• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Letter of transmittal
 Executive summary
 Methodology
 Background
 The viewpoint of the users
 The perspective of librarians
 Evaluation
 Reflections and conclusions
 Appendix A: Letter from Faculty...
 Appendix B: Persons interviewed...
 Appendix C: Persons interviewed...
 Appendix D: Budget and circula...
 Appendix E: Staff and distribu...
 Appendix F: Beginning professional...
 Appendix G: University Libraries...
 Appendix H: Major library collections...






Title: Report of the Task Force on Evaluation of the Library Management Policies and Practices
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00067143/00001
 Material Information
Title: Report of the Task Force on Evaluation of the Library Management Policies and Practices
Alternate Title: Mautz report
Physical Description: 29, 24 p. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: University of Florida -- Office of Academic Affairs. -- Task Force on Evaluation of the Library Management Policies and Practices
Ballard, Stanley S
Herbert, T. Walter ( Thomas Walter ), 1908-
Mautz, Robert B
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Publication Date: 1982
 Subjects
Subject: Library administration -- Florida -- Gainesville   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
General Note: Caption title.
General Note: "Task force consisting of Drs. Stanley S. Ballard, T. Walter Herbert and Robert B. Mautz Chairman was appointed by a memorandum from Vice President Robert A. Bryan dated March 23, 1982."
General Note: "April 29, 1982."
General Note: Documents included in Appendix A-H: p. 1-24.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00067143
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000316147
oclc - 08560956
notis - ABU2938

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Letter of transmittal
        Unnumbered ( 2 )
    Executive summary
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Methodology
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Background
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
    The viewpoint of the users
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
    The perspective of librarians
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
    Evaluation
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
    Reflections and conclusions
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
    Appendix A: Letter from Faculty Educational Policy Group to President Marston
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
    Appendix B: Persons interviewed by Task Force: Library users
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Appendix C: Persons interviewed by Task Force: Librarians
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Appendix D: Budget and circulation
        Page 1
    Appendix E: Staff and distribution
        Page 1
    Appendix F: Beginning professional salaries in ARL university libraries rank order table, Fiscal Year 1982
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Appendix G: University Libraries developments -- 1968+
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Appendix H: Major library collections split between two classification systems
        Page 1
Full Text













REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE

ON EVALUATION OF THE LIBRARY MANAGEMENT

POLICIES AND PRACTICES

1982









Dr. Stanley S. Ballard
Dr. T. Walter Herbert
Dr. Robert B. Mautz, Chairman








ii5


April 29, 1982


Dr. Robert A. Bryan
Vice President for Academic Affairs
235 Tigert Hall
Campus

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.

Sincerely,


Stanley S. allard


T. Walter Herbert


RBM: ps

Enclosures


EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
182 Grinter Hall, Gainesville, Florida 32611
904/392-2471


salCMyO









Executive Summary



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







ecutive Summary
age 2



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

disaster.

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


Methodology

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








-2-

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







-3-

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








-4-


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.



Background

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.







-5-


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

and tolerance.

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







-6-

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






-7-


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








-8-


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

its manpower.

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








-9-

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

(Appendix E).

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

(Appendix D).

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








-10-


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







-11-

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






-12-

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

matters.

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

national reputations.

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,







-13-

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







-14-

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 University.



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







-15-

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







-16-

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







-17-

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.








-18-

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





-19-

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.



Evaluation

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








-20-

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.








-21-

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








-22-

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

were utilized.

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






-23-

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.







-24-

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







-25-

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







-26-

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,







-27-


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

its library.

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.







-28-

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







-29-

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
GAINESVILLE. 32611


FICE OF ACADEMIC AFFAIRS March 23, 1982




MEMORANDUM


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.
i
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.

Attachments
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
(9041-392-O281

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)


APPENDIX A





-2-


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
Libraries' users.

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
catalog.

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
Physics Library).

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-



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
helpers.
(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
experiencing.

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.





-4-



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
evaluation.

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.


APPENDIX A


(Page 5 of 11)









AnitersitV of Ioriba


ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 32611
(904) 392-0778
/


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




Paris 2
(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.

Sincerely yours,




Bernard J. Paris
Professor
Copies: Dean Sidman
Professor New







THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES




:i OF THE DIRECTOR







March 18, 1982


Professor Bernard J. Paris
Department of English
4008 GPA
CAMPUS

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.

SSicere li/


/ 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.--


APPENDIX A


(Page 8 of 11)




a -P 11 '


MI
15


Ark-'VliNA ua ae J .. .

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

I g'AS INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
SS-

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
Campus

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.

MincerTy,




Ja pr N oiner, Chairman
SFa lty ucational Policy Group

JNJ:js

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


ME
154
P


GAINESVILLE. FLORIDA 32611

NTAL HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT
5S HORTICULTURAL SCIENCES -
LANT PATHOLOGY BUILDING
TELEPHONE: 904/392-1831



February 23, 1982



MEMORANDUM

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)

age 2
MEMO-President Marston
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
available.

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
nation.





Name

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


Dr.

Dr.

Dr.



Dr.

Dr.

Dr.


Richard H. Griggs

Otto Johnson

Jasper Joiner



Robert D. Lawless

Keith R. Legg

Madelyn Lockhart


Dr. C. Arnold Matthews


Dr. Melvin New

Dr. Daniel M. Popp


Dr. Michael L. Radelet

Dr. Anthony F. Randazzo


Title/Position

Professor, Chemistry

Chairman, Philosophy

Professor, Zoology

Chairman, History

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
Policy Group)

Assoc. Professor, Anthropology

Professor, Political Science

Assoc. Dean, Graduate School
(Chair, Graduate Student Council)

Assoc. Dean, Business Admin., Retired
(Chairman, Library Com 1973-77)

Chairman, English

Assoc. Professor, Germanic and
Slavic Lang.

Assist. Professor, Sociology

Assoc. Dean, Sponsored Research
Professor, Geology


APPENDIX B

Persons Interviewed by Task Force:

Library Users







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


Chairman, Classics

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, Sociology

Chairman, Anthropology

Chairman, Political Science

Professor, Chemistry
(Chairman, Library Com. 1972-73)

Former Professor of History

Chairman, Psychology

Professor, English

Dean, Graduate School

Graduate Research Professor, Psychology

Chairman, Art

Distinguished Service Professor, Art

Secretary to Dr. Henri Theil,
Eminent Scholar, Econometrics





Name

Fleming Bennett

Richard Bennett

Carol Drum

*Adrienne Franco

Stephen Fuquay

Samuel Gowan

Gustave Harrer

*Barry Hartigan


Sidney Ives

J. Ray Jones

*Roger Krumm

Peter Malanchuk

Alice McNairy

Salvador Miranda

Frank Orser

Nolan Pope

Reda Proeger

James Renz

Jane Treadwell

Charles Willett


Position/Title

Associate Director, Retired

Circulation Coordinator, Library East

Head, Chemistry Library

Serials Cataloger

Head, Monographic Cataloging

Assist. Director, Special Resources

Director, University Libraries

Assoc. Librarian, Engineering/Physics
Library

Chair, Rare Books and Manuscripts

Assist. Chair, Reference & Bibliography

Head, Engineering & Physics Library

Chair, Reference & Bibliography

Librarian, Retired

Latin American Bibliographer

Serials Librarian

Head, Systems & Computer-based Operations

Assist. Librarian, Catalog Department

Assoc. Director for Technical Services

Assist. Librarian, Acquisitions

Chair, Acquisitions


APPENDIX C

Persons Interviewed by the Task Force:

Librarians





Nancy L. Williams

R. M. Willocks

Barbara Wittkopf


(Page 2 of 2)


Chair, Catalog Department

Assoc. Director for Public Services

Assoc. Librarian, Reference &
Bibliography


*Contacted or interviewed by less than entire Task Force


APPENDIX C




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


58 97 59 99 61 101


146.5 146.5 146.5


153


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


158


162


29,608 30,658 32,010 33,010 33,522


2,037 2,179


2,226 2,229


FACULTY

2,263 2,287 2,072** 2,211**


2,286 2,422 2,372


2,524 2,529


LIBRARY BOOKS
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

OTHER INFORMATION
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.


RMW
April 22i 1982


\


146.5


1,832-


U


4-


4J



m,






k








4


0
U .












0
V)


\




Libraries on ARL Index: #1-21 -- Staff and Distribution (ARL Statistics 1980-81)


FTE Staff (and % distribution)


Library P

Harvard
Yale
Cal.-Berkley ,..
UCLA
Stanford

Michigan
Texas

Toronto

Illinois

Cornell

Columbia
-Washington
Wisconsin

Minnesota
British Col.
North Carolina
Arizona
Ohio State
Chicdgo
Indiana
Princeton


professional %
282 29.8
188 28.6
118 22.1
160 26.5
150 26.1
149 24.7

131 24.3
164 21.9

126 24.6
140 26.8

135 25.3
120 25.4

128 25.7
130 29.3
109 22.7
108 30.2

85 24.1
101 22.8
69 22.8
115 24.8
94 24.2


Clerical

543
423
251
300
365

321

331
501

285
285

289
239
236
184
317
189
181.

215
157
203
242


% Stud. Assts.
57.3 122
64.5 45

47.0 165
49.7 144
63.6 59
53.3 132

61.5 76
66.9 84

55.7 101
54.6 97
54.2 109
50.5 114

47.5 133
41.5 129
65.9 55
52.9 60
51.3 87
48.5 127
52.0 76
43.8 145
62.2 53


% TotalJ
12.9 947


6.9
30.9
23.8

10.3
21.9
14.1

11.2

19,7
18.6
20.4
24.1
26.8

29.1.
11,4
16.8
24.6
28.7
25,2

31,3
13,6


656
534
604

574
602
538

749
512
522

533
473

497
443
481
357
353
443
302

463
389


Undergradua te/Gradua te

I1'1 Enrollment No. Students/Staff


17,813

10, 054
30,883
32,281
12,21.4

33,136
43,355

38,710
38,027
1.7,050

14,720
31,957

36,301
48,697
21,585
19,749
25,973
48,991
8,976
27,350

5,969


18.8

15.3
47.1
53.4
21.3
55.0

80.6

51.7
74.3
32.0

27.6
67.6
73.0

109.9
44.9
55.3
73.6
110.6
29.7
59.1
15.3


(2,802) 25.5% (6,057)


55.2% (2,113)


79 20.6 170 44.3


135


19.3% (10,972)


35.2 384


\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%


Averages
(Totals)

Florida


0
o











14
o



r






U,

a)
0
ca

0
.4
CO


(563,811)


2',258


51.4


6-5.8


--F----


j




i)-~-~i----


APPENDIX F
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


1-
2-
3-
4-


18,0C0 and over
17,000-17,999
16,000-16,999
15,000-15,999 -


5-
6-
7-
8-


14,000-14,999
13,000-13,999
12,000-12,999
below 12,000


: :..? RANK INSTITUTION


SALARY


S 1
2
3

i 4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
12
13

3 14
15
16
17
17
17

S 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
27
29
30
31
32
32
32
32

36
37
38
39
40
40
40
43
43
43
43
43
43
49
49


GROUP RAiK INSTITUTION .


Minnesota 19,647
Alberta 19,070
Howard 18,015

Stanford 17,784
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
McGill 17,116

Manitoba 16,842
Toronto 16,700
Saskatchewan 16,656
New York 16,000
Queen's 16,000
Washington 16,000

Guelph 15,960
hcMaster 15,950
Kent State 15,900
Wisconsin 15,800
York 15,660
Arizona State 15,600
Hawaii 15,552
Oregon 15,500
Washington State 15,500
Rutgers 15,415
Columbia 15,200
Johns Hopkins 15,070
Colorado State 15,000
Northwestern 15,000
Texas 15,000
Yale 15,000

Houston 14,895
Texas A&M 14,857
MIT 14,800
Michigan State 14,750
Brown 14,600
Harvard 14,600
Princeton 14,600
Colorado 14,500
Iowa 14,500
Michigan 14,500
Nebraska 14,500
Pennsylvania 14,500
Purdue 14,500
Arizona 14,400
Ohio State 14,400


51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51

6 61
62
62
62
65
66
67
68
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
80
81
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82

7 90
91
91
91
91
91
91

98
99
99

8 101


Kentucky
Missouri
Rochester
Tulane
Vanderbilt
Louisiana State
Temple

Florida State


S C C


Source: Association of Research Libraries (ARL) 1981 Salary Survey


Miami $
New Mexico
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Rice
Southern California
Southern Illinois
Tennessee
Virginia
Virginia Polytechnic

Wayne State
Georgia
Iowa State
Pennsylvania State
Oklahoma State
Washington, St. Louis
Chicago
Western Ontario
Case Western Reserve
Connecticut
Cornell
Duke
Georgetown
Illinois
Kansas
Maryland
South Carolina
SUNY Albany
SUNY Buffalo
Pittsburgh
Cincinnati
Brigham Young
Dartmouth
Indiana
Massachusetts
Notre Dame
SUNY Stony Brook
Syracuse
Utah

Alabama
Boston
Emory
Florida


SALARY


14,000
14,000
14,000
14,000
14,000
14,000
14,000
14,000
14,000
14,000

13,869
13,800
13,800
13,800
13,680
13,644
13,570
13,510
13,500
13,500
13,500
13,500
13,500
13,500
13,500
13,500
13,500
13,500
13,500
13,300
13,200
13,000
13,000
13,000
13,000
13,000
13,000
13,000
13,000

12,750
12,500
12,500
12 ,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,400
12,000
12,000

11,500,/


dii ~C t i, 6r,,:e


-- ----~- -


II^


rage oi ).


L


"-f..-MC, -


-//q 0,:




_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
specified here.


(Page Z ort jj


:2,000-22,999
.1,000-21,999
0,000-20,999
.9,000-19,999
elow 19,000


GROUP RA.NX INSTITUTION


SALARY


GROUP RANK INSTITUTION


Calif.,
Calif.,
Calif.,
Calif.,
Calif.,
Calif.,


Berkeley
Davis
Los Angeles
San Diego
Santa Barbara
Irvine


1 1
1
1
1
1
6

2 7
8
9
10

3 11
12
13

4 14
15
16
17

5 18
19
20
21
22
23

6 24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32


7 33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
43
45
46
47
47


$ 30,648
30,648
30,648
30,648
30,648
28,608

26,780
26,441
26,317
26,035

25,607
25,593
25,367

24,984
24,834
24,304
24,228

23,768
23,736
23,604
23,500
23,471
23,190

22,842
22,812
22,564
22,490
22,392
22,300
22,264
22,185
22,060


21,975
21,840
21,820
21,780
21,735
21,579
21,550
21,510
21,450
21,356
21.300
21,300
21,266
21,100
21,000
21,000


8 49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68

9 69
70
71
72
',. 73
74
75
76
77
78
79
79
79
82
83
84
85
86
87
88

10 89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101


Arizona
Harvard
Michigan
Temple
Iowa
Oregon
Connecticut
Miami
Queen's
Iowa State
Brigham Young
Houston
Virginia Polytechnic
Texas
SUNY Albany
Dartmouth
SUNY Stony Brook
Western Ontario
Cornell
Chicago

Northwestern
Florida State
Virginia
Kentucky
SUNY .Buffalo
North Carolina
Pittsburgh
South Carolina
Johns Hopkins
Maryland
Georgetown
Georgia
Notre Dame
Missouri
Indiana
Syracuse
Florida


Guelph
Stanford
McGill
Alberta

York
Rutgers
British Columbia

Calif., Riverside
Kent State
Howard
Texas A&M

Manitoba
Massachusetts
Hawaii
Columbia
Toronto
New York

Pennsylvania State
Colorado
Souther: California
Minnesota
Cincinnati
Colorado State
Arizona State
McMaster
Louisiana State


Yale
Ohio State
Washington State
Southern Illinois
Duke
HIT
Pennsylvania
Washington
Oklahoma
Wayne State
New Mexico
Princeton
Saskatchewan
Illinois
Michigan State
Purdue


IflILOr~ %(.-r ohi


~~(c'L I


I, e :


./121 i727

/2 1
2or P~,


SALARY


Utah
Wisconsin
Rochester

Kansas
Brown
Nebraska
Tennessee
Boston
Vanderbilt
Emory
Case Western Reserve
Oklahoma State
Washington, St. Louis
Rice
Alabama
Tulane


$20,917
20,898
20,892
' 20,880
20,850
20,819
20,810
20,735
20,709
20,609
20,600
20,575
20,500
20,450
20,384
20,250
20,226
20,190
20,050
20,047

19,950
19,907 ./
19,800
19,781
19,760
19,750
19,704
19,621
19,571
19,502
19,500
19,500
19,500
19,282
19,273
19,240
19,171 V'


19,060
19,014
19,012

18,980
18,905
18,894
18,779
18,739
18,700
18,223
18,021
17,658
17,300
17,100
16,772
16,500


I


I




,rEDIAN AND BEGINNING PROFESSIONAL SALARIES IN ARL UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES


SUtMMARY OF RANKINGS, FISCAL YEARS 1978-82


INSTITUTION


MEDIAN SALARIES


BEGINNING PROFESSIONAL SALARIE


1978 1979 1980 1981r 1982 1978 1979 1980 1981r 1982


Alabama
Alberta
Arizona
Arizona State
Boston
Brigham Young
British Columbia
r o wn
Calif., Berkeley
'alif., Davis
;alif., Irvine
alif., Los Angeles
alif., Riverside
alif., San Diego
alif., Santa Barbara
ase Western Reserve
hicago
incinna ti
olorado
olorado State
olumbia


:onnecticut
:ornell


ar mouth
Uke
pory


lorida
lorida State


eorgetown
eorg ia
uelph
irvard


avaii
ouston
owa rd


88
7
59
46
86
66
1
82
3
3
**
3
**
8
3
66
73
47
24
18
20
26
37
36
51
88
90


89
4
48
55
94
74
1
81
9
3
**
9
14
13
7
75
67
42
20
24
28
53
44
50
63
90
97


95
12
65
53
70
57
6
87
3
1
**
5
16
3
1
90
66
71
23
31
27
34
63
30
72
92
R1


97
6
53
36
82
52
1
91
10
7
**
2
4
2
5
94
67
65
22
38
S23
55
69
41
45
93
76


83 93 62 86


33
71
**
41
14
47
9
61
69
54
34
29
74
13


llinois
ndiana
owa
oba State
hhns Hopkins
nsas
-nt State


43
77
5
47
22
56
8
33
83
59
39
19
81
15


49
79
9
35
18
45
10
39
74
58
41
38
82
11


75
83
12
60
19
66
30
54
74
90
73
72.
89
14


100
10
49
30
93
59
13
90
1
1
6
1
14
1
1
96
68
28
25
29
21
55
67
64
37
95
85


70
79
79
7
50
20
60
16
46
83
53
58
77
89
15


75
4
38
71
75
57
2
36
8
8
**
5
**
8
8
57
57
38
18
31
38
38
75
73
57
84
91


75
57
50
**
35
13
51

71
57
-26
38
51
57
16


88
4
. 54
23
88
61
1
39
14
14
**
7
94
14
14
74
44
61
28
23
48
61
74
87
61
82
96


79
31
58
20
79
65
3
58
4
4
**
8
77
4
4
89
32
79
21
27
32
79
65
79
65
79
94


83
11
68
23
68
83
2
46
5
5
*
5
5
5
5
61
50
82
39
51
21
51
68
83
68
97
100


9C
2
49
25
91
82
12
4C

5
5

5
5
5
5
69
68
81
43
32
30
69
69
82
69
91
91


88 79 98 101


74
28
13
37
21
72
3
81
61
28
56
6
74
18


47
38
62
24
15
47
1
98
65
25
47
13
79
16


68
51
20
36
19
38
3
99.
68
39
66
31
83
17


69
63
20
40
26
36
3
69
82
43
63
31
69
22


revised based on figures reported 8/81
* Institution not an ARL member during this period


I I I i !


97 81---







APPENDIX G


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
(1971).
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.
(1979)
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.

IV. Miscellaneous
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
system.
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
serials project.
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






APPENDIX H


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




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs