ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries


N ovem ber 1983 /  393

W A S H I N G T O N ______ H O T L I N E  by Carol C. Henderson
Deputy Director 

ALA Washington Office

HEA II-A Funding in Doubt. At this writing it is unclear how House-Senate 
conferees will decide on FY 1984 funding for the Higher Education Act Title II-A 
college library program. The House-passed funding bill, HR 3913, continues cur­
rent funding of $1.9 million, but the Senate-passed version zeroes out the pro­
gram completely. Meanwhile a temporary continuing resolution provides funding 
at the lower of the House or Senate levels until November 10 or until HR 3913 
becomes law. Both chambers continue current levels for the HEA II-C research 
library program ($6 million) and the II-B library training and research and dem­
onstration program ($880,000).

In its report (S. Rept. 98-247), the Senate Appropriations Committee ex­
plained that funding was eliminated because of the lack of any needs-based 
standards for making awards.

Congress will indeed be considering needs-based criteria for HEA II-A and 
other possible changes during the upcoming reauthorization process for the 
Higher Education Act. Education subcommittee staffers are already working on HEA
extension, with hearings on Title II library programs likely early next year.
In the meantime, it is extremely important to maintain appropriations. Once 
funding for a federal program has been eliminated it is very difficult to re­
store it, even if the program is revised.

In the light of the Senate action, the ALA Washington Office (110 Maryland 
Ave., N.E., #54, Washington, DC 20002; (202) 547-4440) once again urges academic 
librarians to comment on the need for adequate funding ($10,000 per college is 
authorized) or the need for changes in the program. Many thanks to those who 
have already done so.

GAP Criticizes Standards Process. The General Accounting Office has con­
cluded that the Office of Personnel Management failed to demonstrate that the 
current minimum qualifications for federal librarians are inappropriate.
Although not exceeding its authority in drafting revised standards, 0PM failed 
to address librarians' criticisms concerning the reduced entry grade level and 
lowered minimum qualifications, according to GA0. GA0 also recommended that 0PM 
determine whether federal librarians hired with less than a two-year MLS and 
those without the MLS perform successfully. Copies of the August 12 ten-page 
report, Classification and Qualification Standards for the GS-1410 
Library-Information Service Series (GAO/GGD-83-97)‚ are available from the 
Publications Office, GA0, Washington, DC 20548.

Responses differed sharply. Five Members of Congress (Reps. Schroeder,
D-C0; Oakar, D-0H; Ferraro, D-NY; Ford, D-MI; and Albosta, D-MI), reacting 
immediately to the report, wrote to 0PM Director Donald Devine to urge 
withdrawal of the proposed standards until the credibility of OPM’s standards 
development process is established. In a detailed 20-page response to several 
congressional committees, 0PM's Devine saw the GAO report as "supportive of 
OPM’s standard’s development methods generally and as applied in the study of 
the library occupations particularly.”