I ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

PRODUCTION NOTE

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library

Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007.

~ COMMITTEE ' ON THE LIBRARY 1975-76

' . ANNUAL 'REPORT

Two major items preoccupied .t h e Commf.t t ee on the .Library this year, both initfated by two little known sections of the University statutes .l ayi ng out the relationships between the' Senate and its Library Com­mittee and the Lfbrary, " .

1. The Statutes re.quire the Senate Committee on the Library to advise the Chancellor on the appointment of a new ' librarian using thes~me form of words as is used 'i n ·t he discussion of the role of a College ExeeutIve Committee .i n .the appoLntment; of a dean. The committee did so consult ..­although with considerable unease inasmuch as it is .quite c~ear that there is no clear· analogy be~ween this Committee and a college executive committee.

2. The Statutes require that this Committee ·appr ove. the book acquisition budget of the Library. Clearly (given the problems the Library has been

. experiencing in the past year) this responsibility brought the committee . headl~ng into a set of most troubling issues. It fs not clear ~hat approval 6f a book~acquisition budget can mean and, when the ,~ibrary is experiencing problems as .vexing as ' t ho'se it now has, .this 'char ge ' poses difficu'lties for any committee appointed as t hf.s one is and ' as confused as we were about our role responsibilities in this matter. This ' issue has been a constant in the ' life of the committee as it sought to ~ome to terms with what its duties and its responsib.ilit·ies could and might mean'. The

'-~ year e~ded without such an approval being given b~cause the library had no . ~ budget finally approved by the Campus administration and approval will be a responsibility of a new committee •.

.These items gave rise to the third'set of problems that the committee dis­cussed at length during this year. What kind of committee with what kind of membershf.p- can fulfill the significant mandat.es that this cominittee has? It is clear that this committee had little experience in theIl1atter~ it.

'must · ponder and, indeed, little legitimacy of the kind that would be required if we were to seek to perform our tasks as ~erhaps ~e should have . . How can; a committee'~of this kind responsibly advise the Chancellor on the appointment of a Librarian? How can a committee of this kind r espons Lbl,e oversee the collection .budget of a library of this size and complexity? 'I t is clear, we believe, that we cannot perform these functions ~ but if we do not or .

- cannot, what mechanisms exist on the campus .:by wh·ich the community a t large . ·ca~ articulate its concerns about personnel and collection policies? These ' are matters of vital concern 't o all of us, and, clearlYt the statutory ma~- .' cate of the Senate Library Conunitt~e is designed to make it possible for the campus voice to be heard, Butwhf.Le the Senate has by statute the pre­rogatives and powers it would seem to need, it is not clear the Library Com­mittee as at present constituted 18 a 11lecban~81D to do the job.• ' We can issue white pap~r .on the state .·of .t hiDa_ , panGet probl_ andperha~. make some

",:.

' "\,-../ ..

. sensible suggestions, but can we contemplate going beyond' such matters ·t o · advise on the selection of a ' librarian (in the way we are required to) or to approve or reject a given budget?

Obviously these are imponderables which will be packed up agaLn ..and again ' while the campus ' experiences times such 'as those we now bear , And probably they will be explored with the same inconclusiveness that marked our delib­erations during this y~ar -- although we would hope not. The committee ended its year of delib~ration with a · feeling that it has fallert into an . agenda whIch will trake some time 't o resolve and will r equfre the attention of other bodies within the L~brary,'wit~in the administration' and within the Senate before any successful conclusion can be, r eached•..

. .

. The Committe'e' wishes ec acknowledge ' the .assistance given it by ~oberr ~:ram.. Acting Librarian.

. . Respec t fuLLy submitted"

Jackie Anderson Margaret ' Frampton Dale Nelson James Orf Carol Ann Smith, '

;"Wi l ber t Stoecker Ian ·Westbury (Chairman) Donna Zu~n. · . Robert .Oram .(ex-officio)

. ~ ' . .

, 'j , '

Co,lIege of Engineering 144 Mechanical Engin••ringBuilding Urbana, Illinois 61801DEPARTMENT O'F MECHANICAL , (217) 333·1176

\...- AND INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING

, 30 September 76

To: S~nate Library Committee H. W. Beecher, 226 Mumford R. McColley, 412 Gregory Hall D. R.Nel'son, 206 Large An". Clinic " James Orf,SI08, Turner Hall Roberta Herman, 1110 W. Nevada, U. I. ·We s t bury , 381 Educ • Bldg•. H. Atkinson, 230 ,Li br ary ~B. Oram, 230 'Li br ary

From: w. Stoecker'AW126 Mech. Engr. Bldg.

'CORRECTED 1976 ANNUAL REPORT

I am enclosing a revised copy ot the Annual ,Repor t to be 8ubmittedto the Senate. I hope tha~ I have changed the wording so that the description of our activities corresponds -wi t h the statutes, but please read the draft carefully" and let me know by October 8it any problems still 'exi s t .

P.s. Next meeting of committee : . Tuesday" October 26 ,3" pm, Room. .428, Library,

. ~ '.

. ANNUAL REPORT

LB. 76. 3 October 1976 Corrected Copy - Paragraph 2

Two major items preoccupied the Committee on the Library this year, both initiated by two Htt'le-known sections of the lhiversity Statutes laying out the relationships between the Senate and its Library Committee and the Library.

1. The Statutes require the Senate Coimnittee on the Library to advise the Chancellor on the appointment of a 'new librarian using the same for-m of words as is used in the discussion of the role of a Col.le ge Executive Conunittee in the appointm.ent of a dean. The comrni.ttee did so consult- ­a.Ithough with considerable unease inasmuch as it is quite clear that there is no clear analogy between this Committee and a college executive com- . mtttee;

2. ' T h e Statutes requir;e that this Comrnittee advise the director regarding the apportiomnent of book funds. Clearly (given the problems the Library has been experiencing in thepa st year) this responsibility brought the com­mittee headlong into a set of most troubling issues. It is not cle.ar what advising on the apportioning of book funds can mean and, when the library

",---" . is experiencing problems as vexing as those it now has, this charge poses difficulties for any comrnittee appointed as this one is and as confused as we"were about our role responsibilities in this matter. This issue has been a constant in the life of the committee as it sought to come to terms ' with what its duties and Lts responsibilitie..s could and might mean:

These items gave .~

rise to the third set of problems that the committee dis­cussed at Length during this year. What kind of .committee with what kind of membership can fulfill the .significant mandates that this committee has? It is clear that this committee had little experience in the matters it must ponder and, Indeed, little legitimacy.of the .kind that would be r equi r ed if.­we were to seek to perform our tasks as perhaps we should have. How can a committee of this kind responsibly advise the Chancellor on the appoi.nt-: ,

. ' ine n t of a Librarian? ' How can a committee ofthi s 'kind r e aponsibly oversee the collection budget of a library of this size and complexity? It is clear, we believe, that we cannot perform these ' functions - but if we do not or cannot, what mechanisms exist on the campus ,by which the conununity at large can articulate its concer-ns about personnel and collection policies? These are matters of vital concern to all of ~s,. and, clearly, the statutory mandate of the Senate Library Comm.ittee is designed to make Ltpossfble for the campus voice to be h.a~d. .. But while the Senate baa by statute the

. prerogatives and powers i~woulcl seem. to need, it ia not clear the Library Co~itteea·s at present constituted is arnechanisIn to do the job. We can i88uewhite paper on the state of thina., poDderproblem.8 and. perhaps make 80Ineaenaible suggestion., 'b1ltc•• ftcontexnplate going beyoDd such matters

to advise' on the selection of a librarian (in the way we are required to) or to,approve or reject a given budget?

Obviously these are trnponde r-ab'le s which will be picked up again and again while the campus experiences times such as those w.e now bear. And probably they will be explored with the ' sarne Inconcluaivenes s that marked our delib­erations during this year - - although we would hope not. The com.mittee ended its year of deliberation with a 'feeling that it has fallen into an agenda which will take some time to r e solve and will require the attention of other bodies within the Library, within the administration and within the ' Senate before any successful conclusion can be reached.

The Committee wishes to acknowledge the assistance given it by Robert Oram., Actin~J.Librarian.

Respectfully submitted,

Jackie Anderson Margaret Frampton Dale Nelson Jame a Orf Carol Ann Smith Wilbert -St oe cke r

. Ian We s tbury( Chai rman) Donna Zuxan . Robert Oram (ex~officio)

..