ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 154 Annual Report of the President, 1973–74 An important action taken by ACRL during the administrative year just ending was the ini­ tiation o f a project to assess the goals, prior­ ities, and structure o f the Association. A com ­ mittee chaired by Dr. Le Moyne W . Anderson, director of libraries at Colorado State Univer­ sity, is pursuing the task of determining the role A C R L should play vis-à-vis library service to research and post-secondary education. A critical self-examination is sorely needed if AC R L is to continue as a positive force in li- brarianship. That the environment in which the Association must perform is different today from what it was a few years ago is a truism. Change is pervasive; none o f the institutions to which we are comfortably accustomed is im­ mune. If the Association is going to operate ef­ fectively in the new environment, then it too has to change. Issues and problems must be identified, goals and priorities must be estab­ lished, new programs and organizational struc­ tures must be designed. O f course a number of issues that are proper­ ly the concern o f the Association have already been identified and are being considered apart from this more general study. One project that we are especially pleased with is the internship program to prepare black librarians for admin­ istrative positions in predominantly black col­ lege and university libraries. The three-year program, which will be administered by ACRL, has been awarded a $350,000 grant by the Andrew W . Mellon Foundation. The program will provide the interns with a variety o f learn­ ing experiences in management, library opera­ tions, and administration that would otherwise be difficult for them to obtain. Casper L. Jor­ dan, associate professor in the School o f Library Service, Atlanta University, is the project direc­ tor; Beverly Lynch, executive secretary of ACRL, is the principal investigator. Improving the quality of library administra­ tion and management, particularly in regard to the relationship between the chief administra­ tive officer and the other librarians on the staff, is something in which the profession is deeply interested. Most management techniques de­ veloped— or at least publicized— recently are methods designed to increase staff participa­ tion in matters heretofore thought to be largely — even exclusively— administrative responsibil­ ities. Recognizing the value o f investigating the implications of faculty status, collegial systems o f administration, participatory management, management b y objective, and so on for aca­ dem ic library management, the Association held a program entitled Governance in Academic Libraries at the A LA Annual Conference in New York. A related program, Management Self-Study, was also held. Faculty status for academic librarians is a continuing concern o f the Association. The Joint Statement on Faculty Status o f College and University Librarians, developed by A C RL, the AAUP, and the AAC, now has twenty-nine signatories. The Association of American Colleges has yet to approve the state­ ment it helped to prepare, but a number of state library associations have joined ACRL and AAUP in making this strong assertion for faculty status. The support o f other groups is being sought and is expected. The battle is being won, but slowly. At the 1973 Annual Conference in Las V e­ gas, A C R L ’ s Board o f Directors approved for publication the Model Statement of Criteria and Procedures for Appointment, Promotion in Academic Rank, and Tenure for College and University Librarians. The M odel Statement provides a strong argument in support o f fac­ ulty status in that it recognizes explicitly that improved status brings with it increased respon­ sibility along with additional rights and privi­ leges. As an expression o f willingness on the part o f librarians to assume these responsibil­ ities— peer evaluation of colleagues is an exam­ ple— it considerably strengthens the Joint State­ ment on Faculty Status. O f the many committees active within the Association, the ad hoc committee to revise the 1959 Standards for College Libraries has been one o f the hardest working. Chaired by John­ nie Givens, librarian, Austin Peay State Uni­ versity, Clarkesville, Tennessee, the committee spent the year exploring the possibility of de­ vising sets o f standards, which would apply, each set, to a group o f institutions sharing easily identifiable and readily defensible char­ acteristics. This approach appears to answer some o f the criticisms o f the 1959 formula, and should prove acceptable to those concerned with evaluating library collections. Since ob ­ jective criteria o f this sort tend to b e widely used by accrediting agencies, funding agencies, and the like, the standards are extremely im­ portant, and all o f us watch the progress o f this hard working committee attentively. The com ­ mittee was supported in its 1973-74 work by a $9,250 grant from the J. Morris Jones-World Book Encyclopedia–A L A Goals Award, and will be supported in 1974–75 by an additional $12,000 from the same award. Revising the 155 1959 Standards is an important association project pertaining to collection development; publication of the CORE Collection, sometimes called BCL II, is the other. This eagerly awaited listing o f 40,000 titles went to the pub­ lisher (A L A ) shortly before the Annual Con­ ference in New York. The road to the finished product has been somewhat rocky, but with the end in view, everyone involved in the project has a right to be pleased with it. Virginia Clark did some of the final editing from Lon­ don while Beverly Lynch firmly enforced the schedule in Chicago. Those of us who have utilized BCL extensively in collection develop­ ment know the importance o f the CORE proj­ ect, and have grown progressively anxious to see the six-volume sets come in the door, will be very happy to have them in hand. In another publishing matter, Richard M. Dougherty, editor since 1969 of College & Re­ search Libraries, asked to be relieved of the editorship effective July 1974. AC R L’s Board of Directors accepted Dr. Dougherty’s resigna­ tion with deep regret, and asked Richard D. Johnson, director o f libraries, State University College, Oneonta, New York, to assume the post. Mr. Johnson has previously edited the Stanford Library Bulletin, the Honnold Library Record, and the California Librarian. In 1968 he won an H. W . W ilson Library Periodicals Award for his work on the latter publication, and we look forward with pleasure to his tenure as CRL editor. Having listed the accomplishments of the As­ sociation this past year, I would like to note an area o f librarianship that was not looked at closely by the Association, but which appears to be undergoing significant change in the aca­ demic world. I refer to the fact that public aca­ demic libraries are being threatened b y an ab­ sentee management revolution. Academic li­ braries are not under siege by dissidents and anarchists but by mild-mannered bureaucrats who are imposing a managerial revolution upon, the academic world and upon libraries in par­ ticular. The absentee managerial revolution, consist­ ing o f statewide systems of budgeting and per­ sonnel, single computer systems, and standard­ ized course offerings and academic calendars, has been the result o f the trend toward the ex­ tension of governmental control in all aspects of life. One system leads inevitably to another as coordinating boards and commissions enlarge and extend their powers until the tangle of rules and decision chains becomes almost im­ possible to follow. This situation is acutely ob ­ vious in the case of academic libraries. A stu­ dent with a problem cannot lodge a complaint with the director o f the library or even with the president o f the college or university. The solu­ tion to the problem is entirely out of their hands, lost somewhere in the maze o f bureaucra­ cy, usually at the end of a long trail of red tape. Excellence is no longer a visible goal. I would like to stress the dangers o f consider ing the college and university library as just an­ other department in just another state agency. This kind o f reasoning leads to judging the merits o f a college or university library upon the utility of its book collection rather than upon the quality and to judging librarians not upon their individual abilities and contributions but rather upon conformance to some utilitarian civil service norm. One particularly unfortunate example o f such an attitude is the imposition of uniform person­ nel standards by an impersonal statewide sys­ tem. A detailed position description sent down from some remote state agency cannot reflect the actual needs of an individual library in an individual situation. In the same way that teaching faculty are being forced to maintain legislatively mandated teaching loads, academic librarians are being forced to conform to job descriptions which do not necessarily reflect their backgrounds, local situations, or particular abilities. The result is a stultified and sterile at­ mosphere with little room for innovation or growth. The absentee managerial revolution in aca­ demic libraries is not producing more efficient administration or higher quality “ products” be­ cause academic libraries are not “ business.” Trying to treat an abstract concept like educa­ tion as if it were a product can only result in confusion and ultimately in a decline in the quality of the university and in libraries. Nor can a library be thought of as a “ business.” This kind of reasoning has led to the consideration o f the university as a kind o f “ knowledge fac­ tory” with raw material in the form o f students being turned—by the use of complex machin­ ery in the form o f books, laboratories, and classrooms—into a marketable end-product called a graduate. The quest for knowledge has no place in such a factory where workers called “ faculty” are not interested in leading students toward knowledge, but rather in measuring the “ value added.” A university library is a very special place. It is not possible to standardize libraries with­ out losing more than is gained. Some aspects o f the systems approach may be necessary in order to save money, but the enforcement of rigid centralized selection policies and state­ wide personnel practices, with little regard for the highly individualized personalities o f indi­ vidual campuses, can only have the end result o f lowering the high standard o f public educa­ tion. This new managerial revolution used cau­ ­ INSTANTANEOUSLY That’s how last scisearch retrieves the information you need from the life sciences lournal literature. When you need the lite ra tu re search now. When you ne ed to know ab o u t the m o st re ce nt developm ents in a field. When you have a co m p le x search th a t con ve n tio n a l lib ra ry techn iqu es c a n 't handle. That’s when you need IS I’s new SCISEARCH, the c o m p u te rize d on-line re trie v a l file tha t gives you q u ick, easy, e c o n o m ic a l access to one o f the w o rld ’s la rg e s t sources of in fo rm a tio n on the life scie nces jo u rn a l lite ra tu re . To p ro v id e m ore curren t, m ore c om p le te in fo rm a tio n to y o u r research s cie ntists. To serve them m ore q u ic k ly a n d efficie n tly . To save tim e fo r you an d y o u r staff. To lo w e r y o u r lib ra ry ’s se a rch in g costs. IS I’s huge life sciences file is b e in g made ava ila ble to researchers, lib ra ria n s a n d in fo rm a tio n s p e cia lis ts w ith in the U.S. an d Canada throu gh the w id e ly used SDC S earch Service, an on-line, in te ra c tiv e re trie v a l service o f System D evelopm ent C orporation. Easy Access. Stressing ease of access, SDC’s on-line retrieval program– ORBIT ­ w ill permit you or your search specialist to conduct extremely rapid searches through a two-way commu­ nications term inal located in your own facilities. In a typi­ cal 10 to 15 minute "conver­ sation” with the com puter— you type simple English lan­ guage statements– you can easily form ulate your ques­ tions, examine prelim inary re­ sults, employ on-line dialogue to improve your understand­ ing of the file ’s contents, then refine and ta ilo r your search to specify exactly what you want from the file. And be­ cause the system is tied– in to a nationwide comm unications network, most subscribers w ill be able to link the ir te r­ minal to the com puter in S an ta M o n ic a , C a lifo r n ia , through a local phone call. Over 400,000 Items. Cover­ing every article from about 1,100 of the w o rld ’s most im portant life sciences journals, SCISEARCH w ill in i­ tially offer a searchable file of over 400,000 items pub­ lished since April, 1972. Each month, approximately 16,000 new items w ill be added un­ til the average size of the file w ill be about one-half m il­ lion kems and cover ZV2 years. This monthly update means you can search cur­ rent literature many months before it appears in printed indexes. T ough Searches Made Easy.To assure you maximum retrieval efficiency in deal­ ing with this massive file, SCISEARCH enables you to make the sim plest to the m o s t c o m p le x l i t e r a t u r e searches. For example, you can search by title words, word-stems, word– phrases, authors, and organizations or by any combination of these techniques. In addition, citation searching– an ex­ clusive feature of ISI’s data file — permits you to locate additional items about a sub­ je c t if you know about an earlier publication on the same subject. W hat Yo u ’ll Get. For every item retrieved, you can receive a full, on-line b ib lio g r a p h ic d e s c r ip tio n . This includes: all authors, full article title, journal cita­ tion, language indicator, a code for the type of item (article, note, letter to editor, review, etc.), an ISI® order number and all references from the bibliography con­ tained in the retrieved article. You can use the order num­ ber to place on-line orders for copies of articles from IS I’s Original Article Tear Sheet service (OATS®). F or More Information. We’d like to tell you more and actually demonstrate how SCISEARCH can help y and your colleagues. Simply call Mel W einstock at (215) 923-3300. Or write him at the a d d r e s s below . ©1974 ISI ou INSTITUTE FOR SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION i s i ® 325 Chestnut Street, Phila., Pa. 19106, U.S.A ‚ Tel. (215) 923-3300; Telex: 84-5305 SClSEARCM® 157 tiously can produce some economies. As it is presently used as a harsh remedy, it threatens to convert free-standing, self-directing univer­ sities and their libraries into homogenized state systems. The old faiths o f institutional initia­ tive, academic freedom, flexibility of approach, and innovation are being stifled by red tape. Initiative is crippled, ultimate responsibility is diluted, and true accountability, ironically, is destroyed— all in the name o f "management overkill.” To sum up the year, the Association has sought ways to respond to the multitude of problems faced by academic librarians today. W e have addressed ourselves to some o f them, certainly not all; indeed, some are yet to be dis­ covered, as Mr. Anderson’s committee will doubtless find. Perhaps no demonstration o f our efforts to get to the grass roots, to get to know what the membership sees as most im­ portant, has been as well received as the en­ couragement o f local chapters. Within a frame­ work of such chapters, AC RL members can meet and discuss matters o f local, regional, and national concern in a manner that is impossible for the membership at large or the divisions to do. George Bailey, associate library director, the Claremont Colleges, Claremont, California, chairs the ad hoc Committee on the D evelop­ ment o f Chapters in ACRL. As outgoing president, I would like finally to express appreciation on behalf o f the Asso­ ciation and offer my own warm thanks to the many people who helped make this year the successful one that it was: the other officers, the hard working staff at ALA headquarters, and those who chaired and otherwise served ad hoc and standing committees. The membership owes its biggest debt of gratitude by far to Beverly Lynch, AC R L’s tireless executive secre­ tary, who worked long, arduous hours on all o f the Association’s projects, traveled ceaselessly on the Association’s behalf, attended meetings interminably, and who deserves the major por­ tion o f the credit for steering the Association through the year. Norman E. Tanis President, ACRL Inside Washington Christopher W right Assistant Director A L A Washington Office Commissioner o f Education Dr. John Ottina had just recommended to the Senate subcom­ mittee that academic library programs be phased out, suggesting that the administration’ s proposed Library Partnership A ct would soon take the place of traditional federal support for libraries. From across the felt-covered table Senator Norris Cotton fixed him with a baleful eye. “ D o you really think it will make any sense to let proven programs die while you wait around for authorization on this?” the New Hampshire Republican asked. The question from the ranking Republican on the Senate’s Subcommittee on Labor–H E W Appropriations underscores the basic problem with the administration’ s sole venture into li­ brary support. T o many people the proposed legislation looks like a diversionary tactic by an administration determined to kill off traditional federal aid to libraries. A draft o f the bill now making the rounds in Washington says its purpose is “ to encourage and support innovation and improvement in li­ brary and other information services and to promote the equalization of access to such ser­ vices within communities and among local, state, and regional jurisdictions through various means, including cooperative activities among libraries and other information resources.” That sounds a great deal like two library pro­ grams already on the books— the research and demonstration part of the Higher Education Act ( H EA II–B ) and the interlibrary coopera­ tion part of the Library Services and Construc­ tion Act (L SC A III). According to the current draft of the bill, money would be designated for: “ ( 1 ) extending library services to the handi­ capped, institutionalized, and economically dis­ advantaged persons and identifying the infor­ mation needs o f such persons; “ ( 2 ) designing and developing interlibrary cooperative services and activities; “ ( 3 ) designing and demonstrating exempla­ ry projects under which libraries may becom e non–traditional community resource centers; “ ( 4 ) integrating library and basic education training services; and “ ( 5 ) demonstrating improved methods of li­ brary administration and fiscal control.” No one can quarrel with a program designed to provide better service to the handicapped or to make libraries into modern, efficient institu­ tions serving schools and communities with added purpose. The problem is not in what the Library Part­ nership Act will do, but in what it will not do if it replaces existing legislation.