ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries


157

tiously can produce some economies. As it is national concern in a manner that is impossible 
s for the membership at large or the divisions to 
r­ do. George Bailey, associate library director, 
te the Claremont Colleges, Claremont, California, 
­ chairs the ad hoc Committee on the D evelop­
, ment o f Chapters in ACRL.

e. As outgoing president, I would like finally 
is to express appreciation on behalf o f the Asso­
is ciation and offer my own warm thanks to the 
t many people who helped make this year the 

successful one that it was: the other officers, the 
s hard working staff at ALA headquarters, and 
f those who chaired and otherwise served ad hoc 

y. and standing committees. The membership 
, owes its biggest debt of gratitude by far to 

s­ Beverly Lynch, AC R L’s tireless executive secre­
ll tary, who worked long, arduous hours on all o f 
r the Association’s projects, traveled ceaselessly 
o 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.
n Norman E. Tanis
d President, ACRL

presently used as a harsh remedy, it threaten
to convert free-standing, self-directing unive
sities and their libraries into homogenized sta
systems. The old faiths o f institutional initia
tive, academic freedom, flexibility of approach
and innovation are being stifled by red tap
Initiative is crippled, ultimate responsibility 
diluted, and true accountability, ironically, 
destroyed— all in the name o f "managemen
overkill.”

To sum up the year, the Association ha
sought ways to respond to the multitude o
problems faced by academic librarians toda
W e have addressed ourselves to some o f them
certainly not all; indeed, some are yet to be di
covered, as Mr. Anderson’s committee wi
doubtless find. Perhaps no demonstration o f ou
efforts to get to the grass roots, to get t
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 ca
meet and discuss matters o f local, regional, an

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.



158

First, it w ou ld  mean the end o f  the familiar 
$5,000 basic grants ( not to m ention supple­
mental and special purpose grants) for academ ­
ic library resources, not a great loss to Yale, but 
a crippling cu t for a private junior colleg e in 
W isconsin. T hen it w ould  mean the end o f  tra­
ditional federal support fo r pu b lic library ser­
v ice  under L S C A  and w o u ld  therefore put a lot 
o f state library agencies and small, undernour­
ished pu b lic libraries ou t o f business.

T h e administration has open ly said it intends 
to cu t o ff these tw o programs. A id for academ ic 
libraries has been  left out o f  the b u d g e t (b u t 
restored b y  C on gress) tw o years in a row ; 
funds for p u b lic library service have been  al­
m ost halved in the b u d g et proposal w ith the 
open  admission that the next step is cutting 
them  out entirely.

That m uch is straight and ab ove-boa rd , co m ­
ing as no surprise to anyone. B ehind this, h o w ­
ever, lies a m ore dangerous provision.

Existing library legislation contains specific 
language m aking it m andatory fo r the govern ­
m ent to distribute a certain proportion o f  the 
m on ey appropriated either directly to the states 
o r to the nation’s institutions o f  higher edu ca ­
tion. Thus libraries are entitled to this m oney 
b y  law , w hatever the personal opinions o f  the 
secretary o f H E W  or the director o f the Office 
o f M anagem ent and B udget m ay be.

H ow ever, the Library Partnership A ct p r o ­
poses that all library funds ( $ 1 5  million in the 
administration’s fiscal year 1975 b u d g et p ro­
posa l) b e distributed at the discretion o f the 
secretary o f  H E W  in the form  o f  individual 
grants and contracts to libraries, state agencies, 
and other relevant institutions.

There is one paragraph, under “ Criteria for 
A pp roval o f A pplications,”  that suggests p r o j­
ects m ight b e chosen w ith an eye to “ the d e ­
gree to w h ich  approval o f the application w ill 
contribute to an equitable distribution o f  the 
funds appropriated under this A ct throughout 
the various regions o f  the country.”  But w hat 
does that m ean?

It seems ungrateful to look this gift horse in 
the m outh, but from  an administration w ith a 
reputation fo r refusing to spend appropriated 
m oney ( “ you call it what y o u  want to, I call it 
im poundm ent,”  Senator W arren M agnuson told 
H E W  officials at an earlier appropriations hear­
ing ) there is preceden t for suspicion.

Yet there are som e g o o d  things in the L i­
brary Partnership A ct. M ost im portant is the 
recogn ition  b y  the administration that it is in 
the national interest to foster interlibrary c o o p ­
eration and to support experiments in library 
service.

A m on g  academ ic libraries federal support for 
interlibrary loan m ay soon b e co m e  essential. 
A cco rd in g  to a report done for the Association 
o f Research Libraries b y  W estat Inc. this F e b ­
ruary, the costs o f  interlibrary loans “ pointed 
to a clear role fo r the federal governm ent to 
equalize access to materials b y  providin g sub­
sidies to the libraries w h ich  n eeded to go 
across state lines to obtain material. T h e role 
o f  national subsidies should b e  carefully c o n ­
sidered in long-range planning fo r an im proved 
IL L  system.”

Similarly, librarians have look ed  to the a d ­
ministration’s proposal as a w a y  around state 
lines in multi-jurisdictional areas such as m et­
ropolitan W ashington, D .C .

T h e problem  is that in b oth  o f these exam ­
ples librarians are looking fo r m ore than funds 
for a single demonstration project. A n d that is 
not w hat the governm ent sees as its role. U nder 
the proposed  act the funds can b e  designated, 
in decreasing proportion to the library’s c o n ­
tribution, fo r as m u ch  as three years. But after 
that w hat? ■ ■

A C R L  M em bership

M ay 31, 1974 ....................... ................  12,483

M ay 31, 1973 ....................... ................  12,100

M ay 31, 1972 ....................... ................  11,313