To Gazette No. 4373 (21 September 1995)
Strong and unanimous support was expressed at Council for the main thrust of the report, and it was agreed to seek the comments of interested bodies and individuals, again focusing for the time being on the core proposals, although respondents may of course comment on other recommendations now if they wish. For its part, Council intends to return to consideration of the other detailed recommendations in Michaelmas Term. Meanwhile, Council has agreed to the immediate setting up of the expert body (in accordance with recommendation (iii)) to advise on the management structure which would be appropriate if the main recommendations were to be approved.
Council now invites comments on the main proposals in the report as embodied in recommendations (i), (ii) and (vi). It would also be helpful to have views at the same time on recommendation (ix). Because Council will need to take a final decision on these recommendations at its meeting on 6 November, respondents are asked to let the secretary to the working party (Mr L.C.C. Reynolds, University Offices, Wellington Square) know their views on these parts of the report by Friday, 27 October 1995. If Council at that meeting decides that it would wish to proceed with major changes it will put down a resolution, seeking approval for those changes, for debate in Congregation on 28 November.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
(i) the most appropriate structure of senior posts in the Oxford system of libraries;
(ii) responsibilities and duties of such postholders and the range of qualifications and experience to be sought in candidates for such posts.'
1.2 The membership of the working party was:
Sir Keith Thomas PBA, President of Corpus Christi
(Chairman)
Professor M.M. Bowie FBA, Marshal Foch Professor of French
Literature
Professor D.W. Clarke FEng, Head of the Department of Engineering
Science
Mr P.K. Fox, Librarian, University of Cambridge
Dr D.E. Olleson, Chairman of the Libraries Board
(Secretary: Mr L.C.C. Reynolds)
1.3 Professor Clarke provided an overlap with the membership of the Information Strategy Working Party, as would also have done the original external invitee Ms L.J. Brindley, Librarian and Director of Information Services at the LSE. Ms Brindley, however, had to stand down at the last moment and Mr Fox most kindly agreed to serve at very short notice.
1.4 We were given a very tight timetable, being asked to report to Council not later than its last meeting in Trinity Term 1995. This timetable was determined by the knowledge that the post of Bodley's Librarian would be vacant from 1 January 1997, so that the post, or whatever form its successor takes, would have to be advertised not later than early in 1996. Any legislation needed to implement changes in structures will have to be promoted during Michaelmas Term 1995, so Council and the General Board will need to have reached decisions at the beginning of that term.
1.5 The report of the Information Strategy Working Party, which was clearly going to be an important factor in our deliberations, became available only at the beginning of Trinity Term 1995. Our consultations have perforce been rapid. We have, however, sought views from representative sections of the library community in Oxford. The evidence received is listed in the appendices. The working party met on four occasions, the second of which was largely taken up by discussion with those invited to give evidence in person. Because of the short notice at which Mr Fox was appointed, previous commitments prevented him from attending the first two meetings. He received the full range of documentation, including a detailed account of the discussions which took place at the second meeting. In addition three of us met on a fifth occasion for a discussion with the Director of the Harvard University Library, Professor Sidney Verba.
1.6 It was almost immediately evident that any recommendations concerning the nature and relationships of the senior library posts concerned which departed to any significant extent from present arrangements could have potentially far-reaching structural and statutory implications, for example, with respect to existing curatorial and management bodies. This is indeed implied in our instruction to comment on responsibilities and duties and on qualifications and experience, since these will be determined by the structures to be managed. The Chairman raised this point at an early stage with Mr Vice-Chancellor, who acknowledged that the working party might need to go beyond the letter of its terms of reference in commenting on the structure of library provision itself. This, in the event, proved inevitable when the recommendations of the Information Strategy Working Party became known, since central to that report are the proposals that there should be a post of University Librarian with responsibilities extending over all of the University's libraries, and a move towards a library organisation with a more unified structure. We must therefore make it clear that from the outset consideration of the very widest structural issues has been central to our work. This is indicated by the following heads for discussion which we circulated in advance to those invited to meet us.
Would you like to comment in a library context?
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
2.2 The Shackleton Report was concerned with introducing a more rational framework for planning and resource allocation into a situation of what it described as `unplanned independence [and] enthusiastic rivalry'. The creation of the Libraries Board was intended to provide the University with, firstly, an expert advisory body on library issues (which the General Board, because of its other business, could not be expected to address in the necessary depth); secondly, a fund-allocating body for most of the University's libraries; and thirdly, a body to motivate and oversee co-ordination across Oxford's libraries in areas such as common services (including conservation), union catalogues, acquisitions policies, staff training and so on. By means of ex officio membership of the Libraries Board, Bodley's Librarian, `being ... the senior Librarian in the University', was to have a `voice in determining the general library policy of the University'. As regards the Libraries Board's financial remit, Shackleton envisaged it extending to all but the `very small departmental or institutional library'. It was expected, nonetheless, that such libraries would not be entirely outside the Board's authority: they should report to the Board and co-operate in union catalogues. In the event, the Board was given financial responsibility only for the central research libraries and the faculty or faculty-type libraries, most departmental libraries continuing to be funded from within departmental budgets. Libraries, including those funded via the Libraries Board, retained managerial autonomy.
2.3 The Nicholas Committee, sitting as it did in a period of severe retrenchment, was preoccupied with the need for a leaner, more cost-effective library system, which it believed the unified system would achieve through, amongst other means, the reduction of unplanned duplication. In the prevailing climate of financial stringency there was no thought of suggesting as Shackleton had done that the University should be increasing its expenditure on libraries taken as a proportion of overall recurrent expenditure. Nevertheless, despite the less straitened circumstances in which it met, the Shackleton Committee had seen the creation of the Libraries Board and the collection of financial and other library statistics on a regular basis as means `to establish standards of performance to evaluate budget requests'. In some respects the emphasis placed by the Information Strategy Working Party on the need for additional resources for the library and information sector, and the coincidental introduction by HEFCE of performance indicators for libraries with effect from 1995–6, makes Shackleton seem more topical than Nicholas.
2.4 The Information Strategy Working Party has made a case for establishing a senior post of University Librarian with managerial and budgetary responsibility and suggests that, as a first step, executive responsibility should extend to the existing Libraries Board libraries with the possible exception of the Cairns Library. The ISWP report does not include any recommendation on the accompanying committee structure, but we have seen the draft statute alluded to in the report, which envisages the Libraries Board and the various curatorial bodies being replaced by a single overarching body called `The Curators of the University Libraries'. In general the ISWP report envisages greatly increased responsibility for executive individuals, with committees performing a more advisory and less executive role.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
3.2 To summarise very briefly the existing arrangements. Oxford has an extremely rich, diverse and fragmented library service provided by nearly 100 independently managed library units. Eleven of these are funded through the recurrent block grant which the General Board makes to the Libraries Board (£8,793,087 in 1993–4). They are: Ashmolean, Bodleian, Taylorian, Cairns, Economics and Statistics, English, History, Modern Languages, Music, Social Studies, and Theology. Apart from the central Bodleian site, the Bodleian Library also incorporates the following geographically separate units: the Radcliffe Science Library (including the Hooke Lending Library), Rhodes House Library, the Bodleian Law Library, the Bodleian Japanese Library at the Nissan Institute, the Oriental Institute Library, the Chinese Institute Library, and the Philosophy Library.
3.3 The Bodleian with its dependencies constitutes the largest unit, with 433 posts and absorbing 80 per cent of the Libraries Board's block grant. It is a legal deposit library with extensive research collections and a national and international role. In the humanities the Bodleian is a reference-only library, but serves both lending and reference functions in the sciences. The Ashmolean and the Taylorian are also major international research libraries. In the humanities and social sciences, most Libraries Board faculty libraries have a primary responsibility to serve undergraduates, but some also have substantial research collections of national significance. The Institute of Economics and Statistics library is unusual in that it is exclusively a research reference collection with no provision for undergraduate lending.
3.4 Besides the Libraries Board libraries there are 42 departmental libraries funded from within departmental budgets, i.e. their funds are not earmarked for library use. Total expenditure on libraries in this category was £1,467,126 in 1993–4. Many departmental libraries in the sciences are small research collections, though a minority are comparable in size to the faculty libraries. The Hooke (administered by the RSL) and a minority of departmental libraries, e.g. Engineering, Geography, Plant Sciences, serve undergraduate borrowing requirements. The Cairns is the only Libraries Board faculty–type library in the sciences; it serves postgraduate requirements in clinical medicine.
3.5 College expenditure on libraries totalled £2,875,521 in 1993–4. College libraries vary widely in the size and quantity of their stock, but include well-organised collections of considerable value. They have a responsibility to serve undergraduates in all disciplines, but access is generally restricted to college members. There are important collections of manuscripts and early printed books in college libraries; and some colleges (All Souls, Nuffield, St Antony's and Templeton) have a recognised university-wide role in provision for certain subjects.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
4.2 Where existing arrangements work satisfactorily users have a system which on the one hand offers the range and depth of collections in the large research libraries; combined, on the other, with `local' libraries offering
(a) open access to stock;
(b) lending facilities;
(c) requisite reader and subject-specific services on-site;
(d) other services such as self-service photocopying;
(e) devolved management allowing a rapid response to teaching and research needs;
(f) faculty input to the management of the library. For their part, staff derive satisfaction from providing these services with the minimum of fuss and bureaucracy.
4.3 As against those who think that things should be left as they are with no—or at most very little—change there are those who see respects in which the existing devolved management pattern is proving deficient, even if at the same time giving a democratic and responsive character to provision at the local level. This was the view expressed by the majority of the representatives from libraries outside the Bodleian.
4.4 Our evidence from middle and upper management in the Bodleian suggests a perceived need for radical change together with a recognition that this might have more implications for Bodley than for other parts of the system. This is not surprising in view of the bad press which the Bodleian has recently suffered because of problems with book delivery, which must have severely strained staff morale.
4.5 We have received the following criticisms of present arrangements, some of which impress us.
(a) Within the present structure it is not possible to manage the overall resources within the library sector in the most effective way. There is no single focal point within the sector from which a rounded view of who should provide what service, where and when, can be taken. (Nor, of course, is there a single source of managerial authority capable of implementing the policies that such a rounded view might suggest.) The present arrangements are not adapted to the development and management of common services.
(b) Related to (a) is the lack of comprehensive university-wide strategies for acquisition, retention, preservation and conservation. Part I of the report of the Libraries Board Preservation Committee, which was presented to Council in Michaelmas Term 1994, is highly critical of the lack of progress in measures to co-ordinate these activities and argues that `the needs ... identified cannot readily be met within the present system' (p.70). As regards acquisitions, there is an absence of persuasive evidence that collection development is planned from more than a purely local perspective and with thought being given to the assignment of material to locations where it is most needed and to ensuring not just that needless duplication of material is avoided but also that material is not overlooked because it falls between the major areas of collection development. It was also suggested to us that more systematic use could be made of specialist knowledge. Practice regarding the retention of material differs widely between libraries, depending largely on their immediate space exigencies; while in preservation and conservation there is evidence of widely differing standards and levels of competence.
(c) Tensions within a federal system are inevitable when the units supervised by the Libraries Board vary so much in size, and where one of them consumes about 80 per cent of the Board's resources. These tensions have been exacerbated in recent years by shortage of funds to keep pace with the increasing volume of publications and the explosion in electronic media, by failure to define each library's function, and by the development of a new unit—the Libraries Automation Service—which in effect has the Libraries Board as its management committee. The tensions have developed in some areas into unproductive confrontation, often of a `Bodley v. the rest' nature. In the faculty libraries the perception tends to be that a disproportionate share of resources is allocated to the Bodleian, with the result that the funding is not optimally directed to where faculty librarians see day-to-day library services to the University as being delivered. The central research libraries on the other hand are conscious of their obligations to wider and more varied clientèles than those catered for by the faculty and departmental libraries, and the view that the faculty libraries are somehow the `real' providers to the University is resented in Bodley. The present arrangements were described to us as `confrontational' (and there was general agreement from both `sides' that this was the right word), and perceptions are such that any future change which could be interpreted as `a Bodleian takeover' would not be acceptable.
(d) There is a need for much more co-ordination of staff training and continuing professional development; moreover, the lack of a single staff establishment can limit the prospects for career progression.
(e) The experience of responding to recent HEFCE initiatives, requirements and consultations has shown that the division into separate libraries, each responsible to its own management committee, with the Libraries Board exercising financial supervision over eleven of them and attempting to co-ordinate provision between another 80 or so, makes co-ordination difficult and is not conducive to effective management of change.
4.6 In addition, certain criticisms are directed from a specifically Bodleian point of view.
(f) At present the role of Bodley's Librarian within the University is anomalous and frustrating. He heads a library of international renown, by far the largest provider of library services within the University, but has no authority (and little influence) in libraries outside the Bodleian, and no co-ordinating role except as an ex officio member of the Libraries Board. Bodley's Librarian is responsible to the Curators for the administration of the Bodleian, but 60 per cent of the funds available to him come through the Libraries Board, five of whose elected members are currently librarians of lesser standing than his own. Unlike the majority of University Librarians in the UK, he has no formally recognised role in the formulation of strategic plans for the University. In 1988 the Curators requested that Bodley's Librarian be able to see Council papers relating to Bodley as one way of improving the Librarian's information about university policy. This request was declined by Council.
(g) The chain down which resources are passed to Bodley's Librarian is too long, compared with Cambridge, for example, where the University Librarian receives the grant for the University Library and its dependencies direct from the General Board of the Faculties.
(h) The present situation where the Bodleian (and, indeed, other Libraries Board libraries) report to two committees is wasteful of effort and confusing in operation. In the case of the Bodleian, these committees are the Curators and the Libraries Board. Although the responsibilities of these two groups are more or less precisely laid down by statute, the actual relationships between the Bodleian and its Curators, and the Bodleian and the Libraries Board, have become largely a matter of custom; the Librarian and the Officers report to, or consult with, the Curators on one kind of matter (e.g. accounts, personnel, and the opening and closing of the library) and with the Libraries Board on others, which include the all-important issues of finance and equipment, particularly that required for automation. During last Michaelmas Term, for example, the Bodleian's bids to HEFCE for non-formula funding for special collections in the humanities, involving bids for millions of pounds for projects intimately connected with the library's operations at all levels, were made through the Libraries Board and, of necessity, only reported to the Curators afterwards.
(i) The practice of calling the Curators' Standing Committee to meet almost weekly in full term is criticised both for detracting from the managerial effectiveness of the librarians, for taking up an inordinate amount of highly qualified academic time, and—when committees cease meeting during the vacation—for resulting in potentially damaging delays in the conduct of business.
(j) The Bodleian's management structure is not adapted to make the most of managerial potential below officer level. Certain other structural features have been criticised, for example, the size of the Department of Printed Books, and the fact that the management of some core areas of library activity such as collection development, reader services and cataloguing are located within this department.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
5.2 Likewise, almost all our evidence strongly supports the establishment of a post of University Librarian or at least concedes that it could be beneficial. There are, however, different views on the precise remit of such a post and on the sort of system of which it would be at the head.
5.3 The Information Strategy Working Party based its case for establishing the post of University Librarian on the need to achieve:
5.4 If we were to move to a managerially integrated—rather than just a co-ordinated—library system under a single University Librarian, what must the determining features of such a system be?
(a) It must resolve the problem of the disproportionate size of one of its elements, namely the Bodleian, and address the organisational deficiencies identified within Bodley. Some of the submissions we received assume the continued existence of the Bodleian in its present form as the largest identifiable unit in an integrated system, and propose that the day-to-day running of the library should be delegated to a new post of Deputy (new in the sense that it would not be held, as now, in conjunction with the keepership of a major department within the library). However, in our view it would generate impossible difficulties for the University Librarian if the Bodleian were to remain a funding unit so out of proportion to others in the system.
(b) The constituent parts of an integrated system must retain or acquire the qualities of responsiveness valued by users. In particular we would want a structure in which it were possible for all parts of the Bodleian to achieve the same responsiveness as some faculty libraries.
(c) At the same time, the structure must permit the sharing of expertise; university-wide services such as conservation and support for electronic media; and, where advantageous, economies of scale.
(d) The structure, as well as being responsive to the teaching and research needs of the University, must also be able to fulfil the national and international obligations of a library of legal deposit with major collections.
(e) The structure must reconcile the importance for fund-raising of retaining the Bodleian's corporate identity with the local opposition to a `Bodleian takeover' of other libraries.
(f) The structure must accommodate the need to delegate more executive responsibility to librarians while at the same time preserving the democratic traditions of the University.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
(i) that a post of University Librarian should be established with effect from 1 January 1997.
6.2 We endorse the Information Strategy Working Party's view that a purely (or, we would add, even largely) cosmetic designation of University Librarian without control over resources in the areas of responsibility is a recipe for frustration. The fact that just over 60 per cent of the University's expenditure on libraries is already routed through and allocated by the Libraries Board provides a financial basis on which to integrate a substantial part of Oxford's library sector into a single operation. If the University were to adopt the suggestion of the Information Strategy Working Party that a University Librarian in Oxford should be given responsibility for managing the block grant currently received by the Libraries Board from the General Board, this would still leave the General Board libraries and the college libraries outside the remit of the post.
6.3 With regard to General Board libraries, we acknowledge that some small departmental library units can, as Shackleton argued, continue to be excluded from consideration. They can be treated as analogous to a collection of reference books on a desk or laboratory bench, with a function equivalent to that of a standard item of departmental equipment. Expenditure is either not significant or occasional. As for the larger departmental libraries, it is not obvious to us why, for instance, the library of the Institute of Economics and Statistics should—as a Libraries Board library—be within an integrated system but that of the School of Geography not. Particularly where departmental collections include manuscript or early printed material or collections of national or international importance, as in Plant Sciences or the Edward Grey Institute, there would seem to be good reason to bring them under the responsibility of the University Librarian in order to ensure that all the University's historic collections receive a uniformly adequate level of care. It goes without saying that our earlier emphasis on maintaining the responsiveness of local libraries applies equally to departmental as to faculty libraries. That such a transfer of responsibility for departmental collections might in some cases come about sooner rather than later is suggested by the fact that in the General Board's review of departmental grants some heads of department have made a case for the inclusion of special factor funding in the allocation formula to take account of the cost of maintaining library or other collections which are a departmental responsibility but are of national or international importance. Alternatively, integration within the wider library system would release the department from the financial responsibility of maintaining such collections. We realise that moves in this direction might not be popular or achievable overnight, but we recommend that a structure should be created which would accommodate such transfers of responsibility. Subject to the proviso that the adjustment of departmental budgets consequent on the General Board's review might provide an opportune moment to effect any transfers of responsibility for departmental collections for which all parties agreed there was a strong case, integration of the existing Libraries Board libraries, as suggested by the Information Strategy Working Party, represents an obvious first stage. In the meantime, the current arrangements for co-ordination between the RSL and science departmental libraries which have been established by the Keeper of Scientific Books are to be commended and should be developed.
6.4 A University Librarian cannot ever, of course, be given managerial responsibility for college libraries, but the postholder might be expected to ensure that improved co-ordination of university with college provision is a strategic priority.
6.5 We therefore recommend
(ii) that the new post of University Librarian should be at the
head of
an integrated library system initially comprising the existing
Libraries
Board libraries.
6.6 On the issue raised by the Information Strategy Working Party, we are assuming that the Cairns, as a Libraries Board library, will also be incorporated. The Medical Library at Cambridge, which has similar ramifications into the NHS, is fully part of the University Library. But there may be reasons—and we have not had time to investigate—why this could present particular difficulties in Oxford. 6.7 The management restructuring required will be a complex and lengthy task, to the detailed planning of which will need to be brought thorough professional familiarity with the workings of the University's libraries and of major libraries outside Oxford. It may also, possibly, require the involvement of external management consultants. We are certainly not the appropriate body to draw up details of the management structure which the University Librarian would head, but we are clear as to the major objectives which the structure would be expected to facilitate:
6.8 The main points to note are as follows.
(a) A move to a divisional organisation which cuts across existing institutional boundaries. The heads of division report direct to the University Librarian. The divisions we have identified are:
(b) The divisional heads are responsible for ensuring the day-to-day operation of the library system. For this reason we have not included a separate post of Deputy interposed between the University Librarian and the heads of division. We do not exclude the possibility that for some purposes it might assist the University Librarian to have a nominated deputy amongst the heads of division either ad hoc as the occasion demands, e.g. during the absence of the University Librarian, or on a rota basis.
(c) Similarly, the headship of a division could be held in conjunction with one of its constituent `departmental' elements. This might be found an appropriate arrangement in the case of what is likely to be, managerially, a highly devolved division, Subject Library Services.
(d) Within the divisions it is not assumed that the constituent parts are of equal weight in terms of the grade of the person in charge.
(e) Individual subject committees provide faculty input
to policy and a
direct channel of communication with staff by which users can comment
on the
adequacy of provision and services. In many instances such committees
already
exist, and we envisage their continuation.
We accordingly recommend
(iii) that Council should authorise Mr Vice-Chancellor to appoint
an
expert body, consisting of such members as will ensure the requisite
input of local and external professional expertise, to advise on the
management structure of an integrated system and to report to Council
and
the General Board by the middle of Michaelmas Term 1995.
6.9 Restructuring will not come without cost. Taking into account
the
impending vacancies which prompted Council to ask for our report, we
hazard a
guess that the model we have suggested could require the creation of
up to two
new posts in the tier immediately below the University Librarian,
together
with regradings elsewhere. In the longer term vacancies will allow
the
University Librarian some flexibility to pursue the restructuring
without
additional cost, and possibly with some savings. Major capital
developments
such as a large new open-access library might allow further staff
reorganisation, which in turn might produce savings. The point we
wish to make
as strongly as possible is that the new University Librarian must be
given a
commitment that the necessary funding will be made available to
implement the
restructuring. In fact, we believe that any candidate worthy of
appointment
will not accept the post without such a commitment. We therefore
recommend
(iv) that Council accept in principle that adequate additional
funding
should be made available to the University Librarian to achieve the
task
of integration successfully.
6.10 As we have made clear throughout this report, one of our
concerns has
been to avoid giving credibility to the suggestion that the changes
recommended represent a `Bodleian takeover', leading to a decline in
service
and responsiveness to readers. As we believe the possible model for a
new
structure which we have just outlined shows, we are in fact, if
anything,
envisaging the assimilation of the Bodleian as it is as present into
a new
university-wide library system; though we are careful to preserve the
integrity of the historic collections. We are not committed in
principle to
any preconceived ideas about the need to preserve the existing
managerial
structure of Bodley, although we have a profound respect for what the
buildings and their historic contents represent, and we therefore
wish to
ensure that they are managed in the best interests of teaching and
research.
We have taken very seriously the argument that the name of Bodley is
a
powerful magnet in fundraising terms. Furthermore, the terms of the
1911
Copyright Act specify `the Bodleian Library, Oxford' as one of the
libraries
of legal deposit, and it therefore seems to us that if we wish to
redesign the
structure of libraries in Oxford the resulting entity must continue
to bear
the name `the Bodleian Library'. Similarly, we conclude that the
title given
to the post that we have hitherto been calling University Librarian
must
reflect the same consideration. We therefore recommend
(v) that the post of University Librarian should be called
`Bodley's
Librarian and Director of University Library Services', and the
integrated library structure called overall `the Bodleian
Library'.
6.11 There should be a single body to which Bodley's Librarian and
Director
of University Library Services qua chief executive will be formally
responsible. We emphasise that we envisage the initiative for
developing and
implementing policy resting clearly with Bodley's Librarian and
staff. There
must however be a body to which Bodley's Librarian can turn for
advice or
support, which would be particularly important in the transitional
period
during which the management restructuring is being implemented. This
body must
also represent the University's ultimate control over its libraries
and must,
therefore, in the final analysis have power to override Bodley's
Librarian's
executive authority. This body will replace the existing Libraries
Board and
Bodleian Curators and is called the Library Board to distinguish it
from the
previous bodies. At the individual subject level most of the other
existing
library committees would, as we envisage above, continue in order to
ensure
strong faculty input to policy making in the integrated library
system. We
therefore recommend
(vi) that Bodley's Librarian and Director of University Library
Services
should report to a single body called the Library Board, which will
be
formally responsible for the integrated library on the understanding
that
executive authority rests with Bodley's Librarian and Director of
University Library Services.
6.12 As recommended, we see the Library Board, although advising
Bodley's
Librarian and being involved in policy making and, for example, with
senior
appointments, as essentially non-executive in character, but with an
ultimate
sanction as representing the constituency for which the integrated
library
structure provides services. We think it follows from this that the
membership
of this body should be drawn from the teachers, researchers and
students using
the libraries, and that it would not be appropriate for library staff
to be
eligible for membership; their interests should be accommodated
within the
management structures of the integrated library. Their involvement as
subject
specialists etc. is taken for granted in their membership of the
committees
envisaged at faculty level. It is proposed that Bodley's Librarian
and
Director of University Library Services should be Secretary to the
Library
Board (although minute-taking can be dealt with by a secretariat, and
professional staff can be in attendance as required). We therefore
recommend
(vii) the following composition for the Library Board:
Bodley's Librarian and Director of University Library Services
shall
be
the Secretary to the board.
6.13 The Report of the Joint Funding Councils' Libraries Review
Group (The
Follett Report) recommended that `whatever the organisation of
information
services, the senior person responsible for these should take a
leading role
in the senior management of the institution. In some, it may be
appropriate
for the librarian to take this role but in others where
organisational
structures are different, this will not be the case.' We endorse
this
recommendation and—irrespective of what arrangements might be
appropriate
for other parts of the information sector—think that Bodley's
Librarian and
Director of University Library Services should have the right of
attendance at
meetings of Council and the General Board or their committees when in
his or
her opinion business relevant to the responsibilities of the post is
involved.
It follows that Bodley's Librarian and Director of University Library
Services
should receive Council and General Board papers. We believe that the
claims on
the Librarian's time will be such as to make ex officio membership
of, and
regular attendance at, those bodies impracticable. The
responsibilities of
Bodley's Librarian and Director of University Library Services
towards the
University as a whole are so fundamental to the activity of the
University
that the access to Council and the General Board we are proposing
would not in
our view constitute any sort of precedent for claims that heads of
department
should receive Council and General Board papers. We therefore
recommend
(viii) that Bodley's Librarian and Director of University Library
Services should have the right of attendance at and participation in
any
meetings of Council and the General Board or their committees and
should
receive Council and General Board papers.
6.14 In our discussions with witnesses regarding the qualifications which should be required in a University Librarian the major issues that emerged were as follows.
(a) Should the postholder be a professionally qualified librarian? That he or she should was the strongly expressed view of the representatives of Libraries Board librarians and the Science Librarians' Forum; in their view only a professionally qualified librarian could command the confidence of library staff in the University.
(b) It was generally accepted that the person responsible for running an integrated library system would have to have a proven record in the management of large, complex organisations. When it was suggested that, given the importance of qualities in this area, it might be appropriate not to exclude from consideration candidates from the business sector, i.e. without professional library qualifications, the response from our witnesses was sharply divided between those for whom someone without a professional qualification was unthinkable, and those (some of whom were librarians) who did not rule out the possibility, provided that there was a strong management team of professionally qualified librarians immediately below the senior post.
(c) The statute governing Bodley's Librarian incorporates Sir Thomas Bodley's stipulation that the Librarian should be `one that is noted and known for a diligent student, and in all his conversation to be trusty, active, and discreet: a graduate also, and a linguist'. Some of the evidence we received referred to the importance of a record in scholarship, but at the same time there was a recognition that with the importance of information technology in libraries there is a widening gap between the old tradition of scholar librarians and the new breed of `information providers' with managerial and technical skills. It is not inconceivable that there are paragons uniting both high scholarship and technical wizardry, but the odds may be against finding them. It will be seen from the recommendation below that what we regard as essential is not necessarily a record of scholarly publications, although that would in an otherwise appropriately qualified person be an additional attraction, but rather understanding and experience of, and sympathy with, the aims and techniques of scholarly research and teaching.
(d) External fundraising has become critically important to the Bodleian. Only 60 per cent of its recurrent expenditure is funded by the University. Of the remainder, 20 per cent comes from self-generated income. Half of the present Librarian's time is taken up with fundraising activities. We believe that this is too much of a burden on top of executive responsibility for a library of this size. It would clearly not be acceptable in the context of even larger responsibilities that will rest with the head of the integrated library system; so Bodley's Librarian and Director of University Library Services must be able to rely on thorough groundwork by subordinate staff with fundraising responsibilities in either the library system or the Development Office. But at the culmination of negotiations with prospective benefactors the involvement and commitment of the senior institutional figure is essential to carry fundraising projects through to a successful conclusion. Our candidate will therefore need to have the qualities to succeed in that role and also, of course, the general political adroitness and sensitivity required to operate with a high level of effectiveness in the arena of academic politics.
6.15 Our view on the question of whether or not candidates should have professional qualifications is that the matter should be left open and that candidates who are not thus qualified should not be completely debarred. There have been examples of outstanding librarians who have not had professional qualifications but have had other qualities which allowed for success. It must be remembered, however, that the holder of this post will be representing the University nationally and internationally in gatherings where professional librarians will predominate. It is essential that in these circumstances Oxford's representative should feel at ease and capable of securing the professional respect of peers.
6.16 We therefore recommend
(ix) that the following should be regarded as essential
qualifications in
the holder of the post of Bodley's Librarian and Director of
University
Library Services:
In addition, in view of the importance of external sources of funding
to
Oxford's libraries, the postholder can expect to be involved in
library
fundraising projects at appropriate points, so previous experience in
this
area would be desirable.
6.17 The responsibilities of the new post will make this one of
the biggest
library jobs in the UK. The salary should reflect this and should be
such as
to attract overseas as well as UK candidates. We therefore
recommend
(x) that the stipend of Bodley's Librarian and Director of
University
Library Services should be commensurate with the responsibilities of
the
post.
6.18 Finally, we note that if, as recommended, the post of
Bodley's
Librarian and Director of University Library Services is to be filled
with
effect from 1 January 1997, any statutory mechanism for appointments
to the
post, say, an electoral board, is unlikely to be in place. We
therefore
recommend
(xi) that the first appointment to the post of Bodley's Librarian
and
Director of University Library Services should be made by a specially
appointed committee, headed (and possibly nominated) by Mr Vice-
Chancellor, and including members external to the University;
(xii) that the present Curators of the Bodleian be invited to
concur in
the arrangement proposed in recommendation (xi).
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
(i) A post of University Librarian should be established with effect from 1 January 1997.
(ii) The new post of University Librarian should be at the head of an integrated library system initially comprising the existing Libraries Board libraries.
(iii)Mr Vice-Chancellor and Council should be asked to appoint an expert body (with the input described at para. 6.7 above) to advise on the management structure of an integrated system and to report to Council and the General Board by the middle of Michaelmas Term 1995.
(iv) Council should accept in principle that adequate additional funding should be made available to the University Librarian to achieve the task of integration successfully.
(v) The post of University Librarian should be called `Bodley's Librarian and Director of University Library Services', and the integrated library structure called overall `the Bodleian Library'.
(vi) Bodley's Librarian and Director of University Library Services should report to a single body called the Library Board, which will be formally responsible for the integrated library on the understanding that executive authority rests with Bodley's Librarian and Director of University Library Services.
(vii) The composition of the Library Board should be as follows:
(viii) Bodley's Librarian and Director of University Library Services should have the right of attendance at and participation in any meetings of Council and the General Board or their committees and should receive Council and General Board papers.
(ix) The following should be regarded as essential qualifications in the holder of the post of Bodley's Librarian and Director of University Library Services:
In addition, in view of the importance of external sources of funding to Oxford's libraries, the postholder can expect to be involved in library fundraising projects at appropriate points, so previous experience in this area would be desirable.
(x) The stipend of Bodley's Librarian and Director of University Library Services should be commensurate with the responsibilities of the post.
(xi) The first appointment to the post of Bodley's Librarian and Director of University Library Services should be made by a specially appointed committee, headed (and possibly nominated) by Mr Vice-Chancellor, and including members external to the University.
(xii)The present Curators of the Bodleian should be invited to concur in the arrangement proposed in recommendation (xi).
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
LIBRARY BOARD-----------------BODLEY'S LIBRARIAN AND
DIRECTOR OF UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY SERVICES
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | |
[A] [B] [C] [D] [E]
[A] = CENTRAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES: cataloguing and acquisition
processing; information technology; preservation and storage;
personnel; fund-raising[B] = RESEARCH LIBRARY SERVICES: Western Manuscripts; Special Collections (including parts of Ashmolean, Taylorian, and Rhodes House); Research Reader Services; Research Collection Development (including responsibility for legal deposit)
[C] = SUBJECT LIBRARY SERVICES: Law; Modern Languages; Social Studies; History; English; Theology; Philosophy; Music; Classics; American Studies; Commonwealth; [departmental collections]
[D] = ORIENTAL—including the Indian Institute: Nissan Institute Library; Chinese Institute Library; Oriental Institute Library
[E] = SCIENCE: RSL; Hooke; Cairns; [departmental collections]
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
Return to List of Contents of the supplement