Report of Council's Working Party on Senior Library Posts - (1) to No 4373



<br /> Oxford University Gazette: Senior Library Posts report (supplement)<br />

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:

    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