College and Research Libraries By H A N S M U L L E R The Management of College Library Book Budgets Hans Mutter, research assistant at the Graduate Library School of the Univer- sity of Chicago, prepared this paper for a meeting of the College Libraries Section at the Boston Conference. LI B R A R Y P R A C T I C E S are often tough and ' stubborn. Once established, they tend to become inhospitable to change. Traditions are built up, whose sacrosanct character is soon taken for granted by all practitioners, and any skeptic who dares to question the usefulness of a tradition is likely to be looked upon with suspicion and distrust. T h i s is not sur- prising since every modification of an established rule involves—beside the in- evitable initial expense—readjustments of habits on the part of the library staff; and it is a well-known psychological fact that the breaking of old habits and the adop- tion and incorporation of new patterns of action is usually upsetting and painful. Professional meetings of librarians miss their main function, however, unless they deliberately encourage and cultivate a pro- gressive and critical attitude among the participants—a critical attitude toward established library practices, a critical at- titude toward the objectives which such practices are designed to fulfill, a critical attitude toward remnants of the past as well as toward innovations. I t is in this spirit of open-mindedness and hospitality toward new ideas that the topic of college library book funds will be approached in this paper. Let us begin with a very brief his- torical sketch. In their colonial days American college libraries did not have to cope with the problems in connection with the necessity of controlling book ex- penditures, for there was practically no money available for the purchase of new publications. Shores found that "the pro- portion of accessions acquired by direct purchase was probably less than a tenth of the total." 1 As was stated in the special re- port on American libraries, issued by the Bureau of Education in 1876, up to about the middle of the nineteenth century there were " f e w colleges [ t h a t ] possessed funds to build up libraries on a scientific plan."2 O n l y very gradually, as the needs and objectives of college libraries became more sharply defined, were funds provided for the purchase of current books. Doubts began to be raised as to whether a hap- hazard conglomeration of private libraries was suitable for the use of college stu- dents. T h e r e were several ways in which money could be secured. Endowments were established either by a single donor or through subscription. Special efforts were instituted to obtain gifts of money 1 Shores, Louis. Origins of the American College Library. B a r n e s & Noble, 1935, p. 109. 2 U . S . B u r e a u of E d u c a t i o n . Public Libraries in the United States; Their History, Condition, and Management. Special Report. Pt. I. G o v e r n m e n t P r i n t i n g Office, 1876, p. 62. 320 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES from alumni and other friends of the col- lege. M a n y of these funds were clearly earmarked for the purchase of books in designated fields. In such cases the li- brary administrator was not confronted with the vexing task of having to dis- tribute the money among the various academic disciplines. Only when the bulk of available money began to be obtained through student fees and regular annual appropriations did the problem of how to apportion the book f u n d appear on the scene and become pressing. T h e natural tendency was to pool the money from the various sources into a single book fund of the library. Occa- sionally, however, this was not done, i.e., books were paid for out of funds belong- ing to the respective academic departments rather than out of a centralized library book f u n d . In such instances the li- brarian had obviously very little control over book selection. T h e library consti- tuted merely the neutral depository of independent departmental acquisitions. T h e authority of the individual depart- ment of instruction was supreme. In the 1926 survey, conducted by the American Library Association, it was found that only six of a sample of fifty-four college and university libraries operated under this divided arrangement.3 T h e situation was less favorable among land-grant col- leges and universities, where—as recently as 1930—it was found that in only five of forty-eight such institutions was there any supervision exercised by the librarian over the expenditure of funds for the purchase of departmental library books.4 Among 105 libraries of nationally accred- 3 A Survey of Libraries in the United States. Vol. I. A m e r i c a n L i b r a r y Association, 1926, p. 217. 4 U . S . Office of E d u c a t i o n . Survey of Land-Grant Colleges. Section of Bulletin, 1930, No. 9, Vol. I , P t . V I I I , The Library. G o v e r n m e n t P r i n t i n g Office, 1930, p. 652. ited colleges ( A . A . U . approval), surveyed by the author in 1940, there was only a single case in which book funds were not centralized.5 It seems, therefore, that the trend is definitely in the direction of centralization. Let us now turn to several controversial issues—as indicated by the following ques- tions—concerning the handling of central- ized book f u n d s : ( 1 ) Should the book f u n d of a college library be apportioned among the several departments of instruc- tion? ( 2 ) If so, how are the undesirable features of the apportionment plan to be removed or mitigated? ( 3 ) W h a t records and memoranda are necessary and de- sirable in carrying out the apportionment plan ? Apportionment versus Nonapportionment If we ask whether a library book f u n d should be apportioned or not, two kinds of answer are possible: ( 1 ) First, we may point to the practices of other li- braries and recommend the adoption of whatever happens to be the most com- mon practice. If this is done, we find that most college libraries undertake an official apportionment of their book funds every year. Among 105 college libraries, sur- veyed by the author, seventy-seven oper- ated under formal apportionments. In almost all the thirty-five colleges related to the Methodist Episcopal Church, which were surveyed by Reeves and his staff, the book budget was apportioned among the several departments of instruction.6 Book funds were also apportioned in thirty-eight of fifty-four college and university li- 5 For a list of the colleges s u r v e y e d see H a n s M u l l e r ' s , " T h e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of Book F u n d s in College L i b r a r i e s . " A p p e n d i x C. ( U n p u b l i s h e d M a s t e r ' s Report, G r a d u a t e L i b r a r y School, U n i v e r - sity of Chicago, 1941). « Reeves, F . W . , and Russell, J . R. " T h e A d m i n - i s t r a t i o n of t h e L i b r a r y Book B u d g e t . " Library Quarterly 2:269, J u l y 1932. SEPTEMBER, 1941 321 braries surveyed in 1926 by the American Library Association.7 If the findings of these surveys are taken as evidence of what ought to be done, the conclusion must be drawn that to apportion the library book f u n d is better than not to apportion it. ( 2 ) Another way of answering this question is to weigh advantages against disadvantages. T h e advantages may be briefly stated in the approximate order of their importance (as determined in part by a pooled judgment of college librari- ans8) : ( a ) apportionment ensures the obtaining of an evenly distributed and well-rounded book collection; ( b ) it pro- vides a safeguard against unreasonable demands of certain faculty members; (c) it stimulates the faculty to participate more actively in book selection, since it enables departments to feel that there is some money available which they can call their o w n ; 9 ( d ) it guards the librarian against the possible charge that the expenditure of book funds has been unjust to some departments; (e) it prevents the clash of personalities;10 ( f ) it curbs the exercise of an excessive degree of discretionary power and arbitrariness on the part of the librarians.11 Disadvantages of Apportionment As to the disadvantages of the appor- tionment plan we note that Randall and Goodrich regard it as a necessary evil.12 7 A Survey of Libraries in the United States. Vol. I . A m e r i c a n L i b r a r y Association, 1926, p. 220. 8 See M u l l e r , op. cit., f o r a detailed description of the p r o c e d u r e followed in d e t e r m i n i n g the r e l a t i v e r a n k s of these a d v a n t a g e s . 9 Cf. c o m m e n t s by E. W . F a l l e y in G. M o m e n t ' s , " B o o k s a n d M o n e y in Colleges." Special L i b r a r y Association. Proceedings 2:124, 1939. 10 B a k e r , Charles M. " T h e A l l o t m e n t of Book F u n d s — A D e f e n s e . " Library Journal 58:248, M a r . I933- 11 K o c h , T h e o d o r e W „ et al. " T h e Apportion- m e n t of Book F u n d s in College a n d U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r i e s . " A.L.A. Bulletin 2:344, 1908. 12 Principles of College Library Administration. A m e r i c a n L i b r a r y Association and U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1936, p. 59. W h e t h e r it is really necessary is, of course, an open question in view of the fact that some college libraries do not officially operate under the apportionment plan. T h a t "evils" are associated with the plan is usually not denied. T h e y will be discussed under four heads: waste of f u n d s ; impossibility of planning; red tape; and rigidity. Several writers have pointed out that apportionment leads to a waste of money. Some departments are bound to be al- lotted much less money than they need, whereas others have too much money to spend.13 T h u s apportionment has the effect of hampering the departments that could really use the money.14 T h e apportionment plan is said to pre- vent any systematic building-up of the library book collection.15 Unless special provisions are made, no funds are avail- able for the purchase of expensive sets, because the funds available to any given department usually revert to a general f u n d at the end of a fiscal year. Hence it is normally impossible to accumulate funds. Complaints are occasionally voiced about the excessive amount of red tape and bookkeeping involved in the appor- tionment plan. T h i s is particularly notice- able whenever changes during the course of the year seem desirable. Pitiful ex- pedients have to be resorted to, such as petitions for transfers,1 6 and informal in- terdepartmental lending.17 In the attempt to use up the available funds, books are billed to be sent later.1 8 In general, it 13 Reeves a n d Russell, op. cit., p. 271. 14 Koch, et al., op. cit., p. 342. 15 R a n d a l l , W . M. The College Library. Ameri- can L i b r a r y Association and U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1932, p. 102. is W y e r , J . D., J r . The College and University Library. P r e p r i n t of Manual of Library Economy, chap, iv, 2d ed. A m e r i c a n L i b r a r y Association, 1921, p. 13. 17 Koch, et al., op. cit., p. 343. is W y e r , loc. cit. 322 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH ) L I B R A R I E S must be granted that there is a great deal of apparently unnecessary bookkeeping, which tends to make the plan uneco- nomical.19 Librarians have also frequently com- plained about the tendency for apportion- ments to remain fixed for too long a period—in disregard of changes in the curriculum. T h e reason for this lack of flexibility is that changes are difficult to make, since no department is willing to consent to a reduction of its own allot- ment.2 0 O f t e n no account is taken of variations in the relative publishing out- put of different subject fields from year to year. W h e t h e r the advantages outweigh the disadvantages depends on a number of factors. N o categorical answer can be given. M u c h depends on the professional competence of the librarian and the academic prestige which he commands. M u c h depends also on the traditions that prevail in a particular college. Most of the disadvantages can be controlled or prevented, provided that the librarian is alert to the ever-changing needs of the college community. Given an incompe- tent librarian, it is perhaps wise to insist on the retention of the apportionment plan. Remedies Several remedies have been proposed, which are designed to bring about an al- leviation of the undesirable accompani- ments of apportioning. Prominent among the suggestions as to how the evils of apportionment may be avoided is the plan put forth by Randall.2 1 H e recommended a four-year cycle of apportionment, which 18 Ibid. 20 V a n P a t t e n , N a t h a n . " B u y i n g Policies of Col- lege and U n j v e r s i t y L i b r a r i e s . " College and Re- search Libraries 1:66, Dec. 1939. 2 1 R a n d a l l , op. cit., p p . 102-04. would result in a periodic check-up of the book collection and which would make it possible to carry on a well-planned pro- gram of book purchases. U n d e r this plan there would be a relatively large rotating fund, which would be assigned to a different department or group of departments every year. T h u s a depart- ment would be given an opportunity to conduct recurrent surveys of the book collection in its particular field and to fill in gaps. T h i s plan is reported to be in operation at the University of Denver. A second plan is that described by M c - Crum. 2 2 She would ask faculty members to indicate three degrees of preference on their book requisitions: ( a ) essential, ( b ) very desirable, but demand not pressing, (c) to round out the collection. T h e as- sumption is that the library has suffi- cient funds to purchase all the books in class a, and that the librarian may be permitted to use his discretion in selecting books from classes b and c, if enough money to purchase all the requested titles is not available. Cards for titles not immediately purchased are kept in a de- siderata file. T h i s plan is in operation at Macalester College, St. Paul. A third plan is that followed at the University College, London, where funds are allotted by a faculty library committee, not to the individual departments of in- struction, but to five subcommittees, each of which passes upon all the requisitions of a group of departments.23 T h e li- brarian is a member of each subcommittee and, thus, participates in the process of book selection. T h e idea underlying this 22 M c C r u m , Blanche P . An Estimate of Standards for a College Library. 2d ed. rev. L e x i n g t o n , Tournalism L a b o r a t o r y P r e s s , W a s h i n g t o n a n d Lee U n i v e r s i t y , 1937, PP. 105-06. 23 W o l e d g e , G., a n d P a g e , B. S. A Manual of University and College Library Practice. L o n d o n , T h e L i b r a r y Association, 1940, p. 42. SEPTEMBER, 1941 323 plan is to prevent book selection from too narrow a point of view. A fourth remedy is to provide a rela- tively large general fund, which would make it possible for the librarian to meet any emergencies. T h i s plan has been highly recommended by many librarians. It represents perhaps—in a compromise fashion—the most desirable solution. T h e larger the general fund becomes, the more does the librarian pass from the order clerk stage to the book-selector stage. A general f u n d makes for elasticity in the book purchasing program and permits the acquisition of materials in borderline subjects. Randall and Goodrich maintain that an ample discretionary f u n d ought to be provided, so that the salary paid a competent librarian would not be wasted.24 H o w large the general f u n d will be, depends on the local situation. Among sixty-four liberal arts colleges surveyed by the author, the arithmetic mean was 28 per cent; the range extended all the way from zero to 70 per cent. T w o dis- tinctive modes were noted at 25 and 33.3 per cent respectively. In another survey conducted by the author, a group of Middle W e s t e r n col- lege librarians was asked the following question: " W h a t do you consider to be the maximum percentage of the total library book f u n d (exclusive of funds for periodicals and binding) that should be apportioned to departments annually?" T h e average answer (i.e., the arithmetic mean of all the answers) was 66 per cent.25 T h u s the belief was expressed that about one third represents the mini- mum proportion of the total book f u n d that should be left under the exclusive jurisdiction of the librarian. T h i s rec- 24 R a n d a l l a n d Goodrich, op. cit., p. 64. 25 See M u l l e r , op. cit., p. 61 f o r t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of a n s w e r s . ommendation does not deviate from cur- rent practices. I t should be noted, of course, that much depends upon the size of the total book f u n d . For instance, 40 per cent, as recommended by the librarian of one library, represented $3560, whereas 50 per cent, as recommended by the libra- rian of another library, represented only $900. These two situations are obviously not quite comparable. A fifth method designed to remedy the undesirable features of the apportionment plan is the carrying-over of departmental allotments from one fiscal year to the next. If departmental book funds revert to a general college fund, the result is what Baker calls a "last-minute spending stampede."26 T h e lapsing of funds can, of course, be prevented if the librarian sends reminders to the faculty throughout the year, informing them as to the status of their departmental allocations, so that by the end of the year most of the appor- tioned money will have been spent. H o w - ever, if a considerable sum should remain unexpended, it is preferable to make some provision for the carrying-over of depart- mental apportionments. T h i s can be ac- complished in either one of two ways: ( 1 ) A library reserve f u n d may be cre- ated, which would absorb all the unspent balances; and through informal agree- ments the several departments would be permitted to let their book funds accumu- late in this reserve f u n d even for a number of years. T h i s was the practice at Cornell University and at the U n i - versity of Missouri in 1908.27 ( 2 ) M c C r u m suggested a slightly different arrangement, under which funds could be deposited by the treasurer of the uni- versity in a separate f u n d to be spent for 20 B a k e r , op. cit., p. 249. 27 Koch, et al., op. cit., pp. 346-47 ( d i s c u s s i o n ) . 324 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH ) L I B R A R I E S a definite item at a f u t u r e time.28 In summary, it seems that under current methods of financial administration it is normally not possible to carry over de- partmental apportionments as depart- mental apportionments except through informal arrangements, under which such departmental apportionments as revert into a librarian's reserve f u n d may subse- quently be spent by the departments to which the apportionment was originally made. Records and Memoranda T h u s far we have discussed—after a brief historical introduction—the question of apportionment versus nonapportion- ment both in terms of relative advantages and disadvantages and in terms of fre- quency of occurrence. Assuming that a college library is to have an apportioned book fund, we have enumerated several ways of coping with the undesirable fea- tures that tend to accompany the appor- tionment plan. Special attention was paid to the problem of deciding upon the optimum size of the librarian's general fund. T h e remainder of the paper will be devoted to a consideration of records and memoranda. Librarians have paid a good deal of attention to methods of accounting and record keeping. Speaking of the situation at the University of California, Leupp wrote that the library kept a record of the distribution of funds and that it could "show any bewildered professor in five minutes just where his account stands."2 9 I t does not seem necessary in the present context to describe the various methods of bookkeeping in detail. Attention will be paid to the following two questions 28 M c C r u m , op. cit., p. 107. 29 L e u p p , H a r o l d _L. " T h e L i b r a r y : the H e a r t of t h e U n i v e r s i t y , " Library Journal 49:620, J u l y 1924. only: ( i ) W h a t policy should be fol- lowed with regard to the giving out of information about departmental allot- ments? ( 2 ) H o w often should depart- ments be informed as to the balances remaining in their respective funds during the course of the year? In a group of twenty libraries of na- tionally accredited liberal arts colleges, which were surveyed by the author with respect to book-fund administration, there were eleven libraries in which informa- tion about the allotment of a given de- partment is made available only to a member of the department concerned. In seven libraries information is given to any faculty member who asks for it. T h e remaining two libraries go as far as to make the allotment figures known to faculty members by means of an official memorandum. It is interesting to note that such wide variations of policy exist. T h e fact that such a large number of libraries does not think it advisable to make apportionment figures public reflects perhaps the feeling that apportionments do not stand on very firm ground and that the administrators of those libraries find it difficult to defend them in the face of complaints. In library literature free access to the apportionment records has often been looked upon with disfavor. W y e r , for instance, writes:3 0 The librarian (not the college finance office) will keep an account book which will show the sums spent each year for books, binding, and periodicals for each department. Naturally the sum for the same department will vary somewhat from year to year. These figures are never made public. The faculty committee may ask to see them but rarely will so long as there are no appeals. The figures for a single department are 30 W y e r , op. cit., pp. 13-14. ( I t a l i c s not in the o r i g i n a l . ) SEPT EMBER, 1941 325 sometimes made known to its head to show him how much he has had during the year, or that he has had more than some or any other departments, or quite as much as his share, but the complete figures are not pub- lic property. M a k i n g it impossible for one depart- ment to know what another is spending for books may, of course, be a prudent way of avoiding unnecessary ill feeling. O n the other hand, some librarians em- phatically insist on publicizing the dis- tribution of the book f u n d . Such an insistence reflects ( a ) the fact that the librarian's position is secure and power- f u l and that the librarian is not afraid of getting into an argument, and ( b ) it also reflects the commendable policy of a library to treat this whole subject in a democratic and open manner. T o cite merely a single illustration, mention may be made of Williams College, where a mimeographed sheet, showing the allo- cation of funds to the several departments, is distributed among the faculty. In the author's survey of book f u n d administration, previously referred to, it was asked how often department heads were informed as to the balances remain- ing in their respective allotted funds. T h e answers showed considerable variation. All the libraries send, of course, special statements on request at any time. One half of the libraries in this group sends statements at the rate of at least once every school term. T h e other half sends statements at irregular intervals or when- ever a need for informing a department arises. Even though it is difficult to say what the best practice is, it does seem that relatively frequent statements would be an effective means of reminding the faculty of their book selection duties. Some authorities, on the other hand, main- tain that too frequent reminders have the effect of excessive stimulation and tend to lead to purchases of books that are not really needed in the instructional work of the college. Conclusion In conclusion it may be worth while to enumerate a few additional important problems which are relevant to the ad- ministration of book funds in college libraries but which—for lack of time— could not be touched upon in this paper. Nothing has been said about methods of determining the shares to be allocated to the several departments. W h a t are the advantages of, and the objection to, the use of mathematical formulae? H o w much weight is to be attached to the various factors that presumably influence and determine the book needs of a de- partment? A second group of problems would center around the effect of different types of book f u n d administration upon the quality of the resulting book collec- tion. A third problem would concern the relationship of the size of the book f u n d to the type of book f u n d administra- tion that has been adopted in different colleges. A fourth problem would deal with the scope of apportionments, that is, the extent to which expenditures for ma- terials other than books ( f o r example, periodicals) would or should be covered by apportionments. A final problem would relate to matters of authority, su- pervision, and control, that is, to the respective roles of the president, the li- brarian, the dean, the business officer, and the faculty committee in deciding upon the distribution of the book f u n d and in authorizing transfers of funds during the course of the year. 326 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH ) L I B R A R I E S