College and Research Libraries


By R A L P H E. E L L S W O R T H 

Summary of Current Practices in 
Colleges and Universities with 
Respect to the Management 
of Book Funds 
Mr. Ellsworth is director of libraries, Uni-

versity of Colorado. 

LA S T Y E A R while attempting to redefine 
' the relationship between the business 

office of the university and the order de-

partment of the library, it appeared that a 

new summary of current practices on cer-

tain points would be helpful. Conse-

quently, letters containing the following 

six questions were sent to the librarians of 

sixty university and large college libraries: 
1. Does your university carry its book 

funds for departmental purchases as a 
part of the library budget or as a sub-
division of the budget of each depart-
ment or college? 

2. If the latter is true, are the book funds 
mixed with supplies or are they sepa-
rate ? 

3. Are you and the library committee al-
lowed to transfer money from one fund 
to another freely or do you have to 
get permission of the president each 
time ? 

4. Does the library committee allocate or 
divide the book funds among the de-
partments or is this done by other ad-
ministrative officers? 

5. Do you have, in addition to the gen-
eral library book fund, a contingency 
fund which you may use at your dis-
cretion? 

6. Is the bookkeeping for library book 
funds done in the library or in the 
business office? 

Replies were received from the following 

fifty-three institutions: 

University of Arizona, University of 
Arkansas, Bryn M a w r College, Univer-
sity of California (Berkeley), University 
of Chicago, Cincinnati University, Uni-
versity of Colorado, Cornell University, 
University of Delaware, University of 
Denver, Duke University, University of 
Florida, University of Georgia, Harvard 
University, University of Idaho, Univer-
sity of Illinois, Indiana University, Uni-
versity of Iowa, Johns Hopkins University, 
University of Kansas, University of Ken-
tucky, Louisiana State University, Uni-
versity of Maryland, University of 
Michigan, University of Minnesota, 
University of Mississippi, University 
of Missouri, University of Montana, 
University of Nebraska, University of 
Nevada, University of New Mexico, 
University of North Carolina, North-
western University, Oberlin College, 
Ohio State University, University of 
Oregon, University of South Carolina, 
University of South Dakota, Southern 
Methodist University, Temple University, 
University of Tennessee, University of 
Texas, University of Utah, Vassar Col-
lege, University of Vermont, University of 
Virginia, Washington University (St. 

252 C O L L E G E , AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



Louis), University of Washington (Seat-
t l e ) , Wayne University, University of 
W e s t Virginia, Western Reserve Univer-
sity, University of Wisconsin, University 
of Wyoming. 

M a n y of the librarians w h o contributed 
data for their institutions expressed an in-
terest in the questions and suggested that 
the results be published. T h u s , although 
from my point of v i e w the project w a s 
undertaken as a basis for an administra-
tive report, the f o l l o w i n g summary is pre-
sented. It should probably be stated at 
this point that a summary of current prac-
tice does not necessarily result in a guide 
to correct practice. It may be true that 
fifty million Frenchmen can't be w r o n g — 
but they sometimes are. 

Question I 

T h e question of where, from a book-
keeping point of view, the departmental 
book funds should be listed may seem in 
itself relatively unimportant, and yet if 
the book funds are kept as a part of the 
departmental budgets rather than as sub-
divisions of the library book f u n d certain 
disadvantages result. First, it is more 
difficult and costly to transfer money from 
one f u n d to another than it is to rearrange 
subdivisions of one budget. Second, the 
plan is based on the assumption that re-
sponsibility for determining the amount 
that each department is to spend for books 
rests w i t h each department rather than 
w i t h a library committee whose function 
it is to see a department's needs in terms 
of the w h o l e institution. It may w e l l be 
that the assumption is not w e l l founded. 

F o r t y - t w o of the fifty-three institutions 
studied carry their departmental book 
funds as subdivisions of the library budget, 
six carry them in both places, and only 
four keep all book funds in the depart-

mental budgets. T h e universities that 
keep their book funds both in the library 
and the departmental budgets usually do 
so because of the existence of special en-
d o w m e n t funds w h i c h are to be spent for 
books, supplies, salaries, etc. T h e univer-
sities which keep all their book funds in 
the departmental budgets are: Arkansas, 
Colorado, D e l a w a r e , and N e w M e x i c o . 

Question 2 

W h e n e v e r book funds are kept in the 
same budget categories as supplies and 
equipment, separate accounting for each 
is difficult. T h e result is that if over- or 
underspending is to be prevented, the 
library order department and the business 
office of the university w i l l have to check 
w i t h each other before either makes a com-
mitment against the common f u n d — a pro-
cedure which is clumsy, to say the least. 
O n l y four of the fifty-three institutions 
merge their book and supply accounts. 
T h e s e are: Colorado, D e l a w a r e , Harvard, 
and N e w M e x i c o . H a r v a r d is in this 
group only because of special e n d o w m e n t 
funds. Colorado has changed its policy 
this year. 

Question 3 

Librarians are generally agreed that 
there should be flexibility in the interde-
partmental handling of book funds and 
that due to the appearance of special bar-
gains in the book market or to the chang-
ing needs of departments w i t h i n a given 
year it should always be possible to shift 
funds from one department to another. In 
forty of the fifty-three institutions, money 
can be shifted freely, in eight only in ex-
ceptional circumstances, and in five not at 
all. It w o u l d be interesting to find out 
h o w the five institutions get around the 
rigidity of their systems. 

JUNE, 1942 253 



Question 4 

T h e question of whose responsibility it 

is to allocate the book funds among the 

departments is debatable. T h e ultimate 

authority, of course, rests with the presi-

dent, but he seldom has time to study the 

needs of the departments or the conditions 

of the book market and hence is seldom 

in a position to handle the problem. Theo-

retically, it would seem logical to place 

the responsibility on the librarian and the 

library committee, who can devote the 

necessary time to the problem and who can 

present a well-considered program for the 

president's final action. Forty-five of the 

institutions queried do place the respon-

sibility on the librarian and the library 

committee, while seven do not. T h e latter 

group includes Arkansas, Colorado, Dela-

ware, Harvard, Indiana, Nevada, and 

N e w Mexico. 

Question 5 

Because the library needs of the depart-

ments cannot always be anticipated at the 

beginning of each fiscal year, because spe-

cial bargains sometimes appear on the book 

market at times when the regular depart-

mental funds are committed, and because 

it is time consuming, and therefore expen-

sive, to have to secure the approval of a 

number of departments when a publication 

that involves several departments is being 

considered, it would seem reasonable that 

the librarian have a contingency fund 

which he can use to take care of special 

situations. T h i s fund would be in addi-

tion to the money available for general 

reference books, periodicals, and bibliog-

raphies. 

T h i r t y of the institutions studied have 

such funds, while the following do not: 

Arizona, Bryn M a w r , Colorado, Florida, 

Idaho, Iowa, Maryland, Montana, N e w 

Mexico, South Carolina, Southern Metho-

dist, and Vermont. 

It does not follow that in the latter 

group of institutions the three conditions 

stated above cannot be met even though no 

contingency fund exists. T h e librarian 

can always go to the department heads 

and ask them to relinquish some of their 

funds for the use of other departments and 

he can always seek departmental approval 

for dividing the cost of buying an expen-

sive publication—since it is unlikely that 

he would be buying such a publication 

without departmental sanction. T h e ob-

jection is that the process is time consum-

ing, that it prevents quick action, and that 

the mechanism is clumsy. 

Question 6 

M a n y assertions have been made in the 

library literature about whose responsibil-

ity it is to keep the accounts for the de-

partmental book funds. T h e business 

officers of the universities usually doubt 

the librarians' statements that they (the 

business officers) cannot keep these ac-

counts as easily and efficiently as they can 

for the other things and services a uni-

versity purchases. Librarians, on the other 

hand, have claimed that because of the 

nature of the book market, because of the 

necessary language equipment involved, 

and because of the use made of the records 

by the order department and others on the 

library staff and the faculty, it is best to 

have the detailed accounts kept in the order 

department of the library and to let the 

business office rely on the library for these 

records. 

In ten of the institutions studied all the 

accounting for book funds is done in the 

library, in five it is all done in the business 

office, while in thirty-seven it is done in 

254 C O L L E G E , AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



both. In some cases among the third 

group this may mean outright duplication 

of records, while in others it means that 

the library keeps the detailed accounts 

while the business office keeps only the 

summaries. In other words, the library 

order department acts as a branch of the 

business office. 

Solution to the problem must be sought 

on the basis of t w o questions: first, is it 

possible for the business office to keep the 

records accurately and intelligibly, and sec-

ond, is it possible that because of the vari-

ous uses made of the records that they 

should be kept in the order department of 

the library, even though the business office 

can handle them properly? T h e problem 

should be studied by someone w h o is thor-

oughly acquainted w i t h modern account-

ing and bookkeeping techniques and also 

w i t h the problems of an order department. 

T h e data presented show how a substan-

tial group of universities and colleges have 

solved certain problems which arise from 

the handling of book funds. T h e y do not 

tell us w h a t practices should be followed. 

T h a t can be determined not by a consensus 

of opinion but by careful research. If the 

publication of this report stimulates such 

research it w i l l be justified, otherwise not.1 

a 
1 As a result of the submission of the report, the 

University of Colorado has revamped its entire pro-
gram for handling book funds and has brought its 
practices in line with those generally followed by the 
universities listed in this summary. 

Proposed Amendment to the Constitution 

of the A . C R.L. 

Recommended by the Committee on Constitution and B y - L a w s for Action 

at M i l w a u k e e , June 1942 

T h e text in italics below is the proposed 

change in the Constitution and B y - L a w s . 

Article V I . Board of Directors. Section 
2. Members. T h e Board shall consist of 
the president, vice president, retiring presi-
dent, secretary, treasurer, three directors-at-
large, the directors elected by sections, and 
the Association representatives on the Ameri-

can Library Association Council who are 

serving the last year of their terms. T h e 

chief officer (or, in his absence, the vice chief 
officer, or the retiring chief officer, in this 
order) of each section is an ex officio member 
without vote. 

T h e members of the Committee on C o n -

stitution and B y - L a w s are M a r y H . C l a y , 

Emily G a r n e t t , Edmon L o w , Charles V . 

Park, and Samuel W . M c A l l i s t e r , chair-

man. 

JUNE, 1942 255