REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE
ON EVALUATION OF THE LIBRARY MANAGEMENT
POLICIES AND PRACTICES
Dr. Stanley S. Ballard
Dr. T. Walter Herbert
Dr. Robert B. Mautz, Chairman
April 29, 1982
Dr. Robert A. Bryan
Vice President for Academic Affairs
235 Tigert Hall
Dear Dr. Bryan:
Transmitted under cover of this letter is the unanimous
report of the Task Force appointed by your memorandum of
March 23, 1982 to evaluate management policies and practices
in the University Libraries.
Although the Task Force members believe that submission
of the report completes their obligation, we will be pleased
to aid the University in any way we can. We stand ready to
respond to questions or to elaborate upon any aspect of our
report. As is the case with all reports of extensive investi-
gations, this report is a distillation representing our
judgment as to significant findings with sufficient information
included to bring understanding to those conclusions.
Stanley S. allard
T. Walter Herbert
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
182 Grinter Hall, Gainesville, Florida 32611
A Task Force was appointed by the Vice President for Academic Affairs
for the purpose of evaluating the management policies and practices of the
library of the University of Florida. The Task Force proceeded with its
investigation principally through interviews of administrators, library
users, and library staff. A total of fifty-nine individuals were contacted
or extensively interviewed. The Task Force found that, although the library
has serious problems and will soon face a crisis, those problems are not
the result of mismanagement. On the contrary, the Task Force was impressed
with the dedication, professional knowledge and ability of the Director
and professional staff of the library.
The library is inadequately serving important segments of the University.
The inadequacy results principally from over a decade of no growth in
space and very little growth in staff. Thus the library has not kept
pace with a growing collection, changing demands, and increasing number
of students and faculty. This situation has come about in part because
the Director has not with sufficient vigor brought to top level University
administrators an understanding of the increasing distress of the library.
Through failure to communicate and involve users in helping to solve
problems, library management has contributed to a growing chasm of
misunderstanding and frustration on the part of the principal users of
the book and serial collections.
Although the highest level of frustration with the library is
concentrated in the user group which relies upon bound periodicals and
books, discontent with the functioning of the library is widespread and
growing. The forward thrust of the University is now threatened by years
of inattention to the personnel and space requirements of the library.
Unless corrective action is inaugurated soon, a crisis will become a
Specific changes in management practices on the part of the Library
Director are needed. Short-range and long-term programs to be announced
by the President of the University are suggested as essential to
continued progress of the University and to remedy a condition which
threatens to thwart its aspirations.
REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON EVALUATION
OF THE LIBRARY MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES
A Task Force consisting of Drs. Stanley S. Ballard, T. Walter
Herbert and Robert B. Mautz was appointed by a memorandum from Vice
President Robert A. Bryan dated March 23, 1982. The Task Force was
charged with the evaluation of management policies and practices in
the University Libraries (Appendix A). Accompanying the memorandum
was a report of the Faculty Educational Policy Group (FEPG) to President
Robert Marston dated February 23, 1982; a letter dated March 10, 1982
from Dr. Bernard T. Paris to President Robert Marston; a response
dated March 18, 1982 by Dr. Gustave Harrer, Director of the Libraries;
and a report dated March 15, 1982 from Dr. Roberto Triggiani, Chairman
of the Library Planning Committee of the College of Liberal Arts and
Sciences to Dean Charles Sidman of that college. Those documents are
included in Appendix A. The Task Force concluded, after reading the charge
and the attachments, that it should proceed by interviewing a cross-
section of principal users of the library and, following that, interview
the Library Director, his immediate associates, and a cross-section of
the professional staff of the library.
The Task Force interviewed twenty-four faculty members er administrators.
An additional twelve faculty members were contacted or interviewed by
less than the entire Task Force making a total of thirty-six users
(Appendix B). The current Chairman of the Library Committee and all
past Chairmen still on the campus or living in Gainesville were included.
The Chairman of the Faculty Educational Policy Group as well as other
individuals who had chaired or were part of committees or organizations
which had worked with the library or had been concerned with aspects of
its activities were also interviewed.
The Task Force decided to concentrate its time on those individuals
who were the principal users of the main library since the alleged faculty
discontent concentrated on that library. To this end, chairmen of most
of the departments in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences were asked
to either appear or nominate someone from their departments who would be
willing to help the Task Force discharge its duties. In many instances,
the chairmen appeared. In others, the library representative of the
department or an important user was nominated by the chairman. In some
instances, the individual representing the department had polled members
of the department to obtain information to be presented to the Task Force.
In addition, a number of productive scholars who rely upon the library
for research purposes were invited to appear before the Task Force.
The Task Force decided that little would be gained in terms of insight
into the problems of the main library by talking extensively to members of
departments served through branch libraries or the so-called satellite
libraries which receive special appropriations. Their operations are
of a different magnitude from those of the main library and for this and
other reasons their problems were not explored by the Task Force.
After obtaining insight into the problems of the library as perceived
by the users, the Task Force then proceeded to talk with the Director and
the Associate and Assistant Directors. Heads of some branch libraries
were interviewed. A cross-section of professional library staff appeared
before the Task Force, which concentrated its attention on representatives
for the library departments which were the cause of many of the user
complaints. A total of twenty-three library professional employees
were interviewed (Appendix C).
The Task Force acquainted each of those interviewed with the nature
of its charge. Most of the librarians appearing before the Task Force
were familiar with the memorandum establishing the Task Force and the
accompanying documents. The Task Force therefore opened the interviews
of librarians with a brief summary of findings as to user complaints.
In the case of the Director, a more complete statement was given so that
he would have an opportunity to respond in detail.
The Task Force interviewed each user and principal member of the
library staff for one hour. For the Director of the Library, the
interview lasted three hours. All of the individuals appearing
before the Task Force were given assurances of confidentiality in
attribution of specific remarks. At the same time, they were informed
that the report would include a list of those who had agreed to appear
before the Task Force. The Task Force physically inspected Libraries
West and East and Flint Hall during a tour that lasted more than two
hours. The Task Force spent approximately eighty hours interviewing
individuals in person, and.infrequently by telephone. Substantial written
material was provided to the Task Force. In addition to summary operating
budgets and budget requests of the library and information as to the
rating of the library in various categories by various organizations,
the Task Force members read the annual reports and allocation documents
of the Library Advisory Committee and reports of the various departments
of Liberal Arts and Sciences to the Dean concerning the library and
prepared for the visit by the Southern Association of Colleges and
Universities. Numerous other documents and written information were
provided to the Task Force by those who appeared before it either at the
initiative of the individual or at the request of the Task Force.
The Task Force decided that further interviews would serve no
purpose since they were becoming repetitive and would not be helpful
to it in arriving at its conclusions. The Task Force is satisfied that
it has obtained enough information to enable it to discharge its
obligations and to present a balanced picture.
Current problems of the library should be placed in the context
of events over a period of time. The University of Florida operates a
highly decentralized library system. Three satellite libraries serve
the Law School, Health Center, and IFAS. The Health Center Library is
the subject of a separate appropriation. The Appropriation Act has, in
recent years, earmarked funds for the Law Library, so that the central
library serves as a passthrough and exercises no discretion as to the
amount of those funds. Hume Library, which serves IFAS, has in the
past received a portion of its budget from the main library, although
the IFAS budget is an appropriation separate from the one which supports
the central campus and the main library. In 1981-82, with the termination
of special appropriations for acquisitions, that support ceased.
The main library maintains a number of branch libraries and reading
rooms. Most of the professional schools including Architecture, Education,
and Music have their own libraries. Chemistry enjoys a separate library.
Physics is served by the Engineering and Physics library. In addition,
reading rooms are maintained in many colleges and departments. Most
of the professional schools and the hard sciences, therefore, are served
by physically separate library facilities which meet the immediate needs
of their faculty and graduate students by maintaining specialized
collections including current materials such as periodicals. They are
conveniently located for users, possess relatively small collections, have
relatively few users, are operated by librarians who have slight
supervision from the main library and who adjust policies to their users'
needs with little reference to the main library. They are dependent upon
the main library for services such as acquisitions and cataloging,
but are granted a budget which permits them to operate at some distance
from the main library. They are intertwined and dependent upon the
main library but in the eyes of users independent of it. All appear
to serve users well with the exception of Hume, which has been the subject
of a separate report. If service is less than ideal, the close relationship
between a small group of users and the library staff imparts understanding
Library West was conceived as a major addition to the University of
Florida library system. It was designed as the first step in creating
a graduate research library for the Social Sciences and Humanities.
Library East was to become the undergraduate library of the University
with extensive reading rooms and study areas. Construction of the existing
Library West was the first step of a three-step process designed to
provide adequate library space for a growing University which was placing
increasing emphasis on its research and graduate programs. Library West
was built largely as it was conceived. Only a relatively slight reduction
in space was necessary because of inflation and a diminished budget. The
completion of Library West in April of 1967 was to be followed almost
immediately by the second step, which was planning for and construction of
a Central Science Library. The third step was to augment the limited
stack space in Library West by a major addition which was to occupy much
of what is now the parking lot between Library West and University Avenue.
The building was sited with that addition in mind.
Contrary to expectations, however, no additional space has been
added to the main library since the completion of Library West in the
early spring of 1967.
During the fifteen years in which the main library has operated in
quarters that were considered barely adequate when completed, massive
changes have occurred which have increased the demands upon the library
space beyond the expectations which existed in 1967. Because the present
Director arrived in 1968 and that year was the first fiscal year in
which the library operated with two main buildings, the Task Force for
comparative purposes looked at the fourteen year period from 1968 to
1982. During that time, the student body grew from 20,769 to 33,522 or
61%. The faculty increased from 2,037 to 2,529 or 24%. The books and
periodicals in the library increased from approximately 1.3 million to
2.2 million or 69% (Appendix D).
As important as the changes in the demands upon the library brought
about through increases in numbers, however, were the changes in character
of the demands. The library became a major repository for data in new
and different forms. An example is the tapes purchased by the library
from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. This addition converted the library
into a regional rather than a local resource with a consequent substantial
expansion of demands upon it. In other areas of information, it has
become a statewide rather than a campus service institution and in some
areas its specialties make it a national resource.
The changing nature of the University community has increased the
demands upon the library. The recent drive to assure a productive
research faculty, for example, has increased the demands upon the library
enormously. The arrival of distinguished scholars with their graduate
students and research assistants adds yet another dimension.
Fluctuations in the amount of money available for purchases have
presented additional problems. Amounts have moved yo-yo fashion from
budgets which barely sustained current accessions to budgets which
permitted massive purchases of rare and valuable books and the filling
of gaps in the University's collections.
Automation has altered the character of the operation of the library
and the demands upon the staff. Librarians have had to retrain and space
had to be found in which to place equipment. An important aspect of the
library services now consists of preparing for still greater automation
of operations in such areas as circulation. All of these changes not
only make new and different demands upon staff, they demand diversion of
staff from current duties to the implementation of automation. As a
generalization, it is believed that automation has enhanced or speeded
service available from the library but has not decreased demands upon
During this period, the professional staff of the library increased
from 57 to 61, and the Career Service staff increased from 89.5 to 101.
Thus, the total staff grew from 146.5 FTE to 162 FTE for a total addition
of 15.5 FTE's, an increase of only 11% (Appendix D). The OPS budget is
even more of a disaster story. In 1968/69, the budget was $101,000 and
the average wage paid per hour was $1.35. Thus approximately 75,000 hours
of work were available to the library. In 1981/82, the total OPS budget,
including QIP funds of $22,700,.was $135,700. The average wage is $3.40.
This total would purchase approximately 40,000 hours. The library has
supplemented its OPS funds with college work-study students and thus has
a total of 79,500 hours of work available (Appendix D). The library staff
members to whom the Task Force talked were almost unanimous in believing
that most work-study students are less motivated, require more training,
and are less conscientious in performing their duties than are non-work-study
employees. Thus the above comparison of hours available does not address
the question of quality. OPS employees are used primarily for reshelving,
and the library estimates they must reshelve over 1,100,000 books each
year. Some idea of the demand upon the library may be gained from the
fact that three million users entered Libraries East and West last year.
The shortage of staff can be illustrated by comparing the staffing
of the University of Florida with the median staff of libraries in the
Association of Research Libraries (ARL). That comparison would indicate
that our library is short 107 positions. The Washington formula, which is
widely used to judge library needs, produces a shortage of 110 positions
Some idea of the shortage of seating capacity resulting from the
growth of faculty, students, and collections may be gained from comparing
current seating capacity at the University of Florida Libraries with the
actual average seating capacity of libraries in the ARL and the seating
capacity which the Washington formula produces for the University of Florida.
Under both comparisons, the University of Florida is approximately 2,000
seats short. In 1972, Libraries East and West had 2,390 seats for student
use. These have been reduced by 775 in order to accommodate new materials
and now number 1,615. They will be further reduced by 30 seats in May
Some of the apparent additions to staff which occurred during the
period are illusory. Some additions were a prerequisite for obtaining
special collections which, however welcome, do not address the staffing
problems created by the changes outlined above.
The library has been subject to federal, state, and University
policies such as Affirmative Action, OSHA, and grievance procedures
which have diverted resources from the primary functions of the library.
However desirable and laudable the social goals of the various programs
may be, their implementation requires staff time, training programs,
money, space, and long search procedures not compensated for by additions
to staff, budget, or space.
In addition to the problems created by lack of space and inadequate
staff, the salaries of library personnel have not kept pace with general
University salary levels. Librarians are professionals. Most of them
have at least one master's degree, and many of them double master's
degrees in a subject specialty and library science.
That librarian salaries have failed to keep pace with national
trends is buttressed by the ranking of the University of Florida Library
as 85th out of 101 libraries in a comparison of median salaries of
professional employees of members of ARL. In terms of beginning professional
salaries, the University ranks 91st of 101 (Appendix F). The median
salary at the University of Florida may be influenced by the inclusion of
Law and Health Center data, units not included in the figures of many ARL
members. Thus median salaries in the main library may be lower than 85th.
The Viewpoint of the Users
Substantial agreement exists among the users that the University of
Florida library has a satisfactory collection. Although gaps exist here
and there for a number of reasons including the lack of an adequate
oversight acquisitions staff, some gaps are anticipated in a library of
the size of that of the University of Florida, and indeed in all libraries.
Further agreement exists that some of the collections are outstanding
and rank nationally and internationally as the best or among the best.
The Latin American Collection, for example, is nationally recognized,
and the Caribbean portion of that collection is without peer. The Map
Collection and the Public Documents section are outstanding. Other points
of brilliance exist. Such collections are, in the main, housed in
physically identifiable areas to which access is controlled. Librarians
are assigned specifically to the curating of those collections, and
receive high praise on all fronts from users.
Users interviewed are in general agreement, however, that the
library as a whole fails to function satisfactorily as an information
retrieval mechanism. In presenting their views to the Task Force, some
users displayed a rarely witnessed passion, vehemence, and level of
frustration. Many of those appearing before the Task Force brought
specific evidence of the general failures of which the library is accused.
Some of these examples were single incidents, others were more inclusive.
One user, for example, brought to the Task Force a bibliography of eighty
titles which he had sought as the basis for a research project. He
regarded the bibliography as one which did not contain unusual or rare
monographs. He cited a serious record of failure to locate the items,
a failure rate of approximately 20% over a period of approximately five
months of effort. The failure rate resulted from many causes, including
inability to locate books, inability to obtain items through interlibrary
loans, refusal of faculty to return books which were charged to them. The
user stated that he did not believe a library which had a failure rate
of this magnitude was entitled to be called a research library. That
statement is representative of charges leveled by'users many of whom,
although not all, cited specific incidents.
Complaints as to the failure of the library as an information retrieval
mechanism took many forms. They may be grouped under the general
headings of: 1) failure to acquire and catalog promptly,
2) mis-shelved and therefore lost books, 3) books cataloged but not
available, 4) ineffectiveness of interlibrary loan operations,
5) vandalized items and misbound periodicals, and 6) failure to
display new books and periodicals so that faculty can browse'.
A second set of complaints concerned the impossibility or
inconvenience of working in the library. These complaints generally
centered around the dual cataloging system (Dewey decimal and Library
of Congress); the separation of collections between Library East
and West; the maintenance of the card catalog in Library West whereas
the bulk of the books are in Library East; crowded, dirty, hot and
unpleasant working conditions; lack of working space; and similar
Users concerned with recruiting believe that the condition of
the library will constitute a hurdle in an attempt to recruit for
the newly established endowed Chairs in the English and History
Departments. Department chairmen and others expressed similar reserva-
tions with respect to an attempt to recruit senior faculty with
Users readily acknowledged that they contribute to the difficulties
of the library by in effect building their own office or home libraries
with library holdings. This practice resulted, they allege, from the
uncertainty of being able to retrieve a book from the library once the
book had been returned. Faculty acknowledge their consternation, concern,
and regret over the practices into which they believed they were forced
by their obligations to their students and their own research. Until
the library functions as an effective retrieval mechanism, they alleged
they would continue to withhold books even though a request for recall
was received by them. In this connection, one incident was related in
which a number of books were evidently intentionally mis-shelved in
order to be available to the user. To any other user, the books would
have been "lost" since they could not have been found through use of the
catalog and normal search.
Users praised certain aspects of the main library's operation.
The Map and Public Document Collections, the special collections and the
Latin American Room serve users well, and the physical surroundings are
pleasant and working conditions good.
Very little understanding of and therefore sympathy for the problems
besetting the library exist among the users. The conditions giving rise
to the complaints were frequently attributed by users to the failures of
top management. This reaction was not unanimous, but represents the
sentiment of the majority of users who talked to the Task Force. Within
that majority, opinions as to the competence of management range widely.
Several users expressed the belief that, although they recognize that
some of management's problems stem from the lack of resources, they
thought that existing management does not have the capacity to use
additional money or people for the maximum benefit of users. Several
indicated that the priorities of the management of the library were not
the priorities of the faculty users. Others simply assumed that poor
management must account for the present faults of the library.
Several of the users have lost confidence in the Director because
he has not demonstrated aggressive leadership in advancing the cause of
the library in competition for funds with other administrators on the
campus. They view him as a "survivor" who will not fight aggressively
for the library and whose style of management is to be agreeable rather
than to attempt to solve difficult problems.
Top management of the University is faulted for neglecting the
library and placing the solution of its problems in a low priority.
The uncertainty of support for the proposed Central Science Library,
declining acquisition funds and "call backs" from library book money are
all read as signals of a lack of commitment to and understanding of the
necessity of building a quality library to undergird the aspirations of
The Perspective of the Librarians
There are, as might be expected, differences in perceptions between
the Director of the library and his immediate associates on one hand and
the remainder of the library staff on the other. The former view the
problems of the library as a result of growth in demands upon the library
without concomitant increases in space and staff. They believe that they
have been ingenious in solving problems which have enabled the library
to operate at a level beyond expectations considering the constraints.
They believe they have managed extremely scarce resources in a manner
which balances competing essential needs. An example of the competing
demands is the request from the Department of Mathematics for display
of recent periodicals which could only be granted by reducing study
space available to students. They consider the long hours of planning
and sacrifice which they have given to the library for marginal
remuneration as unappreciated and unrewarded. They are amazed at the
widespread lack of knowledge as to the resources made available to them.
They cannot understand the lack of support for the management in view
of their accomplishments with the limited personnel and space available.
They believe that they have demonstrated their aggressiveness and
far-sightedness in automating the library, in the creative use of space,
in the obtaining of major collections, in the expeditious and wise use
of a major acquisition budget thrust suddenly upon them and required to
be expended within a short period of time, in obtaining grants, particularly
the largest grant (Cooperative Serials Project) ever obtained by a library,
and in other significant but less obvious steps taken to advance the
collections of the library and turn it into one of the major research
libraries of the United States.
The Assistant and Associate Directors evidence an intense loyalty to
and respect for the Director,'both as a person and as a librarian. They
are proud of their staff and its collective accomplishments in the light
of poor working conditions, low salaries, and inadequate resources.
(Appendix G lists developments and accomplishments prepared by the Director.)
They believe that the backlog in cataloging is less than might be
expected for alIibrary with the sizable acquisition program which the
University of Florida has enjoyed over the past few years, the shortage of
staff, and the turnover in temporary staff. They view as normal the processing
time for the acquisition and shelving of books likely to have a current
demand. They acknowledge a large backlog of material for which there
is not likely to be current demand, but believe most libraries which
receive large collections process such collections over a period of time.
They are convinced that their foresight in joining the Ohio Computer Library
Center/Southern Library Network (OCLC/SOLINET) is a major factor contributing
to the speed of cataloging.
The shelving problem is more complex. They have been aware of
shelving problems for some time. They did not realize the extent of the
disorder but contend, and have statistics to back up their contentions,
that faculty have overstated the number of books mis-shelved. They
attribute mis-shelving to the inability to maintain a physically separate
undergraduate library, the consequent open stacks, and mis-shelving by
users who attempt to replace books. In addition, as the amount of available
OPS money has effectively decreased, increasing numbers of work-study
students have been utilized for shelving. On the whole, the staff believes
that these students do not have the same motivation or standards as the
workers obtained through OPS funds. Even though the decreased quality of
student help would dictate increased quality controls, the lack of OPS
money has actually caused a decrease in such controls. For example, lack
of funds prevents consistent shelf reading of the stacks. They point out
with pride that much of the labor used for the extraordinary reading
campaign now underway results from voluntary effort by professional staff
and is in addition to normal working hours. A two percent shelving error
rate is being found. This figure may increase as stacks which are heavily
used are read, or decrease as stacks which are lightly used are read, but
a major change is not anticipated. The librarians view the figure of two
percent as undesirable but not abnormal in libraries which have open stacks.
They recognize that so long as open stacks exist without adequate personnel
to monitor them, the situation will again deteriorate. To close the stacks
would further deprive students of already minimal study spaces and present
additional problems to the staff. The libraries are constructed so that
closing stacks would also be difficult and expensive.
The Library of Congress cataloging plan was adopted in 1977. The
reasons for its adoption were numerous. One of them, however, was to enable
the library to utilize shelf space which otherwise would have been maintained
for expansion. The packing of the shelves with books indexed under the Dewey
decimal system and the use of separate shelf areas for books indexed under
the Library of Congress system sometimes dictated split collections. The
decision, with resulting inconvenience, has led to much faculty complaint.
It would cost approximately ten million dollars to convert the books now
cataloged under the Dewey decimal system to Library of Congress system, and
the space problem would be aggravated. Dual classification systems
are not uncommon (Appendix H). It is conceded, however, that when space
permits and when funds are available, some of the collections should probably
be unified through a uniform cataloging system. Again, however, the question
in the eyes of the library staff is one of priorities. If catalogers are
diverted from accessioning books as they flow into the library, then the
backlog of uncataloged material will grow.
The interlibrary loan problem is aggravated by lack of funds. Those
libraries which charge for interlibrary loans are normally placed at the
bottom of a search list. This basic delay occurs because of the process
used in interlibrary loan acquisitions. A manual search involves writing
to a library and waiting for a response. If the correspondent library
responds that a requested book is not available or circumstances prevent
lending the book, then an inquiry goes to a second library. The response
may be delayed while the correspondent searches for the book or attempts
to recall it. The request process is repeated until the book is finally
obtained. One instance was cited in which the ninth library contacted
released the book, and many libraries delayed their response. The search
process took almost a year. An automated and rapid search and request
occurs through the use of OCLC/SOLINET. It is both the difference in
search procedures and in response time in a manual search which undoubtedly
accounts for some of the contradictory nature of users' comments with respect
to their satisfaction or lack thereof with interlibrary loans. The
automated search process, which now has limited capacity, will increase
and should substantially reduce response time.
The Director and his associates provided responses to a number of
specific complaints about management practices such as frequent absences
from campus by the Director. In the opinion of the Task Force, those
complaints are without foundation in fact.
The reaction of library staff to management practices affecting them
varied considerably. On the whole, considering the crowded physical conditions
under which the staff works, their low salaries, and the demands placed upon
them because of understaffing, morale is remarkably high. -That is not
to say that it is uniformly good, nor would it be expected that all staff
manifest the same loyalty to the Director as do the Assistant and Associate
Librarians, nor respond favorably to him as a manager.
Many staff members expressed a sense of lack of participation arising
from the management style of the Director. He delegates readily, and is
available to staff to discuss single problems. What is lacking in their
eyes is an opportunity to participate in management decisions. Those who
believe they can make a contribution to problem solving or improve the
operation of the library in their area of expertise in small but significant
ways feel isolated and under-used. Staff meetings are not frequent and serve
principally as a convenient way to pass along information. There is, therefore,
a sense of "hollowness" on the part of some and a lack of a sense of direction.
The Task Force believes that the University is fortunate in the dedication,
knowledge and ability of the Director and his associates. Under adverse
circumstances, an experienced, well-trained, hard-working, and competent staff
of professional librarians assures the functioning of the library. Most of
the problems the library faces arise from the fact that operating resources
have not been commensurate with the growth of the faculty, student body,
collections, complexity of information, automation, nor to the addition of
constituencies not previously served. The staff, including the Director,
have been ingenious in utilizing resources to meet these growing and
added responsibilities. Morale has been maintained under extraordinarily
difficult circumstances. Some of the problems have been self-inflicted.
Special collections which serve limited audiences have drained space and
people as well as acquisition funds from the general operation of the
library. Time may well prove these additions to have been brilliant by
adding to the strength of the library far beyond their immediate and
short range cost. New specialized collections should be added only with
caution and after analysis of the impact upon the discharge of the central
responsibilities of the library, until such time as space and personnel
permit an aggressive acquisitions program.
A broad and widening chasm exists between the users and the upper
echelons of library management. The causes of this are many, but have an
important root in the gradual centralization of decision-making and a
failure to communicate understanding to the faculty by involving them in
the decision-making process. This lack of participation has led to misunder-
standing and suspicion. The chasm between the users and the library
administration has lately widened into a "them and us" controversy on the
part of some, with unseemly name calling and finger pointing.
An example of the centralization and exclusion of the faculty from
the decision-making process is manifest in the history of the changing role
of the Library Advisory Committee. Until 1968, the Library Committee met
frequently for long hours with the Director and members of the staff. Few
policy decisions were made without consultation with the Committee. The
Committee presented its various recommendations concerning the library,
including the budget, to the University Senate for approval. Acquisition
budgets were frequently the subject of protracted debate in the Senate.
From those debates arose understanding of the system and the reasons for
allocations. Expenditure of special category unallocated funds was the
result of a joint decision by the Executive Committee of the Library
Committee and the Director of the libraries. A report as to how those funds
were spent was made to the full Committee.
The contrast between those and the current practices could not be more
stark. The single meeting of the Library Advisory Committee which occurred
in the academic year 1981-82 was in November. At that time, an Associate
Director of the library met with the Committee to inform members of the
Committee of the allocation of funds in accordance with a formula approved
by the Committee at a much earlier date. What occurred at that meeting is in
dispute. Whatever was said, most of the individuals to whom the Task Force
talked, including the Chairman of the Library Advisory Committee, believed
that in effect the Committee was told that the funds theoretically allocated
to each department for monographs were previously committed and thus
some departments would have no funds for the purchase of books during the
1981/82 fiscal year. The Chairman of the Committee wrote to the Vice
President for Academic Affairs on October 27, 1982:
"The University Libraries Committee met today for its usual
fall meeting and the main business item on its agenda was
the allocation of the 1981-82 E. and G. budget. As you
already know, the allocation itself had to amount to an
exercise in futility since the entire book budget for the
current FY had already been spent or encumbered for standing
orders and serials."
The Director and his immediate associates are at a loss to understand
how this version of the meeting could exist, and they maintain vigorously
that funds are available for the purchase of books and are in fact being
so used. The misunderstanding extends beyond the Library Committee. One
department chairman, for example, said that he could not understand how
the library operated, since he was informed that no money was available
to purchase books, but his requisitions for new books were being honored.
Other evidences of misunderstanding and lack of appreciation for
the quality and dedication of the library staff exist. Nor is this lack
of understanding confined to the faculty. As already stated, many of
the library staff share in the sense of lack of participation and lack
of knowledge. It is obvious, therefore, that the Director and his
immediate associates must devote a substantial amount of attention to
the question of communications.
A proposed faculty newsletter is by no means the total answer, although
it may help. A change in the composition of the Library Committee so
that a larger percentage of members consists of research scholars who are
frequent users of the library, and subsequent heavy involvement of that
group in decision-making, might be an important part of a broad response.
Another partial answer might be a restructuring of the staff meetings so
that the equivalent of Japanese work groups or work circles existed and
The Director and his immediate associates must take a series of steps
which will result in collegial decision-making. Active participation is a
road to arriving at understanding on the part of both library staff and
users of the library as to the very serious nature of the problems facing
the library and the difficulty of reconciling competing demands with scarce
resources. From involvement of users will also arise an appreciation of
the talent and dedication that is enjoyed by the University in the form
of its library staff.
The greatest institution in the world which alienated its constituents
would have difficulty performing a mission of service. In effect, the
process of alienation has begun on the campus and advanced to an alarming
extent. A priority of utmost importance on the part of the director and
his immediate staff must be to reverse that process.
The Director appears to rely upon a management style which is
essentially reactive except in the area of automation where foresight and
aggressiveness have been shown, and in responding to opportunities for
important acquisitions. Management needs to think broadly of the future
and to plan for it. It must conceive, establish, and broadcast goals
based upon presumed rates of acquisition, growth in staff, growth in
the student body, and the rapid transformation of the means of storing
and transmitting information from a large body of data. It is entirely
probable that many periodicals will follow the path of the Bureau
of the Census, the National Center for Education Statistics, and other
major information collection and dissemination organizations by storing
information on data tapes and distributing the tapes instead of printed
material. Only limited amounts of such material will be in serial or
book form. The growing astronomical cost of publishing on paper as compared
to the decreasing costs of storing information through electronic technology
and retrieving it through the same means will lead to such a result. In
pointing to the future, the library must take such changes into account and
work with knowledgeable faculty both to gain and to give understanding.
Those who reject planning because plans are never realized with
exactitude are proposing the alternative of drift, and drift is unacceptable
for the library of a major University.
These two major management failures are correctible by present
management. The Task Force does not intend by its specific recommendations
to confine management in its responses to the needs expressed. Rather
they are suggestions designed to point the way.
Some internal management problems of the library need to be addressed.
A Deputy Director should be appointed who can speak for the Director and
who can complement the Director in management style. Such an individual
could organize a Personnel Office and perform other desirable management
tasks. In addition, he could perform or allocate tasks which now seem to
fall between the assigned responsibilities in the existing organization.
Reflections and Conclusions
The University is facing a crisis with repsect to its library. Before
new space can be completed, it is probable that existing unused shelving
will have been exhausted. Installation of additional shelves will result
in fewer study areas for students and faculty. Service will continue to-
deteriorate. Frustration on the part of the faculty will mount. The
library, especially Library East, will remain dirty and appear unkempt. In
the words of a student, the library will remain a "zoo". In the words of
a research assistant, it will continue as "the pits".
It is clear that existing and mounting frustration is likely to
hinder the recruitment of faculty talent of the stature now being sought
by the University. The Task Force cannot emphasize too strongly the
level of frustration on the part of those users of the library who
appeared before it. It is evident from remarks made to the Task Force
by faculty and administrators that recruiting for the newly established
Chairs in History and English will face some unexpected hurdles. For
example, a high level of dissatisfaction exists among some of the
recently recruited senior faculty because of the frustrations with
respect to the library.
The discontent is centered largely around those who rely upon
material published in the past. These groups are concentrated in the
Humanities, in departments such as History, English, and Classics.
Those who use the satellite and branch libraries, who rely upon specialized
collections such as Maps or Public Documents, or who are concerned
principally with information contained in recent periodicals are not
seriously touched by the problems of the main library, except with
respect to funds. They are, therefore, relatively immune from
frustration and relatively satisfied. On the other hand, some of those
units are beginning to run into space problems and experience staffing
shortages which prevent rapid reshelving and maintaining an open
library at hours convenient to users.
In addition, a recent request for review of periodicals as a way
of determining whether the subscription list can be reduced has generated
apprehension. The library may, if it does not receive sufficient funds, be
in the difficult position of cancelling subscriptions, particularly in
those instances in which duplicate issues are on the campus. At best this
would inconvenience users and result in spread of the frustration which now
exists in parts of the campus.
It would be a mistake, however, to leave the impression that natural
scientists do not use the library outside of the periodical rooms or are
not concerned about its future. The Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin
is more than one hundred twenty-five years old. The recent contretemps
over the display of mathematical periodicals led to misunderstanding and
dissatisfaction with the operation of the library on the part of mathematicians,
however that discipline is classified. More significantly, the unanimous
recommendation of the committee charged with exploring the desirability of
a Central Science Library can be read as an expression of apprehension on the
part of scientists with respect to the future and their dissatisfaction with
some aspects of the current operations. Likewise the dissatisfaction with
the operations of Hume in all manifestations constitutes a signal that
scientists are becoming increasingly touched by growing library problems.
Thus, although the current outcry may well have been precipitated by
the faculty of the Classics, Humanities, and a few of the Social Science
departments because of apprehension with respect to ability to acquire
books this year, it is not correct to infer that frustration and apprehension
is confined to those departments. The Dean of the College of Liberal Arts
and Sciences stated that a growing number of departments over the past few
years have expressed concern over the failures of the library. The Task
Force has verified the fact that concern permeates the-academic community,
although it is greater in some disciplines than in others.
The Faculty Education Policy Group, in its memorandum of February 23,
1982, addressed to President Robert Q. Marston, stated as follows:
"The importance of libraries to academic functions cannot be
overemphasized, with some faculty saying, 'The University
is its library.' We feel that this point is not properly
emphasized at the University of Florida."
The Task Force believes that in the final analysis a University
cannot be better than its library. The library of the University of
Florida is in trouble and that trouble threatens the future of the University.
The Task Force believes that the most urgent matter facing the
President and the University administration is the library. Creation of
a realistic plan for the future of the library which embraces space,
personnel and support for the next decade should be an immediate first
step. Problems currently addressed by the Task Force will pale into
insignificance in comparison with the massive problems which will be
faced by 1985. The University must constructively address the fate of
The Task Force recommends an early statement of concern by the President
containing an unshakable commitment of first priority for the Central Science
Library and commitment to the future welfare of the library through creating
of a plan for growth which will be given the highest priority in implemen-
tation. Concomitantly a short term commitment should be announced to
attempt to increase the staff of the library, for example, by five FTE's in
each of the next four years, to increase OPS funds by, for example, 30-40
thousand dollars and to maintain the new level in constant dollars, to
provide for a minimum acquisition budget adjusted for inflation over the
years, to announce a goal for salaries such as the announced goal for the
faculty, and to state a schedule for progress towards it.
The Task Force recognizes that not all of these goals are capable of
realization by the University acting alone. Legislative and other constraints
exist. The University is by no means its own master. The Task Force
recognizes also that the current administration has attempted to increase
staff through its legislative asking budget over the past years. The
failure of the various governing and legislative bodies to grant a high
priority to these requests has been a major factor in bringing some of the
existing library problems to the current disturbing level.
It is our recommendation that the University make a major effort
to bring about a different legislative result. Books which are "lost"
might as well never have been purchased. To an active research faculty,
a library which contains great collections inaccessible because of lack of
staff may be more frustrating than incomplete collections. The life blood
of a faculty is information. When a library fails to provide that information,
the University fails in its central mission. It is this failure of which
tHe legislature must be made aware and to the rectification of which
it must give a high priority.
The Director of the libraries must understand that some change in
management style is essential, that the administration will look to him
for aggressive leadership in arriving at a long range plan for the libraries
of the University and that there must be deep faculty involvement in designing
the plan. He should also marshall campus support for that plan.
In making these recommendations, the Task Force is well aware that
involvement of faculty in library management is not an easy task. Users
can be demanding, unsympathetic and uninterested. Nevertheless, the
University at one time enjoyed a collegial style of faculty-library
management cooperation. Had it been continued, that collaboration might
have prevented some of the friction which now exists. Because the rewards
are great, the effort must be made persistently and conscientiously
by the library management. A strategy of persistence after repulse may
be at least as important as the basic concept of involvement.
The Task Force is aware of the pressures upon University funds for
construction and operation. The Task Force shares the belief of the FEPG
that a great library is essential to a great University. Neglect of the
library operational and space problems has endured over such a long period
that the University's future is threatened unless substantial immediate
progress is made in solving the problems of the library.
APPENDIX A (Page 1 of 11)
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
FICE OF ACADEMIC AFFAIRS March 23, 1982
TO: Drs. Stanley Ballard, Walter Herbert, and Robert Mautz
FROM: Robert A. Bryan, Vice President p
SUBJECT: Evaluation of Management Policies and Practices in
the University Libraries
As you know, the leadership of the University Libraries has come
under heavy criticism these past six months. The criticism seems to
have three major elements to it: poor shelving of books, poor acquisitions
policy, poor management practices of the Director and his immediate staff.
Some of this distress has to be the result of the gubernatorial
veto of expected book fund allocations. Some may be attributable to
the classic academic warfare that goes on between librarians and faculty.
Some may be attributable to the three major elements noted above. The
Faculty Educational Policy Group (FEPG) has written a critique of the
operations of the Library and recommended to the President that a blue-
ribbon committee of librarians be brought to campus to review and evaluate
what's going on here. Other faculty have complained to me and to the
President about the Library.
What we need is some calm, wise, objective people to look at this
problem and make a report to me and to tJie President. I reject the
natio.n.of_ a blue-ribbon_panel of librarians; they all will gome down
and write a repo rt_ lig uj g__hat the Librys u nded. We already
know that. I reject the notion of another faculty committee to check
on the report of the first faculty committee (FEPG). Hence I turn to
you to ask you to serve as a special evaluation task force of management
policies and practices in the University Libraries.
Please examine all the attached documents which include the FEPG
report and the Liberal Arts and Sciences Library Committee report. Please
conduct the evaluation in whatever manner you see fit. Dr. Mautz wwll
serve as chairman. Each of you will receive an honorarium/consultant's
fee of $500. You will be assigned a graduate assistant to help you.
I hope the report can be finished by May 1st.
Dr. Mautz will convene the first meeting and, if you like, I will
be happy to attend that and any or all other meetings of the task force.
I am delighted that all three of you have agreed to help the University
by accepting this appointment.
cc: President Marston
Dr. Harrer, w/attachments
Vice Pres. Hemp
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
a/JLEatknzznL of cMa.fizmaL-cA
201 (1;"f %
.,lii, 9Do ida 32611
March 15, 1982
TO: Dean Charles Sidman
College of Liberal Arts & Sciences
FROM: R. Triggiani (chairperson), Library Planning Committee! gr&"
The Library Planning Committee within the College of Liberal Arts
and Sciences met on Thursday March 4, 1982 at 10:00 A.M. in the
Dean's Conference Boom to identify those conditions of the
University Libraries most needing improvement, along with
constructive suggestions for improvements. The aim was to
compile a list of items to be presented to the Dean's attention.
Members Present: Lewis Berner, Raymond Gay-Crosier,
Marie Nelson, Carol Drum,
Roberto Triggiani (Chairman),
John Sommerville, Merle Battiste,
Harry Shaw and Charles Willet
These topics were already raised and discussed at length in two
previous meetings of the Library Planning Committee- this
academic year, on October 6, 1981, and particularly on
November 24, 1981, when they formed the only item on the
agenda. As a matter of fact, on the basis of those preliminary
discussions, the Committee's Chairperson had already drafted a
list of concerns and issues pertaining to the University
Libraries, which most compellingly called for improvements and
suggestions. Therefore, most of the meeting on March 4, 1982,
consisted in re-examining those items one by one in an even
broader and deeper analysis, along with a discussion of a few
additional points. It was emphasized at the outset that the list
to be presented to the Dean should reflect the viewpoint of the
Libraries' users particularly of the scholarly active Faculty
members while seeking Libraries' services regardless of the
technical or financial difficulties that may be encountered in
the process of correcting the issues noted, by the Committee
Sand/or in implementing the corresponding recommendations.
What follows is the list of issues and suggestions that were
agreed upon. In it, several items are obviously correlated. The
order with which the items are presented does not necessarily
reflect or imply any criterion of ranking priority on the part of
the Committee. The items are:
(Page 2 of 11)
1) The coexistence of two Library classification systems,
Dewey and Library of Congress.
This is a major anomaly which does not exist in many U.S. and
foreign Libraries. Its implications on the quality of the
Libraries' services are profound and invariably negative for the
Suggestion: Full conversion to the Library of Congress
classification system is imperative (the Committee member from
the Library pointed out that, according to a specialized firm
that was recently approached, the cost of this conversion is
estimated at about $250,000)
2) The holding of books in Library East and periodicals in
Library West, while only Library West provides a card
This necessitates going back and forth between East and West.
Moreover, books pertaining to a specific discipline are held in
different locations, or even at different levels of Library
East. A similar state of affairs exists for periodicals in
Library West. This, apparently, is due to the Library's
determination to locate the volumes, according to both the Dewey
and the Library of Congress classification, and not, say, a
criterion which would require books (and similarly, periodicals)
of a specialized discipline to be held in the same physical
area. Examples which illustrate the case in point:
1) books in English literatu-re require work on two levels of
Library West and on three levels of Library East.
2) Joint search in Mathematics (books and periodicals) in
the library East-West complex requires work on two levels
on Library East for books, and on one level at two
different locations in Library West. for periodicals (in
addition to books and periodicals in Mathematical
Sciences which are being held in the Engineering and
Suggestion: It was noted that the Library service would have
greatly benefited, had the Library made a user-oriented choice on
the use of the two buildings, East and West; i.e., had the
Library opted to assign each building to hold all volumes, books
as well as periodicals, of a specific group of (possibly) closely
related disciplines. For instance, all holdings in, say,
English, History, Philosophy, etc. in one building and all
holdings in, say, Geography, Botany, Zoology, Mathematics,... in
another building. Under this proposed alternative to be fund
on other campuses each building would be a self-contained unit
with its own (possibly comprehensive) caLd catalog. In each
builAing the collection of books and the collection of
periodicals would, of course, be separate, but the two physical
areas holding books and periodicals of the same discipline would
be reasonably close.
_ Trl~UP ~77r 111
\ Vd~ "
A*-l JL -IJn.1 W l.^.
-------------Pt1YVN~iX A------pag< 4 Or 11)
3) Condition of the stacks, where misshelving is commonplace
(at times for entire sections of books and not only for
single books), reshelving inadequate, and reorganization
and relocation a constant occurrence. Many books are,
apparently, stolen or missing.
Suggestions: (i) Higher selection in hiring and retaining
student helpers (who are in charge of shelving), and much closer
supervision by Library staff. Institute periodical training
sessions and a checking system of the student helpers'
performance. It was also remarked that the present physical
state of the shelves with volumes so crammed for lack of space
undoubtly contributes to the "who cares" attitude of many student
(ii) Study ways which would permit the closing of the stacks
to undergraduate students and vagrants, as it was done at the
University of Florida before 68 or so, and as is currently done
at Duke, Illinois, Harvard, etc. It was stressed by the
Committee that closing the stacks to undergraduates would in no
way deny books and periodicals to them; -it would only deny
accessibility to open shelves. Moreover, it was estimated that
the cost of implementing this proposal in terms of library
personnel would be minimal, as one person per floor would be
sufficient to monitor access to the stacks. This solution would
undoubtly cut down the present high number of thefts, abuses,
acts of vandalism and the like, that the Library is unfortunately
The Committee also stressed that a rapid improvement of the
conditions of the stack is a very high priority.
4) Severe deterioration of the Inter Library Loan Service.
Cases were cited where an applicant fills out the request form
and does not hear from the Library for many many months.
It was noted that often the University of Florida Library has to
request a particular volume from several other Libraries, in
order to finally succeed in locating it. The cost of borrowing a
volume has increased significantly in recent times.
Suggestions:.: The University of Florida Library should
periodically send to the Inter-Library loan applicant information
cards, giving the "status" of his/her request, e.g. after one
month, after two months etc.
5) Display of current periodicals in Library West.
It was pointed out that as a result of concerns being voiced also
from the Committee, the Library is (apparently) in the process of
implementing the display of current periodicals for those
Departments that have so requested in response to a recent poll
conducted by the Library.
It was noted that in that poll only three Departments have
requested that their periodicals be displayed. On the other hand
it was also remarked, however, that: (i) several Departments
like Physics, Chemistry, etc. have a Departmental branch library,
where current periodicals have long been displayed; (ii) in
several Departments a vote of "no" to the request of displaying
current periodicals was the result of concern of theft,
vandalism, misshelving and otherwise inadequate service in the
present overcrowded and understaffed environment that proved to
outweigh the interest in having the periodicals displayed. In a
safer and more reliable Library environment,.it is likely that
more Departments would have opted for display.
6) Inaccurate and Linadequate status of the card catalogs
and Departmental catalogs.
Examples referring to Library West, Departmental catalogs and the
Engineering Library were cited. In this respect it was noted
that omissions and inaccuracies in the card catalogs should be
immediately reported to Nancy Williams .-Moreover, in a few weeks
the Library will issue updated Departmental Catalogs.
Final recommendation: The Committee strongly recommends that an
outside team of professional librarians from established
libraries of comparable universities visit the University of
Florida campus to examine, assess and evaluate the University of
Florida Libraries, their services, their organization and their
management, and to provide recommendations for their improvement.
In issuing this recommendation the Committee wishes to stress
that external peer reviews are a welliestablished academic
procedure, routinely invoked on many campuses, to provide useful
feedback information. They are, and are meant to be, stimuli for
an ever healthier professional environment, and do not carry, or
imply, any stigma on the campus, or unit thereof, subject to
For instance, in the present situation at the University of
Florida Libraries, an external review would carry extra weight to
the appropriate responsible Administrators in pointing out some
undeniable- facts that the Libraries are understaffed by 30% and
that the Library personnel salaries are below national average.
(Page 5 of 11)
AnitersitV of Ioriba
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 32611
March 10, 1982
Mr. Robert Marston, President /P a /
University of Florida ;' "
Gainesville, Florida 32611 9 7 7 ; ? 1
Dear President Marston:
I enjoyed talking with you last night, and I am much relieved by your
assurances that the library will be mended. I have been shocked and dismayed
to find it in such disarray. My work is suffering because there are books and
articles which I want to consult indeed, which I should consult but which
are, for one reason or another, unavailable to me here. Everyone to whom I have
spoken about the library has a similar tale of woe. I am depressed not only
by the effect of the library's deficiencies upon ~y own work and that of my
colleagues and graduate students, but also by the effect of these deficiencies
upon my sense of the quality of this university and its possibilities for the
future. The library is the chief research tool of the university and a major
indicator of its stature. I was attracted to the University of Florida primarily
by its energy, its ambition, and its potential for excellence; but that potential
can only be realized if the library is equal to the quality and demands of the
faculty which we hope to attract and retain.
My inquiries have led me to conclude not only that everyone who is an active
scholar is unhappy with.the library, but also that there is a widespread feeling
of hopelessness about the situation. I have shared my concerns with Professor
New, and he has told me of his own efforts to alleviate the situation, none of them
successful. The library's problems are massive and of long duration; it will
take a massive and sustained effort to correct them., The administration is not
perceived, however, as recognizing the seriousness of the problem or as giving
its correction a very high priority. Hence the feeling of hopelessness. And
hence, also, the importance to me of our conversation last night; for it convinced
me that you do recognize the seriousness of the problem and that you are deter-
mined to correct it.
You asked me what I thought was the most serious deficiency of the library.
Let me repeat that it is the Unavailability of books and journals which ought
to be present and accessible~,4.theeibrary of a major university. This problem
has many sources: (1) unevenness in acquisitions (thisyear~lans is ang.xample)
which has left .many lacuna1e'i- t 'oJ.lection, (2) alluree to 'veplace lost items,
(3) misshelving, (4)'.large backlogs of unshelved bpok.'s -m i* fi^ i
[new books into circulation. ~"iyw6ok"n n'Shakespeare so far, hre 4aae een- &
.at least a dozen books and journals which were available to me at Michigan State
and which are not in tep catalogue here. There have been a similar number of
items which are in the catalogue but which cannot be located. These problems
have turned up after only two months of sustained research in the library. My
colleagues tell me that my experience is the rule rather than the exception. Even
the work-study student who is doing photocopying for me has an ironic attitude
about the library.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATVE ACTION EMPOYE
r r .')
J~ lf~~l~Lcy r
(Page 7 of 11)
x stress the problem of unavailability because it is not merely an
'Convenience, but it diminishes the quality of research, both by faculty and
graduate students. There are, however, a number of inconveniences, some of them
major, which contributtQ~p,my frustration every time that I use the library.
I.have been told that the Dewey decimal and the Library of Congress systems will
never be integrated.'"th'e co-existence of these two systems gives the library
a makeshift, unprofessional character and seriously impedes our work. The
:-Dewey decimal systemi;,ioreover, makes browsing difficult, if not impossible,
almost eliminates the serendipitous discovery of related books, and forces a
burdensome reliance upon the card catalogue. I know that it will be expensive,
but I strongly urge the integration of all our holdings under the Library of
Congress system. I am gQldthat .the.stacks in the East wing of the library are
not air-conditioned i the summer. On warm days, I have already emerged from
the stacks fatigued bythe heat and dripping perspiration. If the stacks are
not air-conditioned, they will be unbearable (as my colleagues assure me they
are) in the hot months. The heat is harmful to the books as well as an ordeal
to the users. Although the summers in East Lansing are usually mild, the
Michigan State Library ia-completely air-conditioned. Another inconvenience
is the separation of the card catalogue, which is housed in the West library,
'from the stacks, which are housed in the East. If one is doing research in the
library and not merely collecting books, this forces many trips back and forth,
up and down, wasting much time and energy. Finally, current periodicals should
be on display instead of being shelved with the bound volumes. This is the first
'university library that I have used which does not have current periodicals
displayed in such a way as to facilitate brewing and to help us keep abreast
of current research.
There may be other serious problems in the library, but these are the ones
which have come to my attention since I began doing research in January. I
doubt that the library can be fixed quickly, but if there is a sustained and
serious commitment to improving its quality, I am confident that it can be made
worthy of the university. This may take a lot of money for books, equipment,
space, and personnel-- and some changes in management; but I cannot imagine
anything more important to the excellence of the university. IA distinguished
faculty must have appropriate research facilities. I am told that the budget
for the library is one of the first to be reduced when money is tight at the
University of Florida. If this is true, it must be reversed. The one budget
item that was not reduced at Michigan State last year was the appropriation
for the library.
In brief, I feel very strongly that the university must embark upon a crash
program to bring the library up to standard and then must let nothing interfere
with the maintenance of a high level of support. I am uncomfortable about being
so critical of the institution so soon after my arrival, but if I had not
strongly identified with this university and with its hopes for the future, I
would not be expressing myself so passionately. I am deeply gratified, as I
said at the outset, by the spirit in which you received my remarks and by your
determination to do something about this extremely serious problem.
Bernard J. Paris
Copies: Dean Sidman
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
:i OF THE DIRECTOR
March 18, 1982
Professor Bernard J. Paris
Department of English
Dear Professor Paris:
In recent days Professor New has shared with me a copy of your
letter to President Marston concerning the library. I want you to
know that I appreciate your taking the time from your other labors
to write that excellent statement. Over the fourteen years I have
been here, I have presented each of the problems to the administration
many times, but I have a feeling that my evaluation of the situation is
thought of more as empire building than an unbiased expert appraisal of
a difficult situation. Letters such as yours, from the people we are
here to serve, will make much more of an impression and will demonstrate,
I hope, that what I have described many times is a fact.
Many of the matters you have commented on have a history, which I
would be glad to disclose to you if you are interested. Indeed, many
have a future which is brighter, and more imminent than may be generally
known. Moreover, I'm sorry not to have had the opportunity to meet you,
and if you have the time when you are in Library West, I would be
honored to meet you. I expect to see your previous librarian, Dick
Chapin, an old friend of mine, in Columbus, Ohio, at an OCLC meeting
on the 5th of April. Give me call if you have the time to meet --
your place or mine.
And thanks again for the fine letter.
/ G. A. Harrer
P. S. I know, from talking with him, that Charles Willett, Chairman of
the Acquisitions Department and chief collection development man in
the libraries, would like to discuss with you the lacunae you have
found in the collections since you have been here.
ECUAL EMPLOYMEN'T OPAOC-TIO-* I; B Al ArTO.--
(Page 8 of 11)
a -P 11 '
Ark-'VliNA ua ae J .. .
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
I g'AS INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
5 L S GAINESVILLE. FLORIDA 32611
Dr. Robert Q. Marston, President
45 HORTICULTURAL SCIENCES- -/^ IC ^ \ *
TELEPHONE: 904/392-18.31 l
February 23, 1982 A L
Dr. Robert Q. Marston, President
University of Florida
226 Tigert Hall
Dear President Marston:
Attached is a Memorandum Report of a study made by The Faculty Educational
Policy Group relative to problems existing in the operations and management
of the University of Florida Libraries. The Group unanimously endorses this
report and the idea of bringing these problems to your attention.
We will be glad to provide any other'information you might want from our
study and to assist in any way possible in helping to overcome the problems
existing within the library system.
Ja pr N oiner, Chairman
SFa lty ucational Policy Group
cc: Vice President John A. Nattress
Vice President Robert A. Bryan
COLLEGE OP AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL- EXPERIMENT STATIONS COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
SCHOOL OF FOREST RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION CENTER FOR TROPICAL. AGRICULTURE
The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences is an Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer authorized to provide research,
educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function without regard to race, color, sex, or national origin.
(~age iu or 11)
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
GAINESVILLE. FLORIDA 32611
NTAL HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT
5S HORTICULTURAL SCIENCES -
LANT PATHOLOGY BUILDING
February 23, 1982
TO: President Robert Q. Marston, University of Florida
FROM: Faculty Educational Policy Group
SUBJECT: Universities Libraries
The Faculty Educational Policy Group has examined issues raised by many
faculty concerned with services received from the University of Florida
Libraries. Results of FEPG's study does, indeed, indicate there are some
serious problems in the operations and services of the libraries.
The importance of libraries to academic functions cannot be overemphasized,
with some faculty saying, "The university is its library". We feel this
point is not properly emphasized at the University of Florida.
We recommend that an outside consultant be employed to evaluate the oper-
ation at the University Libraries and its management. This consultant
should address several issues:
1. Staffing and Personnel Management--There are widespread
reports of materials being improperly filed or displayed,
missing or damaged and inaccurate placement of books within
the stacks. These problems are so bad in some areas that
the library is almost unusable and there seems to be a
discrepancy between the library personnel's perception'of
these problems and the actual situation.
The Director of University Libraries presented figures to FEPG to document
that the number of library staff members in the U. of F. Libraries is only
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
SCHOOL OF FOREST RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION CENTER FOR TROPICAL AGRICULTURE
The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences is an Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer authorized to provide research.
educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function without regard to race, color, sex, or national origin.
APPENDIX A (Page 11 of 11)
February 23, 1982
about 50% as many as the average of the top 100 American Research Libraries
with which we are compared. Staff shortages, coupled with the necessity
(for budgetary reasons) of using student help selected on the basis of need,
rather than on the basis of training, interest and experience, contribute to
personnel work of doubtful quality.
We realize that part of the problem is a result of limited funds to hire
personnel, but we feel much improvement can be made with the-personnel re-
strictions which now exist.
2. Funding--The present "feast or famine" funding is neither
businesslike nor sensible. Catch-up funds from the special
library appropriation three years ago effected a significant
improvement in upgrading library holdings. In contrast,
this year's shortage of book money once again results in
putting essential materials on "hold" until funds are
Many library materials are as current as the daily paper, and adding them to
our holdings a year or more after their publication may make such materials
of doubtful value to current research.
3. Library Committee and Other Faculty Input--Faculty members
with wide experience on campus committees feel they have
insufficient input in allocations of funds for library
materials, and report difficulties of communicating with
those making these final decisions.
In some instances, when library committees have met, the decisions as to
allocations of available funds have already been made.
4. Distribution of Materials--There is a general feeling that
distribution of materials between Libraries East and West can
be better organized, so that faculty and student effort in
locating specific materials can be reduced.
5. Science Library--Members of FEPG and those appearing before
it unanimously endorse granting of top priority to the con-
struction of a Science Library. Probably, after the con-
struction of such a library the needs for space will still
not be filled. Many materials are now in storage, current
periodicals are not now displayed, study carrels are in short
supply, historical materials and archives are not current
nor can they be displayed with existing space.
The consultant should recommend methods of improving library services within
limitations of money and personnel currently existing and produce long range
plans for making the University of Florida Libraries among the best in the
Dr. Merle Battiste
Dr. Robert J. Baum
Dr. Lewis Berner
Dr. David R. Colburn
Dr. J. Wayne Conner
Dr. Sheila Dickison
Dr. Raymond Gay-Crosier
Richard H. Griggs
Robert D. Lawless
Keith R. Legg
Dr. C. Arnold Matthews
Dr. Melvin New
Dr. Daniel M. Popp
Dr. Michael L. Radelet
Dr. Anthony F. Randazzo
Distinguished Service Professor
Rom. Lang. Lit.
Assoc. Professor, Classics (U.F.F.)
Chairman, Rom. Lang. Lit.
(Chairman, Library Com. 1977-Present)
Assoc. Professor, Psychology
a Chairman, Germanic and Slavic Lang.
Professor, Ornamental Hort. IFAS
(Chairman, Faculty Educational
Assoc. Professor, Anthropology
Professor, Political Science
Assoc. Dean, Graduate School
(Chair, Graduate Student Council)
Assoc. Dean, Business Admin., Retired
(Chairman, Library Com 1973-77)
Assoc. Professor, Germanic and
Assist. Professor, Sociology
Assoc. Dean, Sponsored Research
Persons Interviewed by Task Force:
or. Gareth L. Schmeling
Dr. Charles F. Sidman
Dr. Roberto Triggiani
Dr. Robert D. Walker, Jr.
Dr. Thomas J. Walker
Dr. Aubrey L. Williams
APPENDIX B krmmmu
Dean, Liberal Arts and Sciences
Assoc. Professor, Mathematics
(Chairman, Library Planning Com.[CLAS])
Professor, Chemical Engineering, Retired
(Chairman, Library Com. 1955-69)
Professor, Entomology, IFAS
Graduate Research Professor, English
Contacted only or briefly interviewed by less -than entire Task Force:
Dr. Ronald L. Akers
Dr. H. Russell Bernard
Dr. Alfred B. Clubok
Dr. Robert J. Hanrahan
Dr. Jack Harrison
Dr. Merle E. Meyer
Dr. Bernard J. Paris
Dr. Francis G. Stehli
Dr. Wilse B. Webb
Dr. Robert H. Westin
Dr. Hiram Williams
Mrs. Eileen Gudat
Chairman, Political Science
(Chairman, Library Com. 1972-73)
Former Professor of History
Dean, Graduate School
Graduate Research Professor, Psychology
Distinguished Service Professor, Art
Secretary to Dr. Henri Theil,
Eminent Scholar, Econometrics
J. Ray Jones
Associate Director, Retired
Circulation Coordinator, Library East
Head, Chemistry Library
Head, Monographic Cataloging
Assist. Director, Special Resources
Director, University Libraries
Assoc. Librarian, Engineering/Physics
Chair, Rare Books and Manuscripts
Assist. Chair, Reference & Bibliography
Head, Engineering & Physics Library
Chair, Reference & Bibliography
Latin American Bibliographer
Head, Systems & Computer-based Operations
Assist. Librarian, Catalog Department
Assoc. Director for Technical Services
Assist. Librarian, Acquisitions
Persons Interviewed by the Task Force:
Nancy L. Williams
R. M. Willocks
(Page 2 of 2)
Chair, Catalog Department
Assoc. Director for Public Services
Assoc. Librarian, Reference &
*Contacted or interviewed by less than entire Task Force
FTE Staff (and % distribuiirnn
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LIBRARIES
1967/68 1968/69 1969/70 1970/71 1971/72 1972/73 1973/74 1974/75 1975/76 1976/77 1977/78 1978/79 1979/80 1980/81
A&P C/S A&P C/S A&P C/S A&P C/S A&P C/S A&P C/S A&P C/S A&P C/S A&P C/S A&P C/S A&P C/S A&P C/S A&P C/S A&P C/S
LIBRARY STAFF A&P AND C/S EXCEPT LAW, HEALTH AND IFAS.
55 91.5 57 89.5 57 89.5 57 89.5 59 94 59.5 93.5 59.5 93.5 59.5 93.5 57 94 57 95
58 97 59 99 61 101
146.5 146.5 146.5
TOTAL E&G LIBRARY STAFF EXCEPT LAW, HEALTH AND IFAS
153 153 153 151 152 155 155
TOTAL ENROLLMENT (HEAD COUNT)
19,848* 20,769 22,601 23,668 23,570 25,078 27,698 27,926 27,615
29,608 30,658 32,010 33,010 33,522
2,263 2,287 2,072** 2,211**
2,286 2,422 2,372
1,273,515 1,346,101 1,421,140 1,487,303 1,550,486 1,632,952 1,705,480 1,756,441 1,807,242 1,852,841 1,943,750 2,079,344 2,162,982 2,231,509
1. OPS budget 1968/69 was $101,000 and average paid per hour was $1.35 (74,814 hours).
2. OPS budget 1981/82 was: regular $113,000 + QIP $22,700 $135,700***. Average paid per hour is about $3.40. This would have purchased only 39,911
hours except that we have used almost exclusively college work study and will have about 79,500 hours.
3. We have over 3,000,000 people who come into Libraries East and West each year.
4. From Circulation statistics and use in Libraries East and West, we have to reshelve over l.100.000/ ooks each year.
5. Libraries East and West had 2,390 seats for student use in 1972. These have now been reduced by 775. The present seating capacity of East and West
is 1,615 and will be further reduced by 30 seats in May. However, there has been some gain in overall seats in the last ten years because of the
Education Library and the Health Center Library.
6. Salary information see other sheet.
Continuing Education not included in the enrollment figures.
** 9-month faculty changed to 12 months FTE for these two years.
*** Does not include special appropriations for grants.
April 22i 1982
Libraries on ARL Index: #1-21 -- Staff and Distribution (ARL Statistics 1980-81)
FTE Staff (and % distribution)
% Stud. Assts.
Undergradua te/Gradua te
I1'1 Enrollment No. Students/Staff
(2,802) 25.5% (6,057)
79 20.6 170 44.3
\If we had staff 1 FTE per 51,4 FTE student, we would have 491 FTE staff.
\nd if this were divided as the averages above, then we would have:
\ Professional Clerical Students Total
125 271 95 491
ye: 79 (-46) 170 (-101) 135 (+40) 384 (-107)
Or totally understaffed by 22%
cABLE 6: BEGINNING ?OF-SSIONAL SALARIES IN; AL UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
RANK ORDER TABLE, FISCAL YEA? 1952
E grouping of institutions below is done
a..se, in a number of cases, there is a
livelyy insignificant difference between two
-.:uiticns, which are nevertheless given two
.:firent rankings. In order to provide a
:s.fr" ranking, the institutions are
.,s-red into groups according to the ranges
- i-fied here.
Group ranges arer
18,0C0 and over
: :..? RANK INSTITUTION
GROUP RAiK INSTITUTION .
Calif., Berkeley 17,412
Calif., Davis 17,412
Calif., Irvine 17,412
Calif., Los Angeles 17,412
Calif., Riverside 17,412
Calif., San Diego 17,412
Calif., Santa Barbara 17,412
British Columbia 17,310
New York 16,000
Kent State 15,900
Arizona State 15,600
Washington State 15,500
Johns Hopkins 15,070
Colorado State 15,000
Texas A&M 14,857
Michigan State 14,750
Ohio State 14,400
S C C
Source: Association of Research Libraries (ARL) 1981 Salary Survey
Washington, St. Louis
Case Western Reserve
SUNY Stony Brook
dii ~C t i, 6r,,:e
-- ----~- -
rage oi ).
_8: EDIAN ROFg-jSSOjLSARIES OIN ARL UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
RANK ORDER TABLE, FISCAL YEAR 1982
uping of institutions below is done Group ranges are:
cause in a number of cases, there is a
relatively insignificant difference between two 1- 27,000 and over 6- 2
institutions, which are nevertheless given two 2- 26,000-26,999 7- 2
different rankings. In order to provide a 3- 25,000-25,999 8- 2
"coarser" ranking, the institutions are 4- 24,000-24,997 9- 1
clustered into groups according to the ranges 5- 23,000-23,999 10- b
(Page Z ort jj
GROUP RA.NX INSTITUTION
GROUP RANK INSTITUTION
SUNY Stony Brook
IflILOr~ %(.-r ohi
I, e :
Case Western Reserve
Washington, St. Louis
,rEDIAN AND BEGINNING PROFESSIONAL SALARIES IN ARL UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
SUtMMARY OF RANKINGS, FISCAL YEARS 1978-82
BEGINNING PROFESSIONAL SALARIE
1978 1979 1980 1981r 1982 1978 1979 1980 1981r 1982
r o wn
alif., Los Angeles
alif., San Diego
alif., Santa Barbara
ase Western Reserve
83 93 62 86
88 79 98 101
revised based on figures reported 8/81
* Institution not an ARL member during this period
I I I i !
University Libraries Developments -- 1968+
I. New Libraries.
A. Physics Reading Room (1970)
B. Music Reading Room (1971)
C. New Education Library (1979)
II. New Collections.
A. Baldwin Library Children's Literature
B. Purchased Mischkin Judaica Collection and several related
collections to form Judaica Library
C. Parkman Dexter Howe Collection of American literature
D. Developed Map Library (now 5th largest academic map collection
in the country)
III. Space Modifications.
(Background: within a year of opening the Research Library,
its shelves were full. Active shelving was left in the old
building, intended only for the College Library.)
A. Elimination of display shelving in Library West (c. 1970).
B. Transfer of "research library" partially back to Library East
C. Discontinued Dewey classification. Disbanded College collection.
Reorganized collection in Libraries East and West based on area
capacities and growth rate of collections. Discontinued College
library display shelving (1977).
D. Obtained $100,000 NEH grant to refurbish space and organize
Children's Literature, Judaica, and Latin American collections.
E. Rebuilt north end, 4th floor, Library East, into reading room
and moved Latin American Collection and staff to that area and
adjacent stacks for expansion and greater security. (1979)
F. Stored materials in Seagle Building; required to move to Bryan
temporarily, then required to move out, then let back in. Had
to remove storage from basement of University Auditorium and
Century Tower. Have removed some walls and built shelving for
storage in basement of Flint.
A. Active as prime-mover in bringing OCLC services to the Southeast
through Southeastern Library Network (SOLINET).
B. Prepared RFP setting SUS standards and goals for on-line library
computer systems. Tested systems such as CLSI and purchased the
Northwestern University NOTIS software. Have assembled a capable
computer staff and we are now in the midst of implementing the
C. Acquisitions and Catalog Departments have presided over a virtual
doubling of the Libraries' collections in 13 years with only
limited additional temporary staff at times.
D. Public service departments have served the public with no staff
increase while the student population increased by 50%.
E. Obtained $800,000 Title II-C grant for regional cooperative
F. Acquired Fulbright-Hayes grant for Latin American scholar-biblio-
grapher to evaluate the Latin American collection.
Prepared by G. A. Harrer
April 14, 1982
Major Library Collections split between two classification systems.
Harvard -- dropped Weidener classification for LC in 1976. No
reclassification. New editions, new periodical volumes in LC.
Yale -- changed to LC in '71. Reclassed only reference collections.
California, Berkeley -- changed to LC in '62 about. Little reclassing.
Now Raul stuff is little used except in humanities where everyone
is used to it.
Stanford -- shifted to L.C. from Dewey ca. '69. Little reclass (just to
get editions together, some serials, some reference)
Texas -- went to LC ca.'71. Little reclass.
Cornell -- dropped Harris for LC in late '40's. 50,000 v. still Harris.
Wisconsin -- dropped Cutter ca. '50. Now mostly LC. Little reclass.
UNC split Dewey/LC. Large research materials will stay Dewey.
Trying to reclass materials to go into new research library.
Penn. State -- 20% Dewey. Journals reclassed. Old collection weeded --
will stay Dewey.
Source: Telephone survey conducted by Dr. Gus Harrer