Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Official Newspaper of Victoria University of Wellington Students Association. Volume 40, No. 5. 27 March 1977

Theses hit the fan

Theses hit the fan

We print here an exchange between ourselves and Prof. Hamer, Chairman of the Library Committee, to clarify some of the issues involved in the library debate. It seemed to us that the present proposals to the Professorial Board had had the same effect as the bomb scare last Thursday. That is, keeping students out of the library.

Dear Sir,

Photo of parked police car

Photo of students studying

I would like to comment on references to the Library in the issue of 'Salient' of 21 March. It contains numerous errors and serious misrepresentations of the situation which, if perpetuated and made the cause and foundation of 'action by students, can only do great harm to the interests of the Library and of the students and staff who use it.

1.Persistent reference is made to 'cuts' in Library spending. What is going on at present is not the consequence of any reduction in the amount of money allocated to the Library but is an attempt to rationalise and redistribute resources amongst the various areas of Library expenditure. In the University Budget for 1977 the sum allocated to the Library for books and periodicals was increased by $60 000, and this at a time when other areas of the University were being asked to take cuts or to stand still and when the general financial position of the University was very tight.
2.However, inflation and soaring costs for books and periodicals make it extremely difficult for the Library, even with such generous treatment, to maintain the level of book acquisitions and periodical subscriptions to which we have become accustomed. The University believes that the present proportion of the University's finances devoted to the Library—just under 9 per cent—cannot be increased without excessive strain on other areas of the University (welfare services, departmental grants, etc., etc.). But it advised the Library that, where certain kinds of saving were made in Library staffing and services, the money would not go back into the general University funds (as usually happens when, for example, staffing is cut in departments) but would be made available for spending on books and periodicals. This provided a mechanism for reallocating Library funds, not cutting them. The Librarian and the Library Committee have looked at Library services and decided that this incentive was sufficiently attractive to justify our recommending cuts in some of them where usage of the services was slight or where efficiency might be improved by the reduction. Some of the recommendations have been accepted, others knocked back by Board or Faculties.
3.The overall financial position of the University is critical, and no part of the University can be exempt from inquiry in to its efficiency and its ability to contribute to an easing of this position. What has impressed me about the exercise has been, not a savage determination by the University authorities to 'cut' spending on the Library but rather an immense fund of goodwill among academics towards the Library and a desire to keep within the narrowest bounds possible the reduction of Library services and acquisition of books and periodicals.
4.The report by Olivia Stephens (page 7) reads: "The greatest cuts in hours appear to be during the May and August vacations". These, and closing on Friday nights, are the only cuts in hours.
5.The article is also very seriously astray as regards the financing of the University. It is totally incorrect to say that 'the Grants Committee allocate a set sum to the Library each year', The U.G.C. gives The University a block grant out of which the University determines how much it will allocate to each area of the University. The U.G.C seldom if ever tells Universities that they must devote portions of their grant to specific items. It has certainly not done so in the case of the Libraries in this Quinquennium. Therefore it is also totally false to say that 'last year the Grants Committee decided not to allocate any extra money to ease the Library's position'. No such issue was ever put before them and therefore no such decision was made. The third error is to state that in 1979 the U.G.C. 'will have to renew the library budget'. It will not. The determination of the Library budget is an internal matter for this University in the light of (a) the block grant and (b) its view of the Library case in relation to all the other competing calls on funds within the University.
6.The quality of our Library is something of vital concern to all of us—staff and students alike. The recent manifestations of student anxiety about the financing of the Library are very encouraging. But what I would urge on students is the great importance of a continuing concern about the Library, not just a concern which occasionally erupts at times of 'crisis' when the critical decisions have already been made.

Yours etc.

Professor D.A. Hamer, Convener, Library Committee.

Reply to Professor Hamer
If the Library cuts continue, then not even the police and gents with hard hats will be able to get students back into the Library.

If the Library cuts continue, then not even the police and gents with hard hats will be able to get students back into the Library.

Professor Hamer's letter correcting the factual inaccuracies in the library article studiously avoids the man point with regards to the library cuts. That of the library financing and the effects of the recent cuts in service on students.

Rather than playing with words, as he does, Professor Hamer would have been more convinuing if he had spoken of pathetic increases in the library budget rather an attempt to act as an apologist for them. He well knows that the library budget was increased by only about $10,000 in the 1976 budget, in effect a net cut when one considers inflation was at 17%. Further; to talk of a $60,000 increase in the library budget for this year is to play with figures since in most cases departmental budgets were also increased by a similar proportional amounts.

It is also telling that Professor Hamer chooses not to mention the fact that this university spends less per enrolled full time student on the library than the other three large universities.

He further alludes to a competition for resources which the library must under go along with departments etc. However, we would be pleased to hear his views on the priorities between the library and the forthcoming junket by university bureaucrats to the Association of Commonwealth Universities Conference in Vancouver—we certainly know where our priorities lie.

The other main point is that he does not comment on the effects of the reduction in library hours on students.

The saving by reducing the hours in the May holidays and on Friday nights of approximately $5,000 is negligible when compared to the deleterious effects on part-time students. The May and August vacations are crucial times for students to catch up on study and do preparation for the rest of the year.

When the cuts to the library services are reversed we hope that Professor Hamer will not engage in the old tactics as some of the university hacks have done in the past of saying that the library has received 'yet another grant increase" the only thing that will have been done will have been the restoration of the library to its former position, certainly no progress will have been made. The time has come for this university to show its support for the library by not only restoring it, to its previous level of services but by giving a commitment to its continued expansion.

Students sitting against a brick wall