ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries December 1983 / 413 Public Programming for Academic Libraries? Sylvia C. Krausse University o f R hode Island Academic libraries, unlike their public counter­ p arts, g en erally present few sp ecial e x tra ­ curricular programs designed to draw in more pa­ trons, expand the horizons of present patrons, and improve community relations.1 Why is this so? Some of the reasons may be the demands of a spe- cial clientele: faculty and students; the academic expectations of the librarians themselves necessary to serve in-depth subject areas; or library manage­ ment which must balance campus concerns and fis­ cal responsibility to college or university adminis­ trations. State-supported institutions, however, often advertise their services to taxpayers as partial support for budgetary requests and pride them­ selves on faculty contributions to community activ­ ities. However, producing an innovative library program to serve both academic and public clien­ teles can result in frustration, complications and discouragement. In this article, I will describe my experiences in working to “float” a special program at the Univer­ sity of Rhode Island2 (URI) Library, where I am a reference/interlibrary loan librarian and bibliog­ rapher. It is my hope that others who may attempt such projects in the future will thus gain insights into what to expect— and some pitfalls to avoid. With the general trend toward more efficient use of resources, academic libraries with their vast stores of inform ation and numerous experts in many fields are possibly being wasted if they do not come to the forefront of program planning. And es­ pecially in relatively isolated locations like Kings­ ton, where the University is virtually the “only game in tow n,” the need for programs both to serve the community and to challenge the library faculty is probably greater than average. Thus, statewide (since the University is the state’s major public aca­ demic collection) and local considerations suggest that programs might be both welcomed by the Rhode Island public and able to tap some of the abundant resources available throughout the state. My involvement with programming began in December 1981, when I saw a notice in College & Research Libraries News about the availability of 1C. Poucher, “Innovations in Program Planning in A cad em ic L ib r a r ie s ,” R Q 18 (Sp ring 1979):264-66. 2The University of Rhode Island is the State Uni­ versity, located in the southern part of Rhode Is­ land in the village of Kingston. The University is of medium size and enrolls about 13,000 undergradu­ ates and 2,500 graduates and has a full-time faculty of over 800. grants for workshops and assistance for public pro­ gramming in the humanities for academ ic li­ braries, sponsored by the Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) and the National E n ­ dowment for the Humanities (NEH). I was de­ lighted that monies had become available in my area of interest and applied immediately. My hu­ manist teammate was Natalie Kampen, associate professor of art history. The URI team was ac­ cepted for the workshop in Los Gatos, California, on February 2 3 -2 5 , 1982. Each participant re­ ceived a maximum expense grant of $150 from the NEH, and the URI team also applied for and re­ ceived additional travel money from their respec­ tive colleges. For a description of the workshop, see C &RL News, May 1982, pp. 169-72. At the workshop we considered the resources of the University and the State and with the help of the workshop leaders we decided to concentrate on Islamic arts, mainly because of Professor Kampen’s involvement with the Islamic “culture cluster.” (A program of foreign culture clusters has been de­ signed by the College of Arts & Sciences to meet un­ dergraduate division requirements and to intro­ duce students via two or more courses in a foreign culture to such humanities areas as the Islamic World, France, or Russia.) Combining this interest with current news on Islam in the Middle East, we wanted to make the Rhode Island community aware of the diversity of Islam— after all, Islamic culture and religion stretches from southern E u ­ rope across the Asian continent to Indonesia and the Philippines. Immediately upon returning from the workshop we set the wheels in motion to apply for a grant and soon realized that because of time constraints and many uncertain factors it was best to apply for a planning grant first. W e enlisted the help of a his­ tory professor, Richard Roughton, who is an Is­ lamic expert. As suggested by the NEH workshop leaders our first task was to design a committee of consultants. W e invited librarians, humanists and curators from the University of Rhode Island, the Museum of Art of the Rhode Island School of De­ sign, Rhode Island College, and the Textile Mu­ seum in Washington, D . C ., as well as various Mus- lim members from the Rhode Island community to make up the committee. Textiles, rugs and other handicrafts of the Mus­ lim world were chosen to attract public interest and curiosity and to teach Rhode Islanders to ap­ preciate an unfamiliar culture. The program was designed to consist of several related parts: dis­ plays, lectures and films. Ideally, two exhibits were planned, one to be shown at the URI Library and the other in Providence. Both were to be opened by w ell-know n Isla m ic experts and 414 / C&RL News throughout the programming period films and ad­ ditional talks were scheduled in Kingston as well as in Providence. However, complications soon appeared. Security of valuable items was absolutely essen­ tial. Exhibition space in the URI Library is avail­ able in the form of a few glass cases only, providing no security whatsoever. Temperature control was another important consideration; without the guarantee of proper temperature control and tight security no institu­ tion would ever allow their artifacts to be displayed at another institution. Therefore, the major exhibit had to be scheduled at the URI Fine Arts Center and a smaller and less costly showing at the URI L i­ brary was consequently added to the program. Long term scheduling was necessary for the con­ tributors but impossible to manage on the tentative basis of a grant proposal. Time for coordination, writing and making the arrangements was considerable. This was difficult for all the planners and consultants and I could not, however, obtain a guarantee from the URI Library that if the project were funded I would even get re­ lease time to carry the program to completion. It became clearer as the preliminary planning ad­ vanced that even if the planning grant were ap­ proved, the situation could easily get out of hand. Release time difficulties, remuneration prob­ lems, lack of real support from my department and the slowness of the University and state bureaucra­ cies to move and to react to the inevitable altera­ tions in long-range planning (in such areas as scheduling and disbursement of funds, for exam­ ple) could create impossible log-jams in the few months between funding approval and the pro­ gram opening. Thus, though it pains me to say so, I must admit when the planning grant was rejected, I was relieved. In retrospect, I realized why so few academic li­ braries have done this sort of public programming: the obstacles inherent in the university system can be simply overwhelming in light of all the pa­ perwork and preparations involved with obtaining funding even at the planning stages. In my experi­ ence, participants spent considerable amounts of their own time and money during the lengthy and involved propess of roughing out the program and preparing a formal grant application. Faculty con­ sultants within the University have to be convinced to add to their workloads with no added monetary compensation, and the “catch-22” of uncertainty of release time (made even more uncertain by the staff shortages prevalent nowadays) must be faced. And, of course, bureaucratic inertia must be over­ come or outmaneuvered. I think a realistic approach to what one’s in­ volvement may entail could be helpful and I hope my experiences will serve as an example of some of the problems which, if unavoidable, can at least be identified in advance and accommodated. ■ ■ ACRL 1983/84 Budget At its June 1983 meeting, the ACRL Board ap­ proved the 1983/84 budget. Highlights for the budget year include: •the extension of the Bibliographic Liaison Proj­ ect for another year; •the purchase of a term inal with a view to ACRL participation in the ALANET electronic mail and database program; •the continuation of the ACRL Jobline, Fast Job Listing Service, and ACRL 100 Libraries Project; •increased levels of support for ACRL commit­ tees, chapters, and sections; •the Third ACRL National Conference in Seat­ tle; •a preconference for the Rare Books and Manu­ scripts Section to be held in Austin, Texas; •a balanced budget for the Continuing Educa­ tion program; •ACRL staff support for the J. Morris Jones lead­ ership project award; •a $3,000 subsidy to ALA Publishing to under­ write the publication costs of the next Publication in Librarianship Series monograph; •support for newsletters for the Bibliographic Instruction Section, the Rare Books and Manu­ scripts Section, and the Western European Special­ ists Section; •a budget for Choice which exceeds $1 million for the first time; •the transfer of advertising activities for C &RL and C&RL News to Choice with the expectation of increased revenues as a result; •the offering of three NEH workshops in cooper­ ation with the Public Libraries Association during the next year. The 1982/83 fiscal year showed a strong per­ formance by all ACRL programs, although the to­ tal continuing education program (revenues and expenses) was smaller than planned. Revenues were slightly under budget, but this was offset by significant savings achieved in expenses. ACRL added $42,500 and Choice added $90,300 to their respective fund balances. The budget for 1983/84 is presented first in sum­ mary form and then in more detail, grouped by the four categories: •membership dues and activities; •publications;