ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 185 149 Main Street, South Glens Falls, NY 12801; Ann Woodward, 834 Oakdale Road, N.E., At­ lanta, GA 30307; Donald C. Earnshaw, 226 South Douglas, Lee’s Summit, MO 64063; ACRL Representatives; Chairman: Anne C. Edmonds, Librarian, Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA 01075; Darrell H. Lemke, Coordinator of Library Programs, Consortium of Universities, 1717 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; Hal C. Stone, Co­ ordinator, Library and Learning Resources Cen­ ter, Los Angeles City College, Los Angeles, CA 90029. N U E A /A C R L Joint Committee on University Extension Library Services. ACRL Representa­ tives: Karl S. Bynoe, Humanities Librarian, Mugan Memorial Library, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215 (1972/74); Nina T. Cohen, Director, Western New York Library Resources Council, Lafayette Square, Buffalo, NY 14203 (1972/74); Dorothy A. Kittle, Li­ brary Extension Specialist, U.S. Office of E du­ cation, Division of Library Services and E du­ cational Facilities, Washington, DC 20202 (1970/73); 1 to be appointed; NUEA Repre­ sentatives; Chairman: to be appointed; Martin N. Chamberlain, Director, University Exten­ sion, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92037 (1971/73); Alfred L. Har­ ding, Director, Division of Extended Services, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN 47809 (1971/73); Ralph E. Nelson, Provost, Off-Campus Education, West Virginia Univer­ sity, Morgantown, WV 26506 (1971/73). REPRESENTATIVES ACRL Representative to the American Associa­ tion for the Advancement of Science. William S. Budington, Executive Director and Librari­ an, The John Crerar Library, 35 West 33rd St., Chicago, IL 60616 (1971/74). ACRL Representative to the American Council on Education. Donald C. Anthony, Associate Director of Libraries, Columbia University Li­ braries, New York, NY 10027 (1972/74). ACRL Representative to the A L A Membership Promotion Task Force. Mary Louise B. Cobb, Head, Cataloging Department, Earl Gregg Swem Library, College of William and Mary, Williambsurg, VA 23185 (1972/74). ■ ■ Librarians Challenge “Harmful Matter Statute” any matter deemed “harmful.” Subsequent of­ fenses are felonies and carry more severe penal­ ties. That the statute applies to librarians was made clear in statements by Roger Arnebergh, Los Angeles City Attorney and Brian Crahan, Los Angeles Deputy City Attorney, and in an opinion rendered by the Office of the Attorney General on January 21, 1972. Based on these clearly articulated threats of prosecution, the Freedom to Read Foundation concluded that the statute imposes serious and irreparable in­ jury for library employees. The complaint declares that: As librarians are not qualified either by training or experience to act as censors, and since the inevitable tendency is to err on the side of caution, the public’s access to the entire range of legal reading materials is unnecessarily curtailed. … The obliga­ tion that the statute seeks to impose on plaintiffs and members of the class con­ stitutes an unconstitutional form of prior restraint. In order to comply with the statute, members of the plaintiff class are required to engage in a form of censorship and make an evaluation as to w hether any given work constitutes “harmful matter” and, if so, prohibit a minor from borrowing On May 5, 1972, library history was made by the filing in federal court of a class action suit—funded by the Freedom to Read Founda­ tion—on behalf of all California librarians and library employees. This legal action marks the first time that librarians, themselves, have taken the offensive and have sought legal precedent for the Library Bill of Rights. The suit chal­ lenges the constitutionality of the state “Harm­ ful Matter Statute” which makes librarians sub­ ject to prosecution for distributing to minors any publications deemed “harmful matter” un­ der the definition set down in the statute. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, the civil action asks for an injunction restraining the California State Attorney General from prosecuting library employees under the Harmful Matter Statute. The suit also seeks a judgment declaring the statute to be unconstitutional because it acts as a prior restraint on the First Amendment rights of library employees and the public they serve, and is void for vagueness and overbreadth as applied to library employees. The California Harmful Matter Statute be­ came effective on Nov. 10, 1969. For a first of­ fense, it provides for penalties of up to $2,000.00 in fines and/or up to a one-year prison term for the “distribution” to a minor of 186 or reading such work … a procedure which cannot be constitutionally imposed on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in this landmark action are: Everett T. Moore, Albert C. Lake, Robert E. Muller, Chase Dane, the Rev. Charles J. Dol­ len, Anita Iceman, the American Library Asso­ ciation, the California Library Association, and the Los Angeles Public Library Staff Associa­ tion. Together, the individual and organization­ al plaintiffs represent a broad spectrum of li­ brary employees in the State of California. Moore is assistant librarian at the University of California at Los Angeles; Lake is the director of the Riverside Public Library and the River­ side County Free Library; Muller is the Direc­ tor of Instructional Materials of the Jefferson Elem entary School District located in Daly City; D ane is the Director of Libraries and In­ structional Services of the Santa Monica Uni­ fied School District; the Rev. Charles J. Dollen is the Director of the Knights of Columbus Me­ morial Library of th e University of San Diego; Ms. Iceman is the Coordinator of Young Adults Services of the Alameda County Library. A copy of the complaint filed in U.S. District Court for th e Southern District of California is available from the Freedom to Read Founda­ tion, 50 E. Huron S t, Chicago, IL 60611. ■ ■ SCMAI SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT Doiron Request for Action After studying more than 250 documents, 29 transcripts of 30 interviews, and 18 responses from other individuals, the fact-finding sub­ committee appointed by the Staff Committee on Mediation, Arbitration and Inquiry (SCM AI) to gather the facts relating to Peter M. Doiron’s Request for Action, has subm itted its report to the American Library Association’s Executive Board. Doiron submitted a Request for Action to the SCMAI in accordance w ith the proce­ dures of th e Program of Action for Mediation, Arbitration and Inquiry, on January 11, 1972. In his Request for Action, Doiron asked that the SCMAI make an inquiry of his dismissal as editor of CHOICE, a review journal adminis­ tered by the Association of College and Re­ search Libraries (A C R L ), on July 29, 1971. Doiron, in his Request for Action, stated th at he considered the problem to be (1 ) a lack of due process; (2 ) unethical behavior; (3 ) intel­ lectual freedom; (4 ) unfair employment prac­ tices; and (5 ) tenure. Doiron alleges th at he had no prior warning of his termination nor had any of the ACRL officers. The subcommittee concluded that the Ameri­ can Library Association denied Doiron formal due process. This denial resulted from the ALA’s failure to utilize its formal, prescribed personnel performance procedures w ith Doiron during th e course of his employment as an ALA staff member. As a consequence of this failure, Doiron was deprived of the opportunity to ap­ peal an unsatisfactory performance evaluation. Among the other conclusions reached by the fact-finding subcommittee was th a t there was no evidence of unethical action, although the details of the m anner in which the dismissal was conducted displayed a lack of sensitivity and professionalism. In regard to Doiron’s al­ legations of violations of the principles of intel­ lectual freedom, the fact-finding subcommittee found th at at no time was there any indication or charge th at the editorial content of CHOICE magazine was under pressure or compromised. Further, except for the lack of formal due process noted above, there was no evidence of unfair employment practices on the p a rt of the ALA administration. The fact-finding subcom­ mittee stated th at “Doiron had been adequately warned and the executive director had full au­ thority to dismiss him.” The subcommittee also established that in ac­ cordance w ith ALA personnel policies, Doiron was not a tenured employee at th e time of his dismissal in July of 1971 and therefore, was not entitled to the protections of tenure. Finally, the fact-finding subcommittee con­ cluded th at it was formed in response to Doir­ on’s Request for Action seeking a resolution of his appeal of the method used in his dismissal. Recognizing th at the procedures of the fact­ finding inquiry do not allow all principals to be present during all the interviews and cannot, thus, be construed as constituting a hearing, the subcommittee determined that it would be inappropriate for it to rule on Doiron’s request for “restoration” to th e post of editor or upon the resolution of his appeal. Based on its findings and conclusions, the fact-finding subcommittee recommended as fol­ lows: 1. T hat th e ALA Executive Board grant to Peter M. Doiron a formal hearing. 2. T hat this hearing be conducted by a team of executive board members w ith a com­ plete report of findings and recommenda­ tions made to the full board for its deci­ sion. 3. T hat th e hearing be conducted in accord­ ance w ith the principles of the Statement on Procedural Standards and Faculty Dis­ missal Proceedings of the American Asso­