College and Research Libraries JOHN F. HARVEY and MARY PARR University Library Search and Screen Committees Current policies and practices of committees used in university li- braries to search for and screen candidates for positions are de- scribed, primarily from responses to a survey conducted by the au- thors. The use of such committees is seen as one result of increasing staff participation in library administration; and their strengths and weaknesses are discussed. CURREN1LY MANY AMERICAN UNIVERSI- TY LmRARIES are turning over the re- sponsibility of recruiting and selecting new professionals to search land screen committees, in contrast to the tradition- al university library personnel policies of either having supervisors recruit and select or having the staff members super- vised recruit and elect their own super- visors. Such formally organized commit- tees have been used widely for at least a generation to assist in filling univer- sity presidents' positions. Library search and screen committees are a recent phe- nomenon, however, perhaps one of the past five to ten years in which we have witnessed participatory library adminis- tration increasing. Since literature on the subject is ·sparse, the growing popularity of search and screen committees suggests the ap- propriateness of a paper recommending guidelines and explaining options for use. While sparse, some search and screen committee literature does exist. An American Council on Education ·pamphlet provides a full description of john F. Harvey is dean of library ser- vices, and Mary Parr is chairperson, peri- odicals department, Hofstra University Li- brary, Hempstead, New York. the committee task and should be help- ful to readers. 1 A paper by Richard Sommerfeld and Donna N agely is a use- ful committee operation manual, espe- cially in explaining the reasons for this development and describing the pitfalls to avoid. 2 The University of Louisville experience is common and can be used as a library model, but the Northwest- em University experience is atypical and provides only a negative example. 3• 4 Paul G. Reinert stresses the slowness, ex- pense, and complexity of these commit- tees and the likelihood that their person- nel decisions will involve campus poli- tics.5 Paul Strohm believes that search and screen committees should be named in consultation with relevant constitu- encies and that committee recommenda- tions should not be overturned without additional consultation. 6 Several universities have their own written library I faculty personnel selec- tion policy and procedure statements which may be helpful for others to read, for example, Oakland, North Car- olina, Maryland, and Minnesota. Letters received through a personal survey of current policy and practice in forty uni- versity libraries supplement the litera- ture cited above. 7 In common par lance a search commit- I 347 348 I College & Research Libraries • July 1976 tee, a screening committee, and a search and screen committee are titles which suggest similar if not identical activities. Obviously, a search committee, narrowly conceived, may search and locate only, leaving candidate screening to others. A screening committee screens, rates, or evaluates the leading candidates located by the administrator, often in interview situations. In practice, however, both kinds of committees may carry out most or all of both responsibilities, as, of course, does the search and screen com- mittee. A search and screen committee may allocate much work to its chairper- son, but a screening committee can dis- tribute work more equally among its members. The screening process may be used in simple form without a commit- tee, also, as at Tennessee, where numer- ous staff members rate candidates found by the library administration. This pa- per will discuss both the search and screen ends of the task. There is a body of opinion which ad- dresses the difference between searching and screening and stresses the greater effectiveness of committee screening than of committee searching. Many large libraries fill a dozen vacancies a year and typically are conducting sev- eral searches simultaneously. A library personnel officer can handle the details of these searches and narrow the choice skillfully and efficiently. The complex- ities of library faculty searching in the 1970s, with federal and campus affirma- tive action, equal opportunity, and addi- tional requirements and voluminous correspondence and oral contacts, on campus and off, suggest that the burden of work and understanding will be much more onerous to a one-time-only search and screen committee chairperson than to a full-time personnel officer al- ready well acquainted with the policies and routines involved. · - Screening a limited number of well- qualified candidates, on the other hand, calls for the judgments of a variety of concerned persons and can better be handled by a committee. Of course, the library without a personnel officer is left with the need to carry out both ends of the task in another way. The search and screen committee ob- jective is to assist the library administra- tion in filling a specific budgeted profes- sional position vacancy with the best candidate available at the time. Most search and screen committees are expect- ed to complete their work by presenting the administrator to whom they report with a list in alphabetical or priority order of the best available candidates. The salary required to hire each candi- date may be requested also. POLICIES AND PRACTICES Many varying search and screen com- mittee policies and practices are being used in American university libraries, and this paper will summarize them. On certain campuses only library director- ships are filled through search and screen committee use, while on other campuses, e.g., University of New Mex- ico and University of Minnesota Twin Cities, all professional library vacancies are filled in this way. Still other cam- puses, e.g., New Mexico State Universi- ty, University of North Carolina, and Columbia University, require such com- mittee use in filling all professional va- cancies above a certain rank. In certain universities, even high-level support-staff vacancies may be filled through search and screen committee use. In contrast, probably a few li- braries have used no search and screen committees. Each campus must work out its own policy for the level and circum- stances of use. Committee Selection Committee member selection policies vary. Normally a new committee is ap- pointed for each vacancy. Occasionally, a search and screen committee will be formed from the university's advisory faculty library committee with addi- tions from the library staff. An advan- tage of regularly assigning search or screen responsibilities to the standing tenure and promotion committee is that this policy allows that group to carry out these chores for all vacancies and for the entire staff, thereby occupying the time of only a small group of peo- ple. Otherwise, university libraries using a separate committee for each vacancy may be quite weighed down with com- mittee work. In certain libraries, e.g., University of New Mexico, the library department with the vacancy insists on strong search committee representation, while in other libraries, e.g., Colorado State University, such representation is avoided. The same kind of disagreement may affect teaching faculty member use on the committee. · Who should choose search and screen committee members, and how should they be chosen? Normally, the library director will select the committee with advice from department heads and sometimes with the staff electing certain committee members. If a director is being sought, the university adminis- trator to whom the director reports will choose the committee. Occasionally, en- tire search and screen committees are elected by the library or departmental staff members, as at Louisville. Certain search and screen committees selected ·for specific vacancies and cer- tain standing tenure and promotion committees are appointed through the university library's formally organized faculty assembly. This coordination provides the library faculty with a means of assisting the administration in carrying out its tasks. A few search and screen committees are large, eigh- teen or twenty for a major position, while others are small, perhaps only three members, as at Eastern New Mex- ico University. Certain administrators name the committee officers-chairper- Search and Screen Committees I 349 son, vice-chairperson, and secretary; but others encourage the committee to elect its own, e.g., State University of New York at Albany. In searches to fill high- level vacancies, the library director may serve as committee chairperson or secre- tary, though certain authorities frown on this practice since the director must then play a dual role. The administrator appointing the search and screen committee will insure its success or failure by the wisdom of the appointments made, the choice of the chairperson being by far the most important of them. Generally, service as chairperson is considered to be an honor, sometimes even a campuswide honor when a major library position is being filled. This honor may go to a re- spected campus leader who is called upon to perform a public service for the university administration. The chairperson needs free time weekly for this assignment, as well as good access to secretarial help to carry out the large amount of correspondence and record- keeping involved. Even committee mem- bership is an honor and .permits indi- viduals to leave their desks for several hours each month to sit in closed con- ference with certain colleagues. Search and screen committees may in- clude university trustees, alumni, towns- people, and relevant campus committee representatives. Certain committees are selected carefully and democratically to represent many diverse groups, while others are selected solely from a few groups. Usually both sexes and some- times both professional and support- staff members are represented. In certain libraries, for instance, a readers service division chief search and screen com- mittee might contain professionals and support-staff members who would work under this person; a technical services division staff member; a teaching facul- ty department chairperson; deans or professors whose library service this per- son would supervise; students; and a 350 f College & Research Libraries • July 1976 dean of students office staff member in- terested in the caliber of library service. Level of Responsibility Responsibility should accompany au- thority in staff selection, so the person supervising the vacancy should have an important responsibility in filling it. Just how this idea is carried out is not described in many of the responses re- ceived by the authors. Sometimes this person serves on the search and screen committee, while in other cases, he or she works closely with the administrator who collects candidate data. Final candi- dates may be cleared with this person before an offer is made. Certain administrators give . search and screen committees wide latitude and turn over most of the recruiting and se- lecting responsibility to them, while oth- ers use them only to rate and advise and not even to present a slate of recom- mended candidates. Some administrators ask committees to search nationally and internationally for a pool of position candidates, while others limit them to local or regional searches, depending on the vacancy level and the director's am- bitions for the staff. In most cases, in- ternal and external candidates are given equal consideration. Many adminis- trators give committees deadlines for work completion. Most administrators appoint only from the committee's short list, while a few may appoint un- listed persons. Still other administrators insist that a decision be obtained on each candidate before the next one is considered. Meetings Certain administrators attend the search and screen committee's initial meeting in order to clarify the charge, policies, and procedures for the mem- bers. The currently appropriate and full position description, faculty rank, salary range, tenure status, affirmative action, and equal opportunity steps must be described. Deadlines and short- list presentation information must be provided. The advisory nature of the committee recommendations and the ap- pointment routine should also be de- scribed. Early in its work, the commit- tee must clarify its budget. Correspon- dence, telephone calls, meals with candi- dates, and possible library school visits constitute its own expenses. Candidate expenses include travel, lodging, and meals when coming for an interview. Finally, if its role is to be carried out expeditiously, the committee must adopt a timetable for the project and a meet- ing schedule. The committee should meet at least monthly, sometimes weekly. All mem- bers present should vote on all impor- tant matters. Meeting minutes should be sent to the members and the director. The committee should attempt to bring to the library the best-qualified and available candidates in the country, can- didates capable of making significant contributions to library staff thinking on a variety of problems. Selecting Candidates The position description should clar- ify the relevant responsibilities, to whom the staff ·member reports, the qualifications required, and the salary and fringe benefits available. The de- scription should show the number and level of staff members to be supervised or the amount of money to be spent. It will assist the committee in focusing on the best-qualified candidates and is usu- ally prepared by the library administra- tion. The search for candidates should be intensive and extensive. A pool of can- didate names may be collected in the following manner: a. Obtaining suggestions from the di- rectors of twenty-five or so large university libraries. b. Writing to twenty-five or so library schools for candidate lists. .( - c. Advertising in library periodicals, in scientific or other periodicals, in the Chronicle of Higher Educa- tion, the AA UP Academe, and the New York Times. d. Advertising the vacancy and inter- viewing candidates at national con- ferences. e. Notifying present library staff members who may wish to apply. f. Notifying placement organiza- tions established to assist minority persons and women. g. Checking the library's file of un- solicited applications. h. Writing to academic department chairpersons and faculty members, where appropriate. Additional steps should include the compilation of dossiers for the best dozen or fifteen candidates. Each one should consist of a curriculum vitae, · references, and other biographical ma- terial. · Library school placement folders and transcribed telephone calls can be helpful. Furthermore, form letters, doc- umentation of affirmative action, and extensive mailings will be needed. From the position description, advertisements, and announcements can be prepared. An appropriate set of criteria should be developed against which all candi- dates can be rated. The most important characteristics to be sought in the person who fills the position should be stressed. Weights may be assigned to reflect the various factors' importance. The re- quired data should be collected, the weighted criteria applied, and, if prac- tical, a ranking derived for each candi- date. A record must be kept of each candidate's evaluation and the reasons for rejection. Campus Interviews The top two to six candidates (the short list) should be brought to the cam- pus for twelve- to forty-eight-hour visits- to allow staff members to evaluate them. The top two candidates may be selected Search and Screen Committees I 351 questions. Presumably, they should be invited in their quality order. The uni- versity administration may have estab- for repeat visits to clarify important lished budgetary and procedural regu- lations to guide the committee in enter- taining and housing them. Each candidate should be introduced to as large a number and as great a variety of campus persons as possible for mutually beneficial exposure. An itinerary should be given to the candi- date and with a curriculum vitae sup- plied to all persons listed on it before his or her arrival. Library faculty and support-staff members, teaching faculty members, administrators, and students should be included. The library depart- ment heads' council, the faculty library committee, the entire departmental staff directly involved, student body officers, faculty senate officers, and library staff association officers should be represented in candidate meetings, luncheons, and interviews. The director and assistant director should see the candidate, and, on some campuses, the academic vice- president will see the candidate as well. Typically, an appointment is made with the tenure and promotion commit- tee since t.he application of their cri- teria and interpretations to all candi- dates is appropriate and helpful. In ad- dition, each candidate's weaknesses may be identified and a decision made about which set of weaknesses would be least problematic. Alerting candidates to spe- cial campus pressure groups, physical plant problems, and the concerns of those to be supervised, as well as long- range library plans, will provide need- ed orientation information. Regret- tably, the contrast between the man- nered politeness of the screening rou- tine and the blunt political reality of the position has caused many directors anguish. ~ Each candidate may make a public pres~ntation to a campus group on a topic of his or her own choosing or one 352 I College & Research Libraries • July 1976 related to the vacancy. This is simply another method of gauging the candi- date's effectiveness. A packet of material about the institution and the library should be given to each candidate to provide further background informa- tion. Search and screen committees should be hospitable .and friendly, but at the same time they must look at each candidate very critically and ask pene- trating questions to gauge thinking. The committee should take the initiative in carrying out a thorough analysis of the candidate's personality, abilities, knowl- edge, and ideas while providing a full and honest picture of the local situa- tion. When the visit is concluded, each can- didate should be evaluated in writing by each person who has met him or her. The completed evaluation forms should be collected by the committee and the degree of favorability scored. They should show the extent to which the candidate has met the position criteria. The final list of the top three to five candidates should be sent to the admin- istrator soon after the evaluations and committee votes are tabulated. With this step, the search and screen committee's work is done. Normally, the administra- tor will carry out final contract negotia- tions to hire the candidate. STRENGTHS In many situations, the university li- brary search and 'screen committee en- joys the following strengths: 1. In an era of participatory and consultative management, the search and screen committee pro- vides , .a democratic method of re- cruiting and selecting new person- nel. Often it reflects the relative- ly new faculty status of library professionals. 2. Some committees work quickly, efficiently, and intelligently and land their person in three months or less, e.g., University of New Mexico's 1973 special collections chief search committee. 3. A search and screen committee provides well-informed and vital- ly involved persons to assist in re- cruiting and selecting new person- nel. 4. Appointment of staff members to such .a committee can provide use- ful information to the adminis- trator concerning their skill and interest in administrative and committee work. 5. Often the search and screen com- mittee is a useful supplement to a small and overworked library administrative staff. 6. In this way, a variety of opinions can be obtained on every position candidate, and the candidate is able to meet varied cam:rus groups and ide.as. 7. Many staff members enjoy serving on such committees, thereby es- caping briefly the routine of daily work assignments. 8. "Political" recognition from staff and faculty members attracts oth- er persons to this responsibility. 9. By using such committees for many vacancies, library adminis- trators may reduce the upward mobility of their own staff mem- bers. Apparently, many search committees suffer from a bias against local candidates. The glamorous outsider about whom very little is known always looks better than the shopworn insider about whom too much is known. This may be an advantage or a disadvantage, depending upon lo- cal circumstances. On the other hand, iri some circumstances the politically resourceful insider may turn the situation around and make the subtle pressures of staff opinion felt. 10. Library staff members participat- ing .actively in personnel selection display a greater sensitivity than before to the problems of locat- ing high-quality position candi- dates. 11. The search and screen committee enables the library to involve oth- er parts of the university, particu- larly the faculty, in its activity, even in its decision making. Such involvement should lead to im- proved knowledge and under- standing and perhaps to closer alignment with other campus units. 12. No objective evidence was located concerning the superiority of the judgments made or the candidates appointed through search and screen committee use, as contrast- ed with more traditional or more democratic approaches. Neverthe- less, most respondents felt such committee methods to be more successful than traditional admin- istrative methods. Representative staff judgment and participation were felt to be beneficial to staff morale and confidence and to the new appointee who arrives with widespread recognition and sup- port. WEAKNESSES In many university libraries, the weaknesses of search and scree!?- com- mittees seem to be the following: 1. The spirit with which the com- mittee is appointed can be deci.: sive. If it mainly represents ··win- dow dressing," or political expe- diency, then the committee is like- ly to fail. Bennis' article in the Atlantic provides one such exam- pie, 8 as does a situation in which a candidate is appointed because he or she has developed a vocal and persuasive committee champi- on. 2. While some committees are per- ceptive and agree quickly on what Search and Screen Committees I 353 they are doing, others are not and do not. Many search and screen committees seek the ideal individ- ual and fail to set priorities among qualifications. Failure to appraise realistically the qualifica- tions required by the position and demonstrated by the candidates creates many problems. Consider- able disagreement may exist about ranking the various candidates and even about the very nature of the position itself. Expecting a great deal of sensitivity and thoroughness from such tempo- rary appointees, however, may be naive. 3. Certain committees lack the knowledge, administrative ability, or interest to carry out the task satisfactorily. They muddle along with more discussion than action, hold irregular and poorly attend- ed meetings, and are overwhelmed by the paperwork required. Still other committees are fatally at- tracted to the freeloading inter- view routi~e and eagerly run up large liquor and food bills at the best restaurants while interview- ing second-rate candidates. Such a situation might force the li- brary to fill the vacancy wi1h an acting person for years at a time, e.g., the 1972-74 State University of New York at Stony Brook and the Hofstra University Library directorships. 4. Strange things have happened on search and screen committees: ( a) occasional sets of candidate pa- pers have been lost, and ( b} some committees have deliberately sought candidates less well quali- fied than the predecessor! 5. On certain campuses, committees are chosen, at least in part, and not completely without reason, from groups of people who are willing to give the extra time re- 354 I College & Research Libraries • July 1976 quired or else have not served on another committee recently, rath- er than from groups of people who are well qualified for the particular assignment. 6. Some staff members prefer to car- ry out routine work at their desks than .to "fool around on commit- tee work." 7. Committee meetings occupy staff time and attention which cannot easily be spared from desk work. Further, getting committee mem- bers to avoid letting persuasive in- dividuals dominate their thinking is sometimes difficult. 8. Due to a limited perspective, com- mittees may screen for obvious paper qualifications rather than for potential library contribu- tions. 9. Certain search and screen commit- tees are said to select not the best candidate, but instead, the candi- date who displeases no one. 10. Often individual committee members with vested interests view candidates primarily from the vantage point of expected personal interaction rather than from a more broadly based frame of reference. This situation leads to the charge that these commit- tees react emotionally, not logical- ly. 11. Many search and screen commit- tees have the limitations of other committees in diffusing responsi- bility and slowing down the selec- tion process. 12. Administrators are presumed to be free to accept or reject com- mittee recommendations. In prac- tice, however, they may not be as free as assumed to reject them. 13. If administrators fail to act ex- peditiously or wisely on commit- tee recommendations, the result is likely to be unsuccessful. CONCLUSION Once started, use of search and screen committees is difficult for administra- tors to stop, even for a single case. Re- turning to traditional approaches will bring considerable staff criticism and will represent a renunciation of demo- cratic administration. Of course, the same thing can be said for other aspects of participatory management .as well. Are university library search and screen committees generally useful? How can we assess their performance? Sufficient time has not yet elapsed for a firm evaluation of their success or failure. Surely, we shall see more of them in the future. They will be con- tinued in order to meet the need for justifying appointments to an increas- ing variety of agencies, groups, and in- dividuals. Equally important is the re- lationship of the committee concept to the increasingly popular concept of par- ticipatory management. As a mode of operational management, the participa- tory concept has gained popularity for both libraries and other university units. As long as the trend to participa- tory management continues, search and screen committees will flourish, even in the absence of reliable and objective de- terminations of their usefulness. REFERENCES 1. Richard A. Kaplowitz, Selecting Academic Administrators: The Search Committee (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1973). 2. Richard Sommerfeld and Donna N agely, "Seek and Ye Shall Find: The Organization and Conduct of a Search Committee," ]our- nal of Higher Education 45:239-52 ( April 1974). 3. Louise Galloway, "Academic Librarians Par- ticipate in the Selection of the Director of Libraries," College & Research Libraries 33: 220--27 (May 1972) . 4. E. G. Bennis, "Searching for the Perfect University President, with Editorial Com- ment and Discussion," Atlantic 227: 4, 39- 44 (April 1971); 32-35 (June 1971). 5. Paul C. Reinert, "The Problem with Search Committees," College Management 9:10-11, 39 (Feb. 1974). 6. Paul Strohm, "Faculty Search Committees and Review Committees: What to Do until the Bargaining Agent Comes," American As- sociation of University Professors Bulletin 60: 288-90 ( Sept. 197 4 ) . 7. Responses were received in the spring of 1974 through January 1975 from the follow- ing: Phillip Howard, Oakland Univ. Library, Oakland, Mich.; James Govan, Univ. of North Carolina Library, Chapel Hill; How- ard Rovelstad, Univ. of Maryland Library, College Park; Raymond A. Bohling, Univ. of Minnesota Twin Cities Library, Minneap- olis; Richard E. Chapin, Michigan State Univ. Libraries, East Lansing; Richard W. Boss, Univ. of Tennessee Library, Knoxville; Marilyn O'Hair, Univ. of Albuquerque Cen- ter for Learning and Information Resources, Albuquerque, N.M.; David Kaser, Graduate Library School, Indiana Univ., Bloomington; Warren Owens, Univ. of Idaho Library, Search and Screen Committees I 355 Moscow; Jane G. Flener, Univ. of California Library, Berkeley; John K. Mayeski, Univ. of Washington Libraries, Seattle; C. James Schmidt, State Univ. of New York at Albany Library; Janet T. Paulk, Emory Univ. Li- brary, Atlanta, Ga.; W. David Laird, Univ. of Arizona Library, Tucson; Joseph Jeffs, Georgetown Univ. Library, Washington, D.C.; James M. Dyke, New Mexico State Univ. Library, Las Cruces; Frederick Duda, Columbia Univ. Libraries, New York; Gay D. Henderson, Wright State Univ. Library, Dayton, Ohio; Robert H. DeWitt, Colorado State Univ. Library, Fort Collins; Franklin Long, Univ. of Notre Dame Library, Notre Dame, Ind.; Pearce S. Grove, Eastern New Mexico Univ. Library, Portales; Jay Lucker, Princeton Univ. Library, Princeton, N.J.; Robert H. Muller, Queens College Library, New York; Ben Jacobson, Northwestern Univ. Library, Evanston, Ill.; Robert K. Johnson, Univ. of Arizona Graduate Library School, Tucson; Richard L. Snyder, Drexel Univ. Library, Philadelphia, Pa. 8. Bennis, "Searching for the Perfect Univer- sity President."