ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 251 ACRL Membership Meeting ANN UAL C O N F E R E N C E CH ICAGO , ILLIN O IS Monday, June 26, 1972—2:30 p .m . The meeting was called to order by President Joseph H. Reason, presiding officer. Mr. Reason first expressed the Association’s thanks to the headquarters office staff for their splendid work during a trying year. He also thanked the mem­ bers of the Local Arrangements Committee for their efforts in making the ACRL Exhibit Booth a particularly outstanding one. The minutes of the Dallas Membership Meeting, as published in the September 1971 issue of CRL News, were approved and Mr. Reason then read the ACRL election results. He followed this by introducing the new presi dent-elect and section and subsection chairmen- elect. The chair then recognized William R. Pullen, chairman of the ACRL Committee on the Con­ stitution and Bylaws for the required reading of the proposed amendments to the constitution and bylaws. The first of these had been passed by the membership on June 24, 1971, at the an­ nual meeting in Dallas, Texas, and was now be­ ing submitted for final approval. Article IX. Amendments Sec. 1. Constitution All proposals for amending the constitution shall be referred to the Board of Directors. A proposed amendment shall become ef­ fective when it shall have been approved by a majority of the members of Board present and voting at two consecutive meetings held not less than two months apart, followed by ratification by the mem­ bers of the Association either by a vote by mail of a majority of the members voting, or by a majority vote of the members pres­ ent and voting at a meeting of the Associa­ tion. At least two months written notice shall be given to the Association of the text of the proposed amendment before final consideration. Mr. Pullen m o v e d the adoption of this amend­ ment and the measure c a r r i e d by unanimous vote. The second of the proposed amendments was then read. Article IX. Mail Votes * Sec. 1. Mail votes of the membership of the Association may be authorized be­ tween meetings by the Board of Directors, provided all members are canvassed simul­ taneously. Such mail votes shall be con­ ducted under the same requirements as votes at meetings. If no time limit is set, no vote shall be counted unless received within thirty days from the day the text of the matter voted upon was mailed prop­ erly addressed to those entitled to vote up­ on it. Sec. 2. Mail votes of the Board of Direc tors may be taken provided they are au­ thorized by the President, President-elect, and Past President, and all voting Board members are canvassed simultaneously. An affirmative vote of three-fourths of the vot­ ing Board members shall be required to pass a motion. On each mail vote, each voting Board member shall have the op­ tion of voting for or against the motion, to abstain, or to hold for discussion at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Time limits shall be the same as stated above in Sec. 1 of this Article. Sec. 3. Mail votes of duly constituted com­ mittees may be taken by the chairmen of such committees. An affirmative vote of three-fourths of the committee members shall be required to pass the motion. Vot­ ing option and time limits shall be the same as stated above in Sec. 2 of this Ar­ ticle. Mr. Pullen’s motion to adopt this proposed amendment received unanimous approval. Mr. Reason proceeded to introduce Burton E. Lampkin, associate commissioner, Bureau of Libraries and Educational Technology, U.S. Office of Education, who spoke about legisla­ tion of interest to academic librarians and about the functions and anticipated activities of his Bureau. Fiscal 1973 priorities outlined by Mr. Lampkin included recruitment and training of minorities; the sharing and utilization of re­ sources for total community import; the con­ tinuance of technical assistance for developing institutions such as community, vocational and occupational, and black colleges; cooperation among all types of libraries; and communica­ tions. Mr. Reason next introduced Roy L. Kidman, chairman of the Committee on Academic Sta­ tus, for a report of the committee’s activities. Copies of a Joint Statement on Faculty Status o f College and University Librarians (see Sep­ tember 1972 CRL News) were distributed to the members. Mr. Kidman gave a brief description of the committee work which resulted in the S tan- 252 dards for Faculty Status for College and Uni­ versity Librarians (see September 1972 CRL New s). He reminded the membership that these standards had been approved at the Dal­ las Meeting in 1971. They thus became official ACRL Standards and were used as the basis for discussions with the American Association of University Professors and the Association of American Colleges. A joint committee of the three associations had set to work on drafting a statement. He then gave a short history of how the joint statement had evolved, and identi­ fied Gerald B. Hubble, Wyman W. Parker, and Luella R. Pollock as the ACRL representatives on the joint committee. The committee held its first meeting in November 1971, and Mr. Kid­ man attended to give a summation of the ACRL standards and to explain how they had been drafted. He mentioned that the first day of the meeting the discussions were rather tense and there was a great deal of uneasiness, but that on the second day the essential issues were brought forward and a drafting subcommittee was appointed. J. Donald Thomas, at that time the executive secretary, and Wyman Parker represented ACRL. A subcommittee draft of a joint statement was reviewed by the ACRL Committee on Academic Status in April. The Committee on Academic Status met in Chicago and recommended several changes in the docu­ ment. Mr. Kidman indicated that the crucial is­ sues of concern to the committee were that the joint statement was general in nature as com­ pared with the ACRL Standards and there was no referral in the joint statement to the ACRL Standards. The Committee on Academic Status therefore recommended that the following be added: “The statement on faculty status for li­ brarians approved by ACRL at its Dallas Con­ ference provides details and interpretations for implementation of this document.” The draft was sent back to the subcommittee and revision resulted in the document now before the mem­ bership. Mr. Kidman pointed out that the Com­ mittee on Academic Status planned to make an official recommendation regarding the joint statement to the ACRL Board of Directors at its Thursday meeting and that they now sought comments and recommendations from the mem­ bership. He said the motion he was about to make was the opinion of a majority of the com­ mittee at this time but that discussion of certain aspects of the statement was desired. He directed attention to the two paragraphs beginning with line twenty and indicated the rather vague identification of academic librari­ ans who might be eligible for faculty status. This was of concern to some of the committee members as Was the lack of a reference to the ACRL document. The proposed addition had not been included. He then m o v e d the follow­ ing. That the ACRL “Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librari­ ans,” as passed at the ACRL Membership Meeting of June 24, 1971 in Dallas, Texas, be reaffirmed and that the April 26, 1972 Joint Statement on Faculty Status o f Col­ lege and University Librarians of the As­ sociation of College and Research Li­ braries, the Association of American Col­ leges, and the American Association of University Professors be endorsed as an ef­ fective implementation of many of these standards. Mr. Reason called for discussion, and E. J. Josey asked to be recognized to present the fol­ lowing. I move to amend the motion and add to the Joint Statement, page 2, footnote 1, following the word “Absence,” “1971 ACRL Standards for Faculty Status.” John Morgan s e c o n d e d the motion and a dis­ cussion followed. As a point of order, it was brought out that the motion on the floor was not the document itself and therefore the docu­ ment could not be amended. Eli Obler agreed that the motion was out of order stating that the membership could not change the joint statement. R. Dean Galloway said that the purpose of the meeting was to react to the document and to have the membership indicate what needed to be added to, or subtracted from it. He stressed that this should be kept in mind and that there should not be great concern about parliamentary procedure. Mr. Reason ruled Mr. Josey’s motion out of order, and Mr. Josey thereupon m o v e d the following substitute mo­ tion. That ACRL adopt the Joint Statement prepared by Representatives of ACRL, AAUP, and AAC and amend the Joint Statement by adding to page 2, footnote 1, following the word “Absence,” “1971 Standards for Faculty Status.” After a s e c o n d by Evert Volkersz, Mr. Reason called for discussion. Mr. Josey stated that he agreed the membership should reaffirm the ACRL Standards and endorse the Joint State­ ment, but that it was imperative to have the ACRL Standards acknowledged in order to provide guidelines for the implementation of faculty status. The tripartite statement, he pointed out, would go to administrators who would never see the ACRL statement. All he asked for, he continued, was a reference in a footnote. Mr. Herbert Biblo inquired if this was the first time the Joint Statement had been dis­ tributed and indicated that he felt quite ig- 253 norant in discussing and evaluating it on such short notice. He asked that in the future such documents be made available at an earlier date. Mr. Stuart Forth spoke against the substitute motion as he felt it might imperil the entire joint effort. The AAUP and the AAC, he said, had already indicated they were opposed to a specific addition as Mr. Josey proposed. He pointed out that the AAUP has traditionally de­ veloped broad general statements of policy and he cited the joint statement on student rights as an example of a policy statement broad enough so that individual institutions could write up their own codes within an encompass­ ing framework. He said this was the intent of the AAUP, the AAC, and a majority of the members of the Committee on Academic Sta­ tus. He stated his belief that ACRL needed the support of the other two organizations if its ob­ jectives were to be achieved. Mr. Galloway brought up two matters that troubled him in the joint statement. He said he believed there was prejudice against technical services librarians in the document and suggest­ ed that in paragraph four on line twenty-six the word “paragraph” be made plural. This was necessary, he stated, if technical services li­ brarians were to be included in the definition of faculty. He also objected to the inclusion of the statement on library governance. If Mr. Josey’s footnote would solve these problems, he said, he was in favor of the substitute motion. Joan Marshall read from a draft of the joint statement given to her the previous evening by Arthur McAnally, member of the Committee on Academic Status. A line was missing, she said, from the statement which had been dis­ tributed. Mr. Kidman remarked that he be­ lieved she had seen one of the changes suggest­ ed by the Committee on Academic Status which had not been included by the joint com­ mittee in the final statement. Father Brendan Connolly, member of the Committee on Academic Status and a partici­ pant in the discussions with the AAUP and AAC, said that he believed lines six and seven clearly covered technical services people. He also stated that it was his strong impression that the representatives of the two organiza­ tions did not consider a document like the ACRL Standards appropriate for inclusion in a statement of this type. Arthur McAnnally also expressed puzzlement about the absence of the sentence referred to by Ms. Marshall. He said the committee was con­ cerned about technical: services librarians and, noting that Robert Van Waes, associate secre­ tary of AAUP and a member of the drafting subcommittee was in the audience, he asked that Mr. Van Waes be allowed to speak to this point. Mr. Van Waes told the membership that Martha Friedman, a librarian and a member of the AAUP delegation to the joint committee, made it quite clear to the other AAUP repre­ sentatives that technical services librarians were not to be excluded from anything said in the joint statement. He continued by commenting on the negotiating process and said that in his own view the joint statement did adequately provide guidance to librarians, to faculty mem­ bers, and to administrators. He recommended the statement to ACRL as a good one which could lead to definite progress in this area. Allan Dyson spoke against the concept of “faculty status” and opposed the joint statement as twisting definitions to make librarians the teaching faculty they are not. The librarian should instead be seeking his rightful place on campus by working toward a meaningful “aca­ demic status,” he said, not by aping the faculty. Evert Volkersz stated his belief that the whole question of academic status needed to be explored much more fully by the member­ ship and he therefore m o v e d to postpone fur­ ther discussion to a time and place at the con­ ference to be announced by the president. E. J. Josey s e c o n d e d the motion, but Arthur Hamlin m o v e d the previous question. After a s e c o n d from the floor the motion to close debate car­ ried. Mr. Reason then called for the vote on Mr. Josey’s substitute motion. It was defeated. The vote on the original motion was then taken and it c a r r i e d by a majority. As the next order of business, Mr. Reason called on John R. Beard, chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for a Membership Levy for an Office for Academic Status. Mr. Beard reported on the special poll conducted via an insert reply card in the May 1972 issue of CRL News. He said that out of a total membership of 10,872, only 732 responded. This number represented only 6.7 percent of the membership. Of those responding, 149 (20.4 percent) were in favor, 20 (2.7 percent) were opposed to the assess­ ment and believed the office should be funded from the ALA budget; and 116 (15.8 percent) were opposed to faculty status and/or the es­ tablishment of the office. Mr. Beard stated that since the returns made up a self-selected sam­ ple of only a tiny fraction of the membership, they had no meaning and no conclusion could be drawn. The matter rested there. Mr. Shank then reported on his meeting with the ALA Committee on Program Evaluation and Support. He told the members that many of the ACRL budget requests for the forthcoming year, including funds for staffing of an Office for Academic Status, had not been approved and that the half-time professional assistant po­ sition would be eliminated. A reduction in funding for divisional journals would mean a cut in the number of pages available for CRL 256 T h e Em erging Universe Essays on Contemporary Astronomy E dited by W i l l i a m C. S a s l a w and K e n n e t h C. J a c o b s , University o f Virginia. 180 pp., illus., charts, index. 57-95 New astronomical observations are challenging long-accepted theories, and the recent result is a profound change in our view of the nature of the Universe. In this collection of essays, distinguished astronomers present the emerging picture of our Universe. Each essay summarizes past knowledge of a part of astronomy and astrophysics and then intro­ duces important, usually unsolved, problems. The authors offer their own answers to some of these problems and warn against accepting oversimplified models that may be appealing but poorly justified. The essays provide insight into current trends of cos­ mological research by demonstrating the questions that astronomers ask, the variety of approaches they use to answer their questions, and some of the positive results of their research. T h e Persian G u lf Ir a n ’s R o le By R o u h o l l a h K . R a m a z a n i , University o f Virginia, xv, 150 pp., maps, apps. $ 7 - 5 0 With the British departure from the Persian Gulf in 1971 this oil-rich, strategic, and conflict-ridden zone of the Middle East has become a new center of world politics. Iran has aspired to play a leading role in the Persian Gulf since ancient times, but only now does it seem to have the power to do so. The author compares Iran’s perspective, capa­ bility, and policy with those of the Gulf and non-Gulf Arab states of the Middle East. In examining alternative security arrangements in the Persian Gulf, the author suggests that the kind of role that Iran will be able to play in the area will also depend on the nature and development of Iranian nationalism and on the regional and international environments as these affect the Persian Gulf as a whole. Legislative History R esearch for the In terp retatio n of Laws By G w e n d o l y n B. F o l s o m , University o f Virginia, viii, 1 )6 pp., index. Cloth, $6.00; paper, Ş2.95 Legislative history is composed of certain parts, excluding others, of the extensive discus­ sion and documentation which accompany a law in the course of passage by Congress or state legislatures. The function of such history is to aid courts and agencies in finding the intent, scope, and proper application of otherwise general provisions of the laws ultimately adopted. This is the first full description to be published respecting this important and difficult field of legal research. The book first summarizes the general nature of the subject and the highlights of the legislative process, national and state, from which it is derived. Then follows the step-by-step method of research in federal legislative history, which is the core of the book. Special or additional considerations with reference to federal tax laws, constitutional provisions, and treaties conclude the volume. This manual will prove invaluable not only to law students and experienced lawyers, but also to scholars in other fields such as government, history and sociology. University Press of Virginia Box 3608 University Station Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 257 News. He concluded his remarks by saying he found it somewhat demeaning to go as a divi­ sion representative to the association and, in es­ sence, beg for our just due. He wondered if we might not explore the budget process, perhaps through the new Interdivisional Committee on Federation, and turn it around to where central headquarters would have to justify itself to the divisions instead of vice-versa. Mr. Reason announced that a meeting was to be held that evening to discuss the formation of a New England Chapter of ACRL and that all interested members were invited to attend. He concluded by thanking the members and officers, particularly Mr. Shank, for their coop­ eration during his term of office, and then rec­ ognized Jordan M. Scepanski, who m o v e d a vote of gratitude and appreciation by the mem­ bership to Mr. J. Donald Thomas, former ACRL executive secretary, for his dedicated work during four years at headquarters. The motion was s e c o n d e d from the floor and c a r ­ r i e d by acclamation. Following this action, the meeting was adjourned. ■ ■ Contracts for Studies of Library Service The National Commission on Libraries and Information Science has awarded its first con­ tracts for studies, totaling $52,000 for fiscal year 1972. Dr. Frederick Burkhardt, chainnan of the commission, said that “these contracts are the first steps towards an overall evaluation of li­ brary service in this country on all levels. The contracts cover a wide area of concern, and we hope to use these as a base for additional na­ tional planning efforts." The studies to be done include: (1 ) prelimi­ nary investigation of present and potential li­ brary and information service needs contracted to the University of California (Berkeley); (2 ) an analysis for social, economic, and technical requirements for libraries and information ser­ vices, 1975-1980, contracted to Dr. Edwin Parker, professor for Communication Research at Stanford University; (3 ) a study of funding sources for public libraries to be handled by the Public Administration Service, Chicago, Illi­ nois; and (4 ) a feasibility study of centralized and regionalized interlibrary loan centers to be done through the Association of Research Li­ braries, Washington, D.C. The study for the investigation of present and potential library and information service needs will be done through Charles Bourne who is director of the Institute of Library Research and professor, School of Librarianship, University of California, in Berkeley. The com­ prehensive working paper produced by this study will assist the commission in establishing its priorities in developing national planning for library and informational needs as charged by law. The intent of this study will be to identify needs for service on the part of various “pub­ lics” served and to see how the library and in­ formation community can best serve those needs. Some of the major issues to be explored will be a review of the literature relating to the ob­ jectives and specifications for post-1975 library services and a survey and assessment of plan­ ning, methodology, and techniques that could be helpful. In this study preliminary identifica­ tion and formulation of tentative specifications will be máde for post-1975 information service. In support of this paper, Dr. Parker, who is professor for Communication Research at Stan­ ford University, shall prepare a comprehensive written document which will identify in specific terms the ways in which United States social- economic factors in 1975-1980 and advances in communications and information technology will have impact on the library and information needs of all types of citizens in various informa tion-using roles. Dr. Parker’s report will be available to the commission on January 1, 1973. The Public Administration Service in Chi­ cago has accepted a task for the commission to look at funding sources for public libraries. More than $800,000,000 is spent on public li­ braries and library systems in America and much is known about how the money is spent. Too little is known about its sources. Some li­ braries obtain revenue from the smallest politi­ cal areas served (the city, the town, the coun­ ty), some from the largest (the state). Others obtain money from a combination of sources in­ cluding municipal, county, region, state, fed­ eral, gifts, and endowments. No report of the full scope of fund resources is available, and the commission feels it is now needed. This study will, Dr. Burkhardt hopes, “let public libraries all over America see where ad­ ditional funds could be made available and how to get at the money which is so sorely needed by libraries and information centers all over America.” The National Commission on Libraries and Information Science has also contracted with the Association of Research Libraries in Wash­ ington for a feasibility study of centralized and regionalized interlibrary loan centers. This par­ ticular study will review the current literature, estimate the demand for interlibrary loans in the future, prepare an outline of methodology for a cost study of initial development of cen­ tral and regional monograph lending centers, establish a professional committee to review recommendations, and to prepare a report to