ACRL College & Research Libraries News

College & Research Libraries News

ACRL Membership Meeting

ANNUAL CONFERENCE DALLAS, TEXAS

Thursday, June 24, 1971—2:00-4:00 p.m.

President Anne C. Edmonds presided.

The meeting was called to order and Miss Edmonds read the ACRL election results. The president-elect and chairmen-elect were announced and introduced (see p.221 of this issue). Miss Edmonds then gave a report on the activities of the Board of Directors and covered the items discussed and acted upon at the first Board Meeting on Monday, June 21, 1971.

Miss Edmonds introduced Mr. Pullen, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on the ACRL Constitution and Bylaws, who read a proposed amendment to the ACRL Constitution, Section I, Article 9 (See CRL News, June 1971, p.170). Miss Edmonds called for a vote on the amendment; it passed unanimously.

Miss Edmonds then introduced Mr. Forth, Chairman of the Committee on Academic Status, who gave a report on the activities of his committee. He stated that there had been a number of meetings in the two years since the Committee was established, and that he felt the total results were very healthy. He mentioned that the Committee, on behalf of ACRL, had begun discussions with the Association of Amercan Colleges and the American Association of University Professors to see if it were possible to arrive at some sort of joint statement on academic status. Mr. Forth then referred to the Standards, Exhibit I, which had been distributed prior to the meeting. These had been approved in principle by the ACRL Board of Directors and published in the June 1971 issue of CRL, News.

I move the adoption of the standards in Exhibit I, excepting number 4, as the official ACRL interim standards for faculty status until such time as permanent joint standards are agreed on by AAUP, AAC, ACRL and perhaps other educational associations.

A general discussion and question period on the proposed standards then followed. Mr. John Wilkenson, University of Toronto, commented that a great deal was being demanded in these standards, but if the section on education were left out, we would not be offering much in return. Mr. Forth replied that the Committee wanted to make them as strong as possible to have room for negotiations. Mr. Wilkenson agreed they should be strong but suggested we should be willing to police certain internal standards in return for what we are asking. Mrs. Susan Martin, Harvard University, then wanted to know whether adoption of the standards would include the sanctions portion and if so, was ACRL prepared to apply these as stated. Mr. Forth replied in the affirmative and stated it was his understanding that if the standards were adopted, they would become ALA standards and we can expect ALA to do what it could to implement them. Mr. James Riddles, University of the Pacific, moved an amendment to the motion to include Item 4, on education, in the standards. The motion was seconded and Mr. Riddles then spoke for his proposed amendment. The California Library Association had adopted the standards as previously published including the item on educational requirements. He felt that if the national organization adopted standards in any way different from those published, difficulties would be created for the California Library Association and other organizations which had endorsed these. Mr. John Beard, Montclair State College of New Jersey, spoke against Mr. Riddles’ proposed amendment. He felt that it was highly unrealistic at this time to require two master’s degrees for tenure.

Mr. John Morgan, University of Toledo, proposed a substitution in wording for Item 4, Education.

Because of the dual demands upon librarians for both professional and subject field competence, librarians should expect that the acquisition of a relevant earned degree beyond the professional degree may be a requirement for promotion and/or tenure. After the motion was seconded Mr. James Schmidt, Ohio State University, spoke against both amendments and urged their defeat. Further discussion followed. Mr. Bernard Holicky, Purdue University, then moved that discussion be ended and the issues brought to a vote. After being seconded from the floor, Mr. Holicky’s motion passed unanimously. The vote on Mr. Morgan’s substitution in wording was affirmative; Mr. Riddles’ amendment, however, was defeated.

Discussion continued on the main motion. Mr. Beard spoke in support of the proposed standards. A question was raised concerning the library governance provisions. Mrs. Martin spoke against sanctions being applied; she thought that this provision could prove to be a hardship. Mr. Robert Grazier, Wayne State University, moved that the last sentence of Item 7, “the Librarians’ promotion ladder should have the same titles, ranks and steps as that of other faculty,” be stricken. His motion was seconded and discussed. Mr. E. J. Josey, State Library of New York, was one of several members speaking against this proposed amendment.

Mr. Holicky moved to close debate and his motion was seconded and carried. The vote on Mr. Grazier’s amendment to delete the last sentence of Item 7 was defeated. Miss Edmonds then called for the membership’s vote on Mr. Forth’s motion. The motion carried.

Miss Edmonds next introduced Mr. Roy Kidman, University of Southern California and incoming chairman of the Committee on Academic Status, who discussed the Program of Action for the ALA Staff Committee on Mediation, Arbitration and Inquiry. He explained that approval of this program would make standards an ALA matter rather than one for ACRL to handle, and that he felt the position of academic librarians would be weakened by having their grievances handled by people who might not understand their problems. Mr. Beard then introduced the following resolution.

Whereas, the achievement of academic status for all academic librarians is a pressing need, and

Whereas, it has been demonstrated that those librarians who have academic status may, without adequate assistance, lose that status, and

Whereas, the ACRL Board of Directors have voted to establish an Office for Academic Status at ACRL headquarters to provide the needed services and assistance for the achievement and retention of academic status by academic librarians, and Whereas, it is obvious that the proposed Program of Action for Mediation, Arbitration and Investigation will not meet all the needs of academic librarians,

Be it therefore resolved that the ACRL Membership Meeting instruct the Board of Directors to assure the establishment of the Office for Academic Status without delay by securing full funding for this office in the 1971-72 budget, and Be it further resolved that, failing to achieve this funding through allotment from the ALA, the ACRL impose a fee of five dollars ($5.00) .upon each of its personal members and ten dollars ($10.00) upon each of its institutional members, as provided in the ALA Bylaws, Article VI, Section 6 (c), the proceeds of this assessment to be used exclusively to support the establishment and operation of an Office for Academic Status.

He moved the adoption of this resolution by the membership; the motion was seconded.

During the discussion which followed, Mr. Beard explained his conviction that the New Jersey librarians would not have lost their academic status had such an office been in existence to help them. Mr. Riddles moved the question; the motion carried.

Miss Page Ackerman, UCLA, then asked for clarification on the ALA Program of Action. She said that Mr. Kidman’s remarks indicated the Program of Action was to be regarded as a substitute for an Office of Academic Status. This was not her understanding of the intent of the Program. She stated that she thought the staff committee would handle individual cases concerning those who had tenure and lost it, but that it would not be a standard implementing body; that is, implementing standards for institutions.

Miss Edmonds replied that as Mr. Kidman pointed out, the program proposed by the Academic Status Committee included much more than would be covered by the ALA Staff Committee on Mediation, Arbitration and Inquiry program. However, ACRL had twice requested money for such an office and each time our funding had been disallowed. The ACRL Committee, agreeing that some mechanism must be established to handle immediate problems, was therefore requesting approval of the ALA Staff Committee, but only on an interim basis, until ACRL could establish its own office and procedures.

Mr. Grazier asked to be recognized so that he could read the following statement which had been formulated at the meeting of the ACRL Publications Committee on June 22, 1971, for presentation to the ACRL membership.

Among the highest priorities of ACRL is a continuation of the current publishing program of CHOICE, CRL, CRL News, and Monographs at the same level of professional excellence they have enjoyed in the past. For that reason the ACRL Publications Committee recommends to the membership that it enter its strong objections to the COPES reduction of funds in the amount of $50,000 for CHOICE and reduction of CRL News to a bimonthly publication. We further recommend that the membership convey to the ALA Council its view that the prospective reduction of $50,000 in the budget of CHOICE and the proposed reduction in the number of issues of CRL News are completely unacceptable to the members of ACRL.

He then moved for adoption of the resolution by the membership. During the ensuing discussion, Mr. Richard Dougherty, editor of CRL, related the background and sequence of events which had led the committee to draft the resolution. Mr. Beard then moved the question; it carried unanimously.

The next item brought up by Miss Edmonds was the problem of reorganization and the ACONDA study. Miss Edmonds referred back to the membership meeting at the Annual Conference in Detroit and stated that the officers wanted to know the membership’s wishes on federation or a similar concept. She then asked Mr. Lou Jacob, Chairman of one of the Task Force committees, to read the goals which his group had drafted. These were read. (See Exhibit III of the ACRL Board of Directors Meeting in this issue.)

Following Mr. Jacob’s presentation the discussion centered around the feasibility of separation from ALA or federation; it was felt that perhaps ACRL should go along for the time being on an “as is” basis, while a program was being worked out and alternatives explored. Mr. Arthur McAnally, University of Oklahoma, then made a brief statement. He referred to ALA as chaotic, unchangeable, and beyond hope. He mentioned that the Committee on Academic Status has been hamstrung financially and interfered with by other units of ALA. He said ACRL is suffering attacks on its publications program, and although paying the largest amount in dues of any division, was getting little in return. He said we must control our own destiny, work for our own members, set our own dues and decide on our own programs. He felt we should poll the entire membership to determine which course they wished to follow —complete separation, federation, or organization as ALA wishes. If we should decide to go the separation route, he declared, a target date of September 1, 1973, should be set. It was also suggested that in the interim all academic librarians who are not presently members of ACRL should be questioned to learn if they would be inclined to join the Association once it served primarily their interests.

Miss Edmonds adjourned the meeting at approximately 4:15 p.m. ■ ■