other sections, the Junior College Libraries Section and the Education and Behavioral Sciences Section, had proposed preconference programs but have since decided to incorporate these programs into the regular conference week.

Om Sharma, vice-chairman and chairman- elect of the Asian and North African Section, presented the tentative plans for that section’s preconference. The general theme is “Library Support for Non-Western Area Studies.” The program will include presentations on the acquisition and cataloging of materials acquired through national and regional plans such as the Farmington Plan and PL480. Participants, grouped by geographical area of interest (Africa, Near and Middle East, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia), will consider the impact on individual libraries of the acquisitions programs in these areas.

Ruth Salisbury, vice-chairman and chairman- elect of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, presented the tentative plans for that section’s preconference. The section had received an invitation from C. Waller Barrett to celebrate the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the founding of the section by holding the preconference at the University of Virginia at Charlottesville, where the founding had taken place. The tentative theme of the program is “Preservation of Books and Materials.”

Dr. Shank reported that the Resources and Technical Services Division of ALA was planning a preconference for New York on the same topic. Various members of the Board inquired about the plans for the RTSD preconference. General discussion by the Board followed. Lee Ash stated that, in his opinion, the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section would welcome cosponsorship of the preconference by RTSD and that, if cosponsorship were not feasible, the audience drawn to the preconference in New York would complement rather than diminish the RBMS audience in Charlottesville, since dealers and book collectors would be among the participants in the RBMS meeting.

Howard Applegate moved that the preconferences planned by ANAS and RBMS be approved as presented. The motion was seconded and it CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Dr. Shank encouraged the vice-president to make the case for the RBMS preconference as strong as possible, in the event that only one preconference on preservation will be approved by the New York Conference Planning Committee. Dr. Shank affirmed that the RBMS preconference would be an anniversary celebration, that the RBMS programs have traditionally appealed to an audience that would not otherwise attend an ALA conference, and that RBMS has consistently made a profit on its preconferences.

Dr. Shank then asked if the budgets for the two preconferences had been prepared. Beverly Lynch replied that the budgets would be prepared prior to the March 5 deadline for budget presentations to COPES.

Las Vegas Conference Program Budget—Division and Sections

Dr. Shank referred the Board’s attention to Exhibit I, part B-I, the Las Vegas conference budget. ACRL’s sections had requested a total of $2,839 to support their program meetings at the Las Vegas conference. This amount did not include the line item request for the division’s general program. Robert Wedgeworth, executive director of ALA, allocated $850 to ACRL for all of its programs at Las Vegas. Dr. Shank reported that the divisional program now under preparation would have no budget requirements. The program that he had originally planned had been abandoned due to the lack of budget support and the inadequacy of the facilities in Las Vegas. Dr. Shank had hoped to bring program participants to the conference by electronic means, through the use of video display and conference telephone calls, but the program was discarded in favor of one that would require little, if any, financing from the conference program budget.

Dr. Shank then asked Howard Applegate, chairman of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, to discuss the financial requirements of the proposed RBMS program. Mr. Applegate reported that the section had planned a panel discussion on the letterpress projects and the microfilm projects supported by the National Historical Publications Commission. Last year, the U.S. Grant Foundation, owner of the U.S. Grant papers and a recipient of NHPC funds, had closed its archives to scholars. Since such private letterpress projects are tax supported, the foundation’s action precipitated a debate over the true ownership of the archives. RBMS had therefore planned a program with five scholars: two in support of open letterpress archives, two in support of closed archives, and a representative of NHPC. All honoraria have been eliminated from the RBMS request; the program costs are high due to the travel costs involved. The section has considered deferring the program until the 1974 conference in New York but has discarded the idea because of the timeliness of the question.

The section is currently considering reducing the size of the panel to three members: one supporting each side of the question and the representative of NHPC. If NHPC were to cover the expenses of its representative, the section would still need $600 to cover the travel expenses of the remaining two participants. Mr. Applegate pointed out that members of other organizations, such as the American Historical Society and the Society of American Archivists, would be attracted to this program. He concluded by stating that the entire program would have to be discarded if the section did not receive a minimum of $600.

Louise Giles, vice-chairman and chairman- elect of the Junior College Libraries Section, spoke in support of the JCLS request and expressed hope that the Board would find some equitable method for allocating the meager program funds. William Hoffman, chairman of the section, reported that the section’s Executive Committee had discussed the problem of lack of funds and had concluded that the section could manage within whatever restraints the Board chose to impose, provided that the section received at least $100.

Jeanne J. Henderson, chairman of the Anthropology Section, discussed the request for the ANTS program, the first to be presented by this section. The program, to be cosponsored by ANTS, the Art Section, and the Asian and North African Section, will be a slide presentation and lecture on African art and will feature a prominent speaker from the East coast. Mrs. Henderson felt that the program could be presented with somewhat less money than had been requested.

Judy Fair, chairman of the Law and Political Science Section, said that the section’s program could survive without any funding. She recommended that the LPSS request be removed from the consideration.

The Board discussed the estimated attendance at each of the proposed program meetings since this factor might influence the Board’s consideration of the budget requests. The Board also discussed the possibility of requesting more money than the $850 that had been allocated to the division. Mr. Tanis did not feel that there was much chance that ACRL could obtain additional funds for the Las Ve- gas conference program. Ruth Salisbury observed that, if conference programs are good, then conference attendance and therefore income should increase. If conference programs are poor, the opposite could occur, and membership loss could be the final result.

Dr. Shank presented the Board with two alternatives: to seek from the ALA executive director an additional amount of money for the program or to accept the $850 sum and to allocate within that amount.

William Hoffman, chairman of the Junior College Libraries Section, indicated that the nature of the JCLS program had been changed considerably during a meeting the day before and that there was a good chance that another organization might wish to help sponsor the program. Mr. Hoffman suggested an allocation of $150 to the Anthropology Section, if that would be useful to them, $100 to the Junior College Libraries Section, and $600 to the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, should ACRL be unable to secure additional funds.

Jacqueline Sisson, chairman of the Art Section, felt that the joint ANTS/ARTS/ANAS program would be difficult to present with $150, but that it could be presented with $300.

Dr. Shank suggested that, if the Board allocated $300 to ANTS and $100 to JCLS, only $450 would remain for RBMS. Mr. Applegate moved that the Board allocate the $300 to ANTS, $100 to JCLS, and $450 to RBMS. Mr. Hoffman seconded the motion.

Dr. Shank then asked how the Board might accommodate the notion that the president be given permission to argue for more funds. He said he would welcome a substitute motion. Joanne Harrar moved that the ACRL president be authorized to request an additional $400, bringing the total ACRL Las Vegas conference program budget to $1,250, and, that failing, that the division return to the allocations presented in Mr. Applegate’s motion. Mark Gormley seconded the motion.

John Beard asked how the $1,250 might be allocated. Dr. Shank volunteered $600 for RBMS, $500 for ANTS, and $150 for JCLS. He said he would negotiate for an amount between $850 and $1,250 and would apply the recommendations of the Board if an additional amount were not forthcoming. Dr. Shank repeated the motion and called for the vote. The motion CARRIED.

Resolution of the Association of Hospital and Institution Libraries

Raymond Bohling moved that ACRL strongly endorse the resolution presented by AHIL:

Since the ALA considers the annual conference as the primary informational and educational function of the Association, the AHIL Board strongly recommends that a larger portion of the Association’s financial resources be directed toward improving the quality of the programs, workshops, and other educational functions planned for the convention.

Mr. Applegate seconded the motion. The Board discussed ACRL’s responsibility in considering the financial impact and cost implications of the resolution on the general ALA budget. Although ALA’s annual program is separately funded, it has consistently generated income for the general funds of the association. Dr. Shank read from the “American Library Association Treasurer’s Report for the Fiscal Year September 1, 1971 to August 31, 1972” (p.2):

Income from the 1972 annual

conference $477,374

Expenses for the 1972 annual

conference $287,468

Amount transferred to General Funds from the excess

revenue $150,000

Norman Tanis reported that, in order to support its general program, ALA has been dipping into its endowment funds for approximately $42,000 annually. The membership has not been able to support the costs of the association’s programs.

Louise Giles expressed her frustration over the need for more members, the high cost of membership, and the lack of money to support programs that might attract new members. Mr. Hoffman felt that ALA ought to spend more for improved conference programs to make attendance at conference more worthwhile for present members. With improved conference attendance, more income would be generated.

John Beard felt that, as a matter of principle, there might be something wrong with an association that has to depend upon a conference to carry out its ongoing programs. He said that it would be helpful in planning and arranging a program if a section could depend upon a minimum of $500 for program expenses.

In response to a question, the executive secretary reported that the Las Vegas conference program expense requests for all ALA units totalled approximately $12,000. There being no further discussion, the vote was called and the motion carried.

Public Library Association Standards Committee

Rose Vainstein, chairman of the PLA Standards Committee, appeared before the Board to describe the direction of the committee in its development of working papers on standards for library services at the community level. Miss Vainstein asked that ACRL appoint five members to react to the working documents as they are written. PLA was not asking for endorsement, but for help in the examination of the working papers, since the standards may have implications for all types of libraries.

John Beard moved that the president be authorized to act upon this request. The motion was seconded. Dr. Shank observed that there were several ACRL committees involved in considering the role of the college and research library in community service. Among these are the Committee on Community Use of Academic Libraries, the ULS Urban University Libraries Committee, and the Standards and Accreditation Committee. Dr. Shank will appoint ACRL members who reflect the interests of these committees and who can therefore report, at least informally, to the committees. The vote was called and the motion carried.

Statement on Appraisal of Gifts

Upon the recommendation of the RBMS Executive Committee, Howard Applegate moved that the ACRL Board approve the “Statement on Appraisal of Gifts” as revised (CRL News, March 1973), and that the chairman of RBMS be authorized to negotiate its approval with other professional associations which are presently preparing their own standards statements, and to report back to the Board regarding the negotiations. Dr. Shank pointed out that the motion required no second, since it had been made by the section chairman.

The statement, a revision of the 1960 ACRL policy statement, was prepared by the RBMS Committee on Manuscripts Collections, charged several years earlier with the task of revising the statement. Following general discussion, the question was called and the motion carried.

Statement on Legal Title

Again, upon the recommendation of the RBMS Executive Committee, Mr. Applegate moved that the ACRL Board approve the “Statement on Legal Title” as revised (CRL News, March 1973), and that the chairman of RBMS be authorized to negotiate its approval with other professional organizations and to report back to the Board regarding the negotiations. The motion required no second.

Mr. Applegate reported that, if the statement is approved, the section will design a form to be distributed with the statement. The vote was called and the motion carried.

Resolution on the Tax Reform Act of 1969

Mr. Applegate brought to the attention of the Board a resolution which the RBMS Executive Committee had passed unanimously on January 29, 1973:

be it resolved that the ACRL Board of Directors take immediate and vigorous steps to seek elimination of those sections of the Tax Reform Act of 1969 which lim- it the tax advantages of gifts of self-creat- ed materials to tax-exempt research institu- tions and to restore to the pre-1969 tax ap- praisal guidelines all such gifts. Additional steps must be taken to prevent proposed legislation, now pending in Congress, to limit the tax advantages in gifts of any book, manuscript, or art collection to tax- exempt research institutions.

Mr. Applegate reported that the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section felt that ALA legal counsel and the ALA Washington Office should take action to alert the membership about the status of various bills which would affect “gifts- in-kind” to non-profit, tax-exempt organizations. Mr. Applegate moved that the ACRL Board approve the resolution as presented. The motion required no second.

Dr. Shank described the action that the ACRL president could take immediately: (1) to make certain that the ALA Washington Newsletter contains information about the pending legislation, including a clear statement of the bill numbers; (2) to talk with the incoming chairman of the ALA Legislation Committee about the committee’s plans in this matter; and (3) to refer the resolution to the ACRL Committee on Legislation with a request for recommendations for appropriate action. The question was called and the motion carried.

National Commission on Libraries and Information Science

The Board received an informal report from Charles Stevens, executive director of NCLIS, on the activities of the commission. Dr. Stevens encouraged ACRL to present, to the commission, position papers identifying specific programs that the commission might undertake.

At 4:00 p.m., following Dr. Stevens’ presentation, the meeting was recessed. The Board reconvened at 4:30 p.m.

National Center for Educational Statistics

Frank Schick, director of the Library Surveys Branch of NCES, reported to the Board on the NCES programs. Dr. Schick exhibited samples of the college and university library survey forms and requested comments and suggestions from the Board members. He reported on the status of the 1973 survey and on the library manpower survey, contracted to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and to be published at the end of 1973.

Richard Blanchard suggested that ACRL send the center a letter expressing strong hope for retaining the services of the center. Dr. Shank, hearing no objections, agreed to write the letter.

Affiliation with the Ukranian Library Association

Ray Suput, chairman of the Slavic and East European Section, moved that the Ukranian Library Association be affiliated with ALA through ACRL and its Slavic and East European Section. The motion required no second.

The Board discussed ALA’s and ACRL’s policies and procedures regarding affiliation. Mr. Suput, in response to the suggestion that such affiliations be accomplished through IFLA, stated that the Ukranian Library Association is not a foreign association but an ethnic one.

Since the benefits provided by the affiliation were unclear, Raymond Bohling moved that the motion be tabled. The motion to table was seconded and it carried.

Academic Status Committee

Dr. Shank reported on the progress of the adoption of the “Joint Statement on Faculty Status of College and University Librarians’’ (CBL News, Sept. 1972), written by the AAC/ AAUP/ACRL Joint Committee on College Libraries. ACRL had approved the joint statement at its membership meeting in Chicago on June 26, 1972. The AAC Board of Directors voted in December 1972 not to present the statement in its present form to its membership. In order to clarify the implications of the statement, the joint committee presented an information meeting on January 15, 1973, during the AAC annual conference in San Francisco. ACRL was represented at that meeting by Russell Shank, Brendan Connolly, and Beverly Lynch. AAUP will publish the statement in the winter issue of its bulletin and will ask its members to endorse it at the AAUP meeting in April.

Eldred Smith, chairman of the Committee on Academic Status, moved that the ACRL Board instruct the representatives on the joint committee to raise the question of the lack of AAC’s approval with the other members of the committee in order to clarify the matter of functional identity of librarians and to urge that the joint committee request that AAC reconsider the matter as quickly as possible. The motion required no second. The vote was taken and the motion carried. Dr. Shank asked the executive secretary to take the appropriate action.

Mr. Smith discussed with the Board the three potential losses of faculty status that had come to the attention of the Committee on Academic Status. There followed a general discussion concerning ACRL’s role in such matters. There was agreement that ACRL would continue to advise and educate librarians, faculty, and administrators in the area of academic status, faculty status, and tenure, and that the association needed to develop models, guidelines, and procedures in these areas. ACRL would take care to avoid any violation of ALA grievance procedures.

Mr. Smith, as chairman of the Committee on Academic Status, requested that the Board authorize the president to write to the acting president of Auburn University to express concern regarding the recent action relating to revocation of faculty status for Auburn librarians. Since the proposed plan at Auburn is a departure from the ACRL “Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians” (CRL News, Sept. 1972), a copy of the standards should be enclosed with the letter. Mr. Smith recommended that the letter include an offer for several ACRL members to visit Auburn to discuss the standards with respect to the current review of the status of librarians at Auburn. The Committee on Academic Status considers the visit an informational and educational mission. The committee recognizes that the ACRL membership is very concerned about faculty status and the role that their organization will take not only in helping librarians to secure faculty status, but in helping them to retain it. The committee believes that ACRL has a responsibility to do something about the policies it has adopted and therefore sees the proposed action as a model of procedure.

In response to questions about the role of the ALA Staff Committee on Mediation, Arbitration, and Inquiry, Mr. Smith replied that the potential problems of tenure and status do not lie in the area of grievance. The cases which have come before the Committee on Academic Status are those in which questions have been raised about the status of academic librarians or those in which some threat has been made to the status of librarians.

Mr. Smith moved that ACRL adopt the following procedure as a response to letters regarding potential loss of faculty status by academic librarians: (1) the ACRL president should send a letter expressing ACRL’s concern and enclosing a copy of the ACRL standards to the president or appropriate administrative officer of the institution, and (2) ACRL should offer to visit the institution to discuss the question with the appropriate administrators, faculty members, and librarians. The motion required no second.

William Hoffman asked Mr. Smith if he might amend his motion to include a statement regarding the proper procedure to take if action regarding status has already been concluded, i.e., that the appropriate avenue of recourse would be an appeal through SCMAI. Mr. Smith agreed to change the motion. The vote was called, and the motion, as amended, carried.

Mr. Smith moved that the ACRL “Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians” be incorporated into standards statements that might be developed for various types of academic libraries, e.g., those in two- year colleges, four-year colleges, and universities. The motion required no second. After a call for the vote, the motion carried.

Mr. Smith then moved that the executive secretary of ACRL be formally responsible for gathering information regarding the status of librarians in academic libraries throughout the country and for making this information available to ACRL members upon request. The information should include data on forms of governance, promotional procedures, peer evaluation, etc. The motion required no second.

Mark Gormley commented that the idea was good but, given the current responsibilities of the executive secretary, the dearth of supportive staff in the ACRL office, and ALA budget restrictions, the task would be impossible to carry out. He asked Mr. Smith to amend the motion so that the president or the executive secretary could present the idea to the dean of a library school as a topic suitable for a research project. It was also suggested that the project would be a suitable one for a J. Morris Jones-World Book Encyclopedia-ALA Goals Award. It was reported that the executive secretary was in favor of the motion and had agreed to do the work. (At the time this motion was discussed, the executive secretary was meeting with the ALA Executive Board on a SCMAI matter.) Mr. Smith agreed to amend the motion to express “due concern for the time and energies of the executive secretary.” The question was called, and the motion, as amended, CARRIED.

Mr. Smith reported that the committee will spend the next few months working on the development of guidelines or models for appointment procedures, promotional criteria, governance, and constitutions. The Board will receive a report and draft documents of these models at the annual conference in Las Vegas.

Standards and Accreditation Committee

Jasper Schad, chairman of the Standards and Accreditation Committee, reported that the committee had agreed that developing a good revision of the 1959 “Standards for College Libraries” would be impossible without the contributions of librarians, college administrators, and accrediting agencies. Since this effort would be expensive, a subcommittee had been appointed to draft a proposal to revise the standards to be submitted for a J. Morris Jones- World Book Encyclopedia-ALA Goals Award. Mr. Schad moved that the application, as presented to the Board by the committee, be adopted by the Board and then submitted to the ALA Committee on Program Evaluation and Support. The motion required no second. The vote was called and the motion carried.

Publications Committee

Robert Pierson, chairman of the Publications Committee, moved that the Board approve the policy statement that he had just distributed. (See Exhibit I.) The motion required no second. Mr. Pierson reported that the policy statement had the positive approval of the editors of College & Research Libraries and of ACRL Publications in Librarianship. No objections were raised by the editor of Choice or of the Core project. The principal effect of the recommendation would be to put the various editorial and advisory boards under the umbrella of the Publications Committee, thus formalizing a relationship that already exists.

Dr. Shank asked if the policy suggests that the editors of the ACRL journals report to the Publications Committee. Mr. Pierson replied that, if the editors also served as chairmen of the advisory committees, they would report to the Publications Committee.

The executive secretary stated that all references to the Core project should be removed from the statement, since the Core project, at this time, is not a continuing publication of ACRL.

Norman Tanis observed that the statement was in conflict with the ACRL Constitution and Bylaws, which provide that all ACRL appointments be made by the ACRL president. He asked Mr. Pierson if the statement was being offered to the Board with a request for a change in the Constitution and Bylaws. Mr. Tanis reasoned that, if the Board were to approve the policy statement at this meeting, the motion would be returned to the Publications Committee at the next Board meeting for clarification on the Constitutional conflicts. Mr. Tanis felt that the committee should either rewrite the statement in accordance with the ACRL Constitution and Bylaws or request that procedures be started for changing the Constitution and Bylaws.

Mr. Pierson replied that the Publications Committee wished to implement the policy and that he would therefore request a change in the Constitution and Bylaws. Dr. Shank informed the Board that there was a motion to approve the recommendations of the Publications Committee. He asked the Board to consider the substance of the recommendations. If the Board wished to approve the statement in substance, it could then ask the Committee on the ACRL Constitution and Bylaws to make the changes necessary to accommodate the statement. Mr. Hoffman moved to table the motion. Mr. Gormley seconded. The motion to table carried.

Planning Committee

Norman Tanis, chairman of the ACRL Planning Committee, moved that the Board establish an Ad Hoc Committee or Task Force on Goals, Priorities, and Structures, to establish goals and priorities for ACRL and to identify structures suitable for accomplishing the goals, and that the committee or task force be instructed to make a preliminary report at the New York membership meeting. The motion required no second. After a call for the vote, the motion carried.

Other Business

Richard Dougherty, editor of College & Research Libraries, called the Board’s attention to the journal’s declining advertising revenue: in the past year it has declined by approximately $16,000. Mr. Dougherty moved that the ACRL Board express its concern over the lack of activity of those ALA advertising sales staff members who are responsible for divisional publications. The motion was seconded. Discussion followed on the dissipation of the advertising revenue which had been developed by the ACRL advertising office before all advertising became centralized into a full-time unit. The motion cabmed.

At 6:05 p.m., following several general announcements from the president and the executive secretary, the meeting was adjourned.

EXHIBIT I

Policy Statement Approved by the Publications Committee January 31, 1973

I. The responsibilities of the Publications Committee are to oversee and to coordinate the publications program of ACRL; to consider suggestions for publications and to advise as to means of publishing; to maintain standards; to review the work of the various continuing publications and of their boards; and to stimulate and encourage research and writing which might lead to publications under ACRL auspices.

II. The chairman of the Publications Committee shall be an ex-officio member of each board overseeing an existing continuing ACRL publication. In addition, an administrative mechanism should be adopted to facilitate his playing the active role in ACRL affairs which the importance of the publications program implies, e.g., he might be a member of the ACRL Planning Committee.

III. Three groups concerned with particular ACRL continuing publications shall be adjunct committees reporting to the Publications Committee: (1) the Choice advisory board, consisting of a chairman and various members; (2) the Core Collection advisory board, consisting of a chairman and various members; and (3) the Publications in Librarianship editorial and advisory board, consisting of the editor and various members, the editor serving as chairman. In the case of College and Research Libraries, the Publications Committee itself shall serve as the advisory board, and the editor shall select a group of consultants who shall act as an editorial board and who shall serve at the editor’s pleasure. The chairmen of the adjunct committees and the editors of Choice, of College and Research Libraries, and of the Core Collection shall be ex-officio members of the Publications Committee.

IV. Appointments of the chairmen and members of the Publications Committee shall be in accordance with present ACRL practice. Appointments of the editors of Choice, of College and Research Libraries, and of the Core Collection and appointments of chairmen of the adjunct committees should be upon the recommendation of the Publications Committee. Appointments of members of the Choice and Core Collection advisory boards shall be in accordance with present ACRL practice. Appointments of members of the Publications in Librarianship editorial and advisory board shall be upon the recommendation of its chairman.