ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 606 / C&RL News view of the administrator; the setting aside of the question of status in order to take on the larger, more fundamental, and infinitely more important question of how the unique knowledge of academic librarians should be identified and used by the in­ stitution in support of institutional missions, con­ cerns, and needs. O nly w hen shifts in adm inistrative—and faculty—perceptions have occurred will academic librarians be accorded the high status they will be seen to truly deserve. E ditor’s Note: This article is based on a speech given before the Wisconsin Association of A ca­ demic Librarians at the W A A L Spring Confer­ ence, A pril 24, 1987, and published here as a follow –up to the author’s “Beliefs and Realities,” C&RL News, September 1986, pp. 492-96. ■ ■ A ca d em ic lib ra ry fu n d in g a n d p r o fe ssio n a l eth ics By J. R ichard Madaus Dean of Library and Learning Resources Northeastern State University 6% library funding as an em ploym ent consideration. T o u g h economic times and/or budget problems in academic libraries are common experiences in our profession. An academic library represents considerable fiscal com m itm ent (even poorly funded) for any higher education institution. The ACRL “Standards for College Libraries” clearly state, “the library’s appropriation shall be six per­ cent of the total institutional budget for educa­ tional and general purposes.” Should we, as profes­ sionals, treat this six percent level as a goal or a minimum for basic quality services? How do we (or do we at all?) consider the basic budget construct of a library as part of our para­ digm of acceptable working conditions? Ethics, by definition, deal with principles for conduct. Logi­ cally, there should be a place in the interpretation of our professional ethics for a review of our institu­ tion as it provides us with the basic resources to carry out our profession. Funding is, of course, the key to these resources. Professional ethics should, in my opinion, extend to the basic level of the acceptance or rejection of the conditions and circumstances under which we as professionals will allow ourselves to work. Just how do we really act about our working conditions during good economic times (or bad times), and does it affect our funding? I am firmly convinced that it does. I am also firmly convinced that in our efforts to keep service going in tough times we may dilute our efforts simply too much. I believe this has, and will continue to keep aca­ demic libraries underfunded unless we make sig­ nificant change. This is not to say we don’t do very good jobs with w hat resources we have. I think we do. Perhaps we have done so well, with so little, for so long th at now it has become expected of us. Scraping by (at 4 % -6 % of E&G—education and general—funding levels) has become definitially part of our job. We will keep the library open at all costs, even if 608 / C&RL News it means destruction of our own personal health, both m ental and physical. We are so committed to serving students and faculty that we simply cannot refuse requests for service. In tough economic times th at type of approach may represent the kiss of mediocrity for the long haul. If budgets are se­ verely cut and library service doesn’t appear to suf­ fer, we are eventually doomed. Because any aca- I t ’s w h a t you do during the good times that gets you through the bad times. demic area is expected to look after its own interest, librarians screaming to the administration about the demise of collection quality are usually ignored because such screaming is expected. We sound no different than science teachers with insufficient chemicals and specimens, or business professors w ithout enough PCs. O ur backbreaking work, overtim e hours, and service com m itm ent goes overlooked by funders because it has all become a basic p art of the job and is no longer considered “extra effort.” If they cut the budget by 20% and nothing obvious happens (i.e. the building keeps opening, students still check out books, and there is no outcry by the teaching faculty), then it has to appear th at we didn’t really need th at 20% any­ way. If no damage (other than collection quality) is perceived, then the money will probably not be re­ stored in good times. Who (besides us) cares if we don’t have enough new books? History (and the n a­ ture of our business) has proven to funding adm in­ istrators th a t we will never have enough new books! The needs of the library can, in many ways, re­ flect the needs of the institution as a whole. A healthy library usually indicates a healthy univer­ sity. Conversely, shabby treatm ent of the library will probably be an index of other marginal univer­ sity program ming (good academic programs can­ not exist without good libraries). This to me is a very good reason why the ACRL standards de­ scribe library financial needs in percentages rather than specific amounts. O ur national standards call for a minimum 6 % of the E&G university budget. This percentage relates the library to the institution as a whole in the proper perspective. This percent­ age is applicable in both good times and bad times: if in place in good times and kept during bad times, the library will suffer no more, but no less, than the university as a whole. How do we, as individual librarians, recognize and promote the national standards of a minimum 6 % funding? I fear th at too often we only bring it up at budget time and then to point out th at we should have it, but don’t. Or, in the worst case, we sit around and complain to each other about how much we cannot do. I believe th at it’s not w hat you do during the bad times th at gets you through the bad times, it’s w hat you do during the good times th at gets you through the bad times. To me, one of the very best of times is represented when you ap­ ply for a job. You are on your best behavior and the institution should be trying to impress you as much as you are trying to impress it. This, to me, is the most ideal time to bring up library 6 % E&G finan­ cial relationships. On one end of the scale (and this is radical) think w hat would happen if every librarian applying for every academic library job would, as p art of the in­ terview process, strongly suggest th at a 6 % mini­ mum is needed for the library. Furtherm ore, each would refuse to accept the position unless the uni­ versity was committed to being in line w ith ACRL standards. I believe th a t w ith in five years we w ould begin to see significant shifts in library budgeting. Of course, immediate results would be a lot of unfilled positions (which would itself also have a secondary impact). However, there are al­ ternatives. We have to eat, and many times we ap­ ply for jobs because of where they are, who they are near, the experience to be gained, or w hat they pay. We m ust begin to at least raise the issue of minimum percentage funding for the library at every level of professional employment. O ther­ wise, w hat are we saying about ourselves and the conditions under which we are willing to work? W e have already pragmatically said we are willing to take less than ACRL standards because we ac­ cept the position. If we are not willing to refuse to accept the position, shouldn’t we at least make some pretty strong inquiries directly to the presi­ dent and academic vice-president during the inter­ view about library funding. If just asking about funding costs us the job, would we really have been happy there in the long run anyway? If these ad­ ministrators are not p art of the interview process, shouldn’t they be? And again, if just asking to speak w ith them costs you the job, would you have been happy there anyway? As more and more people bring it up at interview time, it will gain more im ­ portance in the minds of the administrators. After we take the job it is too late, as we have demon­ strated our willingness to work w ith less. The more I study this area, the more I am con­ vinced th at the 6% proportional funding issue is the most significant issue to our long-term survival. The 1986 ACRL standards call for microcomputers and audiovisual support to be added over and above the traditional 6 % . This presents some sig­ nificant financial issues in higher education. The technological impact, the newer emphasis on ac­ cess, and optical/electronic publishing are, and will continue to, im pact our ability to service our students’ needs. These areas all call for significant November 1987 / 609 realignm ent in library and university budgeting. T he tired old phrases of the library being the h eart of the university have to be backed up w ith fu n d ­ ing, or hardening of the arteries and cardiac arrest are not too far off. Personally, I believe th a t percentage funding is­ sues should become a m atter of professional ethics. If we are as good and as professional as w e say we are, then we have to be willing to back it up in term s of w here we will allow ourselves to work, and u n d er w h at conditions. O u r n atio n al sta n ­ dards will be credible only w hen every librarian applying for every job brings them up before they are hired. After all, in the words of sage Yoda from The Return o f the Jedi, “there is no ‘try ,’ there is only w h at we ‘d o . ’ ” ■ ■ O n site o b s e r v a tio n s o f a u to m a te d lib r a r y sy ste m s By Evelyn Lyons Interlibrary Loan & Online Services Librarian Millersville University A checklist to aid th e autom ation observer. T he move to autom ate library functions, to re- place m anual circulation services and card catalogs w ith integrated systems continues to gather m o­ m entum . The library autom ation industry is ap ­ proaching m aturity and smaller academ ic libraries w ith fewer resources at their com m and are coming into the autom ation m arket. In this instance, as in so m any other areas of rapid technological develop­ m ent, it is not disadvantageous to be am ong the late arrivals. Economic historians have observed th a t there is an advantage to relative backwardness. The inno­ vators struggled to design the first examples of these very complex systems and, w hen successful, were able to enjoy the fruits of their labor and their sub­ stantial risk-taking. Librarians today do not have to suffer the same pain of creation nor sustain the same awesome costs. It is now possible to approach a vendor of a developed syetem and receive an esti­ m ate of the ultim ate price of an installation. Today’s autom ation m arketplace, while not ex­ actly stable, presents the sm aller academ ic library w ith the possibility of m aking a rational choice am ong com peting systems. Ganser L ibrary at Mil­ lersville University in Pennsylvania, a m em ber of a 14-unit state higher education system w ith a stu­ dent body of around 6,000, recently began its eval­ uation of the available library autom ation systems. The library faculty had form ed an autom ation com m ittee, and m any of the 14 professional lib rar­ ians began to read widely in the literature on auto­ m ation. Some took courses at schools of library sci­ ence. Nearly everyone visited vendors’ exhibits at m ajor conferences. W henever possible we sought out libraries in our region th a t have installed auto­ m ated systems. In the fall of 1986 I was granted a sabbatical leave by Millersville University to study autom a­ tion in representative libraries. The rationale for the study was th a t neither visits to vendors at con-