College and Research Libraries CY H. SILVER Mul~i-Campus Distribution of Purchased Libraries Two large bloc collections-one in 1957 and the other in 1962-were purchased by the University of California for distribution among the libraries of its several campuses. The first was the seventy thousand volume Ogden collection which was housed at UCLA during process- ing; there was no special staffing nor budget to accommodr.,te the project. These factors, plus lack of experience in distributing such collections, caused problems. The second collection-some fifty-two thousand volumes in the Isaac Foot library-was distributed from Santa Barbara. Because of the experience with the Ogden library, the handling of the Foot collection was better planned. Some problems nonetheless arose. These problems are described, and conclusions are drawn. wITH THE EMERGENCE of state-wide systems of colleges and universities in the United States, a need has arisen for both those basic and those more special- ized books which have been long un- available in their libraries. As part of its program to meet these needs, the U ni- versity of California in recent years has purchased two outstanding collections for distribution among the libraries of its special campuses. Both came to the University through Lawrence Clark Powell's connections with English book- men. The first purchase, in 1957, was the library of C. K. Ogden, the inventor of Basic English and reviewer of the 13th Britannica; the second, in 1962, was that of Isaac Foot, M.P., founder of the Cromwell Society and a Methodist lead- er. The problem of finding such desirable Mr. Silver is a librarian with the Brooklyn Public Library. collections and negotiating their pur- chase is not a concern of the present pa- per, nor is it to any extent the evaluation of the worth of such enterprises; that is left to older hands at that game. Rather, this paper shall describe and discuss the techniques by which these two collec- tions were distributed among libraries which have an aggressive, competitive interest in improving their holdings. Per- · haps this will be of value to library sys- tems which will be engaged in similar projects. The libraries of the university fall in three categories. First, there are the giants of Berkeley and UCLA (the latter including the William Andrews Clark memorial library), with their millions of volumes. The second comprises the three smaller campuses at Davis, Santa Bar- bara, and Riverside, whose libraries, mea- sured in a few hundreds of thousands of books, are growing to support broad PhD programs. Third, there are the nas- I 241 242 I College & Research Libraries • May, 1965 cent campuses at San Diego, Santa Cruz, and Irvine, for whose libraries-to-be a book-collecting program called the New Campuses Project was organized in 1959. Th~ university's Library Council estab- lishes such policy and practice as is needed for the entire system. It was the Library Council which formally advised presidents Sproul and Kerr on the Ogden and Foot purchases and which set the guidelines for their distribution. Details, except for a few settlements of disputes, were left to the individual librarian in charge of each project. The Ogden distribution was the pioneering effort, with the mistakes nat- urally attendant upon such a project; the Foot profited mightily by those mis- takes.1 THE OGDEN CoLLECTION When Dr. Powell was on a book- buying trip in England in late 1957 he was offered the Ogden library. The bulk of it was in a London house, the balance in several other locations. Unknown at the time was the inclusion of the con- tents of a bookshop of Ogden's, with re- sulting heavy duplication of remaindered titles. The bookseller's staff prepared a precis of the library, and Dr. Powell made an extensive inspection, difficult because the books were arranged .. in the most hig- gledy-piggledy order." At a meeting of the Southern District of the California Library Association May 9, 1959, in a talk entitled «Something for Everyone," he described the results of later analysis: «Some of the subject collections . . . in- clude 800 Bibles and Books of Common Prayer, 1500 books by and about Shake- 1 In writing this paper I have been fortunate in being able to discuss the projects with the princi- pals involved, especially Betty Rosenberg, in charge of the Ogden, and Theodore Grieder, of the Foot; ob- viously, their cooperation was the sine qua non. In addition, I have enjoyed access to the corre- spondence files of the projects and the minutes of the Library Council, and I further draw upon my own experiences as Dr. Grieder's assistant on the Foot. Many of my opinions naturally reflect theirs, but the conclusions I cherish as my own. speare, 400 on physics and engineering ... , 100 on color technology, 400 gram- mars, 1000 dictionaries, 4500 volumes of sets, yearbooks and journals"; actually, it was largely a valuable collection of miscellany. The more than seventy thousand vol- umes were eventually purchased for $100,000. As the several campus book budgets could stand no additional strain, the money came from a special appropri- ation. The purpose of the purchase was to aid the libraries of the smaller campuses at Davis, Santa Barbara, and Riverside in filling gaps in standard materials: At the same time, longer established collec- tions were to be assisted by a policy of building to strength. The collection was to be housed at UCLA during its process- ing. There was a newly built bookstack, with the shelving just being completed, that offered space. For reasons that will become clearer below, the needs of the expanding UCLA holdings were so --to keep pressing into the Ogden that they would eventually force its processing in- to suspension. Betty Rosenberg of the UCLA staff was placed in charge, with student as- sistants on a part-time basis as her staff. , The · financing of the processing was nearly nonexistent; there was never any consistent budgeting for it. A constant mendicancy from all conceivable sources had to be employed, and it did not suf- fice. The result was that M;iss Rosenberg, retaining her previous responsibilities to UCLA, could attend to the Ogden only in odd moments; availability of clerks was similarly erratic. Because of UCLA's stack needs, lack of funds, and Miss 'Rosenberg's other duties, in 1963 several thousand volumes were repacked, stored, and are still awaiting processing. One ludicrous instance of the mone- tary headache occurred when the Library · Council wound up a fiscal year with $6,000 in unexpended travel funds. Its then secretary, Librarian Donald Coney , J Multi-Campus Distribution of Purchased Libraries I 243 of Berkeley, appealed to the university's budget officer ( since departed) to have the funds transferred to Ogden process- ing. The budget officer explained that a budget, as an instrument of fiscal re- sponsibility, must be used as drawn up, and that if funds were needed for Og- den, why, all one need do is apply direct- ly for such. Mr. Coney did so; his appli- cation was denied. The unpacking was described by Dr. Powell: "A few [of the cases] at a time were then trundled into an empty ground floor room. There they were opened, and unpacked onto tables, with Betty and Wilbur [Smith, of UCLA special collections], putting aside the fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth century calf and vellum bound books, the sets, the encyclopedias and reference works and keeping them in the sorting room, to the number of fifteen thousand, while the nineteenth and twentieth century books, numbering sixty-five thousand volumes, were carried in open bindery boxes to the lowest level of the new stack. And I mean carried by hand, for there is no elevator to the lowest level." As many of the empty cas- es as would fit available storage were kept. The work of unpacking and shelving was done by a crew of groundsmen. They filled up the shelves, starting at one end and finishing at the other, then returning and double-shelving. Dr. Powell tells of their reward: "Ogden couldn't resist buy- ing remainders. He had multiple copies of Chandos' Guide to Seduction . . That's what they got. Betty's idea, of course." A .iough attempt at organizing some collections was made, in Shakespeare, for instance, but not rigorously. The combination of haphazard pulling out of titles of apparent value and of double- shelving in no order resulted in the ab- sence of any coherence in the bulk of the display. Consequently, some sets were never assembled (the 1st Britannica is still incomplete), and duplicates could not be effectively gathered. A tedious complication resulted from Ogden's hab- it of inserting holograph materials of interest and occasional value in his books; each volume had to be leafed through for such material. A proposal was .made that the entire collection be kept intact on one campus, to serve as the nucleus of a linguistics center. This was rejected for several rea- sons. First, the purpose of the purchase, and the argument by which the special appropriation was gained, was to strengthen the smaller campuses. Sec- ond, as was in fact the case, Berkeley and UCLA, logical candidates for such a center, would already have many of the titles; undesirable duplication would result, whichever were chosen. Third, the "collection" was much more hetero- geneous than had been realized; it was too undisciplined to be the focus of an institute. However, priority for linguis- tics choices was given to Berkeley. A slip was made for each title. The books that had been gathered on the ground floor were listed by Miss Rosen- berg or Mr. Smith, with some materials sent to the catalogers of the Clark li- brary; STC, Wing, and Hain-Proctor numbers were given where appropriate. The remainder (in the subbasement) ., was listed, from the title page, by the student assistants; Miss Rosenberg had to revise each slip before accepting it. Where feasible, duplicates were collated onto one slip; often, however, they turned up only after slips were checked against those previously filed. When several hundred slips were ready, they were routed from campus to campus in turn by mail. Each library would indicate on the slip whether it wanted that book. If a faculty member was personally interested in a title, that was noted. Many professors visited the collection, and selected books on the site. As might be expected, the libraries' rou- tine checks of their holdings showed that the books were often already held. Dur- 244 I College & Research Libraries • May, 1965 ing the process of making selections, a need arose for indicating more than ordi- nary interest in a title; appropriate sym- bols were devised. These were operative in the event other priorities were of no assistance. A minor problem occasionally manifested itself when a library failed to indicate which of several editions col- lated onto a slip was the one desired. As indicated before, priority for more ) specialized materials was given to intrin- sic interest and to strength. Thus, marine materials went to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at San Diego, Wing materials to the Clark library of UCLA, which if it already had a copy w9uld re- tain an Ogden copy of better quality, returning the former to be distributed. The Clark agreed to make its Ogden acquisitions available for intercampus loan if their condition permitted. An in- dication of the quality of the various li- braries' needs is that of Berkeley's choic- es; no other library was interested in more than half. As mentioned earlier, priority for mod- ern general books was to the three small- er campuses; as the contents of each packet of slips were allocated, the quanti- ties assigned these three were equalized. Their numbers each ran about three times the number assigned Berkeley or UCLA. Losers often had their requests filled later as duplicates turned up; the notations on the slip sent for the first copy listed were of course valid for all duplicates. If no one was interested in a title, and UCLA did not have it, it was taken by UCLA; this was its rental charge. (Of course, this increased the number, but not the worth, of volumes it received vis-a-vis Berkeley). Occasional reports were made show- ing the status of the distribution, with a breakdown for more valuable it~ms. A major problem was keeping th~ slips moving among the campuses; an exam- ple from a letter in reply to a Rosenberg query reads: " Dr .... is off campqs for the month of August and thus it will be several weeks before he can reply to your August 8th letter in re the Ogden collection and slips on general modern books." As each packet of slips was returned and had its contents allocated, the books were taken from the shelves and packed. The retained wooden cases from Eng- land were re-used, and then cardboard cartons were procured; the latter were fastened by the strapping machine in the UCLA library receiving room . . A debilitating factor was the large amount of duplication. In a sample, 90 per cent of the titles (as opposed to vol- umes or sets) had no duplicate copies or varying editions; thus, if a partic.ular title were allocated to a library in 90 per cent of the cases that library had no choice in the condition or edition of what was received. Including duplicate copies and varying editions, some 18 per cent of the volumes (or sets) were duplicates. These varied from differing editions of Plato's Opera Omnia (Masilio Ficirio translation) -one being 1590 Lyons, the other 1602 Frankfort-to twelve copies of three editions of Tennyson's Enoch Arden. Needs among the participant~ were such that few of the duplicated titles were not selected by more than one li- brary. This was in part because the re- mainder slips were recirculated to Berke- ley and UCLA for their college libraries; many general titles were then taken for duplicate collections. After the first year of processing, the New Campuses Project was inaugurated. Thereafter priority in remainders went there, both by direct selection by NCP and assignment of ap- propriate books by Miss Rosenberg. The considerable amount still remaining was disposed of through a student sale; through gifts to Los Angeles area librar- ies to which remaining slips were circu- lated (discontinued because of insuf- ficient response) ; and by pulping. Publicity was given th~ purchase in library journals, local newspapers, and university publications. Of course, a 1 1 ·l Multi-Campus Distribution of Purchased Libraries I 245 comprehensive report cannot be under- taken until the distribution is completed. In evaluating the distribution process, the major advantage is that no library is saddled with unwanted duplicates; each really wants all that it gets. Difficulties in the processing start with the lack of funds; the results of that are apparent. Miss Rosenberg believes that more time should have been taken to un- pack and shelve the books so that they might be alphabetized and sets gathered at that time; once up, they could not be satisfactorily organized. Much unneces- sary labor could thus have been avoided with an orderly display, in that the many useless titles could have been weeded before further processing. An unlooked-:- for problem was that libraries whose want lists included titles likely to be in, the Ogden often turned down opportuni- ties to purchase when offered by a deal- er, in the hope of getting them at no cost. Another was that as the only record of who received what was retained by Miss Rosenberg, there were rumors of UCLA aggrandizement; no effective way of combating this was devised, except that time heals. Miss Rosenberg estimates that the ten thousand most choice volumes more than paid for the investment. THE FooT CoLLEcrioN Much of what follows is from The Isaac Foot Library, a Report to .the Uni- versity, by Theodore G. Grieder, pub- lished by the library, University of Cali- fornia, Santa Barbara, for the Library Council of the university, 1964; quota- tions are from that report. The distribu- tion was under the general superintend- ence of librarian Donald Davidson of Santa Barbara. The detailed planning and execution was by Dr. Grieder, the librarian in charge of the project. At the time of acquisition in 1962, the collection was "in Foot's house in Corn- wall. "He built his library of some fifty_. two thousand books around his many interests. Law, politics, .history, religion were all represented." Later analysis showed the contents to include a three hundred-volume Milton collection, of which forty were seventeenth-century imprints (including a first and a second Paradise Lost and a first Areopagitica); forty-five hundred volumes of twentieth- century English literature; 125 English Bibles, from Tyndale's 1536 N.T. to the 1903-05 Doves Press; and sixteen hundred volumes on French history, 1789-1815, including six hundred on Napoleon and his family. The university's survey team, librar- ian Edwin Coman of Riverside and Don- ald Fitch of Santa Barbara, prepared a detailed report and map on the site, fa- cilitated by Foot's own disciplined shelv-:- ing; the talented shipping agent em- ployed made such emendations as were ' necessary later. The cartons when packed were marked to show room loca- tion of the contents, whose nature could then be inferred by consulting the re- port. "When these five hundred cartons arrived . . . , they could, thus, be as- signed to library areas designed to re- ceive particular author, period and sub- ject collections." The library at Santa Barbara was to house the collection during processing because its newly-enlarged building had the necessary temporary space. Four places within the building were taken, those in public areas being screened off with pegboard walls and lockable doors; the library reclaimed its property piece- meal as books were later shipped out. The purchase price was £50,000. "To- ward this sum, the libraries of the uni- versity provided four-sevenths of the to- tal from their book budgets, and the President the remaining three-sevenths from special funds. It had been deter- mined that the chief purpose in purchas- ing the Foot library was to benefit the. smaller campuses; Davis, Riverside and Santa Barbara therefore each provided one-fourth ( $20,000) of the libraries' 246 I College & Research Libraries • May, 1965 share while Berkeley and UCLA con- tributed $10,000, or one-eighth each." The processing budget included full- time salaries for a librarian and a clerk (who together did almost all the unpack- ing and packing ) , and sufficient funds for supplies, shipping, etc. As each book was taken from its car- ton, it was assigned a spot in one of the author, period, or subject collections an- ticipated; the Cornwall survey and marked cartons made this possible. Pri- ority in unpacking was given to those subjects in which the university's librar- ians had expressed special interest. When a collection outgrew its space, it or its neighboring sections were shifted in order to keep each collection together. "Collections unforeseen in the initial sur- vey had to be accommodated." The few duplicates were placed in different col- lections where possible; thus, one set of J. A. Symonds' Renaissance in Italy was in "Italian history," another in a Symonds author collection within nineteenth cen- tury literature. Planning had called for the shelving of only one symbolic volume of long peri- odical runs noted in the survey, but the necessities of checking contents of the run and of seeing what else was in the carton cancelled that. The cartons, and much of the corrugated packing materi- als, were folded and stored for the distri- bution. The first object was to get the maximum number of volumes shelved and organized, so that the participants could be made aware both of what was and, by referring to the survey, what was not displayed. Forty-two thousand vol- umes ( 80 per cent) came out the first time; the remainder was unpacked after sufficient shelves had been cleared by shipping. "Before negotiations for distribution began, some basic decisions were reached. Of these, the most important had been determined before purchase: the chief purpose of the collections was to strengthen the libraries at Davis, Riv- erside, and Santa Barbara. Since the smaller libraries each contributed twice the amount of purchase money contrib- uted by Berkeley or UCLA, it was rea- sonable that they should expect twice the return of the two larger libraries. A - second was related to the principle of building to specialized strengths: where strength in a subject or period already existed in a particular library, that li- brary should receive priority for apprp- priate Foot volumes. A third was to distribute the Foot collections in a year, the period for which Santa Barbara had agreed to provide shelving space. ' A fourth was that no library should acquire collections whose titles duplicated its present holdings to any great extent. "Collections should be distributed in blocks insofar as possible. The smaller libraries could acquire these blocks with far less duplication than could the larger libraries: the smaller libraries agreed in turn to list and exchange duplicates with one another. It was realized, however, that certain collections of particular aca- demic interest-pre 1700 . . . imprints, for example-should be listed title by title and distributed on an individual basis to build to existing strengths on the larger campuses .... Since some method of assuring equitable distribution was essential, it was decided to set up what was called a 'unit system: By this, the volumes in Foot's library-with the ex- ception of Bibles, incunabula, manu- scripts and letters-were each to be as- signed a unit value, a unit being thought of as having a rough value of about four dollars. General collections ... were as- signed a unit value of one. More special- ized collections, judged to be of greater academic. and monetary worth were giv- en higher unit values. For example, col- lections of minor authors in nineteenth- and twentieth-century English literature were rated at one unit per volume, where- as substantial collections of major au- thors were listed at two units per volume ... ; STC books were given a unit value of four ... :·Exceptional items were as- signed unique unit values. Librarians Multi-Campus Distribution of Purchased Libraries I 247 and interested f~culty inspected the dis- cause of likely undesired remainders, but play by appointment only. «final unit totals for all libraries except The collections from the first unpack- Berkeley exceeded these calculations. ing were listed. Total volumes and units Berkeley's unit total was slightly lower were given for each. In block areas, ap- because the value of its Bible collection propriate subdivisions-topical, imprint, -estimated to be worth in excess of or author, for example-were made, with $20,000, though not given unit valuation their discrete subcounts. In individual- -had to be considered in reaching an listing areas, STC, Wing, and Rain-Proc- equitable distribution." tor books were listed by their catalog If bids were still in conflict, there were numbers where existing; otherwise, short two systems of resolution. In small issues title data were given, with consultation (usually defined as fifteen units or less) in Brunet, Halkett and Laing, etc. as a coin toss was generally acceptable. If needed for identification. If such rna- there were a number of such smaller terial was incorporated into a subject conflicts on a given list, such as nine- collection, such as «Cromwell," the books teenth-century English literature, the which would otherwise receive individ- coin would determine the order of rota- uallisting were included. ~ tion to be followed in assigning recip- Each list was mimeographed, and five ients for the entire list in dispute; this copies sent to each library. Advanced was modified as necessary to give equal- notice of the subject matter of forthcom- ity in unit count. In large issues, nego- ing lists had been given ~o that interested tiations by the parties involved was nee- faculty would be able to reserve time essary. Dr. Grieder often made sugges- for considering selections. The list in- tions to such disputants; sometimes a last eluded a due date for return of a marked resort was «If I don't hear from . you by copy indicating bids. (date), I shall distribute thusly: . . ." Each library made an «A," «B," «C" or with considerable success in resolving no bid for the entries on the lists. The disagreements. In the case of areas not first priority for determining recipients bid upon, he exercised salesmanship on was the policy of building to strength: likely takers. An instance of a right hand «first chance at Foot's exceptional collec- not knowing involved Foot's first Florio's tion of three thousand English civil war M ontaigne, valued at 375 units $1500); tracts ( 1640-1660) was given to the one library vigorously held out for it, Clark libr3:ry of UCLA while the second only to discover that it had long had an went to Berkeley." As with the Ogden, Ogden copy in processing! the Clark library agreed to lend those Books from the second unpacking that acquisitions able to stand it. Second was fell in areas already chosen by libraries the quality of the bid, «A" defeating «B." were automatically sent to those librar- Third was the area encompassed by the ies; otherwise, they were. listed in the bid: Riverside bid for and received all same manner as initially. twentieth-century English literature, When the contents of a given list had vanquishing the bidders for individual been allocated, copies of the master lists, authors therein. Fourth was the unspent indicating bids and winners, were Xer- quota. After the initial unpacking and oxed and sent to the participants. Thus evaluation, «it was calculated that the all were kept au courant; further, losers three smaller libraries should each ex- still eager for parts of a collection could pect to receive unit totals of about contact the winners independently. Ad- 15,000." These were in proportion to the ditionally, periodic status-of-distribution monetary investment of each. Libraries summaries were sent, which included po- were cautioned not to expect more than tential problems for which suggestions 90 per cent of their allotted units, be- for solutions were requested. 248 I College & Research Libraries • May, 1965 A variety of stratagems was employed might otherwise be considered a dispar- by the libraries. The method of aggres- ity in pro rata profit. The host library, sive bidding for large areas, coupled Santa Barbara, was recompensed for its with extensive waivers in others, satisfied troubles in two ways: the natural adv.an- its practitioners. Some of those who re- tage of greater opportunity for inspec- ceived non-unit-valued materials ques- tion, and the opportunity to cream the tioned the "reasonable worth" placed remainders. The New Campuses Project upon them post facto, which worth of took the balance, including several old course affected their remaining quotas. Bibles, an O.E.D. and a Britannica elev- Some were reluctant to make block bids enth. because of the likelihood of heavy dupli- One of the difficulties is that the small- cation of existing holdings; this of course er libraries are to list and exchange was in line with the policy for the distri- duplicates. As they have not yet proc- bution. Thus these last at the end had essed their Foot acquisitions, this re- large unit gaps to make up, and were mains to be worked out. A second is given priority in choice of late-listed that the more valuable Bibles were areas. A general spirit of cooperation somewhat too hastily listed, in an effort pervaded the undertaking. to show immediate results of the pur- After the allocations for a given list chase; inaccuracies re . ulted. A third is were made, the books therefrom were that librarians seem often loath to pick packed in the previously stored cartons. gross areas; they prefer individual titles. A strapping machine being financially A fourth was the acceptance of "reason- out of the question, a wire wrapping ap- able worth" valuations post facto, as paratus was rented for the duration. The mentioned previously. In any case, all wire sufficed for the short hauling in- seem most pleased with the purchase volved in motor freight and interlibrary and its distribution. bus. A few pieces were mailed. CONCLUSIONS .:.· Publicity for the collection was made by publication of The Isaac Foot Li- In drawing conclusions from the proc- brary, mentioned above. A shortened essing of the Ogden and of the Foot, it version appeared earlier in the staff must be emphasized that the Foot was weekly of the University of California, an exceptionally orderly library, a collec- University Bulletin, October 28, 1963, tion of collections, built upon disciplined pages 80-84. Faculty and friends were lines, and that the Ogden was not, espe- thus informed of the new acquisitions. cially with the bookstore thrown in. The compiled . master lists were indexed Again, the Ogden was a new venture and microfilmed; book copies were made for the libraries; with the Foot purchase, therefrom and placed at the reference the Library Council had a better idea of desks of the university's libraries, so that the problems and procedures involved, detailed listing of the contents and loca- and was able to provide proper support tions of the Foot library is available to for the undertaking. patrons. Additionally, notices appeared , The most important conclusion, which in local newspapers. cannot be overemphasized, is that the Most of the policies in the Foot distri- books must be organized at the time bution turned out quite well, as indicated they are shelved; each book must be in the foregoing. Berkeley and UCLA given a rational location; whether that is generally picked individual titles from topical or alphabetical, or some combi- among . the " more valuable areas; thus, nation of the two, is dependent on the their selections represented a much small- nature of the collection, the purpose -of er amount of duplication than did those the purehase, and the ingenuity of the of the smaller campuses, offsetting what librarian in charge. As a corollary, as . ' 'I" . . Multi-Campus Distribution of Purchased Libraries I 249 much as possible should be shelved and organized before displaying, listing, and bidding. In effecting this, it is desirable that the nonprofessional staff on the project be ot well-rounded college backgrounds; it is more efficient to be able to have a book accurately assigned a place when it is taken from the box and not after it is placed on a shelf. Of course, there would be a section for materials of uncertain classification which awaits the librarian's decision. An alternative possibility is to have newly unpacked materials trucked to the librarian in charge. If listing is to be by collection, the librarian assigns the topic; if by title, either the clerk sub- mits a brief entry on an enclosed slip, the librarian revising same, or the librar- ian himself makes the entry. The problem of maintaining a steady flow of books for examination by the librarian and providing him sufficient other professional tasks, is difficult in such a small-staffed, narrow operation.' The librarian will either be sporadically idle, or will himself have to participate in the physical labors of the processing. The latter is of course more likely, as an attempt to scheduie the librarian into professional duties unconnected with the project is dangerous. Dr. Grieder feels that the librarian is thus best a fairly sturdy male, and because of the largely physical (and grimy) activities, not over- ly concerned with his own image. ~~ Next in consequence to organized shelving is the processing budget. It must be sufficient to cover costs of staff, supplies, and shipping for /the entire project. The job is best done with minimal de-. lay. In both Ogden and Foot the host library kept taking back its shelves as soon as available. Further, the morale of the participants is affected by a pro- tracted distribution. Whether listing is by title, collection, or both, it is best to type the lists for mechanical duplication; this will allow simultaneous bidding by all. In the Foot, the lists served later for notification of allocations and for compiling a checklist. With good communication, matters pro- ceed at a steady rate. One should not allow considerations of speed to over- come those of sufficient accuracy in list- ing, however; no library will be pleased if it receives books it does not want. There are two suggestions to assist the individual libraries participating in such projects. One is that monetary invest- ment in the purchase by the libraries themselves insures close attention to the distribution and gives leverage in pre- venting inequities. The other, both Miss Rosenberg and Dr. Grieder feel, is that the greater the provision made by a campus for its faculty and librarians to visit and inspect the display, the better that campus' selection. One note on negotiating such a pur- chase from the agent: because of the many parties involved in the buying, their representative does not usually have as clear authority as if he repre- sented only one library; thus if the prize is to be won the buying parties must make a rapid decision on each problem and communicate it posthaste to their negotiator. The benefit of the purchases to the university has been felt. Often a profes- sor whose field falls within the scope of the Ogden or the Foot will, when first arriving on one of the smaller campuses, be surprised at the depth of holdings in his specialty. Aside from scholarly considerations, there is no question of the monetary worth of the acquisitions. Dr. Powell said at the 1959 California Library Association meeting mentioned before, "A great pity that the UCLA li- brary school was not in operation when Ogden arrived. I am not thinking of a cheap labor supply, as has sometimes been true, at least when I went to school, but rather of the Operatiqt:I Ogden as a demonstration of what you do when you get a bibliographical bull by the tail." The penning of that bull is here de- scribed. • •