College and Research Libraries


By A R C H I E L. M c N E A L 

Ratio of Professional to Clerical Staff 
U ' - P ' H E RECOGNITION o f t h e f a c t that a 

X large proportion of the activities 
of the university library consists of rou-
tines that can be performed by instructed 
clerical workers should eventually lead 
to the concentration of professional effort 
upon major problems of reading, scholar-
ship, and research. Within the limits of 
the individual library's definition of 'cler-
ical worker,' the situation seems to indi-
cate that many libraries are using pro-
fessionally trained personnel to perform 
clerical or subprofessional tasks."1 

T h e authors of the above statement 
may have hoped for some immediate re-
action on the part of administrators in 
our major universities. Such has not been 
the case. There have been studies made 
f r o m time to time pointing toward the 
possibility of more careful definition of 
duties and responsibilities, but positive 
action has occurred in only a few insti-
tutions. 

Perhaps many institutions have been 
aware of having a high ratio of profes-
sional staff but have seen no immediate 
way to alter the situation without injus-
tice to persons who had established ten-
ure. Others may never have readjusted 
f r o m the exigencies of depression years 
when staff reduction first affected certain 
clerical positions. In some of the larger 
institutions, a proliferation of depart-
mental libraries has often been the rea-
son assigned for the size of professional 
staff required. Whatever the reason, it 
seems likely that librarians facing finan-
cial pressures may need to scrutinize care-

1 L . R. Wilson and M. F. Tauber, The University 
Library (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1945), 
247. 

Dr. McNeal is director of libraries, 
University of Miami. 

fully the nature of personnel required to 
perform the duties of each position. 
Proper j o b analysis and classification of 
positions is essential to such a survey. 

Some idea of the progress being made 
can be secured from a comparison of cer-
tain data in Wilson and Tauber's origi-
nal table with similar data developed 
from other sources for subsequent years 
(see the accompanying table). W h e n the 

sources used did not contain data for in-
stitutions listed in the 1940 table, every 
effort was made to secure such informa-
tion by correspondence. In some cases, 
it was not possible to obtain the infor-
mation requested. 

It is evident that a trend toward a 
higher ratio of clerical to professional 
staff is developing but it cannot be as-
sumed that this is a purposeful trend. 
Rather, it is more likely a result of 
growth, and of necessity imposed by the 
increasing demand f o r professional li-
brarians. 

T h e ratio between clerical and profes-
sional staff given in ALA Classification 
and Pay Plans for Libraries in Institu-
tions of Higher Education is established 
on the following basis: ". . . there shall 
be clerical and student workers sufficient 
to assure that not more than 60 per cent 
or less than 40 per cent of total staff 
hours shall be clerical or student serv-
ice."2 Such a provision means that an in-
stitution with 20 full-time staff positions 
should have n o more than 12 nor less 
than 8 full-time clerical workers, or the 
equivalent in clerical and student help. 

2 A L A Board on Personnel Administration. Subcom-
mittee on Budgets, Compensation and Schemes of Serv-
ice for Libraries Connected with Universtities, Col-
leges and Teacher Training_ Institutions. Classification 
and Pay Plans in Institutions of Higher Education 
(2d ed.; Chicago: American Library Association, 1947), 
III, p. xxiv. 

MAY, 1956 219 



RATIO OF PROFESSIONAL TO OTHER TYPES OF WORKERS IN 5 0 UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES, 1 9 4 0 - 5 4 

19401 

% 
PROF. OTHER TOTAL PROF. 

Harvard 
New York U. 
Pennsylvania 
Dartmouth 
Virginia 
Pittsburgh 
Catholic U. 
Brown 
Yale 
Princeton 
Washington 

(Seattle) 
Utah 
Rochester 
Columbia 
Wesleyan 
Cincinnati 
Iowa State 
Temple 
Northwestern 
Southern Cal. 
Duke 
Chicago 
Wayne 
Notre Dame 
Texas 
West Virginia 
Maryland 
Georgia 
Washington 

(St. Louis) 
St. Louis U. 
California 
Indiana 
North Carolina 
Nebraska 
Oregon 
Joint University 
Michigan 
California (L.A.) 
Oklahoma 
Missouri 
Iowa 
Illinois 
Arkansas 
Kentucky 
Kansas 
Colorado 
Pennsylvania 

State 
Oregon State 
Syracuse 
Louisiana 

5 1 . 8 
3 4 . 0 
21.0 
2 4 . 0 
2 3 . 0 
1 9 . 0 
8.0 

2 4 . 3 4 
7 2 . 0 
3 2 . 0 

3 2 . 0 
12.0 
21.0 

1 1 4 . 4 
10.0 
1 7 . 0 
1 7 . 0 
1 8 . 0 
2 5 . 0 
3 0 . 0 
3 5 . 0 

1 1 7 . 6 5 
7 6 . 0 
3 5 . 0 
3 4 . 0 
3 2 . 0 
2 6 . 5 
11.0 
2 9 . 3 4 
8 5 . 0 
3 7 . 0 

3 6 . 5 
1 3 . 0 
22.0 

1 1 7 . 4 
10.0 
1 8 . 5 
1 5 . 0 
1 4 . 4 1 
20.0 
20.0 
2 3 . 0 

11.0 
3 4 . 3 8 

8.0 
12.0 
18.0 

11.0 
1 1 . 5 
5 3 . 5 
12.0 
2 6 . 5 
1 9 . 5 
2 0 . 7 4 
2 6 . 5 
8 8 . 5 
3 5 . 0 
12.0 
2 4 . 0 
4 3 . 5 
9 4 . 5 
1 5 . 0 
1 4 . 0 
1 7 . 0 
20.0 

2 4 . 0 
21.88 
3 5 . 0 
4 1 . 0 

1 6 9 . 4 5 
110.0 

5 6 . 0 
5 8 . 0 
5 5 . 0 
4 5 . 5 
1 9 . 0 
5 3 . 6 8 

1 5 7 . 0 
6 9 . 0 

6 8 . 5 
2 5 . 0 
4 3 . 0 

2 3 1 . 8 
20.0 
3 5 . 5 
3 2 . 0 
3 2 . 4 1 
4 5 . 0 
5 0 . 0 
5 8 . 0 

3 0 . 5 
3 0 . 9 
3 7 . 5 
4 1 . 4 
4 1 . 8 
4 1 . 8 
4 2 . 1 
4 5 . 3 
4 5 . 9 
4 6 . 4 

4 6 . 7 
4 8 . 0 
4 8 . 8 
4 9 . 4 
5 0 . 0 
5 0 . 7 
5 3 . 1 
5 5 . 5 
5 5 . 6 
60.0 
6 0 . 3 

6 3 . 4 2 5 3 4 . 8 5 
11.0 6.0 

9 8 . 2 7 5 6 4 . 5 
1 7 . 0 6 4 . 7 

6.0 
1 8 . 0 

7 . 0 
6.0 
9 . 0 

5 . 0 
5 . 0 

2 2 . 8 4 
5 . 0 

1 6 . 2 5 
7 . 0 
8 . 2 5 
8 . 5 

2 6 . 5 
10.0 

3 . 0 
6.0 
9 . 5 

20.0 
3 . 0 
2 . 5 
3 . 0 
3 . 0 

2.0 
1 . 5 
2.0 
2.0 

1 7 . 0 
5 2 . 3 8 
1 5 . 0 
18.0 
2 7 . 0 

16.0 
1 6 . 5 
7 6 . 3 4 
1 7 . 0 
4 2 . 7 5 
2 6 . 5 
2 8 . 9 9 
3 5 . 0 

1 1 5 . 0 
4 5 . 0 
1 5 . 0 
3 0 . 0 
5 3 . 0 

1 1 4 . 5 
18.0 
1 6 . 5 
20.0 
2 3 . 0 

26.0 
2 3 . 3 8 
3 7 . 0 
4 3 . 0 

6 4 . 7 
6 5 . 5 
6 6 . 7 
6 6 . 7 
6 6 . 7 

68.8 
6 9 . 7 
7 0 . 0 
7 0 . 6 
7 2 . 0 
7 3 . 6 
7 4 . 0 
7 5 . 7 
7 7 . 0 
7 7 . 8 
80.0 
80.0 
82.1 
8 2 . 5 
8 3 . 3 
8 4 . 8 
8 5 . 0 
8 7 . 0 

9 2 . 3 
9 3 . 5 
9 4 . 6 
9 5 . 3 

19482 

PROF. OTHER4 TOTAL PROF. 

5 6 . 2 
4 4 . 0 
3 1 . 0 
2 9 . 0 
2 5 . 0 
1 7 . 5 

1 5 1 . 7 
9 6 . 0 
5 8 . 0 
3 7 . 0 
3 6 . 0 
3 2 . 0 

2 0 7 . 9 
1 4 0 . 0 

8 9 . 0 
66.0 
61.0 
4 9 . 5 

2 6 . 8 5 2 . 0 7 8 . 8 
5 7 . 1 8 5 . 1 1 4 2 . 2 
2 6 . 3 3 6 0 . 6 7 8 7 . 0 

2 3 . 0 
1 5 . 0 
2 2 . 5 
3 3 . 0 
4 1 . 0 
3 7 . 5 
6 3 . 0 
1 8 . 5 
16.0 
4 0 . 9 
1 0 . 5 
1 9 . 0 
1 9 . 0 

1 3 . 0 
16.0 
9 3 . 0 
4 1 . 0 
3 6 . 2 5 
3 3 . 0 
2 4 . 1 3 
2 7 . 0 

108.0 
4 2 . 0 
1 3 . 0 
2 0 . 5 
3 1 . 5 

1 2 9 . 2 6 
1 2 . 7 5 
18.0 
21.0 
1 7 . 0 

28.0 
2 3 . 5 8 
3 8 . 5 
3 3 . 5 

18.0 
3 7 . 0 
1 7 . 0 
3 3 . 5 
3 3 . 0 
3 3 . 5 

1 3 5 . 0 6 

1 5 . 5 
12.0 
22.0 

9 . 0 
10.0 
1 6 . 5 

1 7 . 0 
20.0 
9 7 . 7 5 
26.0 
21.0 
1 6 . 5 0 
1 3 . 8 5 
1 1 . 5 
3 0 . 0 
2 5 . 0 

6.0 
18.0 
1 7 . 5 
7 2 . 0 5 

8.0 
1 5 . 5 

9 . 0 
11.0 

22.0 
1 3 . 3 2 
22.0 
2 4 . 0 

2 7 . 0 
3 1 . 4 
3 4 . 8 
4 3 . 9 
4 0 . 9 
3 5 . 3 

3 4 . 0 
4 0 . 1 
3 0 . 2 

3 7 . 9 8 0 . 5 1 1 8 . 4 3 2 . 0 

2 7 . 0 1 9 . 0 4 6 . 0 5 8 . 7 
1 1 1 . 0 2 4 4 . 0 « 3 5 5 . 0 6 3 1 . 2 

4 1 . 0 
5 2 . 0 
3 9 . 5 
6 6 . 5 
7 4 . 0 
7 1 . 0 

1 9 8 . 0 
3 4 . 0 
28.0 
6 2 . 9 
1 9 . 5 
2 9 . 0 
3 5 . 5 

3 0 . 0 
3 6 . 0 

1 9 0 . 7 5 
6 7 . 0 
5 7 . 2 5 
4 9 . 5 0 
3 7 . 9 8 
3 8 . 5 

1 3 8 . 0 
6 7 . 0 
1 9 . 0 
3 8 . 5 
4 9 . 0 

2 0 1 . 3 1 
2 0 . 7 5 
3 3 . 5 
3 0 . 0 
28.0 

5 0 . 0 
3 6 . 9 
6 0 . 5 
5 7 . 5 

56*1 
2 8 . 8 
5 6 . 9 
4 9 . 6 
5 5 . 4 
5 2 . 8 
3 1 . 8 
5 4 . 4 
5 7 . 1 
6 5 . 0 
5 3 . 8 
6 5 . 5 
5 3 . 5 

4 3 . 3 
4 4 . 4 
4 8 . 7 
61.2 
6 3 . 3 
66.6 
6 3 . 5 
7 0 . 1 
7 8 . 2 
62.6 
6 8 . 4 
5 3 . 2 
6 4 . 3 
6 4 . 2 
6 1 . 4 
5 3 . 7 
7 0 . 0 
6 0 . 7 

5 6 . 0 
6 3 . 9 
6 3 . 6 
5 8 . 2 

19543 

% 
PROF. OTHER5TOTAL PROF. 

1 3 7 . 3 3 2 2 0 . 6 7 
3 6 . 0 9 1 . 0 
5 5 . 0 
3 4 . 5 
2 9 . 0 
20.0 
18.0 
21.0 

1 0 3 . 5 
2 8 . 6 6 

9 9 . 0 
3 3 . 5 
4 0 . 0 
28.0 
20.0 
3 7 . 0 

1 3 2 . 5 
8 4 . 0 

4 6 . 7 5 7 0 . 5 
1 9 . 0 2 5 . 0 
2 6 . 5 2 8 . 5 
8 9 . 0 227.0® 3 1 6 . 0 6 

3 5 8 . 0 
1 2 7 . 0 
1 5 4 . 0 
68.0 
6 9 . 0 
4 8 . 0 
3 8 . 0 
5 8 . 0 

2 3 6 . 0 
112.66 

1 1 7 . 2 5 
4 4 . 0 
5 5 . 0 

1 7 . 0 
3 0 . 7 5 
3 3 . 0 
4 5 . 0 
3 4 . 0 
3 7 . 2 5 
5 1 . 0 
2 6 . 6 3 
1 7 . 0 
4 3 . 8 
22.0 
2 5 . 0 
2 6 . 5 

1 9 . 5 
1 7 . 0 

1 2 6 . 7 5 
4 0 . 0 
5 7 . 0 
3 4 . 5 
2 8 . 5 
26.0 

1 0 2 . 5 
80.0 
2 9 . 0 
21.0 
3 0 . 7 5 

1 3 2 . 0 
1 7 . 0 
28.0 
3 7 . 2 5 
20.0 

3 0 . 5 
4 7 . 7 5 
2 5 . 0 
5 3 . 0 
4 3 . 0 
4 2 . 2 5 
8 2 . 0 s 

3 4 . 6 2 
20.0 
3 5 . 0 
3 0 . 0 
1 6 . 5 
2 5 . 5 

3 6 . 0 
2 4 . 0 

1 7 3 . 0 
5 3 . 5 
2 5 . 0 
3 0 . 5 
2 6 . 2 5 
1 4 . 5 
5 1 . 0 
8 5 . 0 
2 3 . 0 
20.0 
4 7 . 7 5 

1 1 0 . 7 5 
11.0 
26.0 
2 7 . 2 5 
18.0 

4 7 . 5 
7 8 . 5 
5 8 . 0 
9 8 . 0 
7 7 . 0 
7 9 . 5 

1 3 3 . 0 
6 1 . 2 5 
3 7 . 0 
7 8 . 8 
5 2 . 0 
4 1 . 5 
5 2 . 0 

5 5 . 5 
4 1 . 0 

2 9 9 . 2 5 
9 3 . 5 
82.0 
6 5 . 0 
5 4 . 7 5 
4 0 . 5 

1 5 3 . 5 
1 6 5 . 0 

5 2 . 0 
4 1 . 0 
7 8 . 5 

2 4 2 . 7 5 
28.0 
5 4 . 0 
6 4 . 5 
3 8 . 0 

3 8 . 3 
2 8 . 3 
3 5 . 7 
5 0 . 7 
4 2 . 0 
4 1 . 7 
4 7 . 3 
3 6 . 2 
4 3 . 8 
2 5 . 4 

3 9 . 8 
4 3 . 2 
4 8 . 1 
2 7 . 1 

3 5 . 7 
3 9 . 1 
5 6 . 9 
4 5 . 9 
4 4 . 1 
4 6 . 8 
3 8 . 3 
4 3 . 4 
4 5 . 9 
5 5 . 5 
4 2 . 3 
60.2 
5 3 . 5 

3 5 . 1 
4 1 . 4 
4 2 . 1 
4 2 . 7 
6 9 . 5 
5 3 . 0 
5 2 . 0 
6 4 . 1 
6 6 . 7 
4 8 . 4 
6 8 . 4 
5 1 . 2 
3 9 . 1 
5 4 . 3 
6 0 . 7 
5 1 . 8 
5 7 . 7 
5 2 . 6 

3 2 . 0 3 4 . 0 6 6 . 0 4 8 . 4 
2 4 . 3 3 1 6 . 3 3 4 0 . 6 6 5 9 . 8 
3 4 . 2 5 2 9 . 5 6 3 . 7 5 5 3 . 7 
4 7 . 0 3 0 . 0 7 7 . 0 6 1 . 1 

1 Wilson and Tauber, The University Library, 1945, p. 230. 
2 COLLEGE A N D R E S E A R C H L I B R A R I E S , I X ( 1 9 4 8 ) , 2 3 9 . 
3 COLLEGE A N D R E S E A R C H L I B R A R I E S , X V I ( 1 9 5 5 ) , 4 1 . 
4 No indication whether student assistants included or excluded. 
5 Specifically excludes student assistants. 
6 Includes student assistants. 



In the introduction to the second edi-
tion, the following statement appears: 
"Standards for libraries in institutions of 
higher education vary greatly in different 
parts of the country. Therefore the per-
sonnel standards used in the national 
pattern are necessarily at variance with 
local conditions in some institutions. It is 
felt, after considerable testing, that they 
d o reflect average conditions throughout 
the country."3 

So far as can be determined, f r o m in-
ternal evidence cited above, and from 
conversation with a former chairman of 
the subcommittee, the basis for establish-
ing the ratio of clerical to professional 
staff was that then existing in a majority 
of institutions surveyed. While the docu-
ment provided goals and offered desir-
able conditions in many respects, it ac-
cepted the status quo on this particular 
point. Such acceptance would not be un-
fortunate, were it not for the misinter-
pretation by some w h o have used the 
ratio as a rule without reading the state-
ment in the Introduction. Perhaps the 
new edition will give some attention to 
this problem. 

T h e decision to lump clerical and stu-
dent assistance in one category seems 
questionable. Admittedly, many excellent 
student helpers are developed and often 
their usefulness is greater than that of an 
inferior full-time clerical worker. How-
ever, it is an inescapable fact that the 
turnover in this type of worker necessi-
tates constant training of replacements, 
so it would seem desirable to have cleri-
cal workers, suitably classified and paid, 
as a separate category. Thus, with an ef-
fective professional staff, a reasonable 
number of clerical personnel, and stu-
dent assistants as available and needed, 
there would be a much sounder person-
nel program, and evaluation would be 
simplified. 

T h e need for an additional category 
classed "subprofessional" was ruled out 
by the A L A subcommittee in their plans 

3 Ibid., pp. xiii, xiv. 

MAY, 1956 

referred to above, but received careful 
attention by Williams in 1954.4 At that 
time he suggested: "It might be reason-
able to expect that an administrator w h o 
wished to keep the percentage of profes-
sional members on his staff as low as 
possible would find it desirable to em-
ploy some nonprofessional persons of a 
higher grade than would be needed in an 
institution where librarians were doing 
much of the clerical work." W h i l e W i l -
liams did not consider the term "sub-
professional" satisfactory, he did recog-
nize the need for some intermediate grade 
falling between the professional librarian 
and the page-typist-filer group.5 

Whether we consider Danton's pro-
posal for three levels of library service, 
technical or subprofessional, middle serv-
ice, and administrative-specialist6 or 
something similar to the German middle 
service as described by Cowley,7 w h o con-
trasts the "theoreticalists" and the "prac-
ticalists," there would seem to be a place 
in libraries of institutions of higher edu-
cation for the well-educated library as-
sistant who has developed certain pro-
ficiencies on the j o b . T h e matter of for-
mal library school training for such a 
middle service might well be the subject 
for another article, and has been given 
some detailed consideration by McDiar-
mid.8 

Many libraries find on their staff per-
sons of superior educational qualifica-
tions who for various reasons have not 
determined to secure a library degree. 
Many of these persons have particular 
abilities which, as they develop under 
professional supervision, enable them to 
function at a level above the routine 

4 Edwin E. Williams, " W h o Does What: Unprofes-
sional Personnel Problems," COLLEGE AND RESEARCH 
LIBRARIES, VI (1945), 306. 

5 Ibid. 
6 J. P. Danton, Education for Librarianship; Criti-

cisms, Dilemmas, and Proposals (New York: Columbia 
University School of Library Service, 1946). 

7 John D. Cowley, "The Development of Professional 
Training for Librarianship in Europe," Library Quar-
terly, VII (1937), 169-95. 

8 Errett W . McDiarmid, "Training of Clerical and 
Subprofessional Workers," in Chicago. University. 
Graduate Library School. Library Conference, Educa-
tion for Librarianship (Chicago: American Library 
Association, 1949), 232-48. 

221 



clerical tasks. In-service training pro-
grams can further develop these persons 
and frequently may discover in them 
prospective recruits to professional train-
ing. In other cases, the individual may 
develop to such an extent that he occu-
pies a major position without having ex-
perienced any formal library school 
training. Certainly some of our best-
known and most effective librarians have 
entered the profession without benefit of 
the midwifery of the library school. This 
is not to say that such a procedure is ad-
vocated, nor is it in any sense intended 
to detract from the importance of formal 
training. Rather, it is a plea for those 
special cases where ability and applica-
tion merit recognition. 

At this point it might be well to esti-
mate the disadvantages attendant u p o n 
entry into the library profession without 
formal library school training. There is 
the time factor which usually operates in 
favor of the degree-qualified person and 
becomes apparent in salary differentials. 
There is the danger of in-breeding, to 
the extent that one coming up through 
the ranks in one institution is compressed 
into the mold of that library's philosophy 
and method. It is possible that such a 
person may be limited to one sphere of 
activity and become very capable in it, 
but be entirely devoid of training or 
knowledge of other areas. 

In spite of these dangers, many librar-
ies now have o n their staff individuals 
who perform their duties with profes-
sional skill, and think and act in a pro-
fessional manner. Such staff members 
may well be considered for equal com-
pensation, as well as for equal considera-
tion in matters of vacation, retirement, 
and similar matters, so far as the charter 
of the institution permits. 

In addition to the person who may be 
considered a "career" individual among 
the nonprofessionals, there are others 
who merit our attention. T h e worker 
whose husband is attending school or 
w h o seeks to supplement the income of a 

husband employed locally may have qual-
ifications in terms of education and train-
ing that enable her to rise to near-profes-
sional performance during the years she 
will work. Such a person justifies time 
spent on her during the period of train-
ing, and deserves recognition as her ex-
perience increases. 

For persons such as this, it is suggested 
that we look back to the days of the li-
brary training class. W e ought to think 
in terms of in-service training today for 
those who can not or will not leave to 
spend a year in library school. It is not 
proposed that this type of assistance be 
substituted for professional librarians 
where professionals are needed, but rath-
er that we supplement the professional 
with superior nonprofessional assistants 
whose experience warrants recognition. 

Williams suggested that a real shortage 
of professional librarians might result in 
the maximum use of personnel resources, 
with clerical personnel being called upon 
to perform the maximum possible in 
duties of a clerical nature. Leigh f o u n d 
in his survey of California that such a 
shortage did exist in 1952.9 Evidence 
f r o m library schools indicates that there 
were from three to five jobs for each 
graduate in 1954. 

Weber, in a recent article o n the cleri-
cal staff, pointed out factors responsible 
for a new concern over this group: "First, 
the growing demand for library service 
of all kinds, challenging the planning 
skills of all librarians; second, the rising 
costs of operation . . . ; third, the short-
age of qualified professional personnel, 
making it imperative to use the available 
supply to the best advantage."10 W e seem 
to be at a point now where the adminis-
trator might well give careful attention 
to his staff organization in terms of the 
ALA Descriptive List of Professional and 
Nonprofessional Duties in Libraries. 

9 Robert D. Leigh, The California Librarian Educa-
tion Survey (New York: Columbia University, 1952), 
14. 

10 Dorothy Weber, " T h e Clerical Staff," Library 
Trends I I I (1954), 53. 

222 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



As suggested in an earlier article,11 it 
seems practical to assume that one pro-
fessional to two clerical staff members 
might approximate a desirable ratio. It 
is interesting to see that in Williams' fig-
ures for 1940-41, disregarding student 
assistance, only Harvard met this ideal; 
Pennsylvania and Oberlin approached it. 
T o d a y , we find that N e w York Univer-
sity and Princeton operate o n the pro-
posed basis. Harvard, Cincinnati, Brown, 
Pennsylvania, Iowa, Iowa State and 
Washington University are among those 
which have less than 40 per cent profes-
sional librarians o n their staffs. 

T h i s p r o p o r t i o n is suggested with re-
gard to full-time staff. Student assistance 
is used to a greater or lesser degree as 
local conditions vary. In many cases, it 
is used of necessity. W h e r e choice is pos-
sible, it w o u l d seem desirable to use stu-
dent assistants for those tasks best suited 
to their abilities and to their part-time 
availability. In every case where tasks 
c o u l d be performed equally well by full-
time clerical personnel, it w o u l d seem 
desirable to convert the necessary part-
time components to a full-time position, 
thus giving the supervisory personnel one 
instead of three o r four persons to train 
and schedule. 

11 A . L. McNeal, "Financial Problems of University 
L i b r a r i e s , " COLLEGE A N D R E S E A R C H L I B R A R I E S , X V 
( 1 9 5 4 ) , 410. 

In summary, it is proposed that admin-
istrators consider the duties of the pro-
fessional members of their staff, and at-
tempt to utilize professional competence 
in the performance of work that will 
challenge and lead to further develop-
ment of professional skill. Just as the rep-
etitious phrases in a second-grade reader 
dull the interest and enthusiasm of an 
experienced reader, so will the assign-
ment of clerical routine stultify the ener-
getic professional librarian. 

It is further proposed that the subpro-
fessional be nurtured and encouraged, 
and that this g r o u p be given such train-
ing and advancement as may be possible. 
Recruitment interests can often be served 
through observant utilization of special 
skills within this category. 

Finally, the clerical staff, properly as-
signed and properly supervised, can ac-
complish effectively and efficiently m u c h 
more than it is permitted to d o in many 
libraries. Proper delegation of responsi-
bility, with commensurate authority, is 
essential to g o o d staff organization. Like-
wise, it is important that the clerical 
workers be given recognition f o r g o o d 
work. T h e i r morale can be strengthened 
by the feeling that they " b e l o n g " and are 
an essential factor in the accomplish-
ment of the library program. 

Nominees for A L A Offices 
The ALA Nominating Committee is anx-

ious to receive as widespread cooperation as 
possible from all members of the Association 
in suggesting names to be considered for the 
various elective offices. Recommendations for 
first vice president and president-elect, sec-
ond vice president, and members of the exec-
utive board and the council are solicited, and 
may be sent to the chairman of the commit-
tee, Foster E. Mohrhardt, director of the De-
partment of Agriculture Library, Washing-
ton, D. C. 

Conference Placement Service 
During the Miami Beach Conference, a 

simplified contact placement clearing house 
will be available to employers and to librar-
ians interested in changing positions. An of-
fice will be provided where (1) employers 
may post notices of vacancies and leave mes-
sages for persons interested in vacancies, and 
(2) librarians interested in changing positions 

may see the posted vacancies, leave messages 
for employers, and post notices of their avail-
ability. Readers are referred to the May, 1956, 
ALA Bulletin for further details. 

MAY, 1956 223