ACRL College & Research Libraries News

College & Research Libraries News

ACRL Board of Directors

No. 4, April 1972

ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries, Vol. 33, No. 4

MIDWINTER MEETING CHICAGO, 1972

BRIEF OF MINUTES

Monday, January 24, 1972—8:30 p.m.

Present: President, Joseph H. Reason; Vice- President and President-Elect, Russell Shank; Directors-at-Large, Mark M. Gormley, Norman E. Tanis, David C. Weber; Directors on ALA Council, Page Ackerman, Evan Ira Farber, James F. Govan, James F. Holly, Andrew Horn, Robert K. Johnson, Richard L. O’Keeffe, Roscoe Rouse; Chairmen of Sections, Carl R. Cox, Hal C. Stone, Lee Ash, Ralph H. Hopp; Vice-Chairmen and Chairmen-Elect of Sections, John R. Beard, William J. Hoffman, Howard L. Applegate, Alice D. Ball, LeMoyne W. Anderson; Executive Secretary, J. Donald Thomas; Professional Assistant, Jordan M. Scepanski, Administrative Assistant, Ilse F. Bridges.

Absent: Herbert A. Cahoon, Anne C. Edmonds, Wolfgang M. Freitag, Warren J. Haas.

Visitors: Alex C. Crosman, R. E. Stocking, Vesta Lee Gordon, Bernadine E. Hoduski, Tom Kirk, Millicent D. Abell, Elizabeth O’Connor, Tom Cahalan, Robert Pierson, Art Monke, John Gordon Burke, William R. Eshelman, Ilse Moon, Tyron D. Emerick, R. K. Gardner, E. J. Josey, Peter M. Doiron, Willard Davis, Sister Ruth Herberg, Linda L. Krantz, Robert Severance, John M. Carter, M. J. Voigt, Harriet Rebuldela, John Forsman, Oliver Kirkpatrick, Patricia Schuman, J. K. Eubanks, Richard L. Dougherty, and others.

President Joseph H. Reason presided and called the meeting to order. The minutes of the Annual Conference meetings of the ACRL Board of Directors were approved as published in the September 1971 issue of CRL News. Mr. Reason then turned the floor over to Mr. Frank Schick of the National Center for Educational Statistics, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, U.S. Office of Education. Mr. Schick presented a report on the "Library Statistics of Colleges and Universities, 1971, Data for Individual Institutions,” which is to be printed in final form by the GPO in about two months. He touched on the new approach being taken for compiling statistical data and the national library data system which is being developed, with fifty state agencies participating in disseminating the survey form. A core form will be used to collect similar data from all types of libraries and an added or supplementary form developed for each type. Mr. Schick also stated that the new survey forms conform to the statistical standards of UNESCO.

Mr. Holly then asked to be recognized and stated that he had an item which he wanted to bring up. Mr. Reason replied that he first wanted to read to the Board a letter which had been received by the president-elect, Mr. Shank, from Elizabeth A. Scott, chairman of the College and University Section, Virginia Library Association. The letter stated:

College & Research Libraries is published by the Association of College and Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association 17 times yearly—6 bimonthly journal issues and II monthly, combining July- August News isues at 1201-05 Bluff St Fulton, Mo. 65251. Subscription, $10.00 a year or to members of the division, $5.00, included in dues. Circulation and advertising office: American Library Association, 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, III. 60611. Second-class postage paid at Fulton, Missouri 65251.

News editor: Michael Herbison, Library, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs Center, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80907. Editor: Richard M. Dougherty, School of Library Science Syracuse University, Syracuse, N.Y. 13210. President, ACRL: Joseph H. Reason. Executive Secretary, ACRL. J. Donald Thomas, ALA.

The College and University Section of the Virginia Library Association meeting December 4, 1971 in Williamsburg, Virginia passed the following motion:

It is moved that this Section go on record as endorsing the “Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians” accepted by the Association of College and Research Libraries.

The chairman was directed to convey information concerning this action to the Association of College and Research Libraries in an effort to aid the implementation of the Standards.

Mr. Holly again asked to be recognized and stated that he had written a letter to Mr. Reason on January 10, 1972, asking to be permitted to introduce a motion to the Board regarding CHOICE. He said he believed this motion was related to the concern expressed during the CHOICE Editorial Board meeting that afternoon. He indicated that he had copies of his motion available and asked if he could distribute them. Such distribution having been made, Mr. Reason inquired if Mr. Holly wished to make a motion at this time. Mr. Holly then MOVED:

The ACRL Board recommends the following action to ALA Council:

In view of the fact that Peter Doiron has now agreed to invoke the MAI procedure and this action has been informally accepted by the ALA Executive Board, it is clear that the case remains open. This being so, we move:

1. That ALA has an obligation and should pay Peter Doiron a retroactive and continuing salary until such time as the MAI findings have been presented and passed upon; and

2. That no final action shall be taken on filling the position of editor of CHOICE until the final determination of this case.

Mr. Stone seconded and a discussion period followed. Miss Ackerman asked for an explanation, seeking to learn the basis for Item 1 of the motion regarding the continuance of salary. Mr. Holly replied that the matter remains an open case and he believed precedence exists for continuing the salary of individuals involved in an appeal. Mr. Shank stated that he didn’t think so, that rather the opposite was true. He said that usual procedure was to wait until a determination of the facts was made, with retroactive payment to the individual if it is found he had been wronged. Mr. Holly, however, said that academic institutions followed a different practice. Miss Ackerman said that she was not very familiar with all the facts of the case and was, therefore, not sure whether the appeal is based upon the separation or if it is an appeal against certain procedures. If it was the former, then she felt that to continue the salary payments would remove the grounds for the appeal. Mr. Holly interjected that during the CHOICE Editorial Board meeting the question came up whether a replacement of the editor could be announced as long as SCMAI had the case under consideration. He thought that this recommendation by the ACRL Board would accelerate action by SCMAI. Mr. Shank inquired whether the appeal asked that Mr. Doiron be reinstated or if it involved the procedure used in dismissing him. Mr. Reason said that he thought the appeal had to do with the procedure. Mr. Tanis wanted to know if the Board had jurisdiction in the matter or if they were only giving advice. Mr. Reason responded that the Executive Director of ALA had responsibility for all association employees.

Mr. Johnson spoke next; he indicated that he knew little of the background regarding the firing and wanted to learn if it was usual ALA procedure to have SCMAI involved in such cases. He mentioned a matter at his own university that was brought to SCMAI. He wished to know if action was taken in accordance with due process in the Doiron case regardless of whether the dismissal was justified. He asked for more information on this and if such procedure was not followed, he wanted to know why. Mr. Reason then read two items, the complete text of which follows:

1. ALA News Release from Curtis E. Swanson, Manager of Public Relations.

Mrs. Ruth Frame, vice-chairman of the ALA Staff Committee on Mediation, Arbitration and Inquiry (SCMAI), announced today, Tuesday, January 18, 1972, the receipt of a formal “Request for Action” from Peter D.oiron. Mr. Doiron, a former American Library Association employee, was dismissed on July 29, 1971, as editor of CHOICE‚ the Association of College and Research Libraries book- reviewing journal. His appeal for a hearing to be conducted by the ALA Executive Board was denied during the Fall Meeting of the Board, when it was announced that they considered the case closed because Mr. Doiron had refused to use administrative procedures available to him.

A formal “Request for Action” was received by the Committee on January 17, 1972, and Mrs. Frame, as vice-chairman, called a meeting of SCMAI. J. Donald Thomas, executive secretary of the Association of College and Research Libraries and David H. Clift, executive director of ALA, as principals in the dismissal of Mr. Doiron, will not sit on SCMAI during the inquiry.

Mrs. Frame announced that the Committee had accepted the request and will appoint a fact-finding team.

2. Recommended Statement to Council from the Presiding Officer.

The chair would like to take a moment to remind Council that it adopted a mechanism for conducting inquiries and investigations when it adopted the Program of Action for Mediation, Arbitration and Inquiry in June, 1971. As a consequence, motions being brought to the floor of Council calling for inquiry and/or investigation relating to tenure, status, fair employment practices, due process, ethical practices and the principles of intellectual freedom will be ruled out of order. We would like to advise membership and Council, at this time, that requests by individuals or institutions for inquiries in these areas should go directly to the Staff Committee on Mediation, Arbitration and Inquiry.

This statement was made by Mr. Doms during the Sunday meeting of the Committee for Policy Implementation of the Staff Committee on Mediation, Arbitration and Inquiry and will be read before Council on Tuesday, January 25. Mr. Reason continued by saying that he had intended to read these statements in response to Mr. Holly’s letter. He also indicated that he thought it possible someone from the Board might be asked to sit on an investigating committee and that therefore he thought no discussion was proper.

Mr. Shank asked if perhaps Mr. Holly should direct his motion elsewhere. Mr. Holly strongly objected; he reiterated that in his opinion it was a responsible motion and should go to Council as an ACRL Board recommended resolution. Several visitors then asked for recognition, the first being Mr. Kirkpatrick, who stated that as a dues-paying member he had the right to insist that the Peter Doiron case be heard. Members, he pointed out, pay the salaries of the staff, and the staff had better be responsive to membership wishes. Mr. Reason answered, saying the case would be heard and that he hoped the ACRL Board meeting could proceed without going into executive session. Mr. Kirkpatrick interrupted and repeated that the members were telling the Board what to do and that the Board had better do it.

Mr. Reason asked if there was further discussion. Mr. Johnson remarked that regardless of whether ALA/ACRL were right or wrong, we must have a hearing in accordance with due process. Mr. Shank replied that that did not seem to be the issue. Mr. Beard said that he really did not feel that there was enough information at this point to vote on the matter. Mr. Hoffman expressed the same sentiments and added that nothing as yet had been brought up which seemed germaine to the matter of retroactive pay. Several visitors again attempted to enter into the discussion and Mr. Reason admonished that the members of the Board would be heard first. Mr. Hopp then asked if Mr. Holly would object to dividing the motion into two parts and then having a discussion separately on each part.

Mr. Holly replied that he supported the motion as presented and would vote against amending it. Mr. Shank then brought out the fact that we were moving to pay Mr. Doiron and not to appoint a new editor of CHOICE, when both matters are not within the Board’s province. He stated that the Board may recommend action, but legally it would have no meaning. Mr. Holly responded that he thought it represented membership’s conviction that this was the just procedure to follow in the case. The SCMAI investigation could drag on for some time. The ACRL Board should present the motion to Council and let Council consider the matter from that standpoint. We are discussing a recommendation he said, and he felt that Council would take action as requested, if the motion was approved by the Board.

Mr. Reason asked if any other Board members had comments to make. Miss Ackerman said that there was one thing which bothered her about Item 1: if there was a fact-finding body appointed to investigate the case and if that body found that the action taken was justified, what then? Would Mr. Doiron be asked to give back the money he received? She also felt that part of the motion related to the finding of facts and could not be passed by the Board without prejudicing the fact-finding mission. Mr. Holly stated that the case still being open, the Board ought to consider continuing Mr. Doiron’s pay until the issue is resolved. Miss Ackerman then said that, in other words, we are being asked to recommend action on humanitarian grounds so that Mr. Doiron would not suffer hardship while the matter was being considered by SCMAI. Mr. Holly agreed.

Mr. Reason asked for further comments from the members of the Board. There being none at the moment, he inquired to what extent the Board was willing to hear members of the audience. It was generally agreed that the floor should be opened to the audience for a period of time not to exceed fifteen minutes. Mr. Weber first posed the question whether any information was available concerning the time involved in the SCMAI action, and Mr. Reason replied in the negative. Mr. Doiron then took the floor and stated that as far as he was concerned the application to MAI was still pending, as he had not received the complete personnel file which he had requested and which he was supposed to be furnished. Mr. Josey spoke next, saying that as a member of ACRL and the person who circulated a petition on behalf of Mr. Doiron, he strongly urged the adoption of the motion. He added that he was greatly disturbed by the entire matter and that the struggle for intellectual freedom and faculty status would be made a mockery if the motion were not adopted. Mr. Forsman indicated that under law federal civil service employees could not be fired without due process and that ACRL should at least follow the procedures being adhered to by the federal government; Mr. Doiron, accordingly, should be paid. Mr. Eshelman referred to the case of Bruce Franklin of Stanford University wherein salary was continued until the case was closed and for an additional period of time afterward. Miss Hoduski stated that she had been involved in several such cases and that salary was usually continued until the end of the contract or academic year.

Mr. Reason indicated that some clarification appeared necessary at this point. Mr. Doiron had, indeed, received severance pay and additional compensation for vacation. Although he did not feel the amount should be mentioned, he nevertheless wanted to make clear that Mr. Doiron had not been without pay since August. He also mentioned that the ALA Executive Board had studied the matter and considered the case closed.

Mr. Gormley asked if the ACRL Executive Committee had been bypassed in the Doiron dismissal, and Mr. Reason replied that this was difficult to answer as there were many ramifications to the case. Mr. Shank pointed out that Mr. Doiron was dismissed on July 29, 1971, and asked why the case was just now being considered and why SCMAI had not been called upon earlier. He suggested there were other reasons for Mr. Doiron’s delay in taking his grievance to SCMAI and that perhaps the Board might have to go into executive session to discuss all the details. He said that there were many delays being introduced into the case and that salary might be continued for some time before adjudication. Mr. Holly objected that here we were again getting into the province of SCMAI.

Mr. Tanis wanted to know if the decision had been appealed earlier, to which Mr. Reason replied that the answer would depend on who was giving it—some would say yes and some would say no. Mr. Tanis then inquired if due process was observed. Mr. Reason responded that this will be determined by the SCMAI, since the basis of the complaint to the committee was that due process had not been observed. Mr. Hopp stated that the Board should be greatly concerned that due process had been followed; if SCMAI was investigating, then this particular action was not necessary. Mr. Holly answered that he understood there was no formal grievance procedure at the time of the dismissal and that he thought it would have been ridiculous to appeal to SCMAI earlier, since both Mr. Clift and Mr. Thomas sit on that committee. Now, however, the taking of this route makes sense since Mrs. Frame has indicated the committee would sit without these two gentlemen.

Mrs. Eubanks then remarked that she had gone to the ALA Personnel Office last August and asked for a copy of the grievance procedure; she was told that there was no procedure and was further advised that an appeal to the Executive Board of ALA was the only way to get the case reviewed. In her opinion, the enormous mishandling of the case was due to no process rather than lack of due process. Mr. Emerick spoke next and said his confidence in ACRL was shaken and that he knew many other members felt the same way. He believed that a terrible injustice had been done and that the ACRL Board had not provided for redress. He could not state strongly enough that it was high time the Board took action to alleviate the suffering of Mr. Doiron and his family.

Mr. Doiron advised everyone that he had made an appeal to the ALA Staff Association, knowing that there was no grievance procedure. He wanted to see what the Staff Association could do. Twenty days later he received a reply from Mrs. Halwick informing him that the Personnel Appraisal Committee would look into the matter. He had to turn down this offer since Mrs. Halwick would be the chairman of that committee. He could not agree to this since Mrs. Halwick was directly involved in his dismissal. He next turned to the ALA Executive Board for assistance but was turned down. He did not receive any inquiries, nor was he offered any help by SCMAI, he said, until December 17 when he received a phone call from Mrs. Frame asking if he wanted a conference with three members of MAI and Mr. Doms. Mr. Doiron further stated he saw no reason to accept this offer as he wanted a hearing, not a conference. He therefore turned it down. After Christmas he received another call and was advised that he could appeal to SCMAI. He thereupon was sent a Request for Action form. He did try to appeal, he said, and had not rejected any offers to do so.

Mr. Treyz identified himself as a former chairman of the CHOICE Editorial Board. He felt that there had been a great deal of misunderstanding but was sure justice would be done. Mr. Hodgin said that Mr. Doiron was denied due process and that therefore the Board could not assume malfeasance on his part and could not deprive him of his income. He referred to the incompetence of Messrs. Thomas and Clift for not assuring the existence of a grievance procedure for ALA staff. Mr. Weber then asked if the report of the SCMAI would be made public? Was that known? Mr. Thomas replied that the MAI reports go to the ALA Executive Board where decisions on appropriate action are made.

Miss Ackerman now proposed an amendment to the motion and stated that Mr. Holly had indicated he would accept it. She then read the motion as she proposed it be amended:

The ACRL Board recommends the following action to ALA Council:

In view of the fact that Peter Doiron has now agreed to invoke the MAI procedure and this action has been informally accepted by the ALA Executive Board, it is clear that the case remains open. This being so, we move:

1. That because of the absence of clear headquarters grievance procedures at the time of Mr. Doiron’s separation from his position at CHOICE, ALA has an obligation and should pay Peter Doiron a retroactive and continuing salary until such time as the MAI findings have been presented and decided upon; and

2. That no final action shall be taken on filling the position of editor of CHOICE until the final determination of this case.

Mr. Shank seconded. Mr. Reason called for a vote on the amendment and it was passed unanimously.

Mr. Weber spoke next and said he would like to move that the motion be tabled. He stated that the case of Bruce Franklin referred to earlier by Mr. Eshelman was totally different from the one under discussion. Mr. Franklin, he pointed out, was accused of inciting to riot. He felt that if there was assurance of reasonable speed in reaching a conclusion, the Board should table the motion and ask the president, upon obtaining MAI’s decision, to consult with the Executive Committee to see if further action need be taken. Mr. Gormley seconded. Mr. Johnson inquired if Mr. Weber was moving to table because steps toward a determination of the case were already being taken and in progress. Mr. Weber replied in the affirmative. Mr. Holly requested that the members be polled, and Mr. Scepanski was asked to call the roll:

Ackerman no

Anderson no

Applegate no

Ash no

Ball no

Beard yes

Cahoon absent

Cox no

Edmonds absent

Farber no

Freitag absent

Gormley yes

Govan no

Haas absent

Hoffman no

Holly no

Hopp yes

Horn no

Johnson no

O’Keeffe no

Rouse yes

Shank no

Stone no

Tanis no

Weber yes

Mr. Reason announced that the motion to table lost by a vote of 16 to 5 and asked if the members were ready to vote on the main motion. The members indicating assent, the vote was taken and was affirmative by a majority, with Mr. Weber voting against, and Messrs. Gormley, Beard, and Rouse abstaining. The motion thus having carried, Mr. Reason stated that the matter would be presented to the ALA Council the next day. Mr. Holly indicated his willingness to present the motion there, if the Board desired, and Mr. Josey volunteered for the task from the audience. It was decided, however, that Mr. Reason would follow through.

The next item on the agenda called for Mr. Shank to give a report on the Committee on Program Evaluation and Support (COPES) budget meeting. He commented upon the rather odd budgeting procedures of ALA and pointed out that, as in the past, the following year’s budget would have a ceiling based upon the previous year’s income. He further stated that the picture did not look good from a budgetary point of view and that an extremely difficult period lay ahead. He and Mr. Thomas were to go before COPES on Wednesday and present the proposed ACRL budget for 1972/73, and therefore he needed to know ACRL priorities. Mr. Holly questioned whether Line 1 included money for investigations and Mr. Thomas replied that it did not. This item covered only the academic status staff position and not additional funds for investigatory activities. Mr. Ash asked about a Rare Books and Manuscripts Section Preconference for 1973 and Mr. Shank explained the matter of preconference budget lines. He also mentioned that ACRL had until March to submit a final budget statement, but since all requests had to have Board approval, any unit desiring to have a preconference institute in 1973 must get the request to him within the next two days.

Mr. Holly then moved that priorities be established as follows:

First priority—The Associate Executive Secretary position and the Committee on Academic Status

Second priority—College & Research Libraries

Third priority—ACRL Preconferences Mr. Johnson seconded.

Mr. Weber thought a vote on this motion was not reasonable. He felt that the vice-president, with the advice of the Executive Committee, should determine the priorities. Mr. Holly inquired if there was strong disagreement. A general discussion followed, with Mr. Weber particularly questioning Line 3, the request for a full-time professional assistant, and Line 7, the Academic Status funding. He indicated that in his opinion Lines 11 and 13, those having to do with the AAC/AAUP/ACRL and the NEUA/ ACRL Joint Committees, should have the lowest priority. Mr. Gormley agreed that the incoming president should be given the authority to set the priorities as he saw fit. Mr. Holly thereupon withdrew his motion and Mr. Johnson his second, and it was decided to follow this suggestion. Upon Mr. Shank’s request for some ideas to help him in determining priorities, a general discussion followed:

Mr. Shank then asked Mr. Thomas if anything needed to be done with regard to the budget for CRL. Mr. Thomas referred to Mr. Dougherty, editor of CRL, in the audience, and Mr. Dougherty gave a short statement recommending that the subscription price of the journal be increased. He said he had been told that CRL’s price was much lower than that of most other ALA publications. He sought this increase, however, only if the resulting revenue would go to ACRL and its journal and not be placed in the ALA general funds as has happened in the past. He also referred to the possibility of a change in the dues schedule.

Mr. Shank remarked that the incoming chairmen would have an opportunity to tell him about their plans during the Las Vegas Conference Program Planning Committee meeting, Thursday afternoon.

Representatives of the Committees on Academic Status and Standards and Accreditation not being present, Mr. Reason turned to the final item on the agenda, Mr. Stone’s request to add a member of The Association of Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) to the AAJC/ACRL Joint Committee. He indicated that the committee had been working unofficially with that organization and that no expense to ACRL was involved. Mr. Tanis seconded Mr. Stone’s motion. Mr. Reason said that, according to Mr. Thomas, the matter must be referred to the ALA Committee on Organization. A short discussion period followed during which Mr. Weber inquired if the AECT was responsive to the proposal and Mr. Stone replied in the affirmative. Mr. Reason called for the vote and the motion carried unanimously.

There being no further business, Mr. Reason adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.

Brief of Minutes

Thursday, January 27, 1972—2:00 p.m.

Present: President, Joseph H. Reason; Vice- President and President-Elect, Russell Shank; Directors-at-Large, Mark M. Gormley, Norman E. Tanis, David C. Weber; Directors on ALA Council, Page Ackerman, Evan Ira Färber, James F. Govan, James F. Holly, Robert K. Johnson, Richard L. O’Keeffe, Roscoe Rouse; Chairmen of Sections, Carl R. Cox, Hal C. Stone, Ralph H. Hopp; Vice-Chairmen and Chairmen-Elect of Sections, John R. Beard, William J. Hoffman, Howard L. Applegate, Alice D. Ball, LeMoyne W. Anderson; Executive Secretary, J. Donald Thomas; Professional Assistant, Jordan M. Scepanski; Administrative Assistant, Ilse F. Bridges.

Absent: Lee Ash, Herbert A. Cahoon, Anne C. Edmonds, Wolfgang M. Freitag, Warren J. Haas, Andrew Horn.

Visitors: James O. Wallace, Frank MacDougall, Rose Marie Service, R. K. Gardner, Tom Cahalan, Oneida Ortiz, Luisa Vigo, and others.

The meeting was called to order by Mr. Reason, president and presiding officer. He first read the names of the candidates for ACRL president-elect in the coming elections, Richard Ducote and Norman Tanis, and introduced Mr. Tanis who was present.

Mr. Wallace gave a short report on the “Guidelines for Two-Year College Library Learning Resource Centers” and concluded by making two recommendations: (1) That the “Guidelines for Two-Year College Library Learning Resource Centers” be approved as published in the October 1971 issue of CRL News, and that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee for the Revision of the Junior College Library Standards be discharged; and (2) That the principles of the guidelines be subject to annual review. He added that the Association for Educational and Communications Technology was now directly involved in discussions of the guidelines and that a revision worked out jointly by ACRL and AECT representatives had been reviewed by the AECT Board and recommended for approval. Mr. Reason inquired if a member of the ACRL Board would make the required motion. Mr. Stone so moved and Mr. Shank seconded. A short discussion on the subject followed. Mr. Reason inquired as to whether AECT’s work had been completed and Mr. Wallace said it had. He further stated that the provision for an annual review was considered most important by all involved. Mr. Stone said that the Junior College Libraries Section would recommend that a standing committee be established for such an annual review. Mr. Reason called for a vote on the motion and it was passed unanimously.

The Williams & Wilkins Company v. The United States

A Statement of Fact and Faith

We, as a leading publisher of medical books and journals, are dedicated to the concept of the proper dissemination of medical knowledge.

In 1968 we filed suit against the United States Government for infringement of certain copyrights in medical journals resulting from the unauthorized reproduction of our copyrighted materials by photocopying equipment. In the Report of the Commissioner to the Court of Claims (February 16th, 1972) ‚ the following facts are reported:

1) Article 1 of the copyright statute says that the copyright owner … shall have the exclusive right: a) to print, reprint, publish, copy and vend the copyrighted work …”

2) Each article in a journal is protected from infringement to the same extent as the entire journal issue.

3) The Williams & Wilkins Company is entitled to recover reasonable and entire compensation for infringement of copyright.

These are the facts of the court case, but the implications may well be causing grave concern to librarians and the users of libraries. Let us make our position clear.

We are by no means going to halt the proper dissemination of medical knowledge; our ideals now are the same as formerly — to serve the medical and science communities to the best of our abilities.

There will be no halt to the photocopying of material, as such a halt would indeed be harmful to the dissemination of knowledge. Neither will there be an unmanageable, unwieldy and costly system of record-keeping of photocopied materials, as such a system would be detrimental to the library profession.

Instead, we have worked out a simple plan based on the idea of a reasonable annual license fee for the right of copying our materials. In this way, the librarian will be licensed to photocopy copyrighted materials without infringing copyright law, and the publisher will be recompensed for the use of his materials.

We are hopeful that this statement will allay any fears which librarians or library users may be harboring. We welcome your comments and questions, and conclude by assuring you of our good faith and commitment to the medical communities and the library profession.

The Williams & Wilkins Company, Baltimore, Maryland

Mr. Stone then moved that the draft revision, as prepared by the AECT Task Force and the ACRL Representatives, be approved in principle. Mr. Hoffman seconded and this motion also carried by a unanimous vote.

Mr. Reason next called on Mr. Shank to continue his report regarding COPES, the budget, and preconference institutes. Mr. Shank mentioned that an additional request for funds had been received from the ACRL representative on the ALA Membership Committee and that the amount of $400 would be shown as a budget line in the ACRL budget, although the funds for the printing of 10,000 promotional flyers would be placed in the ALA Membership Promotion Office Budget.

Mr. Shank then covered the COPES Meeting and related that preconference institutes were encouraged by that body since they normally generate revenue for ALA. He stated that there was no indication as to how COPES would act on our budget requests and urged everyone to keep alert to anything in print regarding appropriations. Mr. Thomas asked for the Board’s permission to publish the budget requests in CRL News. Mr. Tanis moved that permission be granted and Mr. Johnson seconded. Mr. Weber then asked if the explanatory notes would also be published and urged that this be done. He was told this was the intent.

Mr. Farber questioned the budgeted expenses for the Association of American Colleges/ACRL Joint Committee activities, and Mr. Weber indicated that he had also wished to refer to this item. Mr. Farber saw little of value in the past work of this committee and wondered if we should continue to fund it. Mr. Thomas explained that the committee now includes representatives from the American Association of University Professors, and it is presently developing a statement on faculty status that all three associations would be able to accept. Mr. Govan mentioned that the amount of $250 requested by the Committee on Cooperation with Educational and Professional Organizations was no longer necessary as the committee had decided to eliminate the traditional luncheon program. Mr. Shank then warned that regardless of what was submitted to COPES, there was no assurance that there would be approval as requested and, judging from past history, funds appropriated were considerably smaller than those asked for.

Mr. Hopp asked if a different subject could now be introduced and he said it would be presented to the Board by Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson stated that the University Libraries Section had just begun discussions concerning a preconference institute in Las Vegas on the place of the university library in regional networks. He wanted to know how they should proceed, and Mr. Hopp asked when they should present their request. Mr. Shank indicated that the 1973 preconference institute had to be included in this budget and then, in turn, approved by COPES. Mr. Hopp saw no problem in obtaining approval since these activities were self-supporting. Mr. Beard wanted to know what would happen if they were not. Mr. Thomas replied that to his knowledge only two ACRL preconferences had ever lost money and that these were highly unusual. However, if such a situation should occur, the deficit would be covered from ALA general funds. Miss Ball indicated that she had a similar request as the Asian and North African Subsection wished to hold a preconference institute in Las Vegas, but Mr. Scepanski advised that they had changed their plans and were instead considering an institute in New York in 1974.

At this point Mr. Reason inquired if there was any further discussion on the motion before the Board, the request to publish the budget. There being none, he called for the vote. It was UNANIMOUS.

Mr. Shank then inquired how strongly Messrs. Holly, Farber, and Weber felt about changing Item 11, the AAC/AAUP/ACRL Joint Committee funding. A rather lengthy discussion ensued, covering several line items, but particularly Item 7, the budget for the Committee on Academic Status, Item 11, and some apparent duplication of funds therein. Mr. Reason requested a motion to eliminate the duplication found in the two line items. Mr. Shank so moved; Mr. Johnson seconded; all members voted in the affirmative.

Some further discussion followed concerning the budget’s publication and possible modification. Mr. Shank reminded the Board that Mr. Govan had requested that Item 14, funding for the Committee on Cooperation with Educational and Professional Organizations, be deleted. Mr. Govan confirmed that the committee felt no budget request was required at this time, and Mr. Shank moved that Line Item 14 in the amount of $250 be struck from the budget. Mr. Weber seconded and the motion carried.

Mr. Reason suggested that now the matter of preconferences might be considered. Mr. Hopp explained that the ULS Steering Committee, at the suggestion of Mr. Weber, had discussed the role of the university library in regional networks. There was a great deal of interest in this subject, and all members of the steering committee thought that a Las Vegas preconference institute along those lines would be excellent. Mr. Hopp then formally moved that the Board approve a ULS preconference on Library Networks in 1973 and Mr. Anderson seconded. A general discussion period followed during which Mr. Hopp stated that the ULS would be happy to consider cosponsorship of the preconference institute with other organizations which might be interested. The vote to approve the preconference was unanimous.

Mr. Applegate was recognized next and moved that the Board approve a preconference institute on “People in the World of Special Collections,” to be sponsored by the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section and to be held in Denver immediately preceding the Las Vegas conference. Mr. Shank seconded and discussion followed. Mr. Weber questioned the Denver location and Mr. Applegate explained that it had been chosen because of geographic considerations, the lack of significant book and manuscript collections in Nevada, and also due to the fact that it was the nucleus of the Mountain States Chapter of ASA. The motion passed by unanimous vote.

Mr. Hopp now brought up the subject of programs at the Chicago conference. He advised that the ULS had a tentative program on “University Library Management Developments” scheduled in addition to the daylong ACRL program. He then moved that the Board approve the ULS Program. Mr. Anderson seconded. During the discussion, Mr. Thomas explained that the daylong program for ACRL was decided upon in Los Angeles at the 1971 Midwinter Meeting. The chairmen-elect of all sections voted to give up their individual time slots and join in an ACRL-wide program. Mr. Reason thought that if there was available program time and the suggested program did not interfere with the ACRL session, there should be no problem. Mr. Thomas pointed out that one problem might be a shortage of meeting rooms at the Annual Conference. Mr. Hopp stated that if the Board approved his motion, he would take the matter to the ACRL Chicago Conference Program Committee. The motion then carried unanimously.

Mr. Reason next stated that Ellsworth Mason was to have been present to give a report about plans for the ACRL Chicago Program. Since Mr. Mason was unable to attend, Mr. Reason asked the Board to approve the tentative program plans. Mr. Stone so moved and Mr. Cox seconded. Mr. Shank inquired if anyone had a notion as to what those plans would be, and Mr. Holly wanted to know if they were to approve a program in principle or were telling the committee to proceed. Mr. Tanis asked for a short summary of some of the suggestions which had been made so that the Board members might have a general idea or feeling of what was to be involved. Mr. Reason replied that the program revolved around media, and Mr. Hopp, as a member of the program committee, gave a short review. The title of the ACRL program will be “The Changing Concepts of Learning.” Mr. Shank also thought the committee should be urged to consider networks for mixed media services. There being no further discussion, Mr. Reason called for the vote which was unanimously in favor of approval. Miss Ball asked to be recognized and stated that the subsections had also decided to have separate programs. She pointed out that members joined the Subject Specialists Subsections because of their specialized interests and both she and Mr. Freitag, the SSS chairman, believed it important that the subsections continue individual programming and projects attractive to their members. She continued saying that the six subsections had developed programs as follows: The Agriculture and Biological Sciences Subsection had planned a program for Monday and invited two speakers for the subject “Automated Literature Searching— Good, Bad, or Indifferent.” The Art Subsection planned various activities including a walking tour through the Loop, an architectural sightseeing trip by bus through Oak Park, a tour and luncheon at the Glessner House, and a session on films at the Art Institute. The Asian and North African Subsection will cosponsor a program with the ALA International Relations Round Table on Monday evening. They plan to take a searching look at the place of the subject specialist in ACRL. The Education and Behavioral Sciences Subsection will have a demonstration of the American Psychological Association’s new computerized search services, while the Law and Political Science Subsection intends to look into a multimedia approach to the U.S. Census. The Slavic and East European Subsection is organizing a panel discussion comparing library science education in the United States with that in the Soviet Union.

Miss Ball then moved that these program meetings of the Subject Specialists Section Subsections be approved. Miss Ackerman seconded and Mr. Weber urged unanimous support be given to the measure. The vote was unanimous.

Miss Ball indicated she had two more items she wanted to bring before the Board; they were in the form of recommendations. The first one read as follows:

The Subsections of the Subject Specialists Section of ACRL wish to emphasize the need in conference programming for recognition of the special interests of our members, provision of adequate time for programs of substance in these subject areas, and the allowance of a distribution of time through the conference week for this programming. We urge that if program scheduling continues to be as tight in the future as it has been, there should be greater equity in the use of prime time and, if necessary, allowance for certain conflicts in programming.

After an explanation that the recommendation originated due to the Board of Directors’ policy that no ACRL meetings be held at the same time as Board meetings, Mr. Weber stated that he was prepared to move that this policy of the Board be rescinded with respect to the program meetings of the subsections and the meetings of section committees. He felt that the activities of the subsections were very important and contributed a great deal to ACRL. Miss Ball seconded. Mr. Thomas explained that the no-conflict policy had been set up in order to assure the attendance of committee chairmen at the Board meetings when their presence was required, and to allow Board members and staff to cover committee meetings. Miss Ackerman and Messrs. Holly, Beard, and Hopp spoke in support of the motion. Mr. Reason called for the vote; the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Applegate now asked to be allowed to speak on behalf of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section. His members felt that they were not adequately nor equitably represented on division-wide committees, and he therefore moved that the ACRL policy on committee appointments be changed to provide that each divisional committee have at least one representative from each section. Mr. Shank seconded. Mr. Applegate felt that this policy would enable all sections to stay abreast of happenings and developments within the division. Mr. Tanis remarked that the working committees on the division level were not really general problemsolving ones, but rather charged with carrying out specific tasks, and he thought that the problem of disseminating information should be left to CRL News. Mr. Farber concurred and added that in his opinion it would be better to improve the channels of communication rather than to change the makeup of the committees. When it was pointed out that such a policy could possibly prevent the appointment of the most competent and knowledgeable individuals to committees in particular areas of concern, the matter was referred to the Planning Committee for a recommendation.

Mr. Reason returned to Miss Ball for her second recommendation, but she said she would submit it in writing for action in June. Mr. Cox mentioned that the Committee on Non-Western Resources of the College Libraries Section had voted to abolish itself and moved that the Board formally dissolve this committee. Mr. Applegate seconded and the motion passed.

Mr. Holly inquired about the recommendation found on the report of the Task Force on ACRL Goals. It had been suggested “that the Board consider whether the continued existence of the Goals Committee serves any useful purpose at this time.” The Board decided to defer any action until June.

Mr. Beard was now called upon to give his report as chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on the ACRL Membership Levy for an Academic Status Office. The committee was established in late December and had little time to consider the matter. Meeting at Midwinter, however, they had prepared a written report for presentation (see Exhibit I, p. 84). After a discussion of the original charge to the committee, Mr. Weber suggested that the matter be referred to the Executive Committee for further study as there was not enough time for detailed discussion. Mr. Holly wondered if it might be possible to publish part of Mr. Beard’s report in CRL News, to test the response of the membership. Mr. Beard repeated that his committee was looking to the Board for guidance. Mr. Weber then put his original suggestion into a motion which Mr. Applegate seconded; all members voted affirmatively.

Mr. MacDougall, chairman of the National University Extension Association (NUEA)- ACRL/ULS Joint Committee on University Extension Library Services, asked for recognition to present the following resolution:

The Joint Committee presents to the ACRL Directors Board for their approval or revision the following resolution, which in turn would be forwarded to Dean Paul E. Hadley, Chairman of the Resolutions Committee of the National University Extension Association, for presentation to the NUEA Board.

WHEREAS, the Joint Committee on University Extension Library Services (NUEA-ACRL/ ULS) has within its membership those who are knowledgeable in the extension of higher education to the public and in those library services needed to support those programs of higher education, and

WHEREAS, it is the specific charge to this Joint Committee from both NUEA and ACRL to involve itself in the examination of methods of facilitating and expediting library services for university extension programs on a national level,

BE IT RESOLVED, that the ACRL Standards Committee authorize the NUEA-ACRL/ULS Joint Committee on University Extension Library Services to re-evaluate and revise the present guidelines for university extension libraries with the goal of setting the best possible standards for university extension library service, and to incorporate them into the official ACRL Standards for University Libraries.

A short discussion followed during which Miss Ackerman questioned the last sentence of the proposed resolution and suggested a change in wording to make the final paragraph read as follows:

BE IT RESOLVED, that the ACRL Standards Committee authorize the NUEA-ACRL-ULS Joint Committee on University Extension Library Services to re-evaluate and revise the criteria for library services to college and university extension students.

Mr. Reason called for the vote on the motion. It was approved unanimously.

Mr. Shank referred to the summary notes of the Planning Committee meeting which had been distributed to the Board members. There being no time left for discussion of these items, it was agreed to handle the various items by mail or defer action until the Annual Conference.

Mr. Reason adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m.

ACRL Membership

February 29, 1972 12,547

February 28, 1971 12,796

February 28, 1970 14,178

EXHIBIT I

Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on ACRL Membership Levy for the Academic Status Office

This committee was appointed by Mr. Reason in December 1971, and is composed of the chairmen-elect of the five ACRL sections. The charge to the committee was “to investigate the possibility of levying additional membership dues on the ACRL members to finance the proposed Academic Status Office.” The appointment of the committee resulted from the action of the Board of Directors at their meeting of June 24, 1971, at which they considered a resolution adopted by the ACRL membership meeting of the same date which read in part as follows:

be it therefore resolved thatthe 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 organizational 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.

The committee presents the following background which it took into consideration in its discussion. In proposing an amendment of the ALA Program of Action for Mediation, Arbitration and Inquiry, the Committee on Academic Status outlined a program for Office for Academic Status, as follows:

1. Collect information relating to the status of academic librarians across the country.

2. Provide information and assistance to academic librarians to achieve academic status.

3. Carry out an educational program regarding the rights and prerogatives of academic librarians.

4. Enter into mediation, arbitration, and inquiries regarding the rights and responsibilities of academic librarians.

5. Enforce effective sanctions established by ACRL which can be invoked for the protection of academic librarians.

This amendment was approved by the ACRL Board of Directors on June 21, 1971, for presentation to the ALA Council, but as you know, rejected by the Council. The Ad Hoc Committee presently reporting believes items 1 through 3 of the above proposal represent a reasonable program upon which to base the Office of Academic Status at this point. Items 4 and 5, we assume, would be deferred at least until a final statement of “Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians” is agreed upon by the joint committee of ACRL, AAUP, and AAC.

The committee is aware that Lines 1 and 2 of the current ACRL budget request for 1972/ 73 provide for the salaries of an Associate Executive Secretary and secretarial support at a totgl cost of $22,236 to set up the Office for Academic Status. Should these lines remain in the budget we assume the Ad Hoc Committee can be dissolved.

However, should the budget request be rejected, the committee recommends that a poll of ACRL members be taken as early as possible to determine the reaction of the total ACRL membership to an assessment as called for in the resolution of June 24, 1971. The committee considered two alternative methods of polling the ACRL membership: (1) By direct mail ballot, (2) Through CRL News. We calculated the cost of direct mail to some 11,000 members to be approximately $1,000. Since we assume that this would need to be budgeted in advance, we favor polling the membership through CRL News.

Article VI, Section 6 of the ALA Bylaws referred to earlier reads as follows:

Sec 6 (a) Each division shall receive allotments made on the basis of need as determined by the Executive Board upon recommendation of the Committee on Program Evaluation and Support.

(b) All divisional funds are to be in the custody of the Executive Board, to be accounted for and disbursed by its designated officer on authorization of the division officers.

(c) A division shall have the right, by vote of its members, to impose additional fees. Funds so collected shall be subject to the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b).

The chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee discussed with Mr. Maclaren, ALA Treasurer, and Mr. Gaertner, ALA Comptroller, the proposed assessment of ACRL members. The two officers agreed that ACRL could make such an assessment and that the funds would be reserved for use by the division at its discretion, just as is the case with funds of the Round Tables. However, since our proposed assessment involves the establishment of staff positions at ALA headquarters, with attendant ramifications (e.g., space, equipment, fringe benefits, travel, etc.) it would still be necessary to present our proposed budget for approval to COPES, with the understanding that financing would come from ACRL special funds. Mr. Maclaren and Mr. Gaertner agreed that the special assessment for ACRL members could be collected along with the regular ALA dues at the end of the calendar year.

The committee believes that if a poll of the members shows a majority to be in favor of the special assessment to establish the office of Academic Status, the following steps should be taken: (1) Special assessment should be made along with dues collection at the end of 1972; and (2) With the money (hopefully) in hand, a budget should be prepared for presentation to COPES for the establishment of the Office of Academic Status. This budget, assuming all costs are to be borne by ACRL, would be calculated to include various items in addition to salaries as mentioned above. The committee realizes that this procedure of collecting the money before presenting the budget may seem irresponsible to some but we can see no viable alternative.

We assume a minimum revenue of $55,000 at $5.00 per capita from 11,000 members. We believe that this is more than sufficient to provide for the first year’s operation of the Office of Academic Status. We therefore recommend that any balance of funds remaining at the end of the year be held over to facilitate continued operation of the Office.

Finally, the committee recommends that even though we may be forced to make a special assessment to establish the Office of Academic Status, ACRL should continue its efforts to secure ALA funding for the Office.

The committee would appreciate the reaction of the Board of Directors to the following specific questions:

1. Does the Board of Directors see any need for the Ad Hoc Committee to expand upon the details of the program for the Office of Academic Status?

2. Does the Board of Directors consider a poll of ACRL members through CRL News a valid method of determining their reaction to a special assessment for the Office of Academic Status?

3. Can the Board of Directors suggest a viable alternative to collecting the assessment before presenting the budget request to COPES? ■■

This ^$90 directory can make you an inslant authority on scientific authors and organizations.

ISI's Who is Publishing in Science™ (WIPIS™)contains the names, addresses, and organizational affiliations of 220,000 authors all over the world who published a scientific or technical article during 1971. It’s indexed by author’s name, by organization (some 40,000 of them including academic, industrial, and governmental), and by geo- graphic location.

With information like this at your fingertips, it’s extra easy to:

■ Get authors’ addresses for reprint re- quests

■ Find authors and/or organizations in specified locations

■ See if an author had anything published during the year

■ Verify spelling of authors’ names for bibli- ographies, inter-library loans, etc

■ Differentiate between authors with similar names

■ Find the location of specified organiza- tions and their divisions

■ Determine what organization an author is associated with

WIPISlets you give authoritative answers to some of the toughest day-to-day questions a librarian encounters. Quickly. Efficiently. For $90.00.