ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 404 / C&RL News Since the merger of the programs at the Endow­ ment, many librarians have apparently assumed that NEH was no longer as responsive to projects on humanities topics and themes through libraries. While this is not entirely true, the results were clear: fewer proposals and less money offered for support. There were only 27 proposals received in 1983, down from 78 in 1981, and by the 1984 dead­ lines only 37 proposals were received, of which 20 obtained Endowment support for a little less than $2 million. Once again the Congress has marked a level of support for Humanities Projects in Libraries at over $3 million for fiscal year 1985. For more infor­ mation about this renewed effort, or for guidelines on programs through libraries, call or write to: Thomas Phelps, Division of General Programs, National Endowment for the Humanties, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N .W ., Washington, DC 20506; (202) 786-0271. ■ ■ A case study in closing the university library to the public By B renda L. Johnson Coordinator for Circulation and Interlibrary Services Rutgers University Libraries The pros and cons of restricting access in a state-supported university library. O n October 28, 1983, a number of Rutgers Uni- versity librarians attended an ACRL tri-chapter (New York Metropolitan Area, Delaware Valley, and New Jersey) symposium based on the case study m ethod. The symposium, “ Life on The Technology Express,” led one librarian, Adeline Tallau, to conceive of a similar-type program for her Rutgers’ colleagues. She immediately thought of an issue of great concern to the Rutgers Library community—serving the non-Rutgers clientele. Rutgers University Libraries’ Forum on Services (a faculty group made up of librarians working in the areas of reference, interlibrary loan, circula­ tion, online database searching, technical services and bibliographic instruction) agreed to sponsor a program entitled, “A Case Study in Closing the University Library to the Public.” On May 16, 1984, about twenty-five librarians gathered to dis­ cuss the issues, problems and solutions generated by a pre-distributed set of documents or “case,” set at the fictitious New Jersey University Library. The mythical New Jersey University, with over 40,000 students on two campuses in New Towne and Dennison, is one of the major state university systems in the nation. According to the case, sev­ eral years before her arrival at New Jersey Univer­ sity as the university librarian, Manfreda Edsel published the highly controversial article, “Are Li­ braries a Public Utility?” in which she divided pub­ lic utilities into two classes—the service type and product type. Clearly, she stated, libraries are a service and “services to a group which the library September 1984 / 405 was not designed to serve strain the ability of the library to provide service to its intended clientele. At the same time, the service provided to the non­ intended user is often less than adequate. If library users now had to pay the real costs involved in pro­ viding service when they use an inappropriate li­ b rary , econom ic factors w ould influence th eir choice of library.” B ackground docum ents included in th e case were m em oranda on such m atters as overburdened reference staff, building security, a new GPO de­ pository library ruling concerning public use, and offering database searches to the public. Petitions and student paper editorials strenuously opposing the closing of the library to the public, a letter from a local attorney, a statem ent of the University- W ide Goals and Objectives C om m ittee, and a m em orandum from the Director of the Center for High Technology th a t proposed the “selling” of li­ brary services as p art of a fund-raising drive, were all included to help describe the series of events and circumstances at New Jersey University leading to the current problem. To start the program , Manfreda Edsel has con­ vened the Library Faculty Forum to consider the effect th a t closing the library to the public would have on library services. In a mem orandum to the University President she stated, “Last year a deci­ sion was made to close the libraries at Kingston University. . . Their experience w ith this decision has been mixed. There has been a marked decrease in the num ber of persons using the library. It is not yet possible to determ ine if there has been a reduc­ tion in th e n u m b er of books missing from the stacks. There has also been an accompanying cost to administer the program which allows admission to persons who, although they do or did not attend classes, or work for the university, are nonetheless in valid need of access to the lib rary ... .1 am reluc­ tan t to suggest the adoption of this type of pro­ gram, although I am forced to realize th a t closing the Libraries to non-New Jersey University users would also provide some relief to some of the other problems facing the Library system.” The all-day program was divided into morning and afternoon sessions w ith the purpose of discus­ sing M anfreda Edsel’s charge to the faculty. The morning session began w ith an introduction to the program and the case study m ethod and continued w ith small group discussions of the overall or philo­ sophical issues which would be involved in closing a library to the public in a state-supported institu­ tion. Each group debated w hether to close or not to close the library, listing reasons to support either decision. Some arguments for closing the library included: •m o re seating space would be available; • i t would save wear and tear on the collection; • i t would force the strengthening of the state network; • i t would provide better security; • a greater percentage of the budget would sup­ port the prim ary users; and •keeping out the general public would free up the staff and equipm ent for New Jersey University users. Some reasons for keeping the library open to the general public included: • i t is the philosophical obligation of a public in­ stitution to be available for use to anyone in the state; Selling library access to businesses was discussed. • i t is just good public relations; • to meet Freedom of Access and Inform ation requirements; and • to fulfill obligations to provide access to some Special Collections m aterial and government doc­ uments. Through separate deliberations the two discus­ sion groups, surprisingly enough, came up w ith the same conclusion—restrict access, but do not com­ pletely close the New Jersey University libraries to the outside public. This limited access alternative was subject to differing interpretations, varying from m aintaining an official access office to requir­ ing a sign-in procedure. Both groups ultimately de­ cided to propose a public access or screening office. Clearly recognizing this as a compromise posi­ tion, the groups had discussed the cost of m aintain­ ing a screening office vis-à-vis the positive results to be achieved. One group envisioned New Jersey University receiving additional public funding to support this access office. Through the access of­ fice, studies based on collected data could docu­ ment to the State the num ber of outside users who use or wish to use the New Jersey University Li­ braries. Additional data on who these users are and why they need to use New Jersey University li­ braries w ould support the case to be m ade for greater funding. Indeed, even the idea of selling ac­ cess and services to business and industry was dis­ cussed. The group members went on to list how an ac­ cess office might appropriately discourage inap­ propriate use of New Jersey University Libraries. If viewed as an opportunity to educate non-New Jer­ sey University patrons to w hat kinds of collections and services NJU really has to offer, patrons may be b etter served. The discussion groups were con­ cerned about the actual disservice being paid to us­ ers who unw ittingly come to NJU for m aterial which would more likely be found in a large public library and who, equally uninformed, leave w ith­ out the knowledge th a t the m aterial may be found 406 / C&RL News elsewhere. An access office, if properly staffed, w o u ld ste e r th o se in d iv id u a ls to th e p ro p e r source (s). The afternoon session was eloquently introduced by Mary George, head of the General Reference Division at Princeton University Library, who dis­ cussed w h a t issues the Princeton University L i­ brary staff raised before closing the Firestone and M arquand Libraries to the general public in 1982. According to George, w hen restricted or controlled access to Princeton was proposed, m any doubts were voiced. Among the chief concerns were: •a p p ro p ria te scholars might be turned away; • th e perception of offensive red tape; • a lack of flexibility in procedures; •possible inadequate hours for the access office; • th e difficulty in staffing the access office prop­ erly; • th e necessity for consistency in screening po­ tential users; • a n assurance of proper referral to branch li­ braries; •developing a routine to take care of access to depository collections; and • th e whole issue of intellectual censorship. George also reported on w hat actually happened after the closing of the libraries. She stated th a t al­ though there have been some rough spots, it has gone much better th an expected. Visiting scholars now receive passes w ith no problems; m any people are helped at the guard desk or access office and are properly referred; the increased public contact has actu ally h elped pu b lic relations (for exam ple, w here patrons once walked in w ith no direction, they are now properly guided); cooperation from local libraries has been very good; there are fewer total questions asked, but a higher percentage of the questions are reference questions. The afternoon small group discussions focused on the practical problems which would be encoun­ tered in restricting access to the library. A list of m ajor concerns emerged from each group and in­ cluded the following: • th e necessity to have early consultation w ith university faculty and adm inistration about the whole issue; •ensuring proper public relations w ith the out­ side com m unity regarding the university’s deci­ sion; and • th e need to prepare a thorough planning docu­ m ent which includes, among other things, a tim e table, the definition of a “user,” redesign of the building entrance, and a form al evaluation m echa­ nism. The small groups rejoined to report on their dis­ cussions and recommendations and to w rap up the day. W eary but stim ulated, the participants had taken p a rt in a program designed to provide the op­ portunity for examination of an issue ap art from their “home” institution. W hile certain aspects of th e case bore close resem blance to th e circum ­ stances and events at both Rutgers University and Princeton University, the participants w ere asked to extract themselves from the “real” world and place themselves tem porarily at New Jersey Uni­ versity. By removing themselves from Rutgers Uni­ versity L ib raries, if for only one day, b ro ad er thinking was required. The focus centered on the p ro b lem -so lv in g process r a th e r th a n on w h a t would happen to me or “my patrons” or “my li­ b rary .” As previously m entioned, discussions and plans for the case study program began in late October and early November 1983. Several months later, in a very real situation, the President of Rutgers Uni­ versity appointed a select com mittee m ade up of faculty members (including library faculty) and adm inistrators, charged w ith reviewing some is­ sues of concern w ithin the libraries. Several m em ­ bers of the Presidential committee received copies of the background documents distributed for the case study. However, the committee did not have the results of the Forum on Services program be­ fore drafting a recom m endation on this issue. The recom m endation was drafted several weeks before the program took place. The unofficial recom m endation1 of the com m it­ tee on this issue was to retain the so-called “open door policy.” The rationale included statements of unacceptable adm inistrative and political costs as­ sociated w ith restricting access. A dm itting th a t ser­ vice to non-Rutgers users adversely affects service to Rutgers users, the com mittee suggested refining existing use studies to dem onstrate to the State th a t additional funds should support these services to outside users. The com m ittee’s d raft recom m enda­ tion, although calling for retention of th e open door policy, also encouraged th e study of how other University libraries lim it access through user fees and identification cards, particularly other state university systems. It is not known by this w riter if the case study documents helped to provoke thought or stim ulate discussion of the issue w ithin the Presidential com­ mittee. It is encouraging th a t m any of the points m ade by our case documents were certainly consid­ ered by the committee. And the fact th a t study of limited access at other institutions was encouraged by the Presidential committee, brings the reality and the case study m ethod very close. W hen select­ ing between the various options w ithin the two dis­ cussion groups, leaving the library open to the p u b ­ lic ran a very close second to restricting access. The library faculty groups and the Presidential com­ m ittee I believe were not too far ap art in their rec­ ommendations. Certainly the issue is not over and if future study is pursued, the report of the Forum on Services case study program may provide useful inform ation. ‘At the tim e of w riting, the report of this com­ m ittee has not been officially released, and it is still w ithin the discretion of the University President to do so. September 1984 / 407 The actual documents for the case study are be­ ing sent for deposit with a national clearinghouse and should be available in the near future. Inqui­ ries regarding the case are welcome and may be ad­ dressed to: Brenda L. Johnson, Network Services Unit, Rutgers University Libraries, P.O. Box 212, New Brunswick, NJ 08903. ■ ■ Coping with stress: The 14th ann ual Workshop on Instruction in Library Use By B arb ara Love Reference Librarian St. Lawrence College Saint-Laurent Stress and burnout on the B I trail. T T h e 13th Annual Workshop on Instruction in Li- brary Use was co-sponsored this year by Queen’s U n iversity an d St. L a w re n c e C ollege Saint- Laurent and took place in Kingston, Ontario, from May 16 to 18. Participants from Ontario and Que­ bec universities and com m unity colleges were joined by instruction librarians from eastern and western Canada as well as by a number of Ameri­ cans. Attendees were able to balance the long work­ shop sessions against the enjoyment of some of Kingston’s waterfront attractions, namely, a coq au vin banquet aboard the Island Queen on the opening night and a light lunch at the Yacht Club on Thursday. The Workshop’s theme was “Coping w ith Crisis: Strategies for Survival” w hich in ­ cluded sessions on crisis management, coping with burnout, time management, computer-assisted in­ struction to combat staff shortages, using media as a tool for coping with financial crises, job sharing and job exchanges as a means of self-revitalization and the trials and tribulations of CAI program­ ming. The workshop opened on Wednesday afternoon with the group as a whole participating in a crisis management session which featured a film called “Managing in a Crisis” from the U. S. Office of Per­ sonnel Management in which a series of crises takes place in a large hotel catering operation. Actors, assuming the roles of the key personnel involved, played out several scenarios designed to show the effectiveness of using “information-based problem solving.” The film outlined a 5-step procedure which stressed adequate planning and information gathering as a means of crisis management. These steps are: 1) setting the climate; 2) collecting infor­ mation; 3) classifying the information; 4) setting priorities and guidelines; and 5) following up. Using the method outlined in the film as a guide, the audience was then divided into smaller discus­ sion groups in order to examine a case study pre­ pared by Sandy Casey, Queen’s Faculty of Educa­