Oxford University Gazette

Report of Council's Working Party on Senior Library Posts

Supplement (1) to Gazette No. 4373

Thursday, 21 September 1995

Contents of the supplement:

• Introduction
  
• 1 Membership, terms of reference and procedure
  
• 2 Previous approaches
  
• 3 The present arrangements
  
• 4 Advantages and disadvantages of the present
  arrangements
  
• 5 An integrated library system for Oxford?
  
• 6 Recommendations
  
• 7 Summary of recommendations
  
• APPENDIX A: possible organisation of an
  integrated
  library system
  
• APPENDIX B: List of persons seen by the
  working party
  
• APPENDIX C: List of documentation and evidence
  considered by the working party
  

To Gazette
No. 4373
(21 September 1995)

To
Gazette Home Page

---




Introduction


Council has given initial consideration to this report, concentrating
at the
present stage on the core recommendations, namely that there should
be a new
and very senior post of `University Librarian', and that there should
be a new
board with overall responsibility for an integrated university
library system
including the Bodleian.

Strong and unanimous support was expressed at Council for the
main
thrust of the report, and it was agreed to seek the comments of
interested
bodies and individuals, again focusing for the time being on the core
proposals, although respondents may of course comment on other
recommendations
now if they wish. For its part, Council intends to return to
consideration of
the other detailed recommendations in Michaelmas Term. Meanwhile,
Council has
agreed to the immediate setting up of the expert body (in accordance
with
recommendation (iii)) to advise on the management structure which
would be
appropriate if the main recommendations were to be approved.

Council now invites comments on the main proposals in the
report as
embodied in recommendations (i), (ii) and (vi). It would
also be helpful to
have views at the same time on recommendation (ix). Because Council
will need
to take a final decision on these recommendations at its meeting on 6
November, respondents are asked to let the secretary to the working
party (Mr
L.C.C. Reynolds, University Offices, Wellington Square) know their
views on
these parts of the report by Friday, 27 October 1995. If Council at
that
meeting decides that it would wish to proceed with major changes it
will put
down a resolution, seeking approval for those changes, for debate in
Congregation on 28 November.

Return to List of Contents of the supplement

---

REPORT OF COUNCIL'S WORKING PARTY ON SENIOR LIBRARY POSTS





1 Membership, terms of reference and
procedure


1.1 The working party was established by Council in Hilary Term 1995
with the
following terms of reference.

`Having regard to the fact that vacancies will arise by 30 September
1997 in
the posts of Bodley's Librarian, Deputy Librarian, and the Librarian
of the
Taylor Institution, to consider, in the light of the report of the
Working
Party on Information Strategy and generally;

(i) the most appropriate structure of senior posts in
the Oxford system of
libraries;

(ii) responsibilities and duties of such postholders and the range
of
qualifications and experience to be sought in candidates for such
posts.'

1.2 The membership of the working party was:

Sir Keith Thomas PBA, President of Corpus Christi
(Chairman)

Professor M.M. Bowie FBA, Marshal Foch Professor of French
Literature

Professor D.W. Clarke FEng, Head of the Department of Engineering
Science

Mr P.K. Fox, Librarian, University of Cambridge

Dr D.E. Olleson, Chairman of the Libraries Board

(Secretary: Mr L.C.C. Reynolds)

1.3 Professor Clarke provided an overlap with the membership of
the
Information Strategy Working Party, as would also have done the
original
external invitee Ms L.J. Brindley, Librarian and Director of
Information
Services at the LSE. Ms Brindley, however, had to stand down at the
last
moment and Mr Fox most kindly agreed to serve at very short notice.

1.4 We were given a very tight timetable, being asked to report
to Council
not later than its last meeting in Trinity Term 1995. This timetable
was
determined by the knowledge that the post of Bodley's Librarian would
be
vacant from 1 January 1997, so that the post, or whatever form its
successor
takes, would have to be advertised not later than early in 1996. Any
legislation needed to implement changes in structures will have to be
promoted
during Michaelmas Term 1995, so Council and the General Board will
need to
have reached decisions at the beginning of that term.

1.5 The report of the Information Strategy Working Party, which
was
clearly going to be an important factor in our deliberations, became
available
only at the beginning of Trinity Term 1995. Our consultations have
perforce
been rapid. We have, however, sought views from representative
sections of the
library community in Oxford. The evidence received is listed in the
appendices. The working party met on four occasions, the second of
which was
largely taken up by discussion with those invited to give evidence in
person.
Because of the short notice at which Mr Fox was appointed, previous
commitments prevented him from attending the first two meetings. He
received
the full range of documentation, including a detailed account of the
discussions which took place at the second meeting. In addition three
of us
met on a fifth occasion for a discussion with the Director of the
Harvard
University Library, Professor Sidney Verba.

1.6 It was almost immediately evident that any recommendations
concerning
the nature and relationships of the senior library posts concerned
which
departed to any significant extent from present arrangements could
have
potentially far-reaching structural and statutory implications, for
example,
with respect to existing curatorial and management bodies. This is
indeed
implied in our instruction to comment on responsibilities and duties
and on
qualifications and experience, since these will be determined by the
structures to be managed. The Chairman raised this point at an early
stage
with Mr Vice-Chancellor, who acknowledged that the working party
might need to
go beyond the letter of its terms of reference in commenting on the
structure
of library provision itself. This, in the event, proved inevitable
when the
recommendations of the Information Strategy Working Party became
known, since
central to that report are the proposals that there should be a post
of
University Librarian with responsibilities extending over all of the
University's libraries, and a move towards a library organisation
with a more
unified structure. We must therefore make it clear that from the
outset
consideration of the very widest structural issues has been central
to our
work. This is indicated by the following heads for discussion which
we
circulated in advance to those invited to meet us.

• Is there any case for changing the present structure of senior
  library
  posts, and, if so, how?
• Specifically, do you think that the present structure permits the
  best use of resources, expertise, and staff development in Oxford's

  libraries?

• One specific possibility that the working party will be expected
  to address is whether there should be a new senior post of University
  Librarian.
• What do you see as the advantages/disadvantages of establishing
  such a post?
• What do you think the implications for individual libraries and
  their management committees might be?

The framework document issued by the Vice-Chancellor's Commission of
Inquiry raises some questions about the governance of the
University which
are relevant to the management of libraries, namely:

• How far can the desire for wide consultation and democratic
  involvement be reconciled with the need for swift and clear
  decision-making?
• Should more decision-making powers be vested in individuals
  rather than committees? To what extent should committees be
  advisory rather than decision-making?

Would you like to comment in a library context?

• The working party has been asked to comment on `the range of
  qualifications
  and experience to be sought in candidates for such posts'. What sort
  of
  qualifications and experience would you be looking for?

Return to List of Contents of the supplement

---




2 Previous approaches


2.1 Along with the report of the Information Strategy Working Party,
the
background documentation for our review has included the Report of
the
Committee on University Libraries (Michaelmas Term 1966—the
`Shackleton
Report') and the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Future
of Library
Services (Hilary Term 1987—the `Nicholas Report'). On reading
these earlier
reports we are struck by the persistence of many of the concerns with
which
they were exercised.

2.2 The Shackleton Report was concerned with introducing a more
rational
framework for planning and resource allocation into a situation of
what it
described as `unplanned independence [and] enthusiastic rivalry'. The
creation
of the Libraries Board was intended to provide the University with,
firstly,
an expert advisory body on library issues (which the General Board,
because of
its other business, could not be expected to address in the necessary
depth);
secondly, a fund-allocating body for most of the University's
libraries; and
thirdly, a body to motivate and oversee co-ordination across Oxford's
libraries in areas such as common services (including conservation),
union
catalogues, acquisitions policies, staff training and so on. By means
of ex
officio membership of the Libraries Board, Bodley's Librarian, `being
... the
senior Librarian in the University', was to have a `voice in
determining the
general library policy of the University'. As regards the Libraries
Board's
financial remit, Shackleton envisaged it extending to all but the
`very small
departmental or institutional library'. It was expected, nonetheless,
that
such libraries would not be entirely outside the Board's authority:
they
should report to the Board and co-operate in union catalogues. In the
event,
the Board was given financial responsibility only for the central
research
libraries and the faculty or faculty-type libraries, most
departmental
libraries continuing to be funded from within departmental budgets.
Libraries,
including those funded via the Libraries Board, retained managerial
autonomy.

2.3 The Nicholas Committee, sitting as it did in a period of
severe
retrenchment, was preoccupied with the need for a leaner, more
cost-effective
library system, which it believed the unified system would achieve
through,
amongst other means, the reduction of unplanned duplication. In the
prevailing
climate of financial stringency there was no thought of suggesting as
Shackleton had done that the University should be increasing its
expenditure
on libraries taken as a proportion of overall recurrent expenditure.
Nevertheless, despite the less straitened circumstances in which it
met, the
Shackleton Committee had seen the creation of the Libraries Board and
the
collection of financial and other library statistics on a regular
basis as
means `to establish standards of performance to evaluate budget
requests'. In
some respects the emphasis placed by the Information Strategy Working
Party on
the need for additional resources for the library and information
sector, and
the coincidental introduction by HEFCE of performance indicators for
libraries
with effect from 1995–6, makes Shackleton seem more topical than
Nicholas.

2.4 The Information Strategy Working Party has made a case for
establishing a senior post of University Librarian with managerial
and
budgetary responsibility and suggests that, as a first step,
executive
responsibility should extend to the existing Libraries Board
libraries with
the possible exception of the Cairns Library. The ISWP report does
not include
any recommendation on the accompanying committee structure, but we
have seen
the draft statute alluded to in the report, which envisages the
Libraries
Board and the various curatorial bodies being replaced by a single
overarching
body called `The Curators of the University Libraries'. In general
the ISWP
report envisages greatly increased responsibility for executive
individuals,
with committees performing a more advisory and less executive role.

Return to List of Contents of the supplement

---




3 The present arrangements


3.1 In our approach to the issues we have kept before us the
principle that
any changes that might be proposed must have as their prime
justification the
improvement of the overall service provided to users of Oxford's
libraries.
Altering existing arrangements solely for the sake of administrative
tidiness
cannot be justified if it results in a less satisfactory service.
This
principle was emphatically endorsed by all those who submitted
evidence to the
working party.

3.2 To summarise very briefly the existing arrangements. Oxford
has an
extremely rich, diverse and fragmented library service provided by
nearly 100
independently managed library units. Eleven of these are funded
through the
recurrent block grant which the General Board makes to the Libraries
Board
(£8,793,087 in 1993–4). They are: Ashmolean, Bodleian,
Taylorian, Cairns,
Economics and Statistics, English, History, Modern Languages, Music,
Social
Studies, and Theology. Apart from the central Bodleian site, the
Bodleian
Library also incorporates the following geographically separate
units: the
Radcliffe Science Library (including the Hooke Lending Library),
Rhodes House
Library, the Bodleian Law Library, the Bodleian Japanese Library at
the Nissan
Institute, the Oriental Institute Library, the Chinese Institute
Library, and
the Philosophy Library.

3.3 The Bodleian with its dependencies constitutes the largest
unit, with
433 posts and absorbing 80 per cent of the Libraries Board's block
grant. It
is a legal deposit library with extensive research collections and a
national
and international role. In the humanities the Bodleian is a
reference-only
library, but serves both lending and reference functions in the
sciences. The
Ashmolean and the Taylorian are also major international research
libraries.
In the humanities and social sciences, most Libraries Board faculty
libraries
have a primary responsibility to serve undergraduates, but some also
have
substantial research collections of national significance. The
Institute of
Economics and Statistics library is unusual in that it is exclusively
a
research reference collection with no provision for undergraduate
lending.

3.4 Besides the Libraries Board libraries there are 42
departmental
libraries funded from within departmental budgets, i.e. their funds
are not
earmarked for library use. Total expenditure on libraries in this
category was
£1,467,126 in 1993–4. Many departmental libraries in the
sciences are small
research collections, though a minority are comparable in size to the
faculty
libraries. The Hooke (administered by the RSL) and a minority of
departmental
libraries, e.g. Engineering, Geography, Plant Sciences, serve
undergraduate
borrowing requirements. The Cairns is the only Libraries Board
faculty–type
library in the sciences; it serves postgraduate requirements in
clinical
medicine.

3.5 College expenditure on libraries totalled £2,875,521 in
1993–4.
College libraries vary widely in the size and quantity of their
stock, but
include well-organised collections of considerable value. They have a
responsibility to serve undergraduates in all disciplines, but access
is
generally restricted to college members. There are important
collections of
manuscripts and early printed books in college libraries; and some
colleges
(All Souls, Nuffield, St Antony's and Templeton) have a recognised
university-wide role in provision for certain subjects.

Return to List of Contents of the supplement

---




4 Advantages and disadvantages of the
present arrangements


4.1 Some of those from whom we received evidence answered our
question about
the case for change by saying that existing arrangements are working
satisfactorily and should not be altered. This was a view most
frequently
expressed with reference to the services provided by faculty and
departmental
libraries, and recent events have made the Modern Languages Faculty
the
paradigm for it. There has been strong and vocal opposition from
members of
that faculty and from all its librarians, with the exception of the
Taylor
Librarian himself, to the recommendation in the recent report of the
General
Board's committee to review the Modern Languages Faculty that the
three
providers of library services for the faculty, the Taylorian, the
Modern
Languages Faculty Library and the Bodleian, should in the longer term
be
managed as a co-ordinated unit within the Bodleian group. We received
a
lengthy paper from the faculty librarian, which came with the
endorsement of
the chairman of the faculty library management committee, and gave a
detailed
history of the long-standing question of whether the faculty library,
which is
managed as a separate unit, should be amalgamated with the Taylorian
Library.
The faculty has never been persuaded that this local merger would be
in its
best interests, let alone that the Taylorian should become a
dependent library
of the Bodleian, particularly at a time when that library's
difficulties have
been so widely publicised. The debate in Modern Languages has given
us a point
de repère for assessing the case for change.

4.2 Where existing arrangements work satisfactorily users have a
system
which on the one hand offers the range and depth of collections in
the large
research libraries; combined, on the other, with `local' libraries
offering

(a) open access to stock;

(b) lending facilities;

(c) requisite reader and subject-specific services
on-site;

(d) other services such as self-service photocopying;

(e) devolved management allowing a rapid response to
teaching and research
needs;

(f) faculty input to the management of the library.
For their part, staff derive satisfaction from providing these
services with the minimum of fuss and bureaucracy.

4.3 As against those who think that things should be left as they
are with
no—or at most very little—change there are those who see
respects in which
the existing devolved management pattern is proving deficient, even
if at the
same time giving a democratic and responsive character to provision
at the
local level. This was the view expressed by the majority of the
representatives from libraries outside the Bodleian.

4.4 Our evidence from middle and upper management in the Bodleian
suggests
a perceived need for radical change together with a recognition that
this
might have more implications for Bodley than for other parts of the
system.
This is not surprising in view of the bad press which the Bodleian
has
recently suffered because of problems with book delivery, which must
have
severely strained staff morale.

4.5 We have received the following criticisms of present
arrangements,
some of which impress us.

(a) Within the present structure it is not possible to
manage the overall
resources within the library sector in the most effective way. There
is no
single focal point within the sector from which a rounded view of who
should
provide what service, where and when, can be taken. (Nor, of course,
is there
a single source of managerial authority capable of implementing the
policies
that such a rounded view might suggest.) The present arrangements
are not
adapted to the development and management of common services.

(b) Related to (a) is the lack of
comprehensive university-wide strategies
for acquisition, retention, preservation and conservation. Part I of
the
report of the Libraries Board Preservation Committee, which was
presented to
Council in Michaelmas Term 1994, is highly critical of the lack of
progress in
measures to co-ordinate these activities and argues that `the needs
...
identified cannot readily be met within the present system' (p.70).
As regards
acquisitions, there is an absence of persuasive evidence that
collection
development is planned from more than a purely local perspective and
with
thought being given to the assignment of material to locations where
it is
most needed and to ensuring not just that needless duplication of
material is
avoided but also that material is not overlooked because it falls
between the
major areas of collection development. It was also suggested to us
that more
systematic use could be made of specialist knowledge. Practice
regarding the
retention of material differs widely between libraries, depending
largely on
their immediate space exigencies; while in preservation and
conservation there
is evidence of widely differing standards and levels of competence.

(c) Tensions within a federal system are inevitable when
the units supervised
by the Libraries Board vary so much in size, and where one of them
consumes
about 80 per cent of the Board's resources. These tensions have been
exacerbated in recent years by shortage of funds to keep pace with
the
increasing volume of publications and the explosion in electronic
media, by
failure to define each library's function, and by the development of
a new
unit—the Libraries Automation Service—which in effect has
the Libraries
Board as its management committee. The tensions have developed in
some areas
into unproductive confrontation, often of a `Bodley v. the rest'
nature. In
the faculty libraries the perception tends to be that a
disproportionate share
of resources is allocated to the Bodleian, with the result that the
funding is
not optimally directed to where faculty librarians see day-to-day
library
services to the University as being delivered. The central research
libraries
on the other hand are conscious of their obligations to wider and
more varied
clientèles than those catered for by the faculty and
departmental libraries,
and the view that the faculty libraries are somehow the `real'
providers to
the University is resented in Bodley. The present arrangements were
described
to us as `confrontational' (and there was general agreement from both
`sides'
that this was the right word), and perceptions are such that any
future change
which could be interpreted as `a Bodleian takeover' would not be
acceptable.

(d) There is a need for much more co-ordination of staff
training and
continuing professional development; moreover, the lack of a single
staff
establishment can limit the prospects for career progression.

(e) The experience of responding to recent HEFCE
initiatives, requirements
and consultations has shown that the division into separate
libraries, each
responsible to its own management committee, with the Libraries Board
exercising financial supervision over eleven of them and attempting
to
co-ordinate provision between another 80 or so, makes co-ordination
difficult
and is not conducive to effective management of change.

4.6 In addition, certain criticisms are directed from a
specifically
Bodleian point of view.

(f) At present the role of Bodley's Librarian within the
University is
anomalous and frustrating. He heads a library of international
renown, by far
the largest provider of library services within the University, but
has no
authority (and little influence) in libraries outside the Bodleian,
and no
co-ordinating role except as an ex officio member of the Libraries
Board.
Bodley's Librarian is responsible to the Curators for the
administration of
the Bodleian, but 60 per cent of the funds available to him come
through the
Libraries Board, five of whose elected members are currently
librarians of
lesser standing than his own. Unlike the majority of University
Librarians in
the UK, he has no formally recognised role in the formulation of
strategic
plans for the University. In 1988 the Curators requested that
Bodley's
Librarian be able to see Council papers relating to Bodley as one way
of
improving the Librarian's information about university policy. This
request
was declined by Council.

(g) The chain down which resources are passed to
Bodley's Librarian is too
long, compared with Cambridge, for example, where the University
Librarian
receives the grant for the University Library and its dependencies
direct from
the General Board of the Faculties.

(h) The present situation where the Bodleian (and,
indeed, other Libraries
Board libraries) report to two committees is wasteful of effort and
confusing
in operation. In the case of the Bodleian, these committees are the
Curators
and the Libraries Board. Although the responsibilities of these two
groups are
more or less precisely laid down by statute, the actual relationships
between
the Bodleian and its Curators, and the Bodleian and the Libraries
Board, have
become largely a matter of custom; the Librarian and the Officers
report to,
or consult with, the Curators on one kind of matter (e.g. accounts,
personnel,
and the opening and closing of the library) and with the Libraries
Board on
others, which include the all-important issues of finance and
equipment,
particularly that required for automation. During last Michaelmas
Term, for
example, the Bodleian's bids to HEFCE for non-formula funding for
special
collections in the humanities, involving bids for millions of pounds
for
projects intimately connected with the library's operations at all
levels,
were made through the Libraries Board and, of necessity, only
reported to the
Curators afterwards.

(i) The practice of calling the Curators' Standing
Committee to meet almost
weekly in full term is criticised both for detracting from the
managerial
effectiveness of the librarians, for taking up an inordinate amount
of highly
qualified academic time, and—when committees cease meeting
during the
vacation—for resulting in potentially damaging delays in the
conduct of
business.

(j) The Bodleian's management structure is not adapted
to make the most of
managerial potential below officer level. Certain other structural
features
have been criticised, for example, the size of the Department of
Printed
Books, and the fact that the management of some core areas of library
activity
such as collection development, reader services and cataloguing are
located
within this department.

Return to List of Contents of the supplement

---




5 An integrated library system for Oxford?


5.1 Almost all of the oral and written evidence we have taken has
identified
respects in which the status quo needs to be improved. Some of the
deficiencies to which our attention has been drawn are not, we
believe, ones
that the University can afford to ignore on the grounds that the
remedy would
do more damage than the original complaint. There will in our view
have to be
changes and we must accept the probability that their need will be
questioned
by those who have forcefully, and no doubt justly, represented to us
their
satisfaction with the way present arrangements work in their
particular area.

5.2 Likewise, almost all our evidence strongly supports the
establishment
of a post of University Librarian or at least concedes that it could
be
beneficial. There are, however, different views on the precise remit
of such a
post and on the sort of system of which it would be at the head.

5.3 The Information Strategy Working Party based its case for
establishing
the post of University Librarian on the need to achieve:

• a more co-ordinated service to library users;
• effective resource management (both staff and monetary);
• representation of the needs of libraries at the highest level,
  both inside
  the University, nationally, in Europe and beyond;
• the concentration in a single point of executive powers at
  present dispersed;
• a more logical reporting and support structure for library
  automation
  services and other common services.

We have received evidence to support these arguments, some of which
implies
the need for an integrated management structure beneath the
University
Librarian. A number of the criticisms we have heard, in particular
those cited
above in para. 4.5 (a), (b) and
(c), strike us as strong arguments for
integrating the management of the University's libraries. To which we
would
add, firstly, that the growing tendency for central initiatives to be
launched
at short notice and with very tight timetables—the recent HEFCE
funding for
special research collections in the humanities is an
instance—reinforces the
desirability of an executive post with a university-wide remit and
overview,
allowing rapid, co-ordinated and authoritative responses to be made
within a
strategic framework; and, secondly, that the greater level of
accountability
signalled by HEFCE's proposed introduction from 1995–6 of
performance
indicators for libraries will oblige the University to take a
coherent
approach to the overall service offered to readers across central,
faculty/departmental and college libraries.

5.4 If we were to move to a managerially integrated—rather
than just a
co-ordinated—library system under a single University Librarian,
what must
the determining features of such a system be?

(a) It must resolve the problem of the disproportionate
size of one of its
elements, namely the Bodleian, and address the organisational
deficiencies
identified within Bodley. Some of the submissions we received assume
the
continued existence of the Bodleian in its present form as the
largest
identifiable unit in an integrated system, and propose that the
day-to-day
running of the library should be delegated to a new post of Deputy
(new in the
sense that it would not be held, as now, in conjunction with the
keepership of
a major department within the library). However, in our view it would
generate
impossible difficulties for the University Librarian if the Bodleian
were to
remain a funding unit so out of proportion to others in the system.

(b) The constituent parts of an integrated system must
retain or acquire the
qualities of responsiveness valued by users. In particular we would
want a
structure in which it were possible for all parts of the Bodleian to
achieve
the same responsiveness as some faculty libraries.

(c) At the same time, the structure must permit the
sharing of expertise;
university-wide services such as conservation and support for
electronic
media; and, where advantageous, economies of scale.

(d) The structure, as well as being responsive to the
teaching and research
needs of the University, must also be able to fulfil the national and
international obligations of a library of legal deposit with major
collections.

(e) The structure must reconcile the importance for
fund-raising of retaining
the Bodleian's corporate identity with the local opposition to a
`Bodleian
takeover' of other libraries.

(f) The structure must accommodate the need to delegate
more executive
responsibility to librarians while at the same time preserving the
democratic
traditions of the University.

Return to List of Contents of the supplement

---




6 Recommendations


6.1 In view of the fact that Mr Vaisey will demit office as Bodley's
Librarian at the end of the 1996 calendar year we recommend

(i) that a post of University Librarian should be
established with effect
from 1 January 1997.

6.2 We endorse the Information Strategy Working Party's view that
a purely
(or, we would add, even largely) cosmetic designation of University
Librarian
without control over resources in the areas of responsibility is a
recipe for
frustration. The fact that just over 60 per cent of the University's
expenditure on libraries is already routed through and allocated by
the
Libraries Board provides a financial basis on which to integrate a
substantial
part of Oxford's library sector into a single operation. If the
University
were to adopt the suggestion of the Information Strategy Working
Party that a
University Librarian in Oxford should be given responsibility for
managing the
block grant currently received by the Libraries Board from the
General Board,
this would still leave the General Board libraries and the college
libraries
outside the remit of the post.

6.3 With regard to General Board libraries, we acknowledge that
some small
departmental library units can, as Shackleton argued, continue to be
excluded
from consideration. They can be treated as analogous to a collection
of
reference books on a desk or laboratory bench, with a function
equivalent to
that of a standard item of departmental equipment. Expenditure is
either not
significant or occasional. As for the larger departmental libraries,
it is not
obvious to us why, for instance, the library of the Institute of
Economics and
Statistics should—as a Libraries Board library—be within an
integrated
system but that of the School of Geography not. Particularly where
departmental collections include manuscript or early printed material
or
collections of national or international importance, as in Plant
Sciences or
the Edward Grey Institute, there would seem to be good reason to
bring them
under the responsibility of the University Librarian in order to
ensure that
all the University's historic collections receive a uniformly
adequate level
of care. It goes without saying that our earlier emphasis on
maintaining the
responsiveness of local libraries applies equally to departmental as
to
faculty libraries. That such a transfer of responsibility for
departmental
collections might in some cases come about sooner rather than later
is
suggested by the fact that in the General Board's review of
departmental
grants some heads of department have made a case for the inclusion of
special
factor funding in the allocation formula to take account of the cost
of
maintaining library or other collections which are a departmental
responsibility but are of national or international importance.
Alternatively,
integration within the wider library system would release the
department from
the financial responsibility of maintaining such collections. We
realise that
moves in this direction might not be popular or achievable overnight,
but we
recommend that a structure should be created which would accommodate
such
transfers of responsibility. Subject to the proviso that the
adjustment of
departmental budgets consequent on the General Board's review might
provide an
opportune moment to effect any transfers of responsibility for
departmental
collections for which all parties agreed there was a strong case,
integration
of the existing Libraries Board libraries, as suggested by the
Information
Strategy Working Party, represents an obvious first stage. In the
meantime,
the current arrangements for co-ordination between the RSL and
science
departmental libraries which have been established by the Keeper of
Scientific
Books are to be commended and should be developed.

6.4 A University Librarian cannot ever, of course, be given
managerial
responsibility for college libraries, but the postholder might be
expected to
ensure that improved co-ordination of university with college
provision is a
strategic priority.

6.5 We therefore recommend

(ii) that the new post of University Librarian should be at the
head of
an integrated library system initially comprising the existing
Libraries
Board libraries.

6.6 On the issue raised by the Information Strategy Working
Party, we are
assuming that the Cairns, as a Libraries Board library, will also be
incorporated. The Medical Library at Cambridge, which has similar
ramifications into the NHS, is fully part of the University Library.
But there
may be reasons—and we have not had time to investigate—why
this could
present particular difficulties in Oxford. 6.7 The management
restructuring
required will be a complex and lengthy task, to the detailed planning
of which
will need to be brought thorough professional familiarity with the
workings of
the University's libraries and of major libraries outside Oxford. It
may also,
possibly, require the involvement of external management consultants.
We are
certainly not the appropriate body to draw up details of the
management
structure which the University Librarian would head, but we are clear
as to
the major objectives which the structure would be expected to
facilitate:

• the allocation of resources within the system to meet users'
  needs most
  effectively;
• the extension to the Bodleian of the capacity for responsiveness
  to
  Oxford users' needs that is to be found in the Taylorian and some

  faculty
  libraries;

• the maintenance and development of, and provision of access to,
  Oxford's
  historic collections as an international research resource;
• the provision of university-wide services such as library
  automation and
  electronic media, preservation and staff development.

We suggest that one approach to achieving these goals which should be
seriously considered is the organisation of provision in an
integrated system
as a combination of functional and subject-based divisions; and as a
basis for
consideration we have drawn up the organisation chart in appendix A.

6.8 The main points to note are as follows.

(a) A move to a divisional organisation which cuts
across existing
institutional boundaries. The heads of division report direct to the
University Librarian. The divisions we have identified are:

• Central and Technical Services
• Research Library Services
• Subject Library Services
• Oriental
• Science

We are not committed to this precise number of divisions; arguably
Oriental
might come under Subject Library Services. What is important is that
there
should not be too many staff reporting directly to the University
Librarian.

(b) The divisional heads are responsible for ensuring
the day-to-day
operation of the library system. For this reason we have not included
a
separate post of Deputy interposed between the University Librarian
and the
heads of division. We do not exclude the possibility that for some
purposes it
might assist the University Librarian to have a nominated deputy
amongst the
heads of division either ad hoc as the occasion demands, e.g. during
the
absence of the University Librarian, or on a rota basis.

(c) Similarly, the headship of a division could be held
in conjunction with
one of its constituent `departmental' elements. This might be found
an
appropriate arrangement in the case of what is likely to be,
managerially, a
highly devolved division, Subject Library Services.

(d) Within the divisions it is not assumed that the
constituent parts are of
equal weight in terms of the grade of the person in charge.

(e) Individual subject committees provide faculty input
to policy and a
direct channel of communication with staff by which users can comment
on the
adequacy of provision and services. In many instances such committees
already
exist, and we envisage their continuation.

We accordingly recommend

(iii) that Council should authorise Mr Vice-Chancellor to appoint
an
expert body, consisting of such members as will ensure the requisite

input of local and external professional expertise, to advise on the

management structure of an integrated system and to report to Council

and
the General Board by the middle of Michaelmas Term 1995.

6.9 Restructuring will not come without cost. Taking into account
the
impending vacancies which prompted Council to ask for our report, we
hazard a
guess that the model we have suggested could require the creation of
up to two
new posts in the tier immediately below the University Librarian,
together
with regradings elsewhere. In the longer term vacancies will allow
the
University Librarian some flexibility to pursue the restructuring
without
additional cost, and possibly with some savings. Major capital
developments
such as a large new open-access library might allow further staff
reorganisation, which in turn might produce savings. The point we
wish to make
as strongly as possible is that the new University Librarian must be
given a
commitment that the necessary funding will be made available to
implement the
restructuring. In fact, we believe that any candidate worthy of
appointment
will not accept the post without such a commitment. We therefore
recommend

(iv) that Council accept in principle that adequate additional
funding
should be made available to the University Librarian to achieve the
task
of integration successfully.

6.10 As we have made clear throughout this report, one of our
concerns has
been to avoid giving credibility to the suggestion that the changes
recommended represent a `Bodleian takeover', leading to a decline in
service
and responsiveness to readers. As we believe the possible model for a
new
structure which we have just outlined shows, we are in fact, if
anything,
envisaging the assimilation of the Bodleian as it is as present into
a new
university-wide library system; though we are careful to preserve the
integrity of the historic collections. We are not committed in
principle to
any preconceived ideas about the need to preserve the existing
managerial
structure of Bodley, although we have a profound respect for what the
buildings and their historic contents represent, and we therefore
wish to
ensure that they are managed in the best interests of teaching and
research.
We have taken very seriously the argument that the name of Bodley is
a
powerful magnet in fundraising terms. Furthermore, the terms of the
1911
Copyright Act specify `the Bodleian Library, Oxford' as one of the
libraries
of legal deposit, and it therefore seems to us that if we wish to
redesign the
structure of libraries in Oxford the resulting entity must continue
to bear
the name `the Bodleian Library'. Similarly, we conclude that the
title given
to the post that we have hitherto been calling University Librarian
must
reflect the same consideration. We therefore recommend

(v) that the post of University Librarian should be called
`Bodley's
Librarian and Director of University Library Services', and the
integrated library structure called overall `the Bodleian
Library'.

6.11 There should be a single body to which Bodley's Librarian and
Director
of University Library Services qua chief executive will be formally
responsible. We emphasise that we envisage the initiative for
developing and
implementing policy resting clearly with Bodley's Librarian and
staff. There
must however be a body to which Bodley's Librarian can turn for
advice or
support, which would be particularly important in the transitional
period
during which the management restructuring is being implemented. This
body must
also represent the University's ultimate control over its libraries
and must,
therefore, in the final analysis have power to override Bodley's
Librarian's
executive authority. This body will replace the existing Libraries
Board and
Bodleian Curators and is called the Library Board to distinguish it
from the
previous bodies. At the individual subject level most of the other
existing
library committees would, as we envisage above, continue in order to
ensure
strong faculty input to policy making in the integrated library
system. We
therefore recommend

(vi) that Bodley's Librarian and Director of University Library
Services
should report to a single body called the Library Board, which will
be
formally responsible for the integrated library on the understanding
that
executive authority rests with Bodley's Librarian and Director of

University Library Services.

6.12 As recommended, we see the Library Board, although advising
Bodley's
Librarian and being involved in policy making and, for example, with
senior
appointments, as essentially non-executive in character, but with an
ultimate
sanction as representing the constituency for which the integrated
library
structure provides services. We think it follows from this that the
membership
of this body should be drawn from the teachers, researchers and
students using
the libraries, and that it would not be appropriate for library staff
to be
eligible for membership; their interests should be accommodated
within the
management structures of the integrated library. Their involvement as
subject
specialists etc. is taken for granted in their membership of the
committees
envisaged at faculty level. It is proposed that Bodley's Librarian
and
Director of University Library Services should be Secretary to the
Library
Board (although minute-taking can be dealt with by a secretariat, and
professional staff can be in attendance as required). We therefore
recommend

(vii) the following composition for the Library Board:

• (1) A chairman, appointed by the Vice-Chancellor
• (2) A Proctor or the Assessor
• (3)–(5) three persons appointed by Council, or whom at least
  one shall be
  a member of Council and at least one a member of the Resources

  Committee

• (6)–(8) three persons appointed by the General Board, of
  whom at least
  one shall be a member of that Board
• (9)–(12) four members elected by Congregation from amongst
  those qualifying for faculty membership under Tit. VI, Sect. I,
  cl. 2(a) and
  (b)
• (13) The Chairman of the IT Committee or deputy
• (14) The Fellow-Librarian of a college, elected by the Committee
  of College Librarians
• (15) A junior member appointed by OUSU
• (16) A junior member appointed by OUGU

Bodley's Librarian and Director of University Library Services
shall
be
the Secretary to the board.

6.13 The Report of the Joint Funding Councils' Libraries Review
Group (The
Follett Report) recommended that `whatever the organisation of
information
services, the senior person responsible for these should take a
leading role
in the senior management of the institution. In some, it may be
appropriate
for the librarian to take this role but in others where
organisational
structures are different, this will not be the case.' We endorse
this
recommendation and—irrespective of what arrangements might be
appropriate
for other parts of the information sector—think that Bodley's
Librarian and
Director of University Library Services should have the right of
attendance at
meetings of Council and the General Board or their committees when in
his or
her opinion business relevant to the responsibilities of the post is
involved.
It follows that Bodley's Librarian and Director of University Library
Services
should receive Council and General Board papers. We believe that the
claims on
the Librarian's time will be such as to make ex officio membership
of, and
regular attendance at, those bodies impracticable. The
responsibilities of
Bodley's Librarian and Director of University Library Services
towards the
University as a whole are so fundamental to the activity of the
University
that the access to Council and the General Board we are proposing
would not in
our view constitute any sort of precedent for claims that heads of
department
should receive Council and General Board papers. We therefore
recommend

(viii) that Bodley's Librarian and Director of University Library

Services should have the right of attendance at and participation in
any
meetings of Council and the General Board or their committees and
should
receive Council and General Board papers.

6.14 In our discussions with witnesses regarding the
qualifications which
should be required in a University Librarian the major issues that
emerged
were as follows.

(a) Should the postholder be a professionally qualified
librarian? That he
or she should was the strongly expressed view of the representatives
of
Libraries Board librarians and the Science Librarians' Forum; in
their view
only a professionally qualified librarian could command the
confidence of
library staff in the University.

(b) It was generally accepted that the person
responsible for running an
integrated library system would have to have a proven record in the
management
of large, complex organisations. When it was suggested that, given
the
importance of qualities in this area, it might be appropriate not to
exclude
from consideration candidates from the business sector, i.e. without
professional library qualifications, the response from our witnesses
was
sharply divided between those for whom someone without a professional
qualification was unthinkable, and those (some of whom were
librarians) who
did not rule out the possibility, provided that there was a strong
management
team of professionally qualified librarians immediately below the
senior post.

(c) The statute governing Bodley's Librarian
incorporates Sir Thomas Bodley's
stipulation that the Librarian should be `one that is noted and known
for a
diligent student, and in all his conversation to be trusty, active,
and
discreet: a graduate also, and a linguist'. Some of the evidence we
received
referred to the importance of a record in scholarship, but at the
same time
there was a recognition that with the importance of information
technology in
libraries there is a widening gap between the old tradition of
scholar
librarians and the new breed of `information providers' with
managerial and
technical skills. It is not inconceivable that there are paragons
uniting both
high scholarship and technical wizardry, but the odds may be against
finding
them. It will be seen from the recommendation below that what we
regard as
essential is not necessarily a record of scholarly publications,
although that
would in an otherwise appropriately qualified person be an additional
attraction, but rather understanding and experience of, and sympathy
with, the
aims and techniques of scholarly research and teaching.

(d) External
fundraising has become critically important to the Bodleian. Only 60
per cent
of its recurrent expenditure is funded by the University. Of the
remainder, 20
per cent comes from self-generated income. Half of the present
Librarian's
time is taken up with fundraising activities. We believe that this is
too much
of a burden on top of executive responsibility for a library of this
size. It
would clearly not be acceptable in the context of even larger
responsibilities
that will rest with the head of the integrated library system; so
Bodley's
Librarian and Director of University Library Services must be able to
rely on
thorough groundwork by subordinate staff with fundraising
responsibilities in
either the library system or the Development Office. But at the
culmination of
negotiations with prospective benefactors the involvement and
commitment of
the senior institutional figure is essential to carry fundraising
projects
through to a successful conclusion. Our candidate will therefore need
to have
the qualities to succeed in that role and also, of course, the
general
political adroitness and sensitivity required to operate with a high
level of
effectiveness in the arena of academic politics.

6.15 Our view on the question of whether or not candidates should
have
professional qualifications is that the matter should be left open
and that
candidates who are not thus qualified should not be completely
debarred. There
have been examples of outstanding librarians who have not had
professional
qualifications but have had other qualities which allowed for
success. It must
be remembered, however, that the holder of this post will be
representing the
University nationally and internationally in gatherings where
professional
librarians will predominate. It is essential that in these
circumstances
Oxford's representative should feel at ease and capable of securing
the
professional respect of peers.

6.16 We therefore recommend

(ix) that the following should be regarded as essential
qualifications in
the holder of the post of Bodley's Librarian and Director of
University
Library Services:

• substantial experience of high-level managerial responsibility in

  major libraries or comparable organisations;

• a familiarity with/awareness of current and possible future

  developments in library technology and electronically-based

  information provision;

• an informed sympathy with the aims and methods of teaching,

  research and scholarship.

In addition, in view of the importance of external sources of funding
to
Oxford's libraries, the postholder can expect to be involved in
library
fundraising projects at appropriate points, so previous experience in
this
area would be desirable.

6.17 The responsibilities of the new post will make this one of
the biggest
library jobs in the UK. The salary should reflect this and should be
such as
to attract overseas as well as UK candidates. We therefore
recommend

(x) that the stipend of Bodley's Librarian and Director of
University
Library Services should be commensurate with the responsibilities of
the
post.

6.18 Finally, we note that if, as recommended, the post of
Bodley's
Librarian and Director of University Library Services is to be filled
with
effect from 1 January 1997, any statutory mechanism for appointments
to the
post, say, an electoral board, is unlikely to be in place. We
therefore
recommend

(xi) that the first appointment to the post of Bodley's Librarian
and
Director of University Library Services should be made by a specially

appointed committee, headed (and possibly nominated) by Mr Vice-
Chancellor, and including members external to the University;

(xii) that the present Curators of the Bodleian be invited to
concur in
the arrangement proposed in recommendation (xi).

Return to List of Contents of the supplement

---




7 Summary of recommendations


(i) A post of University Librarian should be established
with effect from 1
January 1997.

(ii) The new post of University Librarian should be at the head of
an
integrated library system initially comprising the existing Libraries
Board
libraries.

(iii)Mr Vice-Chancellor and Council should be asked to appoint an
expert
body (with the input described at para. 6.7 above) to advise on the
management
structure of an integrated system and to report to Council and the
General
Board by the middle of Michaelmas Term 1995.

(iv) Council should accept in principle that adequate additional
funding
should be made available to the University Librarian to achieve the
task of
integration successfully.

(v) The post of University Librarian should be called `Bodley's
Librarian
and Director of University Library Services', and the integrated
library
structure called overall `the Bodleian Library'.

(vi) Bodley's Librarian and Director of University Library
Services should
report to a single body called the Library Board, which will be
formally
responsible for the integrated library on the understanding that
executive
authority rests with Bodley's Librarian and Director of University
Library
Services.

(vii) The composition of the Library Board should be as
follows:

• (1) A chairman, appointed by the Vice-Chancellor
• (2) A Proctor or the Assessor
• (3)–(5) three persons appointed by Council, or whom at least
  one shall be
  a member of Council and at least one a member of the Resources

  Committee

• (6)–(8) three persons appointed by the General Board, of
  whom at least
  one shall be a member of that Board
• (9)–(12) four members elected by Congregation from amongst
  those qualifying for faculty membership under Tit. VI, Sect. I,
  cl. 2 (a) and (b)
• (13) The Chairman of the IT Committee or deputy
• (14) The Fellow-Librarian of a college, elected by the Committee
  of College Librarians
• (15) A junior member appointed by OUSU
• (16) A junior member appointed by OUGU

Bodley's Librarian and Director of University Library Services shall
be
the Secretary to the board.

(viii) Bodley's Librarian and Director of University Library Services
should
have the right of attendance at and participation in any meetings of
Council
and the General Board or their committees and should receive Council
and
General Board papers.

(ix) The following should be regarded as essential qualifications
in the
holder of the post of Bodley's Librarian and Director of University
Library
Services:

• substantial experience of high-level managerial responsibility in

  major libraries or comparable organisations;

• a familiarity with/awareness of current and possible future

  developments in library technology and electronically-based

  information provision;

• an informed sympathy with the aims and methods of teaching,

  research and scholarship.

In addition, in view of the importance of external sources of
funding to
Oxford's libraries, the postholder can expect to be involved in
library
fundraising projects at appropriate points, so previous experience in
this
area would be desirable.

(x) The stipend of Bodley's Librarian and Director of University
Library
Services should be commensurate with the responsibilities of the
post.

(xi) The first appointment to the post of Bodley's Librarian and
Director
of University Library Services should be made by a specially
appointed
committee, headed (and possibly nominated) by Mr Vice-Chancellor, and
including members external to the University.

(xii)The present Curators of the Bodleian should be invited to
concur in
the arrangement proposed in recommendation (xi).

Return to List of Contents of the supplement

---




APPENDIX A


Possible organisation of an integrated library system

LIBRARY BOARD-----------------BODLEY'S LIBRARIAN AND
                              DIRECTOR OF UNIVERSITY
                              LIBRARY SERVICES

   -----------------------------------------------------------------
   |               |               |               |               |
  [A]             [B]             [C]             [D]             [E]
 

[A] = CENTRAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES: cataloguing and acquisition
processing; information technology; preservation and storage;
personnel; fund-raising

[B] = RESEARCH LIBRARY SERVICES: Western Manuscripts; Special
Collections
(including parts of Ashmolean, Taylorian, and Rhodes House); Research
Reader
Services; Research Collection Development (including responsibility
for legal
deposit)

[C] = SUBJECT LIBRARY SERVICES: Law; Modern Languages; Social
Studies;
History; English; Theology; Philosophy; Music; Classics; American
Studies;
Commonwealth; [departmental collections]

[D] = ORIENTAL—including the Indian Institute: Nissan Institute
Library;
Chinese Institute Library; Oriental Institute Library

[E] = SCIENCE: RSL; Hooke; Cairns; [departmental collections]

Return to List of Contents of the supplement

APPENDIX B

List of persons seen by the working party

Dr W.E. Parry, Chairman of the Standing Committee of the Bodleian
Curators

Dr R.C. Repp, Master of St Cross, Chairman of the Curators of the
Taylor
Institution

Professor C.J. White FBA, Chairman of the Ashmolean Library
Committee

Dr G.J. Piddock, Deputy Librarian of the Ashmolean Library,
representing
staff of that library

Mr M.L. Turner, Principal Assistant Librarian and Head of
Conservation,
and

Mr M. Heaney, Senior Assistant Librarian and Head of Foreign
Language
Cataloguing, Bodleian Library, representing the middle management of
that
library

Mr D.L.L. Howells, Assistant Librarian, Taylorian Library
representing the
staff of that library

Ms S.E. Usher, English Faculty Librarian, representing staff in
the other
Libraries Board libraries

Mrs L.S. Atkinson, Librarian of the School of Geography,
representing
staff in General Board libraries

Professor Sidney Verba, Director of the Harvard University
Library and
Professor of Government, Harvard University.

Return to List of Contents of the supplement

APPENDIX C

List of documentation and written evidence considered by the
working
party

Previous reports

1. Report of the Committee on University Libraries (1966)—the
Shackleton
Report.

2. Committee of Inquiry into the Future of Library Services
(1987)— ;the
Nicholas Report.

3. Excerpt from the Libraries Board's submission to the Nicholas
Committee.

4. Statement by Council and the General Board following the
Nicholas
Report (Gazette, 25 February 1988).

5. Subsequent report from the Libraries Board in Trinity Term
1989 on
post-Nicholas developments (HCP Vol. 323, p. 722 et
seq.).

6. Excerpts from the Report of the committee appointed to review
the
provision of library services in the University [of Cambridge]
(Reporter,
9 October 1992) and excerpts from subsequent
editions detailing
discussions of the recommendations, particularly concerning the role
of
the University Librarian.

7. Excerpts from the Report of the Joint Funding Councils'
Libraries
Review Group (1993)—the Follett Report.

8. Report of the Libraries Board Preservation Committee, Part 1:
report
on the extent and condition of Oxford library holdings (1994).

9. Report of the Information Strategy Working Party (HCP
Vol.341, p.197
et seq.).

Documentation relating specifically to the Bodleian

10. Current Bodleian organisation chart.

11. Further particulars for the post of Bodley's Librarian
prepared in
1985.

12. Note by Bodley's Librarian on the post of Deputy Librarian of
the
Bodleian, together with the duties of the post as expressed in the

present postholder's letter of appointment.

13. Further particulars of the post of Secretary of the Bodleian
as
recently filled.

14. Draft outline plan for the Bodleian's senior management
structure,
prepared by the Officers and submitted to the Curators in Trinity
Term
1994, together with the relevant Standing Committee minute.

15. Bodleian Mission Statement (Hilary Term 1995).

Documentation relating specifically to library provision in
Modern
Languages

16. The section on library provision from the 1994 General Board
review of
the Modern Languages Faculty (GBP Vol. CXCVII, p. 461 et
seq.).

17. Papers by Professor T.J. Reed (Chairman of the Management
Committee of
the Modern Languages Faculty Library) illustrating the opposition
in the
faculty to the review committee's proposals for integrating library

provision in Modern Languages.

18. Library provision in Modern Languages: a paper compiled by
the
Librarian of the Modern Languages Faculty Library for the Management

Committee and approved by the chairman.

19. Letter from the staff of the Taylorian Library to the
Chairman of the
Taylorian Curators.

20. Joint paper from the Taylor Librarian and the Deputy
Librarian of the
Bodleian on closer association between the two libraries.

21. Report to the Libraries Board from the Joint Library
Committee of the
Bodleian and Taylorian Curators and the Modern Languages Faculty

Library Management Committee concerning closer association.

22. Report of the Taylorian Curators' ad hoc working party on the
post of
Taylor Librarian.

Written submissions to the working party

23. Dr G.E. Aylmer, Bodleian Curator.

24. Professor T.J. Reed, Chairman, Modern Languages Faculty
Library
Management Committee.

25. Mr R.J. Roberts, Deputy Librarian and Paul Hamlyn Keeper of
Printed
Books, Bodleian Library.

26. Professor H.C.G. Matthew, Bodleian Curator.

27. Mrs M. Clapinson, Keeper of Western MSS, Bodleian Library.

28. Dr P. Leggate, Keeper of Scientific Books, Bodleian Library.

29. Principal and Senior Assistant Librarians, Bodleian Library.

30. Mr P.P. Burnett, Head of Catalogues, Bodleian Library.

31. Ms S.E. Usher, English Faculty Librarian.

32. Mrs S.L. Allcock, Chair, Libraries Board Librarians' group.

33. Mr Jonathan Taylor, Chairman of Booker PLC, Bodleian Curator.

34. Dr F. Stewart, Director, Queen Elizabeth House.

Return to List of Contents of the supplement