College & Research Libraries NEWS

ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries, Vol. 31, No. 6

ACRL Board of Directors

No. 11, December 1970

ANNUAL CONFERENCE DETROIT, MICHIGAN 1970

Brief of Minutes

June 29, 1970—10:00 a.m.

Present: President, Philip J. McNiff; Vice- President and President-elect, Anne C. Edmonds; Directors–at–Large, Mark M. Gormley, Norman E. Tanis, David C. Weber; Directors on ALA Council, Andrew J. Eaton, James F. Holly, Andrew Horn, Robert K. Johnson, James O. Wallace; Chairmen of Sections, Robert J. Adelsperger, Ruthe Erickson, Marcia J. Miller, Roscoe Rouse, John E. Scott; Vice-Chairmen and Chairmen-elect of Sections, Julius P. Barclay, Mrs. Joleen Bock, Eleanor Buist, David W. Heron, Carl H. Sachtleben; Executive Secretary, J. Donald Thomas; Secretary, Sheri Pudlo.

Not present: Robert H. Blackburn, Herbert A. Cahoon, Sarah D. Jones, David Kaser.

Visitors present: Stuart Forth, Everett Volkersz, Howard Winger.

President Philip J. McNiff presided.

Miss Edmonds, reporting on COPES, stated that the ACRL budget as presented was not approved. No new staff positions were allowed, and she further reported that Central Publishing will no longer carry the cost of division journals. It was also decided that in the future the final budget requests should be presented to the ACRL Executive Secretary by December 1, approved by the Board at Midwinter, and go to the comptroller by March.

Mr. McNiff reported on the Core Collection Advisory Committee stating that an editor had been hired, but that he had since resigned due to administrative policies. Mr. McNiff then asked the Board for suggestions for possible candidates for the position. He stated that Mr. Clift, Mr. Rutter, and the Executive Secretary had met with the Council on Library Resources and there had been general agreement that the Council would provide funding for the project in quarterly installments. The Core Collection Advisory Committee’s next meeting is scheduled for July and the project should get under way by early fall. He further reported that the misunderstandings regarding the CHOICE statement of purpose had been cleared up at the Chicago meeting of the CHOICE Editorial Board and ALA representatives. Prior to that meeting, a draft of the statement of purpose had been prepared, and it received unanimous support of the CHOICE Board and staff, as well as the ACRL Executive Committee.

The Executive Secretary, reporting on the proposal drafted by the Academy for Educational Development to replace the grants program and on the RBS Manuscript Guide proposal, stated that both documents were approved by the ALA Executive Board at its meeting in Chicago. The United States Steel Corporation has expressed interest in the Academy’s proposal and there are two possible sources for funding the RBS Manuscript Guide.

Mr. Stuart Forth, reporting on the Academic Status Committee, stated that the committee held one meeting at Midwinter and one meeting in May. He stated that the May meeting was funded partly by ALA and partly by the committee members’ home institutions. After the Midwinter meeting, Mr. Forth had written to various library directors in regard to their approaches to the status problem. Eldred Smith will tabulate the replies. The committee is now compiling Standards for Academic Status, and hopes to present it to the Board at its second meeting. There was a general feeling by the committee members that support from the ACRL central office would be necessary if the committee is going to survive. He further reported that the committee has received many requests for help with problems of status, tenure, and promotion. The committee is exploring the possibilities of a subcommittee that could meet more frequently to work on such problems. The Board then discussed the question of funding for the committee. Mr. Tanis questioned volunteer contributions from the membership. Mr. McNiff replied that he did not feel the committee should have to solicit funding and that ACRL should meet these funding needs.

Mr. Forth reported that there was considerable confusion among members concerning the responsibility for investigating status problems at ALA headquarters. In the past, the Office of Intellectual Freedom investigated some aspects of academic freedom, and the LAD investigated tenure. Mr. Forth then read into the minutes the following statement from the Academic Status Committee and requested the approval of the Board:

At the Atlantic City meeting of the American Library Association, the ALA Council and the ALA Executive Board stated that academic status is the area of responsibility of the Association of College and Research Libraries. The ACRL Academic Status Committee considers academic tenure and academic freedom; i.e. intellectual freedom in the academic community, as an integral part of academic status and, therefore, assumes the responsibility for investigation in these areas. It is further assumed that any other aspect of academic status which crosses divisional lines will be handled by the ACRL Academic Status Committee.

The statement was unanimously approved by the Board.

Miss Edmonds, reporting on the Planning Committee, stated that the committee had invited members of the ALA Council to attend its meeting. She further stated that the responses to the reorganization proposal published in the March issue of CRL were favorable, and that the Planning Committee had revised its proposal at the meeting on June 28, 1970. She then read the revised proposal [CRL News, September 1970, p. 238].

Discussion then followed on the revised proposal. If the ACRL Board were to approve the statement, the Executive Committee might conduct a study to see how ACRL could become a semiautonomous organization, and it was decided that the membership should be given an opportunity to consider this. Miss Edmonds stated that there seemed to be three options with regard to the ACRL role in ALA: 1) The present organization but with only type–of–activity divisions; 2) ACRL’s federation proposal; or 3) ACRL could become a separate organization. Miss Edmonds then asked members of our board to distribute the revised proposal to their section members. Miss Buist inquired about the 20 percent proposal for support of the ALA secretariat and Miss Edmonds replied that the entire ALA budget is approximately four million dollars of which ACRL undoubtedly pays the highest percent of any division, but the allowance for the ACRL budget is only minimal. Mr. Horn then asked for a clarification of the three options, and if the proposal comes to the ACRL Board as a recommendation of the Planning Committee. Miss Edmonds replied that the Planning Committee wanted the ACRL Board’s opinion before submitting the proposal to the New Directions Committee. She further added that the Planning Committee preferred option 3A on page 4 in the ACONDA report. Mr. McNiff reported that there was much discontent among the ACRL membership, and Mr. Gormley pointed out that this reorganization problem seemed to be a replay of the situation in 1946-47.

Mr. Adelsperger questioned what other organizational patterns had been proposed; Miss Edmonds replied that the JMRT had proposed a type–of–activity organization. Mr. McNiff stated that in his opinion the type–of–activity organization would not be in the best interests of PLA or ACRL. Miss Edmonds indicated that the Planning Committee would be distributing the proposal at the ACRL Membership Meeting. Mr. Weber felt that ACRL should specify the kind of organization required to achieve effectively ACRL’s goals and needs; i.e. independence in salaries and publications, a Washington headquarters, membership requirements,and choice of conference sites. Mr. Horn stated that he hoped the Board might agree with the Planning Committee’s proposal, and added that he was endorsing the proposal.

ACRL Membership
October 31, 1970	11,976
October 31, 1969	13,769
October 31, 1968	13,122

Mr. McNiff then asked for approval of the proposal, and the proposal was unanimously approved.

Meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m.

Brief of Minutes

July 2, 1970—8:30 p.m.

Present: President, Philip J. McNiff; Vice- President and President-elect, Anne C. Edmonds; Directors–at–Large, Mark M. Gormley, Norman E. Tanis, David C. Weber; Directors on ALA Council, Andrew J. Eaton, James F. Holly, Andrew Horn, Robert K. Johnson, James O. Wallace; Chairmen of Sections, Marcia J. Miller, Roscoe Rouse; Vice-Chairmen and Chairmen-elect of Sections, Mrs. Joleen Bock, Eleanor Buist; Executive Secretary, J. Donald Thomas; Secretary, Sheri Pudlo.

Not present: Robert Adelsperger, Julius P. Barclay, Robert H. Blackburn, Herbert A. Cahoon, Ruthe Erickson, David W. Heron, Sarah D. Jones, David Kaser, Carl H. Sachtleben.

Visitors: Barbara Bartley, Dean Galloway, Robert Grazier, Mrs. Zoia Horn, Beverly Johnson, Walton Kabler, William Pullen, Joseph Reason, T. Samore, Jasper Schad, Eldred Smith, Everett Volkersz.

President Philip McNiff presided.

Mr. Eldred Smith, reporting on the Academic Status Committee for Mr. Forth, stated that the committee had met twice during the week and had finished compiling the proposed "Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians.” The document was presented to the Board. Mr. Smith then stated that the committee was not in complete agreement on all points of the standards, but that there was a consensus on the program in general.

Mr. McNiff, speaking for the Executive Committee, suggested that this draft be sent to CRL News along with a proposal that the membership submit their comments in order for the Executive Committee to present its response to the ACRL Board of Directors at Midwinter. There was general agreement to this suggestion.

Mr. Weber moved that the ACRL Board commend the Committee on Academic Status for performing its difficult assignment well, indeed, accept its report of 1 July 1970, and instruct the editor of CRL News to print at the earliest feasible time the proposed “Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians” with suitable introductory and explanatory text [CRL News, October 1970, pp. 270-72] by the chairman of the Committee on Academic Status in order to obtain ACRL membership comments prior to the 1971 Midwinter meeting. Mr. James O. Wallace seconded. Motion carried.

Mr. McNiff stated that the Academic Status Committee had been asked to prepare a budget for possible support staff at ACRL headquarters. He further stated that this budget had been prepared, received by the Executive Committee, and is now being presented to the ACRL Roard for approval. He pointed out that the committee could not efficiently carry on the charge given ACRL by the ALA Council at Atlantic City without the proper staffing. He further added that it was his hope that the committee could begin to answer some of the pleas for help immediately.

Mr. Tanis moved the adoption of the ACRL Academic Status Committee budget. Mr. Johnson seconded. Motion carried.

Mr. Theodore Samore, of the LAD Committee on Statistics for College and University Libraries, asked to speak to the Board. He stated that the USOE had planned to produce school library statistics during 1971, but had withdrawn the plan. He further stated that since the money proposed for the school library statistics is available, he felt it would be a good idea for ACRL to request that a new edition of Library Statistics of Colleges and Universities be undertaken. Mr. Gormley stated that he felt the previous academic statistics published by USOE were not satisfactory. Mr. Johnson agreed with Mr. Gormley, stating that the reports were published irregularly and were completely unreliable. Mr. McNiff asked Mr. Samore if this request would be for the fiscal 1971 budget, and Mr. Samore replied to the affirmative. Mr. McNiff then suggested that the ACRL Board look into this possibility only if assured that the school librarians were not pressing a claim for school library statistics.

Miss Edmonds then reported on the Planning Committee. She pointed out that at the previous ACRL Board meeting the Planning Committee had gained the approval of the ACRL Board to take the Planning Committee’s statement to ACRL membership. She further reported that a statement to introduce the ACRL federation proposal to Council had been drawn up. This statement had received the approval of the membership. She then presented the statement to the Board:

In the matter of reorganization, ACRL has been working along lines similar to the first long-range proposal in the ACONDA report—item 3a on page 4 of the summary of major recommendations. This is the proposal of ALA to become a federation of library associations, a proposal advanced by Mr. Clift in his address to the opening session of this conference.

At their meetings this week, ACRL’s Planning Committee and Board of Directors strongly supported the democratization proposals in the ACONDA report. They urge implementation, as prompt and immediate as possible, of the first long-range ACONDA recommendation, namely for federation.

The Planning Committee report was presented at the ACRL membership meeting for open discussion. After the discussion it was the sense of the meeting that the concept of federation be endorsed. It was understood that position papers should be prepared identifying the goals, directions, and responsibilities of ACRL as a federated component of ALA.

The ACRL Board urges the adoption of the concept of federation now in the best interests of the library profession as a whole. There was general agreement that the statement conveyed ACRL’s reaction to the ACONDA report. Miss Bock added that the Junior College Library Section had approved the federation plan. Mr. Weber asked if the Board would accept amended wording of the third paragraph, and Mr. McNiff replied to the affirmative. Mr. Weber recommended that the third paragraph and fourth line should read: “It was understood that position papers should be prepared proposing a possible organizational structure and identifying the goals, directions, and responsibilities of ACRL as a federated component of ALA.”

Mr. McNiff moved that the statement with the revised text be approved. Mr. Gormley seconded. Motion carried.

Ed. note: Due to timing difficulties neither this statement nor the ACRL federation proposal were presented to Council.

Miss Buist stated that a formal organization structure should be drawn up, and the Board agreed. Mr. McNiff questioned if the federation proposal seemed to be aiding only college and research libraries, and Mr. Eaton replied that he did not feel that to be the situation, although ACRL’s primary concern is for academic libraries. Mr. Horn felt that the proposal is in the interest of other divisions also.

Miss Edmonds then presented to the Board a proposal to establish a conference planning committee and a local arrangements committee. The following statements were then presented to the Board:

Conference Planning Committee.The Association of College and Research Libraries will have at all times two Conference Planning Committees. The name of each will include a date representing the year of the program each committee is planning; i.e., Conference Planning Committee, 1969/70; Conference Planning Committee, 1970/71. [See “Preconference Guidelines,” CRL News, May 1970, p. 140]

Purpose.To plan the major divisional program for the Annual Conference and to coordinate all programs of the various divisional units. The committee will help plan the ACRL Conference exhibit and will prepare a program statement which lists all ACRL programs with a brief description of each. This statement is for the approval of the ACRL Board of Directors at the first Midwinter following the formation of the committee.

Membership.To include the President-elect, Chairmen-elect of the Sections, and the Chairman of the Local Arrangements Committee.

Duration.Each committee will run for two years. A Conference Program Committee will come into being each year when the election results are known, and will expire after the Annual Conference two years later when this group of officers become Past President and Past Chairmen.

Meetings.As it requires a minimum of eighteen months to prepare and budget for a conference program, the first meeting of the committee should be at the Annual Conference immediately following the elections. At that time, work must begin on preconferences if any are desired [see “Preconference Guidelines”] and a general topic for the conference should be discussed.

At the following Midwinter, each member of the committee should have a statement concerning program plans. The committee should check to see that there is no overlapping of subject matter and recommend strengthening or eliminating weak or ineffective programs. The program statement (see purpose above) should be prepared at this time and presented to the ACRL Board of Directors for approval.

Additional meetings of this committee will be scheduled as deemed necessary by the chairman.

Program Schedules.No conference program may be scheduled which will conflict with the ALA Council or membership meetings, or the ACRL Board of Directors, membership, or program meetings. It is also a good rule of thumb that no section or subsection be allowed to schedule its program for the same time slot. Because of the fact that all divisional programs will be held either during the first or the last part of the week, it may be impossible to avoid some overlapping of committee programs.

Budgeting.A statement of funds needed to support the conference programs must be submitted to the office of the Executive Secretary during the Midwinter preceding the conference program. Such a statement should include honoria, travel for speakers, and other expenses which might arise.

Local Arrangements Committee.The Association of College and Research Libraries will have at all times two Local Arrangements

Committees. The name of each committee will include a date representing the year of the program each committee is planning; i.e. Local Arrangements Committee, 1969/70; Local Arrangements Committee, 1970/71.

Purpose.To oversee program arrangements at the conference site which would be difficult to arrange from a distance, verify location of equipment necessary for the program, provide local staff for the ACRL exhibit, etc. The chairman of the committee will serve as a member of the Conference Planning Committee.

Membership.To include a chairman and as many members as the chairman deems necessary to carry out the program plans. The chairman of the Local Arrangements Committee will be appointed each year by the Presidentelect shortly after election results are known. The chairman of the Local Arrangements Committee will in turn appoint as many members to his committee as may be necessary to carry out the program plans.

Duration.Each committee will serve for two years. The committee will come into being as soon as the chairman is appointed by the President-elect and will terminate after the Annual Conference two years later, when the President-elect making the appointment becomes Past President.

Miss Bock moved that the Board accept the proposal to establish a Conference Planning Committee and a Local Arrangements Committee. Mr. Tanis seconded. Motion carried.

Mr. McNiff stated that the Extension Library Service Committee had submitted a revised committee statement of purpose. Mr. Rouse, reporting for Mr. MacDougall, stated that there were no basic differences between the previous statement of purpose and the new one, but as the committee is becoming a joint committee with the NUEA, new language was needed. The revised statement was then read:

1. To work in concert with the National University Extension Association and the University Libraries Section of the Association of College and Research Libraries to examine those library services necessary to support all types of university extended services.

2. To discuss mutual problems in extension library services.

3. To report at meetings or through publications of both of these associations about successful methods of library service to extension students.

4. To strengthen guidelines of library service to extension students in order to raise those services to a level commensurate with library service available to on-campus students.

5. To work with other divisions of the American Library Association, such as ASD, ASL, and PLA, and provide liaison with other relevant nonlibrary associations, such as the National Association of State Colleges and Land-Grant Universities.

6. To arrange program meetings at conferences of both associations as topics of general interest develop.

Mr. Rouse moved the acceptance of the new statement. Mr. Johnson seconded. Motion CARRIED.

Mr. Pullen, reporting on the Ad Hoc Committee on Constitution and Bylaws, stated that the committee had met but as they did not know what direction ACRL is headed, they could not compile new bylaws. The possibility of the committee being discharged was also discussed. Mr. Pullen pointed out the dilemma that the committee will face in the amendment of the ACRL Constitution. Article 9 states that it must be presented to the annual membership meeting and have a two-thirds vote, and again at the next annual meeting for another two-thirds vote. Mr. Pullen also pointed out that the role of the Executive Committee is not mentioned in the Constitution. Mr. McNiíf felt that the committee should propose an amendment which would make a mail vote acceptable, and also determine the role of the Executive Committee.

Mr. Weber, reporting on the 1969/70 Nominating Committee, stated that the nominations for the 1970 Councilors–at–Large were: Richard O’Keefe, Anthony Greco, Eldred Smith, Evan Farber, Roscoe Rouse, and James Govan. For Vice-President and President-elect: E. J. Josey and Russell Shank.

Mr. Johnson questioned the effect which the ACONDA reorganization proposal would have on the number of divisional councilors, and Miss Edmonds replied that it looked as if there will be no nominations coming from the divisions.

Mr. McNiff announced that Mr. Robert Grazier would like to discuss the possibility of ALA–ACRL accepting a small grant for an annual award in memory of Flint Purdy. Mr. Grazier reported that a Wayne State University committee had commissioned him to explore this possibility. He further stated that the committee had a contribution of approximately $1,500, and he felt that an annual award or a medallion might be a good idea. Mr. Weber stated that two years ago a similar proposal was made in another division and the Awards Committee had rejected the proposal. Mr. Weber then suggested a scholarship. Mr. Grazier replied that he could not speak for the committee, but personally he felt that a scholarship fund in such a small amount would be meaningless. Mr. McNiff then asked the Board if the Executive Secretary should explore this with the Awards Committee. There was general agreement.

Mr. Weber stated that he had been involved in RTSD and LAD Preconference Institutes and had been deeply concerned about the lack of understanding of the members in regard to ALA regulations. He further felt that the ACRL Board should request the Executive Director of ALA to prepare a manual.

Mr. Weber moved that the ACRL Board request the Executive Director of ALA to have prepared for use of all ALA units a manual detailing preconference institute procedures, including financial management and allocations of income, staff support, site considerations, use of non-ALA members, and other pertinent data required for effective preconference institute management. Mr. Eaton seconded. Motion carried.

Mr. Rouse questioned the status of the preconference request submitted at Midwinter. Mr. Thomas replied that the ULS and RBS preconference institutes were approved. Miss Edmonds indicated that there was concern about the preconferences as some sections seem to sponsor one each year. Mr. Rouse then stated that a letter had been sent from the ULS asking that the chairman of the section be made an officio member of the ARL/ACRL University Library Standards Committee.

Mr. Rouse moved that the Board approve this action. Mr. Johnson seconded. Motion carried.

Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. ■■