ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 832 / C& RL News inform ation services of th e N ation and th e ir use by th e p u b lic .” T h e co n fe re n ce will be p la n n e d and c o n d u c te d by th e U.S. N ational C om m ission on L ibraries and In fo rm atio n Science (N C L IS ) with th e assistance a n d advice o f a 3 0 -m e m b er W hite H o u s e C o n f e r e n c e A d v is o ry C o m m itte e (W H CA C) w hose m em b ers r e p re s e n t all areas of th e U.S. N C LIS chairm an Jerald C . N ew m an has w ritten all state a n d territo ria l governors, inform ing th em of th e conference and urging th em to subm it appli­ cations for federal funds to help initiate p rec o n fe r­ en c e activities. Initial grants to th e states will be shares o f th e $1.75 m illion a p p ro p ria te d by C o n ­ gress. As additional funds becom e available, states and territories may be eligible for o th e r support for preconference activities. Participants in th e state and territorial program s a n d at th e National C o n fe re n c e are to re p re s e n t a b ro a d sp e ctru m o f th e p o p u latio n . T h e law p r o ­ vides th a t a fourth o f th e p a rticip an ts will be se­ lected from th e library and inform ation profession; a fo u rth will be se le c te d from tru ste e s, friends groups, and oth er individuals who are active library a n d inform ation su p p o rters; a fo u rth will b e se­ le c te d from federal, state o r local officials; and a fo u rth will be selected from th e g eneral public. ■ ■ Benefits received by college librarians By John Robson Library Director Rose-H ulm an In stitu te ofTechnology and Susan A. Stussy Library Director St. N orbert College A survey o f 119 college libraries in the Midwest. A l t h ough ALA p ublishes annual salary surveys, no nationw ide survey o f th e b e n e fits receiv ed by college librarians no W e believe th a t b e n e fit issues are particularly c ru ­ cial for academ ic librarians d u e to th e u n c le a r social status and politically v ulnerable position o f m any, if n o t m ost, librarians in h ig h e r education. Job classifications are a p eren n ial p roblem for aca­ dem ic librarians, and they may adm it an em ployee to th e eligibility pool for significant in stitutional benefits o r exclude th at em ployee from considera­ tio n for institutional b en efits g ran te d only to indi­ viduals in m ore highly reg a rd e d jo b classifications. W hile re c e n t legal changes have re s tric te d th e ability o f em ployers to discrim in ate b e tw e en classes o f em ployees c o n cern in g access to crucial w b e n e fits such as h e a lth care a n d p en sio n funding, discrim ination still exists even in th ese key areas. exiTsthse. A CRL College Libraries S ection’s Ad Hoc C o m m itte e on Real In co m e th o ro u g h ly consid­ e re d th e issue o f th e benefits received by academ ic librarians betw een 1985 and 1988. Susan A. Stussy c h a ire d th a t co m m ittee, and Jo h n R obson was a m em b e r. U n fortunately, this c o m m ittee was u n ­ able to accom plish a great deal d u e to th e inexperi­ en c e o f b o th th e m em bers a n d th e chair. A fter th e co m m ittee co n c lu d e d its work, th e au th o rs resolved to find o u t w h ere college lib rari­ ans in th e five states o f Illinois, Indiana, M ichigan, O hio, a n d W isconsin stood in term s o f access to stan d ard em ployee benefits and eligibility for aca­ d em ic benefits such as sabbaticals and te n u r e . October 1989 / 833 To obtain this inform ation, th e authors se n t a survey shown to th e library directors o f non-doc- to ra l d e g re e -g ra n tin g four-year colleges and u n i­ versities in th e M idw estern states. In stitu tio n s m arked R in th e Am erican Library D irectory (41st E dition, 1988-1989) w ere excluded. W ith th a t ex­ ception, all private n o n -denom ínational, private sectarian, and public institutions w ere surveyed. T h e au th o rs m ailed o u t th e survey b e tw e e n N o v em b er 1988 and January 1989, a nd all rep lies w ere receiv ed by M arch 1, 1989, so th a t th e a n ­ swers re fle c te d conditions in late 1988 or early 1989, w hich may have c hanged in th e tim e lapse b e tw e en th e conclusion of this survey and th e publication o f this article. O f th e 185 libraries m ee tin g th e authors’ criteria in th e ta rg e te d states, all received copies o f th e survey. T h e authors receiv ed 119 replies, w hich re p re s e n te d a rate o f response surprisingly high at 64%. No clear p a tte rn a p p e are d to se p ara te th e institutions th at responded from those that did not. Sadly, all respondents did not answer all questions, a n d m any library d ire c to rs seem ed u n c e rta in w here th ey stood on significant ben efit issues. In th e course o f this survey, th e authors c o n ­ fro n te d tw o m ajor p roblem s. T hese p ro b lem s w ere: 1) th e ir lack o f g ra n t funding and o rganiza­ tional su p p o rt, w hich m ade it difficult to mail all surveys at th e sam e tim e, a n d 2) th e ir lack o f statistical sophistication, which m ade com pilation o f all survey results in an efficient and tim ely m an ­ n e r difficult. They b e n e fite d from th e cooperation received from St. N orbert College C om puter Serv­ ices, since T odd M aki a n d D ulce H u tc h in so n h e lp e d tab u la te th e survey results and gave very generously o f th eir tim e to m anipulate these results in graphic form . T he body o f this article has been pulled from th e responses to questions 8 -1 3 . Q uestions 8 a n d 9 covered academ ic status and responsibilities, while questions 10 and 11 covered librarian access to health, retirem ent, and vacation benefits. Q uestion 12 c o n c e rn e d d e p e n d e n t care, and q u e stio n 13 c o n c e rn e d lib ra rian access to th e education and travel b e n e fits increasingly necessary to u p d a te professional skills in a rapidly changing w ork envi­ ronm ent. T h e answ ers to q u estio n 8 revealed th a t m ost librarians have at least some claim to faculty sta tu s. Seventy-eight respondents claim ed faculty status, w hile 20 resp o n d e n ts claim ed th a t th ey d id not. Tw enty-one questionnaires did not answer this p art of q uestion 8. A nsw ers to qu e stio n 8, how ever, rev ealed th a t th e faculty status h eld by college librarians is often very nebulous. O nly 46 resp o n d e n ts h e ld faculty rank, w hile 54 did not. N in e te e n resp o n d e n ts did n o t answ er this p a rt o f q u estio n 8. O n th e key q uestion of te n u re , only 43 respondents w ere te n ­ u red o r te n u re eligible, while 53 respondents w ere in n o n -te n u re track positions, and 23 resp o n d en ts did not answ er this p a rt o f question 8. Six fortunate re sp o n d e n ts in d ic a te d th a t th ey h a d a choice b e ­ tw een ten u re and n o n -ten u re track status, while 91 respondents had no choice, and 22 respondents did n o t co m p le te this p a rt o f q uestion 8. O n th e positive side, 66 resp o n d e n ts in d ic a te d th a t th ey w ere eligible for institutionally fu n d e d research grants, and only 28 individuals responded negatively, w hile 25 p ersons failed to answ er this p a rt of question 8. I t was reassuring to know th at 88 respondents out o f 119 had some paid professional d ev e lo p m en t su p p o rt, although th e au th o rs w ere very c o n c e rn e d for th e 13 individuals w ho in d i­ c ated th a t th ey received none. E ig h te e n individu­ als did n o t fill o u t this key p a rt o f q uestion 8. D isappointingly, only 36 o f 119 re sp o n d e n ts r e ­ ceived support for research. T h e m ost surprising survey responses c o n ­ c e rn e d question 9. Almost h a lf o f th e resp o n d en ts (53) indicated th at librarians taught at th e ir institu­ tion, and 34 resp o n d e n ts r e p o rte d th a t librarians taught in the academ ic disciplines. As in question 8, a significant n u m b e r o f q u e stio n n a ires w ere not responsive. W hile only th re e individuals in d ic a te d in q u e s­ tion 9 th a t th ey w ere re q u ire d to publish, 64 in d i­ viduals said th a t th ey w ere e n c o u ra g e d to do so. Sadly, th e rew ards re p o rte d for p u b lic a tio n w ere m inim al or non-existent, a n d th e 79 lib rarian s r e ­ p o rtin g 12-m onth c o n tra cts clearly h a d lim ited publication opportunities. R esponses to q u e stio n 10 in d ic a te d th a t m ost librarians had disability, life, and m edical insurance as well as a retirem en t plan. The responses received in d icated th a t 95 institutions offered disability in ­ surance, 91 institutions offered life insurance, 100 institutions offered medical insurance, and 99 insti­ tu tio n s o ffe red a re tire m e n t plan to librarians. W hile it is reassu rin g to n o te th a t m ost college librarians enjoy th e se basic b en efits, th e negative answ ers in this section (7 disability in su ran ce, 10 life in su ran ce, 1 m edical in su ran ce, a n d 2 r e tire ­ m e n t plan) are very d istu rb in g along w ith th e fail­ u res to reply. R esponses to q u e stio n 11 in m any ways p a ra l­ leled q u estio n 10. M ost librarians enjoyed basic holiday and vacation b en efits, since 91 librarians rep o rted holidays, 93 librarians rep o rted vacations, and 92 librarians re p o rte d sick leave. A significant m inority, or 36 librarians, re p o rte d paid m aternity leave, although only nine librarians r e p o rte d paid p a te rn ity leave, w hich in d icated th a t a substantial degree o f sex discrim ination still existed in this area. It is am azing to th e authors th a t som e college librarians still lack access to holidays, vacations, and sick leave. ACRL should give serious consideration to b e n e fit-re la te d issues and show p a rticu la r c o n ­ 834 / C & RL News cern for th e least fo rtu n a te m em b ers o f th e p ro fe s­ sion even while th e m ore fo rtu n ate m em b ers o f th e profession fight for b e n e fits such as m ate rn ity a n d p a te rn ity leave. A nsw ers to q u e stio n 12 re v e a le d th a t child care and d e p e n d e n t care assistance are still ideas w hose tim e has not com e for m ost college librarians. Since th ese benefits are beingincreasingly sought after in th e c o rp o ra te w orld, how ever, th e availability o f th e s e b e n e fits co u ld in c re a se d ram a tic ally very quickly, if colleges w ish to c o m p e te for good p e r ­ sonnel. In tab u latin g answers to question 13, th e authors fo u n d th a t lib rarian s h a d good access to e d u c atio n b e n e fits. L ib ra ria n s at 68 in stitu tio n s co u ld take courses d u rin g n o rm al w orking h o u rs, an d only 38 re s p o n d e n ts in d ic a te d th a t th e y c o u ld n o t, w hich le ft a n o n -re s p o n s e ra te o f 15 c o m p le te d survey form s. Spousal a n d c h ild e d u c a tio n b e n e fits w e re available to 78 lib ra rian s, w hile 10 lib ra rian s in d i­ c a te d th a t th e y did n o t enjoy th e se b en efits, a n d 31 d id n o t resp o n d . A fter c o m p le tin g this q u e stio n n a ire a n d survey, th e a u th o rs re a liz e d th at: 1) specific m e n tio n o f sa b b atica l eligibility sh o u ld have b e e n m ad e in q u e stio n 8, a n d 2) spousal a n d ch ild e d u c a tio n b e n e fits sh o u ld have b e e n se p ara te d . In su m m a tio n , th e a u th o rs c o n c lu d e th a t m ost college lib ra ria n s en jo y em p lo y e e b e n e fits s ta n ­ d a rd in th e c o rp o ra te w o rld an d th a t vacatio n a n d tu itio n b e n e fits are a big plus for acad em ic lib ra ri­ ans. W e are, how ever, c o n c e rn e d th a t m ost college librarians lack s ta n d a rd b e n e fits en joyed by te a c h ­ ing faculty even th o u g h o u r c re d e n tia ls are g ra d u ­ ally b e co m in g equivalent, and som e o f th e s e b e n e ­ fits m ay b e n e e d e d to u n d e rg o th e co n sta n t p ro fe s­ sional u p d a tin g lib ra ria n s n e e d today, w h e th e r or n o tth e y h a v e o r d e s ir e f a c u lty s ta tu s . ■ ■ Time grants By Cynthia Stewart Kaag and Nancy Shepard R eference Librarians, O w en Science a n d E n gineering L ib ra ry W a shington State U niversity Resource sharing where the resource is time. O n e o f th e e te rn a l q u e stio n s fac e d by aca- dem ic librarians in ten u re -tra c k p o sitio n s is w h e re to fin d tim e to do th e re s e a rc h a n d w ritin g necessary fo r p ro m o tio n a n d t e n u r e . T h e re is only so m u ch reorganizing, reallocating a n d re th in k in g o f p rio ritie s th a t can b e d o n e b e fo re w e all com e to th e sam e point: to o m u ch to do, n o t e n o u g h tim e. D u rin g a r e tr e a t s e t u p to re -e v a lu a te o u r goals a n d objectives, th e faculty at th e O w en Science and E n g in e e rin g L ib rary at W ash in g to n S ta te U n iv e r­ sity cam e up w ith a plan th a t w ould allow individual lib ra ria n s tim e o ff fro m re f e re n c e d e sk re s p o n s i­ bilities fo r th e p u rp o se o f w orking on special p ro j­ ects. O riginally, th e id ea cam e in th e form o f a p re - r e tr e a t pro p o sal by one o f th e librarians for release tim e to p u rsu e scholarly a n d professional activities. This was b ro a d e n e d to m ake possible grants o f tim e for all lib rarian s as n e e d e d for p a rtic u la r p ro je c ts . As h a m m e re d o u t d u rin g th e r e tr e a t, th o se li­ brarians w ho had projects th ey w ished to u n d ertak e o r c o m p le te s u b m itte d w r itte n p ro p o sa ls w hich w e re review ed by all re fe re n c e lib rarian s a n d th e n d isc u sse d at a fac u lty m ee tin g . T h e h e a d o f r e f e r ­ e n c e d e te r m in e d how m an y h o u rs m ig h t b e avail-