THE ASSOCIATION OF LIBRARIANS IN COLLEGES OF ADVANCED EDUCATION AND THE COMMITTEE OF AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARIANS: THE EVOLUTION OF TWO HIGHER EDUCATION LIBRARY GROUPS, 1958-1997
by
Stephen Craig Oakshott
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
School of Information, Library and Archive Studies University of New South Wales
September, 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...... ix
CERTIFICATE ...... xi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... xii
INTRODUCTION ...... xiv Purpose of the Study ...... xiv Scope of the Study ...... xv Methodology ...... xv Structure of the Study ...... xviii Significance of the Study ...... xx
PART ONE
THE ASSOCIATION OF LIBRARIANS IN COLLEGES OF ADVANCED EDUCATION 1969-1973
Chapter
1. POST-WAR DEVELOPMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN AUSTRALIA .. 2 Socio-economic Expansion and Growing Commonwealth Government Interest in Higher Education ...... 2 The Murray and Martin Reforms ...... 8
ii Chapter
2. COLLEGES OF ADVANCED EDUCATION AND THEIR LIBRARIES ...... 10 The Role of the CAEs ...... 11 The Centrality of Libraries in CAEs ...... 14 Special Attention Afforded CAE Libraries ...... 16
3. THE CREATION OF ALCAE (1969 - 1973) ...... 19 The CACAE Library Sub-Committee ...... 19 The Victorian Model for a National Association of College Librarians ...... 21 The Founding Meeting of ALCAE (1969) ...... 24 ALCAE and the CACAE Library Sub-Committee ...... 27
4. ALCAE'S MAJOR ACTIVITIES ...... 34 CACAE Sponsorship of Library Research and Development ...... 36
5. THE TEST OF POWER AND INFLUENCE: THE THIRD UNMATCHED GRANT FOR COLLEGE LIBRARIES (1971-1972) ...... 44 CACAE Library Sub-Committee Recommendations ...... 45 Renewed Lobbying Campaign ...... 51
6. THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF A FORMATIVE PERIOD ...... 56 Group Cohesion and Cooperation ...... 57 Jack Ward and Group Leadership ...... 58 A Summary Assessment ...... 62
iii Chapter
PART TWO
THE COMMITTEE OF AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARIANS 1965-1973
7. THE GROUP OF AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARIANS ...... 67 Introduction ...... 67 Early Meetings of University Librarians (1928-1958) ...... 68 Troubled Beginnings: The University Librarians' Committee (1959-1964) ... 70 The Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee ...... 74
8. CAUL FINDS A ROLE AND A NAME ...... 82 The Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee position on the Meetings of Inter-University Groups ...... 82 Revivification of the Group of University Librarians as CAUL (1965) ...... 84 CAUL's Informal Modus Operandi ...... 87
9. THE INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT OF CAUL ...... 93 Institutional Loyalty Versus Collective Action ...... 93 CAUL and the Higher Education Policy-Making Process ...... 95
10. PARTICIPATION BY UNIVERSITY LIBRARIANS IN OTHER PROFESSIONAL GROUPS ...... 102 Library Association of Australian ...... 102 Australian Advisory Council on Bibliographical Services ...... 104
iv Chapter
11. THE PROFESSIONAL WORLD OF CAUL: STATUS AND RECOGNITION ...... 108 Lodewycks' Attempt to have CAUL Serve a Broader Purpose (1967-1969) ...... 113
12. CONCLUSION: CAUL AND ALCAE (1965-1973) ...... 128
PART THREE
THE ASSOCIATION OF LIBRARIANS IN COLLEGES OF ADVANCED EDUCATION 1974-1988
13. COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY (1972-1987) ...... 131 The Whitlam Labor Government (1972-1975) ...... 131 The Fraser Liberal-National Government (1975-1983) ...... 134 The Hawke Labor Government (1983-1987) ...... 140
14. ALCAE AND THE TEACHERS COLLEGES ...... 144 Professional Status ...... 148 Funding Imbalances ...... 149 ALCAE State Branches and Newsletter ...... 150
v Chapter
15. THE COLLEGE COMMISSION REVIEWS SUPPORT FOR LIBRARIES (1975) ...... 153 Cessation of Unmatched Grants for College Libraries ...... 154 Sector-wide Standards for Libraries Abandoned ...... 155 Termination of the Library Sub-Committee ...... 157 The Impact on ALCAE of Policy Shifts ...... 158
16. A SLOW DECLINE: THE IMPACT OF GOVERNMENT ...... 165 Failed Lobbying Campaigns ...... 166 The Impact of College Amalgamations ...... 182
17. A SLOW DECLINE: THE DISPLACEMENT OF ALCAE BY OTHER GROUPS ...... 186 CAVAL (Co-operative Action by Victorian Academic Libraries) and CLANN (College Libraries Activities Network, New South Wales) ...... 188 SIGNAL (Special Interest Group of the New South Wales Advanced Education Conference - Administrators of Libraries and Information Resources Centres) ...... 196 Australian Committee of Directors and Principals Working Party on College Libraries ...... 201
18. AN ASSOCIATION SEARCHING FOR A ROLE: ALCAE'S FINAL YEARS (1986-1988) ...... 208 Review of ALCAE (1986) ...... 209 ALCAE Victoria ...... 214
vi Chapter
PART FOUR
THE COMMITTEE OF AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARIANS 1974-1988
19. A FIRST ATTEMPT AT REFORM ...... 227 The Victorian Initiative ...... 228 A Crisis on the National Front ...... 230 Resistance to Reform ...... 236
20. NEW MEMBERS AND THE PROCESS OF INTERNAL REFORM ...... 265 Lobbying in the National Capital ...... 267 Moves Towards Greater Formalisation ...... 278
21. CAUL CONSTITUTION (1986) ...... 283 Election of Chair and Increase in Number of Meetings ...... 286 Outcomes of Constitutional Reform ...... 288
22. OUT OF THE DARKNESS: CAUL 1988-1997 ...... 300 The Dawkins Reforms to Higher Education (1987-1988) ...... 301 The Impact of External Events on CAUL (1990-1997) ...... 307
vii Appendix
1. ABBREVIATIONS ...... 323
2. INTERVIEWEES ...... 326
3. ALCAE (NATIONAL) CHAIRS ...... 330
4. CAUL CHAIRS ...... 331
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 333
viii ABSTRACT
This thesis examines the history of Commonwealth Government higher education policy in Australia between 1958 and 1997 and its impact on the development of two groups of academic librarians: the Association of Librarians in Colleges in Advanced Education (ALCAE) and the Committee of Australian University Librarians (CAUL). Although university librarians had met occasionally since the late 1920s, it was only in 1965 that a more formal organisation, known as CAUL, was established to facilitate the exchange of ideas and information. ALCAE was set up in 1969 and played an important role helping develop a special concept of library service peculiar to the newly formed College of Advanced Education (CAE) sector.
As well as examining the impact of Commonwealth Government higher education policy on ALCAE and CAUL, the thesis also explores the influence of other factors on these two groups, including the range of personalities that comprised them, and their relationship with their parent institutions and with other professional groups and organisations. The study focuses on how higher education policy and these other external and internal factors shaped the functions, aspirations, and internal dynamics of these two groups and how this resulted in each group evolving differently.
The author argues that, because of the greater attention given to the special educational role of libraries in the CAE curriculum, the group of college librarians had the opportunity to participate in, and have some influence on, Commonwealth Government statutory bodies responsible for the coordination of policy and the distribution of funding for the CAE sector. The link between ALCAE and formal policy-making processes resulted in a more dynamic group than CAUL, with the university librarians being discouraged by their Vice-Chancellors from having contact with university funding bodies because of the desire of the universities to maintain a greater level of control over their affairs and resist interference from government. The circumstances of each group underwent a reversal over time as ALCAE's effectiveness began to diminish as a result of changes to the CAE sector and as member interest was transferred to other groups and organisations. Conversely, CAUL gradually became a more active group during the
ix 1980s and early 1990s as a result of changes to higher education, the efforts of some university librarians, and changes in membership.
This study is based principally on primary source material, with the story of ALCAE and CAUL being told through the use of a combination of original documentation (including minutes of meetings and correspondence) and interviews with members of each group and other key figures.
x CERTIFICATE
I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma of the university or other institute of higher learning, except where due acknowledgement is made in the text.
______
Stephen Craig Oakshott
Dated:
xi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost I would like to acknowledge the unfailing support of my wife Catherine and daughter Hannah in helping me complete this research. Their presence and constant reassurance over the past few years has been a great blessing and a source of inspiration and strength. I dedicate this work to them both.
Special thanks also to my supervisor Professor W. Boyd Rayward whose encouragement and unfailing belief in the significance and worthiness of this endeavour gave me the confidence to extend myself and constantly to re-think and refine my approach to the topic. It has been an honour and a privilege to be given the opportunity to learn from such an experienced and eminent scholar.
I would also like to acknowledge the cooperation and interest shown by those interviewed for this study. Their contribution has afforded a unique insight into the events and personalities which shaped the Association of Librarians in Colleges of Advanced Education (ALCAE) and the Committee of Australian University Librarians (CAUL), the two library groups examined in this study. I am also indebted to all those who helped me locate and obtain access to the volumes of correspondence, minutes of meeting, and other primary source documents which formed the basis of this study. In particular I would like to thank Harrison Bryan, Margaret Macpherson, James O'Brien, Dr Don Schauder, Jessie Harley, and Sir John Yocklunn for helping me track down ALCAE files. Thanks also to Dr Neil Radford, Diane Costello, Allan Horton, Eion Wilkinson, Chris Sheargold, Edward Lim, and John Shipp for providing access to the CAUL material. I am likewise grateful to Frank Hambly, Sandra Stravrinos and Bernice Anderson of the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee who so willingly gave of their time to assist me at every stage of my research, from conducting searches of their files, to checking and re- checking facts, and copying and mailing material to me. I have rarely encountered such a helpful and responsive organisation.
I also wish to acknowledge the support I have received from my colleagues at
xii Australian Catholic University, including Craig Grimison and Chris Sheargold for allowing me time off (usually at short notice) to research this thesis. A special note of appreciation as well to Marianne Chauvet for so capably and willingly shouldering my work responsibilities whilst I was on leave. Thanks also to Marlene Smith, Antionette Teris, Van Nguyen and Indira Gonsalkorale. Finally, but by no means least, I wish to express my gratitude to Jean Griffin for her wise counsel and moral support.
xiii INTRODUCTION
This is a study of issues of higher education policy in Australia in the period 1958 to 1997. This was a period during which enormous changes took place in the political, economic and social climate of the nation; changes which influenced greatly the development of the two sectors of higher education, the College of Advanced Education (CAE) and University sectors. The thesis focuses specifically on the two library organisations representing these two sectors, the Association of Librarians in Colleges of Advanced Education (ALCAE) in the CAE sector, and the Committee of Australian University Librarians (CAUL) in the university sector. The group of university librarians had met occasionally since 1928 before it was decided to set up a more formal organisation for the exchange of information and views, known as CAUL, in 1965. ALCAE was set up in 1969 and had from the outset a very special and explicitly defined role in facilitating the development of the newly formed CAE sector.
Purpose of the Study
This study is centrally concerned with the relationship of these two groups with their parent institutions and other professional organisations, and the impact and extent of their influence on Commonwealth Government higher education policy. The author argues that, as a result of its special and explicitly defined role and functions, ALCAE was a far more dynamic group than CAUL, and was more committed - though not necessarily any more successful - than CAUL in pressing for increased funding and recognition for libraries. Conversely, it was only in CAUL's more recent history that changes in the higher education environment gave the group the opportunity and incentive to assume a broader and more active role akin to that of ALCAE's. The study explores the differences between the two groups in terms of the different functions and goals of each group and the range of personalities that comprised them. It also analyses a variety of factors that encouraged and constrained what they tried to do and were able to achieve. These factors include the influence of the external socio-political and economic environment, changes to Commonwealth Government higher education policy and the distinctive nature and educational traditions of the college and university sectors and
xiv individual institutions.
Scope of the Study
This study is not a full history of the two groups, nor does it set out to provide a detailed account of the myriad of issues and concerns addressed by the two groups in the period under examination. Some of those interviewed in the course of the study suggested that the CAUL correspondence offers the researcher a ready-made "text-book" on the practice of academic librarianship in Australia, material which, taken alone, could well form the basis of a separate PhD thesis. Rather the study focuses almost entirely on the groups themselves and how internal group dynamics and the influence of external forces determined the way they evolved over time, especially in their relationships to issues of Commonwealth higher education policy and funding. In keeping with this approach, the author has been deliberately selective in citing examples of activities undertaken by ALCAE and CAUL and, as a rule, has only included examples which are either typical of the activities of these groups or else have had a significant influence on the development of each group.
Methodology
Owing to the dearth of published material on CAUL and ALCAE, the author has based this study predominantly on the use of primary sources. The author conducted his research in six main stages. The first stage consisted of a review of published Commonwealth Government reports and other secondary literature on the history of higher education in Australia in the post-war period. This initial stage was undertaken in order to establish a context for the study of the two groups. The second stage entailed a review of available published literature on Australian university and college librarianship in general and on ALCAE and CAUL in particular. The third, and most time-consuming, stage of the research process was the acquisition and review of the records of the groups themselves, including minutes of meetings, correspondence and other original documents. This stage was made more difficult by the fact that the author could not locate a complete collection of ALCAE records. Consequently much of this material had to be obtained
xv from numerous ex-college librarians who were, fortuitously, still in possession of personal copies of minutes, correspondence and associated documentation. Once acquired these disparate, often incomplete, collections were pieced together to form as complete a picture ALCAE's activities as possible. Copies of minutes of meetings of the Library Sub-Committee of the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education (CACAE), with which ALCAE formed an important association, were provided by Harrison Bryan. Acquiring CAUL documents was an altogether simpler task. A complete set of original CAUL minutes was readily obtained from the office of the then CAUL chair and Librarian at the University of Sydney, Dr Neil Radford, while bound copies of correspondence (known as Round Robin Letters1) were located at the University of New South Wales Library. At this stage the author also reviewed relevant records of the two groups representing the heads of universities and colleges, the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee (AVCC) and the Australian Committee of Directors and Principals (ACDP). The records of both these organisations were held by the AVCC secretariat.
Bibliographical details of correspondence cited in the thesis are included in parentheses following each quotation and are not listed separately in the Bibliography. Where the origins of correspondence and other primary material is not clear from the context in which a quote appears, the author has also indicated the source as part of the citation details: For example "(Letter from Sharman to George, 12/10/81, AVCC files)". Copies of all minutes of meetings and correspondence used in the thesis are held by the author.
The fourth stage involved the writing of a rough draft of the thesis which incorporated the various written sources of information collected thus far. The main purpose of this preliminary draft was to identify missing pieces in the story of CAUL and ALCAE including details and events that required further clarification. These gaps provided a starting point for the formulation of a list of questions prepared for the fifth stage of the research process which consisted of a series of taped interviews with twenty
1See Page 85.
xvi five librarians and other individuals who figured prominently in the story of both groups2. All interviews took place between March and August 1996. Apart from a common list of general questions asking the respondents to give their perceptions of the main contribution, achievements and role of each group, interviews were by-and-large tailored to each interviewee who was asked to comment on particular events relating to the period in each group's history in which he or she was involved. Interviews lasted between forty minutes and two and a half hours and were recorded on standard audio cassette tapes. With the exception of one librarian, Noel Stockdale, with whom the author corresponded via mail, all interviews were conducted in person. Permission was given by those interviewed to include their comments in the final thesis however, in some cases, the respondents asked that certain material remain confidential and that the names of some people be withheld. The author has complied with these special requests for confidentiality when quoting from the recorded interviews. As this study demonstrates however, personalities played a critical role in determining the shape and functions of the groups examined. In those cases where permission has been granted to include comments about certain individuals, every attempt has been made to present such comments in a balanced and impartial way.
After each recorded interview the contents of the tape was selectively transcribed on to computer disk using a wordprocessor. Because of the limitations inherent in this sort of material the reader should be aware that, for purposes of clarity, to reduce repetition and internal dialogue when the interviewee was searching for the right word or phrase, and to render meaningful in written form occasional grammatical lapses in verbal expression, the author has edited the transcripts of the taped interviews where appropriate using square brackets (i.e.[ ]). Copies of tapes, along with the partial transcripts, are available from the author for verifying quotes used in this thesis. It is intended that, following examination, permission will be sought from the respondents to have these taped interviews deposited with the University of New South Wales Library, or some other appropriate location, with conditions of access and period of retention to be determined.
2See Appendix 2.
xvii The interviewing was the most rewarding and revealing phase of the research process. The special attention given to the tailoring of questions, coupled with the author's background knowledge of the subject, generated a display of interest and enthusiasm on the part of the respondents who were on the whole remarkably frank about events and in their comments about each other. The richness of insightfulness of the responses elicited from those interviewed furnished the author with an original and important perspective on academic librarianship over the past forty years. In the sixth and final stage the author worked towards writing the final draft of the thesis, using the interview material to augment and fill in the gaps in the written record.
Structure of the Study
The thesis is in four parts. Part One commences with a brief overview of the development of Australian higher education in the post-war period, a period of unprecedented expansion driven by such factors as population growth and burgeoning economic development. This overview is followed by a detailed analysis of the origins and early development of ALCAE between 1969 and 1973 set against these broader developments. Part One focuses on the special relationship that existed between ALCAE and the Commonwealth Government Commission responsible for coordinating the development of the College of Advanced Education sector and how this relationship provided the group of college librarians with the opportunity to participate in, and exert some influence on, the formal policy-making process. Attention is also given to the important role that internal factors such as group cohesion and leadership had in enabling ALCAE to capitalise on these opportunities.
Part Two traces the early history of CAUL from 1965 to 1973 and explains the circumstances which prevented it from developing a role beyond the exchange of views and information to one analogous to the more dynamic and politically active ALCAE. These circumstances were derived from fundamental differences in the way the two sectors functioned. It will be shown how, in contrast to the colleges, the universities' relatively larger funding levels, greater operational independence, and resistance to outside interference, resulted in the university librarians working through their own Vice-
xviii Chancellors to obtain funding and recognition rather than by way of an external body like CAUL. Other factors preventing CAUL from developing a wider role are also explored, including the university librarians' preference for channelling their interests and energies through alternative professional forums. The extent to which these factors limited CAUL's role is illustrated by the failure of two university librarians to have the group exert some influence on sector policy by having it deal directly with Commonwealth Government funding authorities during this formative period.
Part Three begins with a summary of the changes that occurred in Commonwealth Government higher education policy between 1972 and 1988. The early 1970s were marked by further growth in higher education backed by the Gough Whitlam Labor Government's decision in 1972 to accept full funding responsibility for CAE's and universities. At the same time the CAE sector was enlarged to include the State teachers colleges. However the onset of world-wide recession in the mid to late seventies curtailed sector expansion, leading to a policy of 'steady-state' funding under successive Commonwealth Government administrations. This changed climate also resulted in demands by Government for higher education to became more accountable for the expenditure of tax payers' monies by compelling institutions to operate with greater efficiency and to devote a proportion of their funding to developing courses and initiatives that would facilitate economic recovery. The CAEs were affected greatly by this new, more austere, environment as Malcolm Fraser's Liberal-National Government moved to rationalise the sector by forcing a reduction in the number of colleges during the early 1980s through a process of institutional amalgamations. Part Three centres on an examination of the consequences of these external change for ALCAE and how the favourable external circumstances to which the group owed much of its early success, and which stimulated a greater part of its activity, diminished over this period. From the early to mid 1970s until the ALCAE's demise along with the college sector in the late 1980s with the dismantling of the binary system, the group entered a 'winding-down' phase as the group struggled to maintain some worthwhile role and commonality of purpose and as many college librarians turned their attention to other forums to forward their interests and enhance their library operations.
xix Part Four of the thesis charts the history of CAUL from 1975 to 1997. It begins by describing the first, albeit unsuccessful, attempt in the mid-1970s by a small group of university librarians to transform CAUL into an organisation that could respond more effectively to the changing demands of the sector as well as to wider developments that were taking place on the national library front. An assessment is given of the reasons why this attempt at reform was resisted by other members of the CAUL. This is followed by a review of CAUL during the first half of the 1980s, a period marked by the arrival of new members who began to apply further pressure to expand the role of the group. These efforts culminated in the drafting of CAUL's first constitution in 1986 which paved the way for the group to undertake a greater range of activities by allowing for an increase in the number of meetings, and the appointment of more progressive and enterprising chair's via the institution of a process of election. The remaining chapters of Part Four examine the changes that took place in higher education between 1987 and 1997 as a result of Dawkin's reform's, which included the abolition of the binary divide between college and university education. It is shown how these external changes, combined with the ongoing pressure from the growing ranks of new, more reform-minded university librarians, resulted in the emergence of a group not unlike the early ALCAE, which now sought to involve itself in formal policy-making processes and play an increasingly active role in the promotion and development of academic librarianship in Australia.
Significance of the Study
This study aims to augment the literature on librarianship in two main respects. First, it is intended to fill an important gap in the history of Australian librarianship in higher education by exploring the contributions of two key library groups which have received only scant and fragmentary attention to date. Second, through this historical analysis, the study aims to provide a better understanding of the internal and external forces which limited the ability of these groups to influence broader higher education policy-making processes, forces which, to a greater or lesser degree, continue to have an impact on these types of groups in today's environment. As a result it is hoped that the research reported here will provide background to future studies in this field.
xx 1 PART ONE
THE ASSOCIATION OF LIBRARIANS IN COLLEGES OF ADVANCED EDUCATION
1969-1973 CHAPTER 1 POST-WAR DEVELOPMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN AUSTRALIA
Chapter 1 briefly outlines the socio-political and economic context of the formation of the Committee of Australian University Librarians (CAUL) and the Association of Librarians in Colleges of Advanced Education (ALCAE), and suggests that the latter group evolved as the more dynamic of the two as a direct consequence of the greater emphasis given to the role of college libraries by the Federal Government and its funding authorities.
Socio-economic Expansion and Growing Commonwealth Government Interest in Higher Education
Australian society underwent a series of dramatic changes following the Second World War, changes which had a profound impact on the development of higher education (Beswick & Harman, 1983, p. 24). The political, economic and social conditions of the post-war years supported the expansion of higher education. It was a period characterised by a climate of widespread social and economic prosperity. Unemployment was relatively low, while rising incomes meant that living standards were high for a significant proportion of the community (Beswick & Harman, 1983, p. 24-27; Karmel, 1988, p. 120). Domestic markets and export opportunities were expanding. Commercial productivity was high with primary industries, in particular the mining sector, yielding significant export returns (Beswick & Harman, 1983, p. 24-27). The size and composition of the Australian population was also transformed. Between 1965 and 1975 there occurred a sizeable growth in population. "The population of Australia at the census of June 1947, was 7.52 million. By 1963, it had reached 11.02 million, an increase of 46.5 per cent in the intervening period of 17 years. Natural increase accounted for 60 per cent and immigration for 40 per cent of this growth" (Martin Report, v. I, 1964, p. 24). These demographic trends provided the necessary labour to sustain economic growth.
2 The post-war economic boom generated a strong demand for skilled labour, especially in the fields of science and technology. At the same time population growth resulted in larger numbers attending secondary schooling which in turn generated a demand for trained teachers. These socio-economic trends also stimulated the rapid expansion of tertiary education that occurred throughout the 1950s and 1960s (Karmel, 1988, p. 120, 122).
From having only a minor role up until the end of the Second World War, the Federal Government became progressively more involved with higher education in response to these prevailing trends. The motivation behind the Federal Government's increasing interest in higher education was twofold. First was a reaction to the market and demographic phenomena mentioned above. They compelled the Commonwealth Government to make a greater financial commitment to meet the burgeoning demand for higher education. Second, the Commonwealth Government believed that higher education had the potential to assist economic growth through the skilling of the nation's workforce. In addition to material benefits, the Government also believed that social and cultural advancement might well follow the provision of increased access to post- secondary education to a broader cross-section of the community. These concepts and aspirations were championed by the Menzies Liberal National Government (1949-1966) and articulated by the authors of two major government sponsored reports into higher education, namely the Murray Report (1957) and the Martin Report (1964-65).
Increased Commonwealth Financial Commitment. Up until the end of the Second World War universities derived funds from three sources; recurrent funds from fees, State Government grants, and the remainder from donations and other sources (Karmel, 1988, p. 120). Even though the Commonwealth Government provided, under its Reconstruction Training Scheme, some additional funding to universities to assist returned service personnel following the war, their total contribution only accounted for a small proportion of the total amount allocated to the sector (Williams, 1977, p. 123; Karmel, 1988, p. 120). Gradually however the Commonwealth Government began to assume greater responsibility for the funding of higher education. Initially the Commonwealth's involvement was rather piece meal due to its reluctance to get involved
3 in an area regarded as a State Government responsibility, since it was the State Government's and not the Commonwealth which had established the majority of universities and CAEs under State legislation.
However, despite the absence of any legal claim over higher education, the Commonwealth Government accepted the view that it had the right to make financial contributions to State higher education institutions under Section 96 and Section 51 (Social Services Amendment xxiiiA, 1946) of the Federal Constitution. Section 96 is used to direct funds to universities and colleges of advanced education through State Grants Acts by way of State Treasuries "on such terms and conditions as the [Commonwealth] Parliament thinks fit", while Section 51 empowers the Commonwealth to make laws "with respect to the provision... of benefits to students" in all States of Australia (Harman, 1986, p. 570; Beswick & Harman, 1983, p. 42).
It was this Constitutional situation that enabled the Commonwealth Government to assist financially in an area where the level of growth was quickly overtaking the States' capacity to support demand. The weakness of the States lay in the fact that since the war the Commonwealth Government had the sole authority to levy income taxes, giving it the greater share of public revenue. As time went on, and as the demand for higher education escalated, the Commonwealth Government found itself compelled to increase its share of funding to compensate for the States' restricted general revenues and loan funds (Gallagher, 1982a, p. 29, 114). An indication of the level of growth that took place in higher education in the post-war years was the fact that in 1946 around 25,600 students were enrolled in Australian universities but by 1963 this figure had risen to 69,000 (Martin Report, v. I, 1964, p. 12). Ten years later the number of university students reached 128,000 (AUC, Fifth Report, 1972, p. 9).
In these circumstances the Commonwealth Government seemed to have no choice other than to continue to extend its commitment to higher education (Gallagher, 1982a, p. 35). Based on the recommendations of the 1950 report of the Commonwealth Government Committee on Needs of Universities, chaired by Richard Mills (Mills Committee), the Commonwealth Government started granting financial assistance to
4 universities on a regular basis with the passing of the first States Grants (Universities) Act in 1951 (Birch, 1987, p. 89). At the time of the Mills Committee the Federal grants to universities amounted to approximately 10% of their recurrent income. By 1957, 50% of recurrent grants to universities were acquired from State Governments, 25.5% from the Commonwealth Government, and around 15% from student fees (Karmel, 1988, p. 120; Williams, 1977, p. 123, 124).
From 1961, the Commonwealth Government accepted a recommendation by the Australian Universities Commission (AUC) to match dollar for dollar the States' contributions towards University capital works, and to grant $1 for every $1.85 provided by the States for recurrent expenditure (Connell, 1993, p. 239). As a consequence of this new arrangement, by 1963 39% of university sector income was contributed by the Commonwealth Government, 36% by State Governments, and the remaining 25% from a variety of other sources (Martin Report, v. I, 1964, p. 19).
Education and Economic Development. As mentioned above, another important factor which persuaded the Federal Government to become more involved with higher education had to do with the then Liberal-National Government's belief in the potential of higher education to assist economic growth through the skilling of the nation's workforce. The economic benefits that would accrue from the linking of manpower supply with education provision was echoed by advisers to Government as well as by a succession of Commonwealth Government sponsored committees of inquiry (Karmel, 1988, p. 121). These committees of inquiry recommended that the Federal Government commit additional resources to the sector in order to help universities provide sufficient graduates for the professions and industry.
The report of the Mills Committee (1950) was the first to acknowledge the obligations of the Commonwealth Government to promote economic growth and prosperity through increased support of higher education:
The Committee [is of the] view that the States should accept the primary responsibility for and have the primary interest in the Universities. At the
5 same time the Committee is of the opinion that the work of the Universities generally is closely connected with the major responsibilities of the Commonwealth Government. The Government has for many years recognised this in regard to research and has given special grants to the Universities for the promotion of original research work and for training of research workers. The Committee is of the opinion that in view of the national importance of the development of universities, the Commonwealth Government is justified in extending its interest in the work of the universities and in association with the States, in accepting further responsibilities (Mills Report, 1950, p. 13-14).
Prime Minister Menzies' own personal interest in the field of education served to quicken the pace of sector development. Menzies' belief in the capacity of universities to serve broader national interests led to the appointment of the Committee on Australian Universities (Murray Committee) in 1957. The Committee was given the express task of investigating "how best the universities may serve Australia at a time of great social and economic development within the nation" (Murray Report, 1957, p. 129). Seven years later the Committee on the Future of Tertiary Education in Australia (Martin Committee)(1964) also argued that an ongoing investment by the Commonwealth Government in tertiary education made perfect sense from an economic point of view because it furnished the commercial sector with the sort of highly trained workers needed to sustain economic development:
The increase in population and the growth of primary and secondary industries will... call for the further development of tertiary industries, building and construction, transport and communications, personal services, retail trade and commerce. The professions, too, will expand concurrently. The demands for the available supplies for capital are likely to become more and more competitive; the demands for trained personnel will be no less acute. The need for leadership and expertise in the professions, in administration and in production will become more and more pressing.
There are three inherent disadvantages which all Australian industries have to face in the world's competitive markets: the small home market, the absence of any large supplies of cheap labour, and the long distances, both internally and to overseas markets, which Australian products must travel. These all entail relatively heavy costs of production. If Australia is to overcome these disadvantages and use its capital resources to the best
6 advantage, it must have more than its share of expertise and 'know how' in all its enterprises. It will, therefore, have to rely more than it has done in the past, and more than many other countries, on the products of the universities, for both man-power and research (Murray Report, 1957, p. 15).
The Committee believes that... an expansion of facilities for higher education is an essential condition for economic growth and for the maintenance of Australia's place in the ranks of the technologically advanced nations (Martin Report, v. I, 1964, p. 215).
As was common practice in investigations such as this, the findings of similar committees in the United Kingdom were frequently quoted. The Martin Committee cited at some length the findings of the National Economic Development Council report entitled Conditions Favourable to Faster Growth. This report portrays education as the primary driving force behind economic growth, and as such, it argued, ought to receive the financial backing of governments:
Economic growth is dependent upon a high and advancing level of education because of the improvements that education brings in human skills and the greater spread of knowledge... From the viewpoint of economic growth, Government expenditure on education may be considered as an investment, somewhat analogous to expenditure on physical assets, which will yield a return in terms of increased efficiency and economic growth. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has recently emphasized that expenditure on education should take a very high place in a country's programme of investment (Martin Report, v. I, 1964, p. 10 citing National Economic Development Council, 1963, Conditions Favourable to Faster Growth, H.M.S.O., London, p. 1-4).
The Martin Report added that "The Committee believes that these conclusions apply with equal relevance to Australia" (Martin Report, v. I, 1964, p. 10). The Martin Committee adopted similar arguments to attract the support of the Australian government. For example:
Economic growth... depends even more significantly upon education; it occurs partly because population grows, partly because the volume of capital equipment and power resources increase, and partly because
7 increases in the acquisition and application of knowledge enable human and material resources to be used more effectively (Martin Report, v. I, 1964, p. 6).
The Murray and Martin Reforms
In order to realise these ideological aims, and at the same time support the increasing demand for higher education, the Federal Government initially turned to the Murray Committee (1957) for advice on how to proceed. The Committee surveyed the state of university provision and concluded that emergency grants and an increase in annual funding were required to not only meet the demand for university education but also compensate for years of neglect. Among the Committee's other recommendations was the establishment of an Australian Universities Commission (AUC) which would provide a permanent channel of advice on the level of support needed to develop and support universities. These recommendation were subsequently approved by the Federal Government with the result being an unparalleled period of expansion.
Although the Murray reforms brought immediate relief, the Australian Universities Commission (AUC) in its first report concluded that the universities could not sustain expected growth in demand and therefore a much more thoroughgoing review of the situation was required to find a more practical solution to this problem. The Commission asked: "Does the community of itself, or through its governments, realize the magnitude of its future educational problems?" (AUC, First Report, 1960, p. 70). The AUC's call for advice led to the Commonwealth Government setting up the Martin Committee in 1961. The rationale behind this decision was partly driven by the Federal Government's concerns about the prohibitive costs associated with a further expansion of the university sector. This concern was reflected in a letter to Sir Leslie Martin, the chairman of the committee, in which Prime Minister Menzies directs the Committee to "find solutions to the problem of providing the necessary amount of tertiary education within financial limits which are relatively very much more modest than under our present university system" (Letter from Menzies to AUC Chairman, quoted in Davies, 1989, p. 33). The Martin Committee's key recommendation that a separate college sector be established was therefore based, at least in part, on the assumption was that it would be
8 less expensive to operate technical and teachers colleges than it would to continue to expand university education.
However the recommendation for the creation of a new sector was not entirely driven by funding concerns. The Martin Committee argued that much of the demand for higher education lay not in the field of university level education but at a lower level, and that therefore any expansion should occur in non-university areas of higher education. It maintained that a traditional university education was no longer servicing the needs of a large part of society: "The present system of tertiary education in Australian places an undue emphasis on university education. As a result, the weakness of non-university tertiary institutions prevents the latent abilities of many young Australians from being fully developed" (Martin Report, v. I, 1964, p. 171). An assessment of existing education options found the university sector wanting in the provision of vocational training in the rapidly expanding professional and trades fields - training which did not require a university level qualification (Harman, 1984, p. 7; St.John, 1981, 15-16). In its final report the Committee recommended to the Commonwealth Government that there be an "expansion, improvement, and establishment of appropriate institutions to provide a wider diversity of tertiary education" (Martin Report, v. I, 1964, p. 37). Thus what emerged from the Committee's deliberations was a binary system of higher education with the traditional universities existing alongside a more vocationally orientated college sector.
9 CHAPTER 2 COLLEGES OF ADVANCED EDUCATION AND THEIR LIBRARIES
On the recommendation of the Martin Committee, the Commonwealth Government decided to establish another layer of higher education institutions which became known as the Colleges of Advanced Education (CAE) sector. Funding arrangements for the new sector were based on the model adopted for the universities, with State and Commonwealth sharing responsibility. Likewise a Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education (CACAE) was set up in 1965 analogous to the Australian Universities Commission with responsibility for the development and coordination of the college sector.1
The colleges comprised an extremely broad and varied range of existing and newly created institutions, from large multi-discipline institutes of technology which comprised over 9,000 students (e.g. Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, 1969 enrolments) to small mono-discipline colleges with as few as 20 students (e.g. Hawkesbury Agricultural College, 1969 enrolments)(CACAE, Second Report, 1969, p. 106). CAE institutions covered such diverse subjects as librarianship, industrial arts, food technology, social work, music, occupational therapy, engineering, accountancy, architecture, and para-medical studies (CACAE, Second Report, 1969, p. 96-105). At first CAEs were to offer only vocational courses at sub-degree, associate diploma and diploma level, although as described later in Part Two this situation changed as colleges began to take on higher level courses akin to those offered in the universities. Among new large multi-discipline colleges established in the years following the setting up of the CAE sector, were the Western Australian Institute of Technology (WAIT), the Canberra College of Advanced Education (CCAE), the New South Wales Institute of Technology, the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education, and the Queensland Institute of Technology.
1The CACAE underwent two name changes. In 1971 it was renamed the Australian Commission on Advanced Education (ACAE), which in turn became known as the Commission on Advanced Education (CAE) in 1975. To avoid confusion the author has in some cases simply referred to both the ACAE and CAE as the 'College Commission'.
10 The Role of the CAEs
The early reports of the CACAE attempted to define the distinctive purpose and unique nature of the CAE's. The First Report of the CACAE maintained - albeit in somewhat imprecise terms - that colleges should be distinguished from the universities by possessing:
(a) students with somewhat different types of interests; (b) a greater concentration upon part-time studies associated with employment, especially in scientific fields; (c) a more applied emphasis; (d) a more direct and intimate relationship with industry and other relevant organisations; (e) far less attention to post-graduate training and research; (f) a primary emphasis on teaching (CACAE, First Report, 1966, p. 23).
At the heart of the CAE concept was an emphasis on designing programmes that were more responsive to the demands of industry and the professions. They also emphasised the need for a liberal studies component to each discipline taught and the need to teach life-long learning skills.
Liberal Studies. Given the vocational orientation of the programmes the CAE planners believed special steps should be taken to avoid courses becoming too specialised. They introduced liberal studies programmes designed to broaden the outlook of students by teaching them how to accommodate their skills to changing work practices and to apply their specialist knowledge to wider social problems. These two aims are encapsulated in the following extracts:
In technical colleges where the educational emphasis is on technological disciplines, there is a risk of the courses becoming over specialized, the main interest being in 'training' rather than in 'education'. The Committee believes that the introduction of liberal studies in appropriately designed courses within the diploma curriculum will add to the breadth of the student's education, developing in particular his critical, imaginative and creative abilities. The unfolding of such qualities will help to ensure that
11 young technologists are alive to the human and social reactions of their work (Martin Report, v. I, 1964, p. 182).
In an era of unprecedented scientific and technical activity the scientist and the technologist must be able to explain to the community the meanings and consequences of their highly specialized studies. Only if the people have a broad understanding of the social implications of discoveries can they form an appreciation of the price which must be paid. More specifically, unless the lines of communication between the technologist and the people are kept open, discoveries will not be put to work, and the time lag between discovery and productivity will steadily increase (Martin Report, v. I, 1964, p. 182-183).
Many of the graduates of these colleges will attain important positions in commerce, industry and government, and the aim must be not merely to give professional training but to promote an education which will encourage breadth of interest and outlook... While the objective must always be to fit the student for the work of his profession, such an approach will certainly also make him a responsible member of society. Attainment of the latter objective will certainly help him in his professional work, for he will see in broad perspective the nature and the limitations of his profession's contribution to the welfare of the community, as well as its impact on the organization, institutional and other patterns of life. He will also become more understanding about the parts played by other people, and will find it easier to co-operate with and obtain co-operation from them (CACAE, First Report, 1966, p. 51).
The CACAE stressed that "liberalizing influences are fundamental to the whole concept of a college of advanced education. To give added weight to this claim the report makes reference to the following speech made by Prime Minister Menzies on 19th November 1965:
What is envisaged is not merely improved arrangements for teaching technical subjects. An important part of the new concept is the encouragement of more liberal studies in these colleges, and the establishment of courses which will provide greater breadth in education for all students who take tertiary level training outside the university (Menzies' speech quoted in CACAE, First Report, 1966, p. 22).
This key aspect of college education was further elaborated some years later in
12 The Second Report of the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education:
College students will benefit in their careers from a reasonable opportunity during their period of specialised education to gain knowledge about their obligations as members of society and to understand broadly the problems of managing a nation and an economy. Each one of us lives in a social system and is an inheritor of an historical past: everyone lives in a world in which there are ever increasing interactions between cultural groups with differing attitudes and interests. It is especially important in tertiary education that there should be an ingredient which relates these interactions and makes them meaningful for students. For this reason we believe that staff and students of the colleges, as agents of change, should understand the nature of change and the consequence of change. We are anxious therefore that colleges should provide within their curricula sufficient opportunities for students through liberal studies to gain an understanding of their obligations as members of society. It will be for the staff of the colleges to encourage students to see this as an important aspect of their education. One way of achieving this is by devising special courses which are in harmony with the particular vocational interests of a student. The manner of presentation of a subject can make an important contribution to a liberal education (CACAE, Second Report, 1969, p. 2).
Life-long Learning. In addition, the insisting on an important liberal studies element in the curriculum of the new colleges, a second method by which sector planners hoped to ensure the effectiveness and relevance of the CAE curriculum was by equipping graduates with the necessary skills to enable them regularly to update their skills throughout their careers. This concept of life-long or self-directed learning emerged in recognition of the fact that in many vocational areas, especially those in the fields of science and technology, the knowledge and skills of graduates were likely to become quickly out-dated given the speed with which these disciplines changed and evolved. The Martin Committee and the early reports of the CACAE stressed the importance of offering programmes that would encourage students to keep up with the latest developments in their field of expertise:
One of the consequences of the continuous growth of new knowledge in many fields is the need to develop in students a capacity to learn throughout life. More than ever before, it is essential that the technologist, in particular, should have the ability and the will to take stock of his own store of knowledge in the light of new scientific discoveries (Martin
13 Report, v. I, 1964, p. 183).
The Centrality of Libraries in CAEs
These two key features, which underpinned the philosophy behind the CAE initiative, relied heavily on the provision of innovative and well-equipped library services. As shall be seen, it was this dependence on libraries that placed the college librarians in a strong position to influence policy-makers, helping them acquire what they wanted in terms of resources, professional recognition and status.
The direct link between libraries and these central goals and aspirations of the architects of the CAE sector was emphasised repeatedly throughout the first three reports of the CACAE.
The library also has a particular relevance to the new concept of tertiary education in this country, which seeks to widen and liberalize existing forms of training. To achieve these aims, it is pointed out... that colleges must provide more broadly based and more diversified courses, as well as opportunities for general education. These must be largely based on library facilities and services. Through good collections, displays, and adequate relaxation reading areas, opportunities should be provided for students to acquaint themselves with a general range of literature and to acquire through reading an understanding of contemporary political, social and international problems (CACAE, First Report, 1966, p. 40).
The Second Report reinforces this dependence and advocated library development to meet these pivotal sector requirements:
[The library is] one important centre for liberal areas of study. Its liberalising influence will not be achieved spontaneously; there must be positive steps, such as the promotion of library-based lectures and discussions on general topics, special displays, and the allocation of adequate finance for the acquisition of books in such fields as modern literature, art, international relations, politics, and sociology (CACAE, Second Report, 1969, p. 62-63).
The CACAE reports give equal consideration to the vital educational role of
14 libraries with respect to self-directed learning:
It should not be assumed that students enter colleges skilled in the use of a library. Training is necessary not only to enable students to exploit the colleges' library resources during the period of their courses, but also to equip them for professional life. Since information soon becomes outdated, especially in technological fields, it is vital that they possess an understanding of the sources of information available from libraries of all kinds and the skills with which to use them in a meaningful way. Graduates who do not know the range of services that a library can offer will be severely handicapped (CACAE, Second Report, 1969, p. 62).
While the library can make many and varied contributions, the essential emphasis of the work of the colleges lies with the teachers in the various disciplines, and we would not wish to see an over-emphasis on the active teaching role of the library. Ultimately the library is primarily concerned with providing means for individual study by the student in his own time and at his own pace, in such a way that his interest is stimulated and he becomes self-disciplined (CACAE, Second Report, 1969, p. 63).
Beyond the need for libraries to support these two core components of the CAE curriculum, the College Commission even goes so far as to suggest that the "quality of library provision" should be used "as a measuring rod to estimate the calibre of the college itself" (ACAE, Third Report, 1972, p. 57):
The committee is convinced that the library should occupy a position of central significance within any tertiary educational institution. A high standard of performance of staff and students alike is dependent on the provision of satisfactory reader services and a first rate library collection (CACAE, First Report, 1966, p. 40).
The library represents a central and essential facility for the college as a whole. It is clear to the Commission that the quality of the educational program in a college will be directly influenced by the standards of library provision in bookstock, accommodation, and services. If these are of a high order they will act as a stimulus to staff and student effort; if they are less than adequate, there will be dissatisfaction and reduced incentive (ACAE, Third Report, 1972, p. 57).
Special Attention Afforded CAE Libraries
15 However, in order to have college libraries serve the special demands placed upon them, they first needed substantial upgrading. The CACAE recognised at an early stage that emergency funding was required in order to raise libraries to a point where they could adequately serve the educational role for which they were intended. Professor Gordon Greenwood, an original member of the CACAE and later the chair of a specially constituted Library Sub-Committee of the main Committee, maintained that it was substandard condition of the libraries that forced the Committee to act:
The Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education, later the commission, from the outset paid special attention to libraries, incorporating within its first three reports separate chapters about them. Such an attitude no doubt deserves commendation, but it has to be remembered that the state of many libraries in the colleges was so appalling that it had little choice if the colleges were to become institutions of quality (Greenwood, 1977, p. 614).
The following statement best sums up the Committee's concern as well as its determination to remedy the situation: "In its First Report, the Committee laid special stress on the development of adequate libraries and allied services in the colleges of advanced education. The deplorable state of many libraries represented an impediment to the achievement of the goals set for the colleges" (CACAE, Second Report, 1969, p. 59). The First Report of the CACAE found that in 1965 the combined collection size of all college libraries totalled fewer than 151,000 volumes (CACAE, First Report, 1966, p. 43). Harrison Bryan2 put this figure into some sort of context by extrapolating the statistics found in this report:
The committee noted that the total bookstock of the 18 libraries concerned amounted to less than 151,000 volumes in 1965. This was about equal to that of the University of Tasmania Library. The total expenditure on all the 18 libraries was less than $200,000, less than that of La Trobe, the most recently established university library. The total staff was 58 as opposed to the 909 staff employed in the 13 university libraries. The largest college library, that of the Royal Melbourne Institute of
2Harrison Bryan served as University Librarian in two universities; University of Queensland from 1950-1963, and University of Sydney from 1963 to 1980. Bryan was also Director General of the National Library of Australia from 1980 to 1985.
16 Technology, numbered less than 24,000 volumes, employed 8 staff and spent less than $34,000 per year (Bryan, 1977, p. 18-19).
The level of concern of the Committee at the widespread inadequacy of library collections was all too obvious. In what one librarian described as a "a devastating indictment of the policies of college authorities and State education departments" (Allen & Brockman, 1983, p.109), the opening statement on libraries in the First Report reads:
In the visits to the tertiary colleges few deficiencies have struck the Committee more forcibly than the inadequacy of the libraries... here is one easily identifiable instance of the low standard of facilities generally prevailing in this field of education, which is in turn a consequence of lack of funds in the past. Nevertheless, the Committee feels that in competition for scarce resources this vitally important service has fared especially badly... Few of the tertiary institutions possess collections which in size and coverage could be regarded as even moderately respectable... Budgets are not adequate to sustain a rate of acquisition which would enable institutions to keep abreast of the latest information, let alone remedy existing gaps... Many libraries have been housed in makeshift accommodation, and the amount of space... is frequently quite inadequate... This inability to maintain libraries at an adequate standard of operation has had most serious consequences for the colleges, since the library contributes a central service for the institution as a whole, and deficiencies here inevitably affect the quality of the performance of staff and students alike (CACAE, First Report, 1966, p. 39).
Early Ear-marked Grants. The need for the library directly to support the CAE's distinctive mode of education, combined with the fact that libraries were found to be in such poor condition, convinced the CACAE that "urgent, generous and expert attention" was required: "Firmly impressed by the need to develop greatly improved libraries in the colleges of advanced education, we regard it as urgent that the Government should sponsor an immediate improvement in library facilities throughout Australia by an unmatched grant" (CACAE, First Report, 1966, p. 6). So, as one of its first acts the Committee recommended, and received, a special Commonwealth library grant of $500,000 "to accelerate library development" to help bring them "to the point where they are not only capable of sustaining present activities but are able to support the greatly diversified activities which this Committee is charged to promote" (CACAE, First
17 Report, 1966, p. 39). This was followed closely by a second grant of a further $500,000. The Committee later justified its recommendation for these amounts by arguing that "an emergency situation called for emergency measures" (CACAE, Second Report, 1969, p. 59).
18 CHAPTER 3 THE CREATION OF ALCAE (1969 - 1973)
Given the level of attention afforded to libraries described in the last chapter, the college librarians were naturally well placed to participate in, and exert some influence on, the CACAE's decision-making process about libraries since it needed a ready source of advice on which to base its special programme of library expenditure. This chapter discusses how the college librarians dealt with this situation, received sponsorship from the CAE Commission to assist with the establishment of a special Association of Librarians in College of Advanced Education (ALCAE), and enjoyed special access to the policy-making process via representation on a specially constituted library sub- committee of the CAE Commission.
The CACAE Library Sub-Committee
Given the scope and urgency of the task at hand, the CACAE realised early on that professional advice was needed on how to best develop library services and facilities to meet the special educational objectives of the colleges. To this end in 1968 the Committee established a Library Sub-Committee, the first of three such specialist bodies made up of, "expert advisers on whose recommendations it could base sound advice to the Minister" (CACAE, Second Report 1969, p. 8)3. In its second report, the CACAE announced that;
The functions of the library and the particular services which it should provide in a college were considered so important that a Library Sub-Committee was appointed, consisting of professional, university, and college librarians, and members of the Committee. It is upon this foundation of expert opinion and the broad educational principles enunciated by the Committee that advice is based for future library development (CACAE, Second Report, 1969, p. 59).
3The other two were a Research and Investigation Sub-Committee and a Computer Sub- Committee.
19 Membership. The original membership of the Library Sub-Committee comprised two members of the main Committee, including Prof. Gordon Greenwood (Professor of History, University of Queensland) as Chairman, two university librarians and one college librarian. The two university librarians were Harrison Bryan, Librarian at the University of Sydney, and Sid Page4, Deputy University Librarian, University of Queensland. The college librarian was Jack Ward5, Librarian of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT), who, as shall be seen later, played an important and active role in the development of the Sub-Committee's work. Soon after, in 1970, Tony Brown6, the Librarian at the South Australian Institute of Technology (SAIT), joined Ward as a second college library representative.
Functions. In keeping with previous statements on the special educational mission of the colleges, one of the main terms of reference of the Sub-Committee was to advise the main Committee on the special role of libraries in CAEs, "with particular reference to liberal education". The Sub-Committee was also charged with consideration of the "Formulation of possible research programmes related to library development" in CAEs; "Changes in library organisation, especially in data processing and information retrieval; "The library as a training centre for librarians"; and "Library services to locally based industry" (CACAE, Second Report, 1969, p. 85).
Relations to College and Other Librarians. In order to further broaden its sources of advice and to "stimulate cooperative effort within the colleges", the Library Sub- Committee decided to seek actively input from practitioners as an early priority (Greenwood, 1977, 614). As one college librarian has said, the Sub-Committee needed "to know what the real situation was, that it wasn't coming to [the main Committee] second-hand so to speak, or third-hand..." (Crittenden, Canberra College of Advanced
4Sid Page was Deputy University Librarian at Queensland before becoming Foundation University Librarian at Griffith University in 1971.
5Ward was Chief Librarian at RMIT from 1955 to 1981.
6Tony Brown was Chief Librarian at SAIT from 1969 to 1976.
20 Education, Interview, 1996).7 In fact at the second meeting the chairman noted that the CACAE assumed that the Sub-Committee would, as a matter of course, carry out "general liaison and co-operation with library people in Australia" (CACAE Library Sub- Committee, Minutes of the 2nd Meeting, 24/11/67).
To this end the Commission financed a meeting between college librarians and administrators on 7th November 1968 as a way of encouraging both parties formally to exchange ideas and feed information back to the Sub-Committee. This special gathering was highlighted in the Second Report of the CACAE where it was described as a "most useful meeting", an important opportunity for the "interchange of viewpoints between the college librarians and the Committee", and an important mechanism for facilitating "two-way communication" (CACAE, Second Report, 1969, p. 8, 59). The Chairman later remarked that one of the main outcomes that his committee had hoped to achieve was "the creation of a college organization of librarians, to some extent paralleling that existing in the universities" (Greenwood, 1977, p. 614). According to Victor Crittenden8, the meeting "generally agreed to the formation of an organisation of CAE librarians but did not make any definite arrangements" (Letter to college librarians from Crittenden, 21/11/68). The Committee noted that it did not intend to sponsor any further meetings of librarians, instead hoping the "States or colleges will now take the initiative in arranging further meetings" (CACAE, Second Report, 1969, p. 59).
The Victorian Model for a National Association of College Librarians
There was already a model for the hoped for "organisation of CAE librarians" alluded to at the November 1968 meeting between librarians and college administrators. According to Ward the idea behind the formation of a national group of librarians could be traced back to a Victorian example. A group of librarians from technical colleges in Victoria had begun to meet "occasionally to consider library development" from 1964
7Victor Crittenden was Librarian at Canberra CAE from 1968 to 1988. See Appendix 2 for list of Librarians interviewed for this study.
8Crittenden was Chief Librarian at Canberra CAE from 1968 to 1988.
21 and continued to do so until 1967 (Ward, 1968). In 1967 this group was superseded by a new body comprising librarians from institutions that were part of the Victorian Institute of Colleges (VIC), the peak coordinating body in that State which had been created in that year to coincide with the introduction of the CAE sector. The VIC Chief Librarians' Committee, as it was called, began to meet on a monthly basis to "promote and facilitate library development in the Colleges of Advanced Education affiliated with the Victoria Institute of Colleges", to "coordinate library services and planning", and to "foster cooperation between the affiliated colleges" (Ward, 1968).
For the first few months of its existence the VIC Chief Librarians' Committee met on an ad-hoc basis mainly to assist the Victorian colleges in "preparing claims for a share of the [first] CACAE unmatched grant to libraries" and to "assess their capacity to handle the funds claimed" (Ward, 1968). In early 1968 a formally constituted 'Library Sub-Committee' of the Victorian Institute of Colleges (VIC) comprising members of the main VIC Council, librarians, principals and academic staff from the colleges was set up. The sub-committee, which existed alongside of the VIC Chief Librarians' Committee was chaired by a university librarian, Dietrich Borchardt9 (La Trobe University) and included Ward as one of its members. It was required to "advise the Council of the VIC on all matters pertaining to library development in the affiliated colleges, and in particular, on the cooperation between and the coordination of library services in the colleges" (Ward, 1968).
In an unpublished article entitled "The present extent of cooperation between CAE libraries in Victoria" (1968)10, Ward noted the important inter-relationship between the Chief Librarians Committee and the official VIC Library Sub-Committee: "This [sub-] committee has members who also are on the V.I.C. Chief Librarians Committee and there is an easy exchange of ideas and opinions. It is to this Committee that the V.I.C. Chief Librarians will submit various proposals for consideration" (Ward, 1968). It was this
9Dietrich Borchardt was University Librarian at the University of Tasmania from 1953 to 1965 before becoming University Librarian at La Trobe, 1965 to 1981.
10This article was supplied to the author by Ward.
22 association between the librarians and the State coordinating authority that gave Ward the idea of suggesting the formation of a national association of college librarians.
Convinced of the effectiveness of the Victorian set-up, Ward wrote a letter in August 1968 to his colleagues on the newly formed CACAE Library Sub-Committee and which he had recently joined. In the letter he reported on the useful association between the VIC Chief Librarians' Committee and the VIC Library Sub-committee and suggested that the CACAE Library Sub-committee would benefit from the establishment of a national association of college librarians:
In Victoria the chief librarians of CAEs have formed a group to meet regularly and discuss practices and policies within our libraries and to develop acceptable standards. As some of our members are also members of the Victorian Institute of Colleges Library Committee, this committee is well-informed of opinions and situations in all colleges.
I thought that the CACAE Libraries Sub-Committee might be similarly well-informed if CAE Librarians in other states formed an interstate committee to discuss matters of common concern. You possibly know that I am a member of that committee but feel that it is impossible for one person to present the overall interests of CAEs without fairly extensive discussion with other librarians... (Letter from Ward to CACAE Library Sub-Committee, 2/8/68, ALCAE files).
Ward added that in his opinion it would be preferable for a independent professional association of librarians to be established, rather than have a college librarian from each State serving on the CACAE Library Sub-committee itself. He suggested that his proposed "interstate committee" of college librarians could function along the same lines as the Committee of Australian University Librarians (CAUL), which he described as working "almost entirely by correspondence and occasional interstate visiting." As far as the composition of such a committee of college librarians was concerned, Ward thought that in the "early stages" it would be "simpler" to have it comprise only of representatives from the main colleges in each State (i.e. SAIT, WAIT, NSWIT, QIT,
23 RMIT, and a Tasmanian representative)11, with all college librarians being included some time later. In his letter he also expressed his willingness to act as "Secretary or Convener" of any such new national committee, however he would be agreeable to "work with anyone else who would care to do this". Ward also suggested that funding be sought for "at least a 6 monthly meeting or seminar".
The Founding Meeting of ALCAE (1969)
What appears to be the first 'national' gathering of purely college librarians occurred the following year on 29 August 1969 in Adelaide. The expenses to attend this meeting were acquired without any apparent difficulty from college administrations because the meeting was conveniently timed to occur during the 15th Biennial Conference of the Library Association of Australia (LAA). The meeting was jointly convened by Jack Ward and Victor Crittenden of the Canberra College of Advanced Education (CCAE), with Ward presiding. Ward and Brown later cite this as the founding meeting of the Association of Librarians in Colleges of Advanced Education (Ward & Brown 1977, p. 141). Despite having by this stage drafted a set of Articles of Association, appointed a chairman, and created a Standing Committee made up of representatives from all States, those in attendance felt it necessary to hold a further meeting to debate more thoroughly the final objectives and structure of the group at which time ALCAE could be more formally constituted.
A meeting was subsequently proposed for the following year, however the proposal failed to get the level of support from college principals that was anticipated by the CACAE and as a result the meeting had to be cancelled. In his Chairman's Report, Crittenden explained the situation and reflected the anxiety of members about the future of the group12:
11SAIT (South Australian Institute of Technology), WAIT (Western Australian Institute of Technology), NSWIT (New South Wales Institute of Technology), QIT (Queensland Institute of Technology), RMIT (Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology).
12Victor Crittenden was the first Chair of ALCAE, serving in this capacity from 1969 to 1971. See Appendix 2 for list of ALCAE Chairs.
24 The Chairman attempted to arrange a meeting of ALCAE Standing Committee in 1970. The plans became bogged down in problems especially in relation to finance to get members to a meeting. One College Principal brought up the matter at the meeting of the Executives of CAE's and I understand spoke against such meetings. As these meetings are held in private, I have no authority except a verbal report for this information. The upshot was however that it was not possible to resolve the problem of finance and the meeting was not held. It is essential that this difficulty be discussed at the next meeting even if it means that Standing Committee is reconstituted (Crittenden, Chairman's Report for 1970).
When interviewed on the circumstances surrounding the cancellation of this meeting, Crittenden indicated that there were some principals who had objected to the kind of attention being given to college libraries and the special access to the CACAE being conferred upon the librarians:
Yes, there was some opposition from some of the principals. I can't remember which ones, but they felt that any contact with the [CACAE] should be theirs, that they shouldn't have other people being able to put forward proposals, particularly about funding... The college principals - a few of them - did not like the idea of 'their' librarians being able to have access [of] this sort... If I had been a principal I might have had the same attitude, as they wouldn't have any control over what was said or what was proposed. [The librarians were] a bit too 'independent' I guess for them... we had quite a variety of principals who didn't always agree with what ALCAE thought (Crittenden, Canberra College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
This problem however was overcome with the aid of the CACAE Library Sub- Committee which managed to persuade the main Committee to sponsor one more conference of CAE librarians that would be similar to the meeting in Melbourne in 1968. This joint meeting between the Library Sub-Committee and ALCAE - at which ALCAE was formally constituted and its Articles and Objectives finally ratified - took place in Canberra over 15th, 16th and 17th March 1971. The fact that the Library Sub-Committee took part also gave ALCAE's resolutions added weight and helped confirm the group as a legitimate part of the CACAE's decision-making process. In its arguments for holding the Canberra meeting, the Sub-Committee had suggested that a further meeting was required to "enable the librarians to consider ways of establishing an effective national body with its own machinery for the further discussion of common problems etc"
25 (CACAE Library Sub-Committee, Minutes of the 11th Meeting, 21/7/70). Tony Brown, one of the library representatives, stressed that it was the "lack of financial support [that] prevented regular meetings of college librarians in such a forum". As a further indication of the degree of importance it placed on the formation of ALCAE, the Sub-Committee's appeal to the main Committee, reflecting Brown's view, stated quite categorically that its members were "strongly of the opinion that a national association of CAE librarians should be established with the necessary resources to operate effectively" (CACAE Library Sub-Committee, Minutes of the 11th Meeting, 21/7/70).
By all accounts the main committee needed little convincing of the need to provide the necessary support. In the Third Report of the College Commission it was stated: "The Commission welcomes the establishment of A.L.C.A.E. in which it is happy to feel it played a part" (ACAE, Third Report, 1972, p. 58). Prior to the March 1971 meeting in Canberra when ALCAE was at last brought to life, Jack Ward had written to the Chairman of ALCAE, Victor Crittenden, informing him that sponsorship had been approved and noted that the "main reason" for this decision was "to give ALCAE the opportunity to establish itself firmly" (Letter from Ward to Crittenden, 14/10/70). Ward, however, stressed in his letter that it was the expectation of the Sub-Committee that in future ALCAE had to be "dependent on the separate colleges to assist in meetings", otherwise they would have to schedule them "in association with (for example) the LAA Conference".
To help safeguard against the possible withdrawal of support for ALCAE, Ward noted in his letter to Crittenden that the CACAE had urged the college principals to support the group's continuation. As an added incentive it had informed the principals that "it would have no objections to colleges including provision in their bids for triennial recurrent grants" to fund participation in ALCAE (CACAE Library Sub-Committee, Minutes of the 12th Meeting, 13/10/70).
ALCAE and the CACAE Library Sub-Committee
ALCAE was clearly a by-product of the CACAE's interest in developing and
26 promoting college libraries. Its strong association with CACAE Library Sub-Committee, was a major influence in shaping the character of ALCAE. In fact ALCAE appeared, in many respects, to operate as an adjunct of the Library Sub-Committee. This was reflected in the following list of ALCAE's published objectives, which had been adopted at the Canberra meeting in March 1971 and which closely parallel those of the Sub-committee itself:
1. To provide a Forum which will promote the development of a sense of corporate identity of purpose for college librarians and a common voice for the expression of this to relevant bodies.
2. To represent the particular interests of professional librarians in CAE's in negotiations and discussions with government authorities and other organisations.
3. To promote the appreciation of college librarianship and the significance of the educational and community roles of college libraries among the library profession, the academic community and the community at large.
4. To provide an organization of senior college librarians with the expertise and professional knowledge and experience which will be available to advise college, state and commonwealth bodies on matters concerning college libraries.
5. To identify areas of professional activity, resource inadequacy and technical difficulty in which research should be conducted.
6. To collect, collate and disseminate among librarians of colleges of all sizes and categories information on current developments and problems in college librarianship.
7. To undertake professional studies on issues relevant to college libraries.
8. To co-ordinate information on policies and practices of libraries in CAE's.
9. To keep in review the progress towards the achievement and maintenance of standards of college libraries.
10. On request, to advise on the appointment of experts to report on, investigate or work on problems associated with college libraries particularly in small or new colleges (ALCAE Objectives, 3/71).
27 These objectives are important in their emphasis on the promotional and research and development functions of the Library Sub-Committee and in the stress they place on the key relationship between ALCAE and "government authorities" as far as its role in the policy-making process was concerned. The minutes of the March 1971 meeting, at which these objectives were drafted, record that the "approach" taken to the task of drafting a set of objectives should be for ALCAE to "define itself as an authoritative spokesman for CAE libraries and communicate with administrations and outside organisations on this assumption" (ALCAE, Minutes of Meeting, 15-17/3/71). It was this sense of status derived from the association with the CACAE and its Library Sub- Committee that, perhaps more than anything else, inspired the group of college librarians and motivated them to action. Furthermore, it was this factor which, as shall be revealed later, sharply distinguished ALCAE from the group of university librarians who never enjoyed such a relationship with the Australian Universities Commission and the benefits in terms of access and status that such a relationship accrued.
The CACAE put some considerable effort into prompting the colleges and their librarians to take an "imaginative lead" and a "pioneering" role in applying theories of self-directed learning and associated techniques to institutional curricula (CACAE, Second Report, 1969, p. 62). It encouraged the librarians to participate in what amounted to a revolution in the way libraries were perceived by moving away from what the Committee described as the more "antiquated" concept of libraries generally seen in tertiary education (CACAE, Second Report, 1969, p. 62). The following statements exemplify the way in which the Committee sought to encourage the college librarians to help achieve this transformation:
There is much scope for experiment: the colleges should not feel themselves bound by the traditions of other libraries serving other purposes. In developing its acquisition and service policies, the library should not restrict itself to conventional sources of information, especially if it is to function as an active partner in the teaching process. Thus the colleges have before them an exciting opportunity to develop not only new libraries in the physical sense but also new libraries in the functions which they perform and the services which they render (CACAE, Second Report, 1969, p. 60).
28 The colleges have the opportunity for innovation and experiment in management and organisation, in services within and beyond the colleges, in the techniques of co-operation and in exercising their liberal function. They can become the agents for pioneering systematic instruction in library use and for expanding the opportunities for professional training in librarianship (CACAE, Second Report, 1969, p. 67).
The CACAE saw its role as one of creating the sort of environment that would help facilitate the process of creating this new kind of library: "The interest shown by the Committee, the provision of greater finance, and the reappraisal of course structures and teaching techniques have all enhanced the status of the college library, stimulating growth and innovation" (CACAE, Second Report, 1969, p. 59). At the same time the Committee endeavoured to give the college librarians a sense of authority by stressing the importance of their task to college administrators. Thus, the section on libraries in the Second Report of the CACAE concluded:
The library stands at the centre of college organisation and activity, servicing the college as a whole. It is becoming and will continue to become more important. At present under-developed, libraries or resource materials centres need strong financial support and sympathetic treatment by college councils. Students need to be guided in their use; staff and students should be consulted in their development; and librarians should be accorded status comparable with that enjoyed by other senior members of staff (CACAE, Second Report, 1969, p. 67).
Jack Ward summed up the value these sorts of statements had in giving impetus to ALCAE's endeavours:
The library chapters in both the First and Second [CACAE's] Reports are encouraging and challenging. They are not grudging admissions that libraries are unfortunately necessary. They make urgent suggestions that libraries should actively engage in the teaching functions of the colleges and be imaginative and adventurous in developing and modifying services. [It] is a welcome and stimulating change for libraries in educational institutions to be prodded forwards rather than pushed backwards. The Reports by themselves will not convert administrators or teaching staffs to sudden open-handed support for library development but they offer biblical authority to the cases that librarians can prepare and bring before their principals and boards of studies. They even suggest that 'someone up there' either likes us or believes that libraries and librarians-are important
29 to the development of the colleges (Ward & Brown, 1969, p. 73).
The Special Role of the CACAE Library Sub-committee Chairman. The main source of support and encouragement for ALCAE's activities came from the chairman of the CACAE Library Sub-Committee, Gordon Greenwood13. According to those librarians who worked closely with him, Greenwood was dedicated to the cause of upgrading college libraries and wielded by far the most influence when it came to convincing the CACAE to recommend that the Government provide additional funding for them. Although Greenwood is now deceased, the author was able to gain an invaluable insight into this pivotal figure through the recollections of a fellow member of the Sub- Committee and long time friend and associate from Queensland University, Harrison Bryan.
According to Harrison Bryan, Gordon Greenwood was not only the member of the CACAE who had "secured the appointment of the Library Sub Committee" in the first place, but the one who, Bryan believed, should also take much of the credit for helping to press "the claims of libraries" (Bryan, 1988, p. 64). Bryan strongly asserted that Greenwood was indeed, "the key to the whole thing" (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). "There is no doubt that the thing really depended on him", continued Bryan, "and he was a good committee chairman, ... he knew how to get the best out of the committee members, because he relied very considerably on Jack Ward, Tony [Brown],[and] to a certain extent, me" (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
Greenwood had had, according to Bryan, "a strong background in libraries", and was a keen supporter of his own library at the University of Queensland. When given the post of Chairman of the Library Sub-Committee he "seized on this deficiency of the college libraries" with great enthusiasm and dedication (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
Bryan recalled that it was;
13Greenwood, Professor of History at the University of Queensland, was one of the original members of the CACAE and Chairman of the Library Sub-Committee until it ceased around 1974.
30 not only his own drive but his ability to get the best out of the members of the committee. He pretty clearly thought that we should all push it a bit harder ourselves and we were guilty of not being vocal enough, because I guess we were not in a position to be represented [previously] (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
The following quote taken from a chapter of a work sponsored by the CACAE, provides some sense of Greenwood's commitment to libraries and his interest in prompting librarians and their supporters rigorously to press their case at every opportunity:
... within the institution it is important that every means be taken to ensure - though with due recognition of the importance of other competing areas such as research and departmental staffing - that an adequate percentage of the institution's budget is directed towards the library. The only effective way to do this is by the existence of machinery which will enable the necessary impact to be made at the decision-making points [such as library committees within each institution]... Beyond this there is the need to convince users, and especially the academics, that adequate finance to ensure quality within the library is essential to teaching and research. The belief in the essentiality of the library to the institution, derived not from propaganda but from a sound presentation of the undeniably strong case that the library possesses, has to become part of the conviction of both the administration and the governing body. To achieve this there will need to be a continuous operation on the part of both librarians and academics (Greenwood, 1977, p. 572-573).
This interest in encouraging the college librarians extended beyond those represented on his committee. Bryan recalled how Greenwood was "very keen on the college librarians having their own group and persuaded the CACAE to back the proposition" for setting up ALCAE (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). There is furthermore ample evidence in the minutes of the meetings of the Sub- Committee to show how, once established, Greenwood frequently invited ALCAE to forward ideas and recommendations to his committee.
Greenwood also sought to enhance the standing of CAE librarians and the library profession generally by ensuring that there were adequate educational opportunities for librarians:
31 ... an indication of the scope of Gordon Greenwood's interests [was that] he was also concerned about the supply of librarians for CAEs. [This] led him to the general question of staffing the profession. I guess he was pretty interested in developing the CAE Schools [of librarianship]... [The CACAE] talked about the Schools in at least one of the Reports and he was quite keen that we should support this development... The colleges were very keen to have Schools of Librarianship... And I think that that was something the Committee had a considerable interest and a considerable influence in impressing on [the colleges] (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
Bryan noted that Greenwood was always "very scrupulous" about acknowledging the need for proper educational qualifications and standards for librarianship, frequently referring such matters to the Library Association of Australia (LAA) through Bryan himself who had been appointed to the Sub-Committee in part because he was at that time the Chairman of the Board of Examiners of the LAA: "I am sure there were occasions when I acted as a link with the [Library] Association... At [the] time when we were setting standards he was very careful to discover what the right phrases were for qualifications people should have before the Association would recognise them..." (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
Greenwood himself acknowledged that the "smooth collaboration" between his Library Sub-Committee and the Library Association of Australia played a key role in facilitating the development and expansion of library schools within CAE's. Greenwood observed that this close cooperation with the LAA "was especially evident over courses in library training within the colleges at a time when there was a division of opinion within the association between those who favoured the wider provision of training, and those who wished to argue that only university graduates with library qualifications should be recognized" (Greenwood, 1977, p. 615). Apart from earlier courses in librarianship introduced at Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) and the Sydney Technical College in 1964, Bryan suggested that the establishment of schools of librarianship at the South Australian Institute of Technology (SAIT)(1969), Canberra College of Advanced Education (CCAE)(1969), Western Australian Institute of Technology (1970) and the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education (TCAE)(1972) were all "influenced by the open encouragement of the CACAE" (Bryan, 1977, p. 23).
32 At this early stage ALCAE was well placed to influence government policy for a number of reasons. First, it had members in common with the Library Sub-Committee of the CACAE which gave it direct access to the formal policy-making process. Second, the fact the Federal Government had given ALCAE official sanction - both in terms of acknowledging the value of its input and by financing its initial meetings - afforded it legitimacy in the eyes of college administrators, State governments and other stakeholders whose co-operation was critical to the successful application of Federal Government policy at the local level. This was acknowledged by Greenwood himself, the Chair of the Library Sub-Committee of the CACAE, who maintained that the "strong emphasis" given to library issues by the CACAE "undoubtedly had a strong impact upon the thinking of state bodies, special instrumentalities such as the Victorian Institute of Colleges (VIC), and upon senior administrative staff within the colleges themselves" (Greenwood, 1977, p. 614-615).
Third, ALCAE had the advantage of being formed at a time when professional guidance was most needed. Expert advice was in great demand to help the CACAE to assess the impact of the first two unmatched library grants, totalling $1 million, to provide estimates on how long it would take to bring libraries up to minimum acceptable standards, and to investigate appropriate standards for college libraries. This dependence on ALCAE for advice gave ALCAE unprecedented status and, as a result, ALCAE's continued participation in the policy-making process was felt by its members to be assured.
33 CHAPTER 4 ALCAE'S MAJOR ACTIVITIES
Spurred on by the CACAE Library Sub-Committee and its chairman, ALCAE enthusiastically set about promoting public awareness of the special function of the library in CAEs. With its confidence raised by the fact that its cause was officially sanctioned and encouraged, ALCAE did not hesitate in pressing the government independently of the Library Sub-Committee. ALCAE members saw it as one of their primary objectives to ensure that this interest in libraries was sustained, and that the Federal Government carried through on its pledge to upgrade library facilities. ALCAE accordingly gave high priority to lobbying government and mobilised much of its effort and resources to the task of convincing funding authorities and college administrators alike of the type and level of resources needed, frequently borrowing statements from the official CACAE reports to substantiate its claims. Its goals were ambitious. It did not simply want to bring about the rectification of existing deficiencies, but to develop libraries to a point where libraries could actively support their institutions' educational objectives, and to achieve this within as short a time as possible. In a published interview, Victor Crittenden - the first Chair of ALCAE - summed up ALCAE's early character as "aggressive" and "extrovert", "always campaigning for more money to improve book collections, pushing the value of A/V and new methods of teaching" (Crittenden, 1985, p. 177). This clear sense of direction and purpose, generated in large part by the Commission's interest in libraries in general and its encouragement of ALCAE in particular, kept the college librarians occupied throughout these early years.
Much of the group's labours, however, were the result of requests for information and ideas from the Sub-Committee. Requests for information generally came in two forms. The first was via the CACAE's Education Research Programme which was funded by a special research grant distributed over each triennium. The second, and more frequent means of requesting information and advice, was when the Sub-Committee, either through joint meetings with ALCAE or during the course of the Sub-Committee's own investigations, asked ALCAE to carry out studies on particular topics, a selection of which is mentioned in the following pages.
34 CACAE Sponsorship of Library Research and Development
Although the Australian Commission on Advanced Education (ACAE)(formally known as the CACAE up until December 1971) supported research and development in a variety of fields, a significant proportion of the projects funded by its Research Programme during the first three triennia were related to libraries14. The projects dealt with both the technical and educational aspects of library services. For example the projects identified in the Third Report for the 1970-72 triennium included a manual for the use of non-book materials by Paul McNally15 (Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education) and a study on Machine Readable Catalogue (MARC) use experiments carried out by John Balnaves16 (Canberra College of Advanced Education)(ACAE, Third Report, 1972, p. 122-126). Although these projects were carried out by individual librarians, they invariably involved the rest of ALCAE in terms of soliciting advice and data, most commonly through the use of some kind of survey instrument. In addition to formally sponsored research projects, the CACAE Library Sub-Committee also from time to time asked ALCAE to perform specific tasks on its behalf. For example in 1971 ALCAE sub-committees produced reports for the CACAE on the special needs of country CAEs and prepared lists of basic reference collections for these colleges (Ward & Brown, 1977, p. 140-141). Perhaps ALCAE's most important undertaking carried out for the CACAE was a survey to determine the amount of funding needed for a third special library grant which shall be detailed later.
According to Bryan, much of the impetus for library research and development came from Gordon Greenwood who urged the CACAE to sponsor numerous projects
14All projects sponsored under the College Commission's Educational Research Programme are listed in an appendix included in each triennial report.
15Paul McNally was Head, Resource Materials Centre at the Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education, Toowoomba, Queensland from 1973 to 1978, and again in 1981. Between 1978 and 1981 he served as Acting Dean of the School of Arts and between 1980 and 1989 was Deputy Director of the Institute. In 1989 the Institute became the University College of Southern Queensland and in 1991 the University of Southern Queensland. From 1989 until his retirement in 1994 McNally was Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the University. Between 1994 and 1997 he was Visiting Fellow at the School of Information, Library and Archive Studies at the University of New South Wales.
16Balnaves was Principal Lecturer in Librarianship at Canberra CAE from 1969 to 1981.
35 which reinforced the central role of libraries and the need for substantial increases in funding provision (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
Research Into the Special Role of Libraries in CAEs. Perhaps the most important of the sponsored studies was one aimed at substantiating the pivotal link between libraries and the CAE style of education. As part of its 1967-69 Educational Research Programme, the CACAE commissioned Harrison Bryan (with the assistance of Lorna Hean from Sydney Technical College) to undertake a project examining the special educational function of CAE libraries. In its Second Report the CACAE outlined its expectations for the study:
This study is an attempt to apply to advanced education the best available information on the theory and practice of library services in education. Starting with a stated set of assumptions regarding the significant contribution which the library is capable of making to the learning process in a college, the inquiry is examining stage by stage the implications regarding patterns of library usage by students and staff, size and quality of collections of books and other materials, and processing and service technologies appropriate to advanced education.
Though the study is expected to result in some useful guidelines for library development, its greatest importance is likely to lie in the significance of the questions it raises regarding the inter-relationships between library policy and the development of teaching/learning methodology (CACAE, Second Report, 1969, p. 89).
The study - the final report of which was entitled The Function of the Library in a College of Advanced Education (1970) - was, in the words of Victor Crittenden, "the first attempt to state in precise terms the philosophy of library service in Colleges of Advanced Education" (Crittenden, 1984, p. 185). Described by another college librarian at the time, Tony Brown (South Australian Institute of Technology), as a "landmark in CAE library development" this report was the first work to substantiate, through detailed and well researched argument, the link between high quality educational endeavour and adequate library provision (CACAE Library Sub-Committee, Minutes of the 12th Meeting, 13/10/70). It was also the first study to delineate the responsibilities vested in teachers and librarians for achieving a total "integration of the library in the educational programme of the C.A.E.'s" (Bryan & Hean, 1970, p. 61). Bryan himself described his
36 work as "not only the first statement of the philosophy of CAE libraries, [but] really the first attempt to look at an emphasised reader services view in any kind of library" (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). The study stood out because the concepts espoused were essentially new to libraries in Australia. "Even at that stage", said Bryan, " [even] university libraries were still pretty conservative in their approach to [these] things" (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
The study highlighted how dependent the colleges were on libraries for achieving their educational objectives: "If [a college library's] resources are poor... and if teachers' knowledge and use of it are inadequate", Bryan observed at the time, "the total learning- teaching process, will suffer accordingly" (Bryan & Hean, 1970, p. 48).
The minutes of the Sub-Committee record the far-reaching and largely positive response to the report of the study:
The measure of interest in the report is reflected in the response to the sub-committee's request to the Colleges for their comments. All Colleges, in acknowledging receipt of the report, expressed great interest and enthusiasm... About one third of the replies came from committees especially constituted for the purpose of investigating and reporting on the Bryan/Hean Report. These committees, usually consisting of the principal or deputy, the librarian and some faculty heads, presented the most searching and in-depth replies.... The comments show a widespread eagerness for more information about the role of libraries in CAEs, an enthusiasm for research, for further compilation and more effective use of statistics, and for the use of any modern technique which will improve libraries and user-services. They reveal an immense reservoir of genuine professional interest which augurs well for the very urgent task of updating all CAE libraries to desirable current standards.
The notion of libraries being centres of life-long learning received very widespread support. All libraries submitting comments agreed strongly on the notion that libraries should help in the learning-teaching process, with the exception of two libraries concerned with technical disciplines (CACAE Library Sub-Committee, Minutes of the 12th Meeting, 13/10/70).
The College Commission itself was equally impressed by the findings of the study,
37 as testified by the near unqualified endorsement the study received in its Third Report:
As the colleges develop it is becoming increasingly clear that the library must perform a central role in the whole learning-teaching process. The Commission's firmly held conviction in this matter has been strongly reinforced by the findings of Bryan and Hean in their report - The Function of the Library in a College of Advanced Education.
The specific form or forms which this library involvement should take depend, as Bryan and Hean point out, on the direction which the learning-teaching process itself takes in the colleges. The more the colleges move away from the lecture room environment, the more directly the library can and should contribute to the education of each student (ACAE, Third Report, 1972, p. 58).
Although not fully accepting Bryan and Hean's proposed standards formula, their arguments for higher budget allocations for staff provision convinced the CACAE to advocate an increase in staffing provision in support of teaching programmes:
The Commission... is conscious... of the serious deficiencies in the staffing of college libraries as documented in the Bryan/Hean report and in the annual statistics collected by the Association of Librarians in Colleges of Advanced Education... Correction of this imbalance is vital if the college libraries as a group are to undertake the active role envisaged in our previous reports. This will involve the appointment of more staff who can participate, formally and informally, in the learning-teaching process. We agree that higher budget allocations for staff provision are necessary for college libraries to fulfil the educational functions we have proposed for them (ACAE, Third Report, 1972, p. 60).
The report thus gave ALCAE members another formally endorsed source of evidence on which to base their continuing claims for more support to build up their libraries: "They thought that it was good... I think it was used appropriately by college libraries... (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). One college librarian indicated that it was something that she and her colleagues could use "to keep hammering [those concepts] the whole time just [to show] how the library fitted in" (Harley, Swinburne
38 College of Technology, Interview, 1996)17.
CACAE Standards for College Libraries. Another major project that arose out of the CACAE's focus on research and development was the creation, endorsement and use of college library standards.
According to the testimony of those interviewed for this study it was Greenwood who advocated the use of formal standards to determine the adequacy of collections in CAE's. The Second Report of the CACAE (1969) suggests that Greenwood was prompted to some extent by "college administrators" who had "been asking for guidance" on the most appropriate way to develop their respective library services. Greenwood gave the Sub-Committee itself the task of devising appropriate standards for college libraries, which it undertook during the 1967-69 triennium. The standards which the Sub- Committee produced were published in the Second Report of the CACAE and were "based on statistics taken from Australian universities (especially newly established universities), as well as American and UK universities" (CACAE, Second Report, 1969, p. 61). They consisted of five separate categories with "Category 1" stipulating the basic number of library staff, bookstock, and seating places for "small colleges with less than 600 equivalent full-time students and with several fields of study". At the other end of the scale "Category 5" set out quantities in staff, books and seating for colleges of more than 3,500 EFT students (CACAE, Second Report, 1969, 61-62).
According to Bryan, Greenwood was intent on ensuring that the standards were simple and realistic so that they could be quickly and easily applied to take advantage of the Commonwealth Government's willingness to provide special funding. Because of the way in which they were developed, Greenwood's view was that these standards should be "treated, at best, as an interim goal" and "subject to later review" (CACAE, Second Report, 1969, p. 61).
17Jessie Harley was Chief Librarian at the Swinburne College of Technology from 1963 to 1981.
39 The Sub-Committee devised them. Every one of them was fought through in the sense that we all wanted them to be much more rigorous. [But] Gordon [Greenwood], who had an eye to the practical, always thought that what we should do is make them realistic and then emphasis the fact that they were only interim... [This] was all done in the Committee (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
Realising the difficulty of persuading college administrators to apply any kind of standards, let alone standards that were as general as these, the Library Sub-Committee believed that having them formally sanctioned by the CACAE would invest them with some amount of "authority", and therefore render them more convincing (CACAE, Second Report, 1969, p. 61).
Although discussed at the founding meeting of ALCAE (1969) the minutes record no formal endorsement of the CACAE standards. However Geoff Allen18 (Chief Librarian, Western Australian Institute of Technology) later recalled that the standards were "readily accepted by the college librarians" when they were published, though on the understanding that they be achieved within a "relatively short time" (Allen & Brockman, 1983, p. 112). The fact that the CACAE published the standards in 1969 did, however, add weight to the claims of college librarians. In an article published at the time of their circulation, Tony Brown - Chief Librarian at the South Australian Institute of Technology (SAIT) and member of the library Sub-Committee - commented that; "... the standards as published will undoubtedly provide college librarians with invaluable support in arguing that a higher proportion of institutional budgets should be devoted to library development" (Ward & Brown, 1969, p. 74). Bryan reiterates the important outcomes these standards yielded:
I think that they were important. It made all the difference in the world to the small institutions, particularly the monodisciplinary ones, because one of the things that we insisted on was that there was an irreducible minimum for any separate institution library... I am sure the standards were used as talking points by the various groups (Bryan, University of
18Geoff Allen was Chief Librarian at WAIT from 1967 to 1987. In 1987 WAIT became Curtin University of Technology and Allen became University Librarian and served in this position until he retired in 1992.
40 Sydney, Interview, 1996).
At a sector level the standards also provided the college librarians with "a firm base against which deficiencies in library holdings could be measured" and which, as shall be seen, made it possible for ALCAE "to claim a much larger [third] unmatched grant for the 1973-75 triennium" (Ward & Brown, 1977, p. 134).
Design for Diversity. One final project worth noting resulted in the work Design for Diversity : Library Services for Higher Education and Research in Australia. It was commissioned in the 1970-72 triennium and best illustrates the level of enthusiasm and personal commitment Greenwood had for creating a solid professional literature. This was perhaps the most ambitious of the projects undertaken on behalf of the Sub- Committee. The following description was included in the Third Report of the CAE Commission:
The object of this project is to produce a book on library services with fourteen chapters, each written by a different authority on one aspect of libraries either in colleges or universities. The book will deal with the development of academic and research libraries in Australia, State and national libraries, services to readers, aspects of building, staffing and financing. Administration and library co-operation will also be included (ACAE, Third Report, 1972, p. 125).
The final work, jointly edited by Bryan and Greenwood, was published in 1977. It was a substantial and comprehensive volume running close to 800 pages. In addition to covering the history, development and role of the National Library and CAE, university and State libraries, Design for Diversity also contained chapters on a wide variety of topics pertinent to academic librarianship generally, including "Scientific Information Resources, Services and Needs", "Library Cooperation: Reality and Limitations", "Provision and Planning at the National Level", "Direct Service to Readers", "The Library as Educator", "Some Aspects of Administration and Management" and "Policy Formation and Library Experimentation in Australia and Other Western Societies". Bryan recalled the experience in working with Greenwood on this project:
41 I was very reluctant to get involved with Design for Diversity... But he kept at me and kept at me and we produced that thing in the end. It was well worth doing I think. I guess that was an example of his ability to persuade people (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
Further library research and development projects were carried out under the auspices of the CACAE throughout subsequent triennia and are listed in the appendices of each Commission report. In 1972, Greenwood submitted a recommendation which succeeded in convincing the CACAE to continue to support such activity. The minutes of the 15th meeting of the Sub-Committee note:
Professor Greenwood said that the results of the library research projects over the past two triennia were very heartening and that the Commission should be asked to continue to sustain this type of research in the next triennium. The following resolution to be submitted to the Commission was agreed to: 'In view of the past and potential value of the library research projects already carried out and currently being undertaken, a continuation of Commonwealth support for library research projects by the Australian Commission on Advanced Education is strongly recommended' (CACAE Library Sub-Committee, Minutes of the 15th Meeting, 17/1/72).
42 CHAPTER 5 THE TEST OF POWER AND INFLUENCE: THE THIRD UNMATCHED GRANT FOR COLLEGE LIBRARIES (1971-1972)
ALCAE was formed too late to influence the first two special library grants that the Commonwealth Government provided in the 1967-69 and 1970-72 triennia. ALCAE did, however, devote considerable energy to monitoring both the distribution and the impact of these grants. It was this that led to ALCAE's conviction that these two grants were not going to be enough to achieve an upgrading of collections in accordance with the standards for college libraries that had been published in the Second Report.
At a joint meeting with the CACAE Library Sub-Committee held in 1971, ALCAE used these standards to present a case for a third unmatched grant. According to Geoff Allen who was in attendance, the librarians succeeded in persuading the Sub- Committee to pass a resolution to have "all college library collections raised to the standards proposed in the 2nd CACAE Report by 1975" (Letter from Allen to ALCAE members, 25/3/71). Allen further claimed that he and his colleagues convinced the Sub- Committee to push for a third special grant for libraries, arguing that statistical evidence which ALCAE had collected following a brief survey of libraries suggested that a 1975 target date could not be reached under proposed third triennium budget estimates. "It was pointed out to the Sub-Committee", Allen wrote in his letter, "that on present indications only two college libraries were likely to achieve this, and that to give effect to the resolution a massive additional investment in acquisitions should be necessary" (Letter from Allen to ALCAE members, 25/3/71). At this point ALCAE was reported to have offered to conduct a more detailed survey of libraries to determine exactly how much additional funding would be required. "In accepting the aim of the resolution as highly desirable, the Sub-Committee also welcomed an offer by ALCAE to prepare an estimate of the likely total additional cost if the standards are to be achieved by 1975" (Letter from Allen to ALCAE members, 25/3/71).
Allen was chosen to compile and collate the information which was subsequently
43 gathered from over forty libraries. His report of the survey, submitted to the CACAE in May 1971, confirmed ALCAE's original claim that the first two unmatched grants would not be sufficient to move the college libraries close to the interim standards proposed by the CACAE in the Second Report.19 He concluded that the results of the survey had "revealed that the library resources of CAEs would, in 1975, fall short of the recommended standard to an extent that would need additional expenditure of the order of $15 million to overcome" (Letter from Allen to ALCAE members, 25/3/71).
CACAE Library Sub-Committee Recommendations
The minutes of a meeting of ALCAE held in August 1971 record that Allen's survey report had been "very favourably received" by the CACAE Library Subcommittee (ALCAE, Minutes of Meeting, 27-28/8/71). Indeed, the response of the Sub-Committee was that, although deeming ALCAE's figures to be "not completely accurate", the Sub- Committee was satisfied that the results of the survey "did give an indication of the magnitude of library deficiencies" (CACAE Library Sub-Committee, Minutes of the 15th Meeting, 17/1/72). The Library Sub-Committee subsequently resolved that "in view of the size of this deficiency... it should ask the Commission to consider recommending further special grants for libraries for 1973-75...." (CACAE Library Sub-Committee, Minutes of the 15th Meeting, 17/1/72).
Although ALCAE had calculated that an amount as high as $15 million could be required to redress deficiencies, the Library Sub-Committee decided to recommend to the CACAE the more modest sum of $9.25 million. It was now left to Greenwood and the secretary of the CACAE to persuade the main Committee to accept the recommendation of the Library Sub-Committee.
Not only was Greenwood an articulate advocate for libraries, as mentioned earlier, but he also reportedly had considerable influence over key people like Sir Ian
19The results of Allen's survey and the methodology employed was published in Australian Academic and Research Libraries. See Allen & Eichinski, 1971.
44 Wark, the Chairman of the CACAE. "He was", said Bryan, "quite an influential member of the [CACAE] and its successors" (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). The clearest demonstration of the degree of influence that Greenwood and his library committee had was in persuading the main Committee to recommend to the Commonwealth Government the issuing of a second grant in 1967 and then the third unmatched grant under discussion here which was finally delivered in 1972. According to those who worked closely with him on the Library Sub-Committee, it was Greenwood who deserves much of the credit for these final two grants. Bryan believed that: "The unmatched grants... were something that had never happened before or since. I am sure it was his influence on the [CACAE] that managed that... It was his drive. I think that that was the most important thing that [the CACAE] did" (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). According to Bryan the first grant had been approved before the appointment of the library committee. However Bryan was certain that Greenwood persuaded the main Committee to recommend the second grant: "I know he talked the Commission into the second one, I am sure about that - it was his influence" (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). When asked whether it was ALCAE who influenced the third and final grant, Ward gives an unequivocal reply:
Gordon Greenwood was enthusiastic about it, he was uneasy about it, but after a couple of sessions in which he did explore the scope of it... he then said "well, damn it, all we'll go for it and I'll see what can be done"... I can remember a lot of discussion on [ALCAE's survey] in the [Library Sub- Committee] with Gordon Greenwood being extremely reasonable and thoughtful - and doubtful - but then finally deciding to make a go beyond what he would normally have considered practicable... I think without Gordon Greenwood it would have been difficult to convince Wark in the earliest stages to act... I do think he had a lot of respect for Gordon Greenwood (Ward, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Interview, 1996).
Ward also revealed the importance of the partnership between Greenwood and the Secretary to the Commission, Jim McCusker. McCusker was instrumental in ensuring that there was smooth communication between the Library Sub-Committee and the main
45 Committee. Ward recalled how McCusker helped expedite the business of the Library Sub-Committee:
... we used to spend hours and hours talking about how to do things and [McCusker] became very enthusiastic... One of the techniques of the committee was [that] we'd decide [after a meeting]; "OK... for the next report you'll handle this and you'll handle that [and] someone else this." And we'd send the pieces back to Jim and the chairman would coordinate them and amend them. He was always far more inclined in my view to stoke up the library part than any other thing. He was great (Ward, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Interview, 1996).
Ward described McCusker and Greenwood as the two "accidental criticals" in achieving the third grant (Ward, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Interview, 1996). McCusker's experience as a senior public servant in the Department of Education was, according to Ward's account, invaluable in helping Greenwood push through his recommendation, as illustrated in the following anecdote:
There is one thing I haven't mentioned... the secretary of the CACAE Library Committee, Jim McCusker. He was a remarkable fellow. He had begun as a journalist in Western Australia. I think he was first secretary of the Department of Education... Jim was wonderful... [He was an] extraordinarily experienced and sophisticated senior public servant, he knew all the ins and outs. He could talk back to Fraser [then Federal Minister for Education and later Prime Minister]. I do remember him recounting a lecture he gave Fraser. Fraser wanted him to get the Department to organise some electioneering material. Fraser had the terrible habit of ringing people at three of four o'clock in the morning and this always made Jim mad anyway. But he rang him once to ask him about this and Jim gave him a lecture and quoted him the Public Service rules and so Fraser backed off. (Ward, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Interview, 1996).
Ward summed up McCusker's contribution by noting that he
... was a great enthusiast of the Library Committee and he I'm sure stimulated Gordon Greenwood in some way to act on that.... he knew the
46 field wonderfully and he was a tremendous enthusiast and he knew all the tricks within the department... and Jim was always talking to Wark (Ward, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Interview, 1996).
In an effort to convince Wark of the validity of his Sub-Committee's bid, Greenwood acted shrewdly by not presenting a case for further special monies based entirely on ALCAEs own summing up of the situation. Rather he made a point of consulting a range of non-library groups, something which was given emphasis in the ACAE's third report: "In making this recommendation the Commission has in mind not only the clear findings of the [ALCAE] survey itself, but also other telling evidence submitted by State Boards of Advanced Education, college administrators, staff associations and student organisations" (ACAE, Third Report, 1972, p. 65). One may surmise that as a matter of political strategy Greenwood wanted to avoid a situation where the claims of his Sub-Committee might be called into question because they were based on data provided by self-interested professional groups. This approach is reflected in the introduction to his chapter on "Policy formation and library experimentation in Australia and other western societies" in Design for Diversity discussed as an important product of one of the Library Sub-Committee's development projects:
Every chapter other than this has been written by a professional or by someone in a senior library position. These professional contributions stand in their own right, and are reflective of the expertise which their authors command out of training and experience. Yet, much as these are to be valued, it is perhaps salutary to remember Harold Laski's warning of many years ago about the dangers in an over-evaluation of and an over- adherence to expertise, where decision making with wide administrative, educational or political implications was involved. There is, indeed, some substance in such a view. Experts inevitably have been subjected to a specialist training, valuable in itself, but not necessarily advantageous when decisions impinge upon broader issues. There is no group in my experience more dedicated than the professional librarians, but that very dedication has its dangers; it may imply a degree of obsession, a narrowing of vision, because concern is essentially directed to the prosecution or promotion of librarianship and to library growth as ends in themselves (Greenwood, 1977, p. 537).
Student Support. Perhaps the group that helped to add legitimacy to ALCAE's cause the
47 most was the Australian Union of Students (AUS), whose critique of libraries in its submission to the CACAE for the 1973-75 triennium, published in 1971, "plainly impressed the CACAE" according to Ward and Brown (Ward & Brown, 1977, p. 142). In their submission the students highlighted the deficiencies in college library bookstocks and recommended that a "massive injection of extra funds into college libraries is urgently required" (AUS, 1971, p. 32). Special mention of the AUS submission in the Third Report for the 1973-75 Triennium was an indication of the degree to which the College Commission valued the opinion of this key group of stakeholders:
The student interest in this matter is real. It has been amply demonstrated by the organised efforts of college students to direct attention to library inadequacies and to the need for a concentration of effort to remedy deficiencies. It is reflected again in the submission by the Australian Union of Students, which placed the strongest emphasis upon the urgency of developing college libraries to existing educational demands (ACAE, Third Report, 1972, p. 57).
The students maintained the pressure on the government by issuing a further report in June 1972 entitled The Plight of Libraries in Colleges of Advanced Education in which they argue that the first two special library grants made little impression on college libraries:
The [previous] Commonwealth grant was commendable and enabled significant improvements, but it was only a drop in the ocean. A crisis situation still exists, requiring much more assistance to college libraries from both State and Federal Governments. It is not enough to dabble with improvements, to in effect condemn college students to at least another ten years of inadequate libraries (AUS, 1972, p. 1).
The report offers a comparison between university and college libraries, finding that "less than half as much is spent on the library for each CAE student as for each university student". The AUS gave its unqualified support to ALCAE's original claim for the provision of "at least" a $15 million third Commonwealth grant to raise college libraries to an "interim acceptable standard by 1975" (AUS, 1972, p. 1):
48 We ask that the Commonwealth give this amount - small compared to its total allocations - in a special unmatched grant for the 1973-75 triennium. We also ask that the States voluntarily match any such grant the Commonwealth may give. We ask for your active support in achieving this (AUS, 1972, p. 1).
Ward and Brown believed that these submissions not only "helped to focus public attention on the inadequacy of college libraries" - especially by the media coverage they attracted - but also "appear to have influenced the new [Labor] government in its decision to accept the ACAE's recommendation of a $5 million unmatched library grant" (Ward & Brown, 1977, p. 142)20. Ward and Brown regarded the action of student groups as an important public affirmation of the fact "that librarians have been acting in students' interests in making claims for the more rapid development of college libraries" (Ward & Brown, 1977, p. 142).
Delays in the Issuing of a Third Unmatched Grant. However, despite the efforts of ALCAE and members of Library Sub-Committee, the College Commission only agreed to recommend to the Commonwealth Government an unmatched grant of $5 million for libraries, believing that "the colleges would be unable to cope with a grant of this magnitude in the way of supplying supporting services" (ACAE, Third Report, 1972, p. 65). This was in spite of the fact that the College Commission had itself acknowledged in its Third Report that colleges had been prevented from "making even reasonable progress" towards the interim standards because of insufficient funding.
The Commission's recommendation, however, did not meet with a smooth passage. It was only through the persistent efforts of ALCAE and other groups that a grant for the full $5 million was finally awarded after much delay. The Liberal-Country party who were in office at the time of the ACAE's bid, were only prepared to offer $500,000, with an extra $1 million on the condition that the States agreed to match this amount (Ward & Brown, 1977, p. 129). Allen and Brockman later described the Government's offer as "patently, by all assessors, an inadequate response", while
20The Australian Labor Party was elected to office under the leadership of Gough Whitlam, in December 1972.
49 characterising the Government's handling of the situation as "a revealing mixture of political enthusiasm and bureaucratic mismanagement or bad faith" (Allen & Brockman, 1983, p. 111).
Renewed Lobbying Campaign
ALCAE was quick to protest at this outcome. At its 1971 Annual General Meeting Association members deliberated on ways to respond to the government's decision to reject the ACAE's recommendation (ALCAE, Minutes of Meeting, 31/8- 1/9/72). Following "lengthy discussion" on the "role of ALCAE and the influence it could be expected to have" the group resolved to issue the following press statement:
At the Annual General Meeting of the Association of Librarians in College of Advanced Education (ALCAE) held at Swinburne College of Technology on Thursday and Friday, 31st August and 1st September, it was RESOLVED unanimously that:
"ALCAE is appalled that the Commonwealth Government can choose to ignore the recommendation of the Australian Commission on Advanced Education [ACAE] last week for a special grant of $5,000,000 to partly redress a deficiency of some 900,000 volumes in Australia's college of advanced education libraries. The present offer of $500,000 will have no significant effect."
It was also RESOLVED to immediately transmit this resolution by telegram to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Education and Science, and the leader of the Federal Opposition.
The ACAE report, tabled in Federal Parliament last week, indicated that a sum of $9,250,000 would be required to bridge the book gap. It said:
"The demands on recurrent funds to cope with the rapid growth of courses and general facilities have apparently prevented institutions from making even reasonable progress towards the minimum standards of our Second Report. In some colleges, progress is no longer inhibited by lack of suitable accommodation; many have good buildings of a size to accommodate the books they should have, but appear years from realising.
50 We believe it needs a massive effort on the part of colleges, State authorities and the Commonwealth to overcome it."
An ALCAE spokesman said that the Commonwealth Government had granted $1,000,000 to college libraries since 1967, and still there was a deficit in fact of closer to 1,000,000 volumes. He indicated that on the present trends, and without the massive support recommended by the ACAE, the deficit, by 1984, could be as high as 5,000,000 volumes (ALCAE, Press Release, 4/9/71).
The following month Allen received a reply from the Minister for Education and Science, Malcolm Fraser. The Minister's letter simply restated the government's decision to provide an unmatched grant of $500,000 for libraries along with a promise of a further grant of up to $1 million matched by the States:
I refer to your telegram of 4 September expressing concern at the funds provided by the Commonwealth for libraries in Colleges of Advanced Education.
The Government recognises the need for some special assistance for libraries in Colleges of Advanced Education. In addition to the unmatched grant of $500,000 provided for libraries, in my speech of 22 August to Parliament on the program for universities and colleges of advanced education for the 1973-75 triennium, I announced that the Commonwealth would provide a further amount of up to $1 million if States provide a matching sum to promote library development.
The total effect of these measures will be to make available for libraries in Colleges of Advanced Education an amount of up to $2.5 million in addition to the amounts included in the budgets of individual colleges.
The distribution between institutions of these additional funds for libraries will be made on the recommendation of the Australian Commission on Advanced Education (Letter from Fraser to ALCAE, 27/9/72).
ALCAE was far from pleased with the Minister's response, and decided to send a further letter that would "spell out in more detail" the Associations "feelings about the situation, and the value of [Fraser's] reply" (Letter from Allen to ALCAE members, 10/10/72). This letter - drafted by Allen and described by him as a "fairly drastic note" - was even more candid than the original ALCAE press release (Letter from Allen to ALCAE members, 10/10/72). In this letter, as in previous lobbying attempts, ALCAE
51 gave added weight to its arguments by drawing attention to the fact that the Commonwealth Government had made a commitment to raising college libraries to a point where they could properly serve the core educational aims of the CAEs:
Thank you for your letter of 27th September 1972, acknowledging the representation of the [ALCAE] concerning the Government's support for College libraries.
I beg to advise you that, when formulating their protest against the inadequate budgetary provision, the College librarians were fully conversant with the Government's proposals, and that in consequence, your reply adds nothing to our knowledge and detracts nothing from our concern. The continuing disparity between the Government's promises of educational development and the realities of its financial support for the College system is rapidly destroying the confidence of academics, of students and of the informed public in the validity of the CAE system as an alternative to University education.
We wish to remind you of the central importance to education of adequate library collections, of the necessity for well equipped library buildings, and of the availability of competent and sufficient library staff. Not more than two or three Colleges will even approach adequacy in these requirements of library provision during the coming triennium, while none will compare with even the more moderately endowed Universities.
The CAE librarians are the more discouraged by the Government's attitude because their need was both recognised and assessed by the Australian Commission on Advanced Education [ACAE]. I should not have to instruct you that this need was conservatively estimated at an additional $9.5 million to raise the CAE library collections to basic acceptable levels by international standards. To achieve this base level would have to cost the states at least half as much again in recurrent money, for the staff necessary to purchase and process the materials - in effect a part matching of Federal aid.
In this context, the [ALCAE] considers the Government's offer of $500,000 as unrealistic. If this is a consequence of considered policy, it clearly demonstrates the Government's intention to relegate the CAEs to second-class status in higher education .
We are not noticeably impressed by the additional offer of $1 million as a matched grant. In the context of current Commonwealth-State financial arrangements, librarians do not expect to benefit greatly from obviously a partisan gesture. And in any event, even if the total $2.5 million did flow to the colleges, it represents little more than 25% of the minimum required
52 capital injection (Letter from Allen to Fraser, 10/10/72).
Crittenden endorsed the letter, agreeing with Allen that "strong words are required". Crittenden also suggested that a copy be sent to the Shadow Minister, Kim Beazley and the Chairman of the College Commission, Thomas Swanson (Letter from Crittenden to Allen, 24/10/72). With the impending election in December 1972, which the Liberal-National Government lost, no further response was received from Fraser to ALCAE's remonstrations.
Following the election, ALCAE immediately switched its full attention to the business of lobbying the newly installed Labor Government. To this end Allen wrote to Gordon Bryant (Secretary of the Parliamentary Labor Party, Education Committee) reminding him of the commitment he and his Party had made while in Opposition to provide college libraries with the $5 million originally recommended by the College Commission if Labor was elected to office (Letter from Allen to Bryant, 21/12/72). Allen asked Bryant if he could help ALCAE members "obtain the ear" of the Minister for Education and Science, Kim Beazley in order to push the case for libraries. Allen also requested a meeting between ALCAE, Bryant and Beazley, and "any other member of the government concerned", at which the college librarians could "forward the interests of CAE libraries". Allen concluded his letter by saying that he believed that the ALCAE could offer views on "college education generally as well as on libraries in particular, which could be of value to the government at this time" (Letter from Allen to Bryant, 21/12/72).
Although none of those interviewed could recall any such meeting taking place, soon after the Labor Government was elected to power a decision was made to award the full $5 million grant as promised.
53 CHAPTER 6 THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF A FORMATIVE PERIOD
Any assessment of the achievements of ALCAE in this early, formative, period of its life would need to take into account not only ALCAE's energetic attempts to raise the standing of college libraries in the way discussed in the preceding chapter but also how it fulfilled a far more basic and pressing need by offering a critical support network to college librarians during the CAE sector's early years.
Some members of ALCAE saw its collegial function as being of at least equal importance to its members as its numerous research and lobbying activities. Many college librarians, like Jessie Harley21 (Swinburne College of Technology), were just starting off in management positions. They needed guidance and sought and valued the advice of their colleagues on how best to cope with the challenges of instituting a new type of library service with rapidly expanding collections and services supported by the Commonwealth Government's special library grants:
[I was] sitting there and thinking, "oh dear how will I cope with this..." and wanting to meet the other librarians and just seeing what they thought about it... We'd only just started [and] I was interested in, at this very initial stage, not in expanding but just getting the system to run. I could see that our system was inadequate, not functioning very well in all sorts of ways. And I just thought if I could talk to the others and see how they coped, what sort of a charging system they had, what they do with this and that...
Some of the university lot... said that we were just a pressure group. Well we were not that at all. When [ALCAE] started off there was not any idea of pressure. It was cooperating to help each other. And I think it is quite important to bring that out, that the benefits of cooperation actually stimulate competition because if you can build up the efficiency of each member of a group and get them all enthusiastic then there is still competition amongst them to get another good idea and... to be able to submit something useful to the next meeting. And because that's all shared around, it only lifts everybody up... (Harley, Swinburne College of Technology, Interview, 1996).
21Harley was Chief Librarian at Swinburne College of Technology from 1963 to 1981.
54 Group Cohesion and Cooperation
The imperative of having to work closely together to overcome the difficulties experienced throughout the formative years of the CAE sector, gave added strength and cohesiveness to the group. This cohesiveness not only facilitated a high level of cooperation between members, but also enabled ALCAE members to achieve consensus relatively easily. This was an important factor in allowing ALCAE to respond quickly to demands for information by the CACAE and to press its case more convincingly. Both the written evidence and the comments of ALCAE members in interviews with the author emphasise that on most occasions plans to lobby the Federal Government received unanimous approval from members, with their message invariably conveyed with vigour and enthusiasm. ALCAE's correspondence is full of examples where members encouraged one another to maintain a united front when dealing with government authorities. For instance in a letter to Ward, Allen remarks how critical it was for all members to agree to stand firm on their bid for a third Federal Government grant for college libraries:
I recommend that we make strong representation to all colleague librarians to attend the ALCAE Meeting in August, and that this issue - the need for CAE librarians to stand together and to be seen to be 100% solid in their demands for good library provision - be stated publically and forcefully (Letter from Allen to Ward, 25/5/71).
Margaret Macpherson22 (Mitchell CAE) argued that it was this strong affiliation amongst members that helped to expedite the development of college libraries during the critical phase:
I would have thought that we were strongest in the 1970s and certainly it was a time both of having reasonable collection development monies because of the [unmatched] grants, and also quite a bit of building was going on, so there was capital development going on in many of the
22Margaret Macpherson was Manager, Information Resources Centre at Mitchell CAE, Bathurst, New South Wales, from 1974. In 1989 Mitchell CAE became part of Charles Sturt University and in 1992 Macpherson was appointed University Librarian.
55 institutions. And I think there was a sharing of information about that which was enhanced by the fact that ALCAE existed (Macpherson, Mitchell College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
Jack Ward and Group Leadership
This resolute and harmonious stance most members attributed in a large degree to the influence of one its founding members, Jack Ward. Ward - the Chief Librarian at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) from 1955-1981 and later Acting Associate Director of the Institute - was regarded as the most important of the early ALCAE figures. He was credited by his colleagues with providing the college librarians with much of the leadership, direction and encouragement that helped consolidate the group during this critical period of expansion. As has already been noted, he had played a major role in founding ALCAE. He was the librarian in charge of the most important and influential of the larger Institutes of the day and therefore it seemed natural that he should assume some leadership role among the group of librarians.
But most important of all, as a member of the CACAE Library Sub-Committee he was able to champion the interests of ALCAE in this official forum. The influence Ward subsequently had on the development of policy and the coordination of ALCAE's submissions in his capacity as a member on the CACAE Library Sub-Committee, also contributed to his high status within the group over subsequent years. By virtue of his joint membership of ALCAE and the Library Sub-Committee he served as the main conduit through which ALCAE could participate in, and have some impact on, the policy-making process. Ward took advantage of every opportunity to press for the inclusion of college librarians in the policy-making process and to encourage his colleagues to participate.
Early documents, both of ALCAE and the CACAE Library Sub-Committee, reveal that Ward worked tirelessly to have ALCAE included in the decision-making process. Not only did he keep ALCAE members well briefed on policy developments, but he also advised them on when and how their input would have the greatest impact. For
56 example prior to a joint meeting between ALCAE and the CACAE Library Sub- Committee in March 1971, Ward wrote to ALCAE members regarding the forthcoming meeting, inviting them to pass on to him any matters which they would like raised. In the letter he made a point of urging them to be prepared to argue their case for a further special grant:
Any argument that can support a further unmatched grant in the next triennium should be brought forward because I believe it will not be easy to achieve a third grant unless we can show quite dramatically the inadequacy of development and reasons why the colleges themselves have not adequately budgeted in 1973-75 for library development (Letter from Ward to ALCAE members, 8/2/70).
Later that same year he addressed a letter to the then Chairman of ALCAE, Victor Crittenden, in which he offered advice on how ALCAE might best prepare for this important meeting with the CACAE Library Sub-Committee, stressing that it would "not be just a discussion or familiarising exercise", but that ALCAE should be ready to offer specific recommendations to the sub-committee (Letter from Ward to Crittenden, 14/10/70).
Ward also raised ALCAE's profile wherever possible and was responsible for drafting a section on ALCAE in the College Commission's Third Report in which he highlighted the group's objectives and contribution to the process of developing libraries across the sector (CACAE Library Sub-Committee, Minutes of the 14th Meeting, 27/8/71; ACAE, Third Report, 1972, p. 58). "He was giving us [all] the information he could get", said Harley (Librarian, Swinburne College of Technology), "and any problems that we had that he thought [the Library Sub-Committee] could help us with he [referred] us to them. He was really our representative" (Harley, Swinburne College of Technology, Interview, 1996).
More often than not, however, Ward contributed to the work of the Sub- Committee in his own right. In the words of a fellow member, Ward served on the Sub- Committee for the duration of its existence, "contributing very substantially to the
57 development of the Commission's policies on libraries and the setting of standards for CAE library development" (Bryan, 1991, p. 143).
However, it was not only his association with government authorities which made Ward an influential figure within ALCAE. Interviews with his colleagues point to his distinctive personality, in particular his willingness to provide advice and encouragement to librarians from smaller institutions. His colleagues remember him as somebody who was not just "making a bid for his own library" but instead was more interested in "doing it for the sector" (Macpherson, Mitchell College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996). When asked to recall his first impressions of the group, another contemporary, Bill Hitchins23 (Ballarat CAE), responded thus:
I was always surprised at the extent to which larger places like RMIT and others were prepared to be involved and spend time. Coming from what I thought was a smaller place, [it was clear] that largely we were going to be benefiting from work done in larger places... People like Jack Ward and others [were] extremely willing to share information and be involved (Hitchins, Ballarat College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
Harrison Bryan, with whom Ward shared membership of the CACAE Library Sub-Committee for a number of years, concedes that Ward's position as librarian within one of the country's leading institutions, RMIT, would have "automatically" endowed him with "a degree of seniority among CAE librarians" (Bryan, 1994, p. 177). However Bryan added that "his own talents ensured that result anyhow. He was one of the most unassuming persons I ever met. Also one of the most widely read and most knowledgeable" (Bryan, 1994, p. 177). Harrison Bryan and two college librarians, Margaret Macpherson and Paul McNally each described from their own perspectives, the way in which Ward's character defined the nature of the group:
Jack was quite vital. We regarded him from the very beginning as the unofficial spokesman for the college librarians. Jack is about the most modest man I have ever met, a delightful character. He was, until people
23Bill Hitchins was Chief Librarian at Ballarat CAE from 1978. In 1994 Ballarat CAE became the University of Ballarat, at which point Hitchins became University Librarian.
58 like Dorothy Peake24 and [others] emerged as strong characters, unquestionably the unofficial leader of the CAEs. RMIT was certainly the biggest of the existing college libraries when the Wark committee recommendations were put into effect. And of course it grew and he grew with it (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
[The value of ALCAE was derived from] the character of the people involved. Because, quite apart from the lobbying and the money, I remember being told when I came here how generous Jack was with his time in giving advice to younger and inexperienced college librarians, and it was never, "this is what you should do: its the only way to do it". It was, as I remember him, very much by suggestion and encouragement and advice on what had worked for him (Macpherson, Mitchell College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
I think the sort of dominant personality as far as I was concerned at that time was Jack Ward. My experience in the area of librarianship was very limited really, and I found it really very valuable indeed to come to meetings with people like that and I thought the group was pretty dynamic with his and other leadership positions (McNally, Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
As ALCAE developed, other librarians gave strength to the group by assuming important mentoring roles by virtue of their experience and collaborative predispositions. Jessie Harley from Swinburne is one name that was frequently mentioned during interviews with college librarians who participated in ALCAE during this early period along with outsiders like Bryan, who took an interest in the group. Geoff Allen, from the Western Australian Institute of Technology (WAIT), is another whom Bryan recalled as one who emerged "early and clearly as a leader" within ALCAE (Bryan, 1994, p. 177). McNally summed up the contribution made by figures like Ward:
It was quite remarkable, how on a personal level everybody got on well together... I still have a recollection of the excitement of going to those meetings, particularly the first one. And I think people like Geoff Allan and Jack Ward, but others [too] who were in the game a long time, were not at all reluctant, as I recall, to assist the younger people like myself in addressing the problems. Now that seems to me to be very important.
24Dorothy Peake was Head, Information Resource Services at the New South Wales Institute of Technology Sydney from 1972 to 1987.
59 They played an important sort of mentor role. It wasn't as big as that, but nevertheless I can well remember ringing them up and asking, "what do you do in a case like this", and you'd come to meetings and they were there with good ideas [which] you could take them on board...
I really believe that Jack and Geoff and people like that did an important task... most of us were young and inexperienced and we really needed to tap the experience and knowledge of those other women and men who'd been around a fair while. You see Jessie [Harley] had been around a fair while for instance... So I found it very valuable in that respect (McNally, Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
A Summary Assessment
In assessing ALCAE's achievements beyond the provision of a professional forum, what can one conclude, especially in respect to its influence on formal policy making processes? Notwithstanding the enthusiasm with which ALCAE championed the cause of libraries, some have claimed that ALCAE had little influence on Government policy with respect to libraries and that the level of attention afforded CAE libraries was largely due to the members of the CACAE Library Sub-Committee, in particular its chair Professor Gordon Greenwood. Figures like Ward and Bryan, who by serving on official policy-making bodies were in a unique position to judge the effectiveness of ALCAE's campaigning, maintain quite strongly that it was other groups and individuals who achieved real outcomes in terms of winning funding and recognition of libraries.
Paradoxically it is Ward who was the most critical of ALCAE. In a revealing interview Ward alleges that, at best, ALCAE provided the "material to people who would succeed", people like Gordon Greenwood (Ward, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Interview, 1996). Ward argued that it was primarily the CACAE who was responsible for lifting the "status of the librarians within their institutions" and who influenced the government to provide the necessary financial support to raise libraries (Ward, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Interview, 1996). He argued that the part played by ALCAE "was more in bringing forward a more uniform and extensive sense of what was required for the information of the committee on which they would base their investigations as well as their conclusions" (Ward, Royal Melbourne Institute
60 of Technology, Interview, 1996).
Even this role was not considered by Ward to amount to much in the scheme of things. Although he conceded that other members of ALCAE thought otherwise, from his perspective as a member of both groups, he believed that from the point of view of the Library Sub-Committee, ALCAE was not a significant player:
I really think it wasn't a very important connection. ALCAE liked - and I don't mean this sarcastically - to think that they were appointing an ALCAE representative to the CACAE and I was for too many years the ALCAE nominee for it... This is basically very jaded, but the overall effect of ALCAE on the Commission was I think slight... I don't wish to diminish ALCAE, but I think I can objectively [say] that was so... I can't remember any other interaction between ALCAE and the Commission than through Tony Brown and myself, and our sense of what was the opinion of the other librarians. I don't even recall any significant bulk of correspondence between the ALCAE and the CACAE (Ward, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Interview, 1996).
But of course, ALCAE's direct link was necessarily and inevitably with the body appointed by the CACAE to deal with library issues: the Library Sub-Committee of the CACAE.
Ward believed that "more depended on the accent of individuals" (Ward, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Interview, 1996). These 'individuals' Ward speaks of include himself, Greenwood, and other members of the Library Sub-Committee. Ward asserted that the awarding of the third unmatched grant - which was arguably the single most important event of this period as far as college libraries were concerned - bore testimony to the influence of these individuals. His view was that ALCAE "really didn't have much to do with it" (Ward, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Interview, 1996). However in later submissions to government and in histories of the group, ALCAE often cited the winning of the $5 million third grant as its most successful lobbying accomplishment, and the clearest demonstration of its political skill and powers of persuasion. In one such submission, made to the Williams Committee's Inquiry into
61 Education and Training25, ALCAE stated: "The push by ALCAE and its successful case for further unmatched grants from the Government through the Commission of Advanced Education assisted in this development. With the special grant of 5 million dollars in 1973, the College Libraries made a great leap forward" (ALCAE, submission to Williams Committee, 11/7/77). Likewise in an article published some years later, Victor Crittenden made a similar claim:
A measure of ALCAE's success was the allocation of a special government grant of $5 million in 1973 to improve library collections in colleges. While this was essentially an attempt to redress past deficiencies, it was also evidence that the funding bodies had recognized the importance of improving libraries to meet the demands that would be placed on them (Crittenden, 1984, p. 184).
An assessment of relevant documentation and the testimony of those interviewed has led the author to conclude that the truth lies somewhere between these opposing judgments. Taking the third unmatched grant as a case in point, it seems that it was the combination of the efforts of a variety of players, including ALCAE, which culminated in the Commonwealth Government's decision to award the grant. Certainly there seems little doubt that the personal interest of Gordon Greenwood and other key members of the CACAE gave ALCAE's claims added weight. In particular Greenwood's patronage of research initiatives gave ALCAE members the opportunity to gather and present properly the facts to support their bid for additional funding, a situation which would have otherwise been impossible without the backing of the CACAE and its Library Sub- committee, given the financial limitations of ALCAE and the colleges at the time.26 Notwithstanding the contribution of these other players, however, the evidence presented above suggests that ALCAE not only played a key role in substantiating the need for a third grant, but also helped convince the incoming Labor Government - through its
25See page 94.
26Greenwood's service to the profession was formally acknowledged in 1984 when he was presented with the Redmond Barry Award by the Library Association of Australia (Bryan, 1988a, p. 64). This Award is conferred on lay people who have "rendered outstanding service to the promotion of a library or of libraries, to the [Library] Association, to the theory or practice of librarianship, or to an associated field such as bibliography" (Jones, v.3, 1985, 66-67).
62 persistent lobbying - of the need to honour its promise to provide this funding.
Over and above the awarding of the third unmatched grant, ALCAE clearly played an indispensable role in the policy-making process throughout this critical phase of sector development. There is no doubt that the College Commission relied on the expert judgment and input of practising college librarians in making assessments of need and in ensuring that dispensed monies were being spent in the most efficient and appropriate way. Moreover, as has been demonstrated, ALCAE made an important contribution to the development of CAE educational practice through its participation in research and promotional activity pertaining to the unique role of the college library. Finally the distinctive spirit of cohesiveness and cooperation fostered within ALCAE appears to have helped facilitate a more systematic and considered approach to library planning as well as enabling the group to lobby more effectively. A test of its effectiveness might be to ask what would have happened if ALCAE had not existed, if the College Commission's Library Sub-Committee had not thought such an association were necessary. While one can only speculate, the fact that ALCAE in one form or another was woven into the developments discussed above suggests that it is hard to envisage them having taken place without ALCAE playing an important formative role.
63 PART TWO
THE COMMITTEE OF AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARIANS
1965-1973
"That august, elite and unofficial organisation known as CAUL" (Borchardt and Bryan, 1979, p. 206).
64 CHAPTER 7 THE GROUP OF AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARIANS
Introduction
An examination of the Committee of Australian University Librarians (CAUL) from 1965 until 1974 reveals quite a different kind of organisation from ALCAE. As shall be seen, the contrasting styles of the two organisations in many ways reflected some fundamental differences between the two sectors of higher education at this time. These differences related principally to funding levels and attitudes towards governance. The colleges were forced to resort to specially ear-marked library grants to provide for basic undergraduate resources. The university libraries, however, were helped along considerably by the extra Commonwealth funding which flowed from the reforms stimulated by the 1957 Murray Report. The funds to allowed them to expand their basic teaching and research collections while generous capital grants allowed them to construct new buildings in which to house them. The Fifth Report of the AUC in 1972 noted that priority attention had been given to the extension of existing university libraries and the construction of the new ones, with $37 million having been expended between 1958 and 1972 (AUC, Fifth Report, 1972, p. 129). And this support for capital development was to continue for some time. In 1977 Harrison Bryan observed:
University libraries have suffered a complete metamorphosis over the last decade and a half. From a largely neglected and minor appendage of the universities, they have emerged as a major partner in the provision of bibliographical resources for the nation... there is no doubt that the first five post-Murray years were very exciting for university libraries. Accession rates shot up from an average of 10,300 volumes per library to 26,600 in 1962, and the number of staff more than doubled over this period (Bryan, 1977, p. 26, 31).
While the already established universities grew apace, the new universities that were founded during the sixties and seventies, such as Macquarie and LaTrobe (1964), Newcastle (1965), Flinders (1966), James Cook (1970), Griffith (1971), Deakin (1974), Murdoch and Wollongong (1975), were likewise relatively well catered for in terms of
65 the share of institutional funding provided for their libraries. These favourable circumstances gave the university librarians less of a reason to get together, as ALCAE had felt compelled to do, to fight for further increases in recognition and funding.
Apart from being relatively better off financially than the colleges, the universities were above all noted for having greater control over their affairs, of jealously guarding their autonomy and resisting interference from outside bodies, especially the Commonwealth funding authorities. Conversely the CAEs were not as free to determine their own affairs since their course profiles and operations were to a large extent determined by accreditation bodies and State Boards of Education.
These fundamental differences in approach between the two sectors strongly influenced the ways in which the two library groups functioned. The university librarians tended to mirror their parent institutions by desiring independence, preferring to develop their operations in their own way and to work through their own internal hierarchy to obtain funding. Like their Vice-Chancellors they wanted to be free to determine their own priorities and did not want any external bodies - CAUL included - to tell them how they should run their libraries. The support they received from within their own institutions only served to reinforce this stance.
Early Meetings of University Librarians (1928-1958)
The group of university librarians had been meeting on a national level for some forty years prior to the establishment of any similar group of college librarians. Described as "possibly the oldest voluntary meeting of libraries in Australia with a continuing history," CAUL - although not formally constituted under that title until 1965 - existed in one or more guises since the 1920's (Fielding, 1979, p. 15).
The first recorded meeting of University librarians took place in Melbourne in 1928 under the title of the Conference of Representatives of Australian University Libraries. At that meeting it was agreed that it would be "desirable" that "conferences of University librarians should be held from time to time to discuss matters affecting the
66 interests of the libraries of the Australian universities" (Conference of Representatives of Australian University Libraries, Minutes of Meeting, 22-23/8/28, CAUL files). This meeting was followed by a Second Inter-University Library Conference in August 1935. The main purpose of these two meetings, as with all subsequent gatherings, was to exchange information. Issues discussed ranged from the status of the university librarian and staff salaries, to loan conditions, statistics, and 'censorship of books'. A third Meeting of University Chief Librarians did not occur until 1954, with a fourth meeting taking place in the following year.
A noticeable characteristic of all these meetings was their informality, a feature which the majority of librarians were keen to preserve. In keeping with this wish it was decided at the 1955 meeting to "re-affirm the resolution taken at the previous meeting not to attempt to institute a regular conference of Chief Librarians of Australian Universities, but rather to meet when and as practicable for the interchange of views and information" (University Chief Librarians, Minutes of Meeting, 22/8/55, CAUL files).
During this early period most members had no desire to have such a group act on their behalf or seriously to consider coordinating university library policy at a national level. It was only at the next meeting in 1958 that the group found cause to consider becoming more formally organised in light of the changes that were occurring as a result of the Murray reforms and the increase in Federal interest in higher education.
At the time it seemed natural for the university librarians to make contact as a group with the Australian Universities Commission (AUC), given the fact that the Commission itself had just been established the year before in 1957. They believed that they could be of some assistance in offering advice to the AUC on matters concerning libraries. To this end, at the 1958 meeting, the university librarians moved to create a more formal group which would enable them to respond more effectively to the new developments in the funding and support of universities:
By way of introduction the Chairman said that the Vice-Chancellors' Conference in Montreal had enunciated the principle that cooperation is
67 necessary. In view of this and the setting up of a University Grants Commission for Australia it seemed desirable that a schedule of needs for the libraries should be drawn up and a preliminary statement presented to the Vice-Chancellor's Committee which would meet next February. A more elaborate statement could be drawn up later, and discussed at the LAA Conference next August.
It was decided to set up a University Librarians' Committee forthwith.
It was further decided that members of the Committee must work through their individual Vice-Chancellors; but a cooperative approach would be made to the development of university-library resources (University Librarians, Minutes of Meeting, 17/12/58, CAUL files).
Troubled Beginnings: The University Librarians' Committee (1959-1964)
The main librarian behind this push to create a more structured and politically active group was Dr Andrew Osborn from the University of Sydney (1958-1962). Described variously by his contemporaries as a "very interesting character", "outspoken", and one with "far-sighted ideas", Osborn's aspirations for the newly formed University Librarians' Committee were immediately at odds with his more conservatively minded colleagues. Harrison Bryan, who eventually succeeded Osborn at Sydney, recalled that "Andrew's was the first attempt to find a function for CAUL and to have it exercise influence... [and he] managed to put up their backs very satisfactorily" (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
Osborn started his professional career at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library in 1919. In the late 1920's he travelled to the United States where he acquired a job with the New York Public Library. After gaining his Doctorate from Columbia University, he moved on to Harvard University in 1938 where he eventually rose to the position of Associate Librarian. Osborn eventually returned to Australia, taking up the post of Associate Librarian at the University of Sydney in 1958 until becoming University Librarian the following year (Bryan, 1989, p. 171-172). Upon his return to Australia Osborn was keen to make his mark on the local scene and seized the opportunity of a
68 revitalised librarians' group to try and put into practice ideas fostered overseas.27
Once ensconced in the position of group chairman, Osborn took it upon himself to write, with what Bryan called "a degree of American brashness", a long letter to the AUC which outlined a series of ambitious programmes relating to libraries along with detailed estimates of the kind of financial commitment that he expected the AUC to furnish in support of these initiatives. Osborn's letter was dated 14 January 1959 and was headed "University libraries and the University Grants Commission". The opening section reads:
The university libraries of the country are desirous of developing a cooperative programme to present to the University Grants Commission rather than making individual requests through their universities. In this way full regard can be paid to the planned development of resources on a national basis; in fact, the university librarians want their research collections to grow in relation to the Commonwealth National Library, the CSIRO, and the major public libraries, as well as any other research collections.
The principle which the university libraries would like to present for consideration and action is that purchases which would be difficult for the individual university library to manage without hurting the regular book budget might justifiably be underwritten by the University Grants Commission. This principle entails that the normal development of a
27Andrew Osborn's eagerness to champion the cause of university librarianship was matched by the enthusiasm with which he set about reforming Fisher Library at Sydney University. The huge mark he made during his time as University Librarian is best summed up by his successor, Harrison Bryan:
Andrew arrived in the immediate aftermath of the Murray Report, the acceptance of which by the Commonwealth brought a flood of federal funds to rescue the floundering Australian universities. He was the man for the hour. His approach to the Library's multitude of problems was far reaching but uneven in its application. He was brilliantly successful on the accommodation side, the new Fisher [Library] certainly establishing a new benchmark for university library buildings in the Antipodes. He also introduced significant improvements in library routine, especially cataloguing and he did grasp, or at least take a tentative grip of, the nettle of decentralisation; but on the whole he was impatient with administration and he bitterly begrudged any expenditure on staff that might impinge on his major concern, that of developing the collections. Here his industry was astonishing. It had taken the Library something more than a century to grow to 403,265 volumes by the end of 1957. In five years to the end of 1962 the total rose to 774,556 accessioned items. In addition, as calculated on my arrival, there was the best part of 250,000 further volumes awaiting sorting for addition to the collection (Bryan, 1994, p. 50).
69 library's resources should come through its own book funds; but the extraordinary demands which arise from time to time and are difficult or impossible to finance through the regular budget, could properly be met by Federal funds. Without such special support Australian research workers will, in a variety of ways, be without facilities that ought to be at their disposal and which are available to their colleagues in Europe and America.
The remaining part of Osborn's letter contains a "22-point programme" of initiatives which, he declared, "are especially deserving of consideration by the Commission". These include a policy whereby the AUC would provide an amount of between two hundred and five thousand pounds to a university adding a new academic field, special funding to cover "retrospective needs", expensive periodical subscriptions, and other "major research tools" so as to "leave regular book funds free for the normal development of the bookstock"; national projects that could be "underwritten by the Commission" such as the microfilming of "archival material relating to Australia"28 and the production of multiple copies of heavily used books "as a means of reducing the rate of student failure".
Osborn also recommended Commonwealth subsidy of new technologies of the kind not normally seen in Australia:
6. Blow-ups from photocopies
While research is helped by photoduplication, scholars frequently require blow-ups for their work. Hence ready and economical means of providing blow-ups should be considered. The Commission might therefore underwrite the cost of importing a machine (such as Copyflo which costs $92,000) to facilitate this activity.
7. Microfilming of major Australian newspapers
28Such a project was already underway in the UK and involved the Commonwealth National Library (then effectively the National Library) and the Public Library of New South Wales. The Australian Joint Copying Project, as it was known, was initiated in 1945 to microfilm records relating to Australia held in the UK (Jones, v.3, 1985, 45-47).
70 This country has lapsed behind Great Britain, Canada and the United States in microfilming its newspaper. History faculties would like to have some 20 to 30 Australian newspapers reproduced for their use. Because of university interest, this part of the newspaper programme might be supported by the Commission, leaving the larger question of local newspapers to be covered in other ways.
Among Osborn's more novel recommendations was for a "television-facsimile- reproduction network," which he asserted would make possible "reading at a distance" between country research libraries. Based on a pilot project carried out the University of Virginia, Osborn believed that such a facility would be of "inestimable value to Australian universities" where the "resources of one would be immediately available to all."
At a meeting of university librarians held on 24 August 1959, Andrew Osborn reported to his colleagues that he had received a reply to his letter to the AUC in which the Commission had "[expressed] pleasure at the possibility of a cooperative approach among university librarians to their joint problems". Osborn went on to say that at the dinner preceding the present meeting, his Vice-Chancellor, Professor Stephen Roberts, had made the suggestion "that the [University Librarians] Committee should meet the Universities Commission in December". Osborn then asked his colleagues what they thought of Roberts' suggestion and, should they agree to make such an approach to the AUC, whether it should "be made through the respective Vice-Chancellors".
Unfortunately none of those interviewed by the author who were present at this meeting could recall the details of the discussion that ensued, although all indicated that they would have at best responded very cautiously to Osborn's proposition. The minutes of the meeting, however, record that "after discussion" Osborn asked members if they would be "agreeable if he as Chairman were to write to [the Chairman of the AUC] Sir Leslie Martin and see if the Commission would like to meet with the Committee". Members finally agreed to Osborn's suggested course of action on the basis that other inter-university groups already had "direct access to the Commission". The meeting therefore resolved that "the Chairman should write and say Professor Roberts had opened up the possibility of the Commission's meeting with the University librarians and seek
71 such a meeting" (University Chief Librarians, Minutes of Meeting, 24/8/59, CAUL files).
Osborn appeared determined to have the university librarians play a direct role in the policy-making process by whatever means. "It goes right back to Andrew's feelings that you could 'crash through'", observed Bryan, "as his experience in America suggested he could" (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). However according to Bryan his attempts to have direct dealings with the AUC clearly "angered" the Australian Vice- Chancellors' Committee (AVCC), the peak body representing the interests of universities nationally (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
The Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee
Australian Vice-Chancellors started meeting on a formal basis from 1920 as a group entitled, Advisory Standing Committee of Australian Universities. In 1935 the group changed its name to the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee. The original aims of this group were to "collect information, make recommendations about co-ordination of educational requirements, promote inter-university conferences and an exchange of views, compile a year book..., act as a medium of communication between Australian universities and overseas organisations, consider matters referred by constituent members and promote common action" (AVCC, 1995, p. 2). However with the increased involvement of the Commonwealth in higher education from the late 1950s, the AVCC began to see itself as as playing a more central role in the development higher education policy. In recognition of this emerging role, the AVCC relocated its secretariat from Melbourne to the Australian Capital Territory in 1966. This was followed in 1968 by the issuing of a list objectives which included the formulation of "advice to governing bodies [on matters of common concern]" and making "public pronouncements" concerning the AVCC's position on sector-wide policy matters (Auchmuty, 1970, 276).
The Vice-Chancellors saw Osborn's action as interfering in the universities' right to determine their own priorities at a time when there was general uneasiness about a possible diminution of institutional autonomy with the creation of a Universities Commission and the greater involvement by the Commonwealth through its new
72 provision for funding universities. In this new and uncertain environment the Vice- Chancellors believed that it was important to speak with one voice in its dealings with the Commonwealth. Independent action by sector interest groups would only serve to weaken the authority of the Vice-Chancellors in the policy arena. Auchmuty,29 the Vice- Chancellor of the University of Newcastle, described how the AVCC was keen to assert its influence at this important phase in the development of higher education:
The AVCC was particularly and naturally concerned at its own role in any new arrangements established by the Commonwealth as a result of the [Murray] report, and affirmed its conviction that a strong Vice- Chancellors' Committee was a necessary part of the new proposals; claimed that the AVCC was a most valuable sounding board (even if in many matters it could not be in a position of a spokesman for the several governing bodies); and that it was the proper place where views could be interchanged and the best common solution be hammered out. In addition, the Committee affirmed the opinion that it must protect and advance the principles of university administration; become powerful and independent enough to be the source of advice to the Commonwealth on university policy; become the central point for the collection of information and planned development, and be the recognized channel for communication and representation between the [Australian Universities Commission] and the university governing bodies (Auchmuty, 1970, p. 262).
At a meeting of the AVCC in October 1959, the Vice-Chancellors raised their concerns regarding the university librarians' intentions to meet with the Commission. The consensus of the meeting was that there should be no direct communication between the Commission and the group of university librarians:
The Chairman made the point that individual universities must control matters which affect their budget and consequently a separate submission to the Australian Universities Commission by university librarians would be unacceptable.
It was agreed that co-ordination of university libraries was a matter for the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee and that financial autonomy would be jeopardised if this were not so (AVCC, Minutes of Meeting, 28- 29/10/59).
29James Auchmuty was Vice-Chancellor at the University of Newcastle from 1965 to 1971 and Chairman of the AVCC from 1969 to 1971.
73 The Vice-Chancellors therefore agreed that:
A reply should be sent [to the group of university librarians] saying that a separate submission to the Australian Universities' Commission was not allowable, but that the Committee would be prepared to consider a report examining the extent to which university libraries could be co-ordinated and rationalized, and the Committee suggested that the Association of University Librarians be invited to produce such a report, and the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee would welcome a preliminary report from the Association in time for consideration at its meeting on 3 February, 1960 (AVCC, Minutes of Meeting, 28-29/10/59).
In response to this request by the Vice-Chancellors, in January 1960 Osborn forwarded a copy of his AUC submission the Secretary of the AVCC, Brigadier R. G. H. Irving:
On behalf of the University Librarians' Committee I am forwarding the document you requested relating to ways and means by which the university libraries can cooperate in the long-needed development of book and periodical resources. The University Librarians will be happy to supply further information or to act on any part or parts of the suggested programme. We believe much benefit can ensue from co-operative action even if much of the progress must be made by the institutions individually. We shall welcome a formulation of policy to guide us in practice... (Letter from Osborn to Irving, 26/1/60, CAUL files).
At the next meeting of the AVCC, held in February 1960, it was noted that further consideration of Osborn's submission would occur at a later meeting "to enable Vice-Chancellors to discuss the proposals with their own librarians." At this point the Vice-Chancellors again made the point that "the only approach from universities to the Australian Universities' Commission for finance or other matters was to be through Vice- Chancellors" (AVCC, Minutes of Meeting, 3,4-5/2/60).
However when discussed in detail at a meeting later that year, Osborn's proposals met with a largely critical reaction from the Vice-Chancellors. They noted for example, presumably having been briefed by their librarians, that "it would be impossible even to
74 consider many of the recommendations at the present time"; that "care" should be taken "in considering the proposed use of the Copyflo equipment since the use envisaged in the Librarians' report could amount to breaches of the Copyright Law"; and that "the request for a television link between universities was fantastic, and that its cost would be astronomical" (AVCC, Minutes of Meetings, 30/6 & 1/7/60).
However the Vice-Chancellors appeared far more concerned that these matters had been raised with the AUC than they did with the substance of Osborn's proposals. As an indication of the level of feeling on the subject, the AVCC ended its deliberations with yet another warning to the librarians: "For the record it again stated categorically that the only approach which the librarians should employ to deal with outside bodies such as the Australian Universities Commission was through their own Vice-Chancellors" (AVCC, Minutes of Meetings, 30/6 & 1/7/60).30
The Librarians' Response to the AVCC. As the one whose idea it was to communicate directly with the AUC, it was Osborn who naturally bore the brunt of criticism from his colleagues for having provoked the displeasure of the Vice-Chancellors. Bryan said of the incident: "Unfortunately his approach on our behalf to the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee (AVCC) had caused individual Vice-Chancellors to take fright, or offence, or both" (Bryan, 1994, p. 197).
The episode caused considerable embarrassment to the librarians. Eoin Wilkinson, who later became University Librarian at Macquarie University31, said that at the time some of Osborn's ideas, especially his proposal for a "television-facsimile-reproduction network", were "just laughed out of court". These "grandiose ideas", continued
30It appears that the university librarians decided to abandon their idea of meeting with the AUC because of pressure from the AVCC. The author could find no evidence of any meeting taking place between the university librarians and the Commission or any further correspondence between these two parties on this or any other matter.
31Eoin Wilkinson held the position of Sydney Services Librarian at the University of New South Wales from 1960 before becoming Deputy Librarian at the University of Adelaide in 1962. In 1971 he was appointed to the position of University Librarian at Macquarie University, in which capacity he served until his retirement in 1987.
75 Wilkinson, "weren't well received at all, and that was a big set-back I think for CAUL" (Wilkinson, Macquarie University, Interview, 1996). Victor Crittenden, then working at the University of New England and who attended some of these early meetings on behalf of his University Librarian, F. H. Rogers, recalled vividly that on one occasion Osborn was heard to have said "'We shouldn't be talking about inter-library loans as such we should be talking about facsimile transmission of documents'" (Crittenden, Canberra College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).32 Crittenden said that in response, "all the others laughed at him and said 'oh that's sort of science fiction sort of stuff'" (Crittenden, Canberra College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996)33. Another of his contemporaries, Dietrich Borchardt, accused him of being a "bad politician" by writing to "all and sundry," who, Borchardt believed, simply "tore up his letters" (Borchardt, La Trobe University, Interview, 1996).
However it was the reaction received from the AVCC that attracted most criticism from his colleagues. Ted Flowers34 (Librarian, University of Newcastle) believed that it was above all the disrespect he displayed towards the Vice-Chancellors, by seeking to by-pass them, that really alienated Osborn from his colleagues: "That's the sort of thing Osborn would have done, treated them as friends or even as inferiors, some of the Vice- Chancellors. That would have been the problem. Andrew would have hit them with New York Public Library and Harvard and God help us!" (Flowers, University of Newcastle, Interview, 1996).
The university librarians felt Osborn had not fully consulted them and were moreover, like the Vice-Chancellors, opposed to the idea of such a group being used to instigate any action that would limit their own internal decision-making. Such action, it
32Crittenden worked at the University of New England between 1957 to 1968, serving in a number of positions including Acting University Librarian in 1961 and Associate Librarian from 1960 to 1968.
33Of course now that facsimile transmission is a routine phenomenon in libraries this incident suggests how far-sighted Osborn was by responding imaginatively, if prematurely, to the possibilities for libraries inherent in recent technological developments that allowed for a primitive form of fax.
34Flowers was University Librarian at Newcastle from 1961 to 1988.
76 was felt, would be counterproductive and undermine their relationship with their own Vice-Chancellors, the maintenance of which was essential in order to assure the wellbeing of their own libraries. One of Osborn's most strident critics was John Metcalfe (Librarian, University of New South Wales). Wilkinson remarks:
I would have heard a bit about it from when I worked at the University of New South Wales with John Metcalfe who was University Librarian... Certainly John Metcalfe had very strong views about Dr Osborn's attempts to use CAUL as a means of influencing Vice-Chancellors and in his view that was disastrous (Wilkinson, Macquarie University, Interview, 1996).
Allan Horton who was at the time Metcalfe's deputy (though soon after this succeeded him as University Librarian)35 recalled how Osborn and Metcalfe were frequently at "loggerheads". According to Horton, Metcalfe "reckoned [Osborn] was making commitments to the AVCC and other bodies which he had not discussed with the librarians of the other universities" (Horton, University of New South Wales, Interview, 1996).
In the words of Harrison Bryan, this "smart slap over the wrists from the AVCC" resulting from the Osborn affair was to have "a lasting impact on the group of university librarians" (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). From this point on, he said, CAUL was "very cautious about trying to exercise direct influence on the AUC" (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). Brian Southwell36 observed that: "In view of the conflicting signals it had received, it is not surprising that the group did not make an opportunity to deal directly with the Universities Commission (Southwell, 1988, p. 166). As a result of this serious set-back some, like Bryan, became "a little cynical" about what such a group could be expected to achieve in future. Bryan described how this series of events "led the thing to fall into a hole" for CAUL:
I suppose for that reason I never had a great ambition for CAUL. I never saw it [as having] a great function. I was much more interested in having a
35Allan Horton was University Librarian at New South Wales from 1966 to 1988.
36Southwell was University Librarian at Monash from 1972-1988.
77 committee like the [CACAE] library committee; I was sure that that would exercise much more influence (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
The next meeting of the University Librarians' Committee, which was set down for August 1961, nearly did not occur because of Osborn's attitude. It is interesting to note that Osborn was not present at this meeting. Victor Crittenden, who attended the 1961 CAUL meeting while serving as Acting University Librarian at the University of New England, observed that Osborn had distanced himself from the group by this stage:
I remember at one stage there was a great argument... a disagreement, between Andrew Osborn [when he was chairman of the university librarians' group] and some of the university librarians. [As a result he] completely withdrew, he didn't formally withdraw [from the post of Chairman] he just wouldn't do anything. And I remember when we were having the Library Association conference in Melbourne in 1961, when I was Acting Librarian at New England. I was going to the conference and intending to attend CAUL and there wasn't any notice or any [details made available] about it. So I rang Lodewycks,37 the Librarian in Melbourne, and asked him what was happening about our CAUL meeting, and he said that he didn't know whether there was going to be one because Andrew hadn't done anything about it. So I said to him well as the meeting is taking place at your university [why don't you organise the meeting]. And so Lodewycks did call a meeting of the university librarians [at which] Andrew Osborn didn't appear (Crittenden, Canberra College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
The minutes of this meeting reveal a more cautious group, anxious to clarify the terms upon which members could act collectively and the importance of proper consultation between members:
Status and functions of University Librarians' Committee
It was decided that the status of the Committee should continue to be an informal one and that a Chairman should be elected at each annual meeting to hold office for the ensuing year. While meeting informally, the Committee should act collectively whenever such a course was agreed upon by its members. Otherwise, individual members should act only
37Axel Lodewyks was University Librarian at Melbourne from 1956 to 1973.
78 through their respective vice-chancellors (University Librarians' Committee, Minutes of Meeting, 20/8/61, CAUL files).
Osborn resigned from his position of University Librarian at Sydney in 1962 and returned to North America to become Professor at the Graduate Library School at the University of Pittsburgh. From Pittsburgh he became Foundation Dean of the School of Library and Information Science at the University of Western Ontario (Bryan, 1989, p. 172). It appears that his decision to resign from Sydney was motivated, at least in part, by the resistance to his plans for university librarianship in Australia as indicated by Borchardt in an issue of the News Sheet of the University Libraries Section of the Library Association of Australia:
The resignation of Dr. Andrew Osborn, his public protest against the conditions under which students of the University of Sydney have to study and his condemnation of the inadequate provisions for the acquisition of books in Australian university libraries, have been reported in most metropolitan papers (though not yet in Hobart). It has been impossible to check the accuracy of the press reports but whatever Dr. Osborn may have said, his act of resignation will be regretted by the Australian library world. During his tenure of the University of Sydney Librarianship (September 1958 until this month), he planned the new Fisher Library on lines which are undoubtedly revolutionary for Australia... It is regrettable that Dr. Osborn has decided to return to the U.S.A. for, under different circumstances, he might have provided a great deal of stimulus for Australia's university and research libraries (Borchardt, 1962, [p. 1]).
79 CHAPTER 8 CAUL FINDS A ROLE AND A NAME
The Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee position on the Meetings of Inter- University Groups
The cautiousness of approach adopted by CAUL following the provocation of Osborn's attempts to force it into vigorous external action, was a response not merely to Osborn. Rumours had begun to circulate in 1961 that the AVCC was planning to force inter- university groups such as librarians, registrars, counsellors and so on, to stop meeting:
I think the AVCC were very reluctant to allow them to meet at all and tried to stop many groups from meeting by refusing to provide the funding for them to actually meet. [This] was certainly the case, I would have thought, through the fifties and sixties (Karmel, Vice-Chancellor, Interview, 1996)38.
Some knowledge of a meeting of the AVCC held a few months earlier than the 1961 CAUL meeting in Melbourne at which there was further criticism of the university librarians, may have well contributed to the university librarians' apprehensions. Under the heading of "Library Conferences" the Vice-Chancellors complained of the "unnecessarily large number of meetings of librarians being called", and agreed to institute the following formal guidelines which included a requirement that any group seeking to hold meetings must first seek permission from the AVCC:
Conferences (Generally): It was agreed that there was a tendency for too many conferences to be held, and that while Vice-Chancellors did not wish to interfere with conferences which might be necessary, it should have some control over those which did take place.
It recorded that it would be happy to support an official Conference of Librarians once every two years, and that it would agree to pool the
38Peter Karmel was Vice-Chancellor at Flinders University from 1966 to 1971 and Vice- Chancellor at Australian National University from 1982 to 1987. Karmel also served on the Martin Committee (1963-1965), was Chair of the Australian Universities Commission (1971-1977), and later of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC)(1977-1982).
80 expenses of such a Conference.
In order to put the matter on an official level the Committee determined:- To control the number of conferences held in future.... That to permit of this action being taken, groups desiring to hold conferences should submit formal application to the Australian Vice- Chancellors' Committee giving the date, place, agenda and proposed numbers to attended the conference.... (AVCC, Minutes of Meeting, 15/12/60).
The librarians were not the only group causing problems for the Vice- Chancellors. Not surprisingly, with the expansion of the sector various groups had begun to mobilise, and like the librarians, attempted to deal directly with funding authorities in order to pursue their respective interests. In fact, according to one librarian, the University Registrars posed more of a problem at this time. It is interesting to note that the minutes of the December 1960 meeting of the AVCC cited above refer to a "memo sent to Registrars" on the subject of restricting meetings. Denis Richardson, who later became the Librarian at Melbourne University39 recalled how at the time the Registrars "were almost prohibited by the universities from meeting together" (Richardson, University of Melbourne, Interview, 1996). Frank Hambly40 (Secretary, AVCC), and Peter Karmel, (who had served both as a Vice-Chancellor as well as chairman of the AUC) each recount, from their own perspectives, the main concerns of the Vice- Chancellors and the AVCC's growing preoccupation with finding ways of controlling this trend:
Well they didn't want these groups to communicate with governments and they didn't want the groups to be used to put pressure onto themselves individually in their own institutions. They wouldn't have been very receptive to a resolution from CAUL that universities should devote 10% of their grants to libraries, that sort of thing... I think that the Vice- Chancellors individually have enough problems within universities resisting the pressures of government from all round the place. They were never really too enthusiastic about anything which might raise the temperature in certain areas... I mean the Vice-Chancellors have always
39Denis Richardson was Deputy National Librarian from 1970 to 1974 before becoming University Librarian at Melbourne (1974-1991).
40Frank Hambly was Secretary of the AVCC from 1966 to 1996.
81 been very suspicious of these groups going off and dealing direct with Government because they engage in such special pleading that it upsets university priorities for their own development...
The librarians clearly have an interest in promoting the development of their libraries, but universities mightn't put that in their priorities. In those days in the submissions which universities made to the Universities Commission, they did have to prioritise their own developments and the Vice-Chancellors [were concerned that] the Librarians or the Deans of engineering [might try] to upset those sorts of priorities. And the Vice- Chancellors, even though they hadn't then become spokespersons for the university system, were still very jealous of their privacy in developing their university policy. And they thought it wasn't good cricket for any other group to be going around behind their backs or over their heads or whatever you want to say (Hambly, Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, Interview, 1996).
I think there was strong resistance from the Vice-Chancellors to bodies like CAUL making direct approaches... And the VC's didn't particularly want pressure put on themselves by particular lobby groups in the universities... The issue of guidelines for cross university bodies... was an active issue all the time I think [and] they kept talking about it and drawing up guidelines and occasionally modifying the guidelines. As I said earlier, there was general resistance to having a whole swag of groups of librarians, of student counsellors, public relations people and so on, meeting all the time and particularly formulating resolutions which were being dumped on the AVCC table. That irritated the Vice-Chancellors and therefore they tried to control that (Karmel, Vice-Chancellor, Interview, 1996).
Revivification of the Group of University Librarians as CAUL (1965)
When asked whether he felt the AVCC actions influenced CAUL's subsequent development, Bryan responded: "I think it was a factor: it was certainly a very deciding factor as far as I was concerned" (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). Such was the shock of this encounter with the AVCC, that the university librarians suffered what Bryan described as a "temporary eclipse" (Bryan, 1977, p. 22). As mentioned in the last chapter, because of Osborn's attitude as thwarted Chair, CAUL nearly didn't meet in 1961. The group of librarians however did meet again in 1962 and 1963, although no
82 meeting took place in 1964.41 But clearly there continued to be a sense that some kind of formal forum was needed nationally for the university librarians. As a result a meeting was called in August 1965 to explore the reconstitution of the group. According to Bryan, who succeeded Osborn as Chair, the decision to reconstitute the group was made "with the conscious intention of not ruffling the AVCC's feathers" (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). It was also decided to give the group a new name:
It was resolved that the group formally constitute itself as a committee to be known as the Committee of Australian University Librarians (CAUL). It was resolved that the membership of CAUL should be those University Librarians whose institutions had representation on the Australian Vice- Chancellors' Committee (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 22/8/65).
In sharp contrast to the externally active style of the group Osborn attempted to create, the new committee under Bryan's chairmanship did not set out to "exercise much influence" but instead remained "fairly internal" in its outlook (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). To reflect this, the organisation of CAUL was deliberately kept simple and very informal. In fact little was resolved in terms of the group's structure and governance at this inaugural meeting, apart from an agreement that the "chairmanship of CAUL should be according to an order determined by the establishment dates of the universities" and that "the term of office of each chairman should be for two years" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 22/8/65). Further formalisation was viewed by most members, including Bryan, as both unnecessary as well as undesirable given the AVCC stance on formal organisations of interest groups within the universities.
Any consideration of communicating directly with funding authorities was treated with the utmost caution and was usually avoided altogether accept on an informal basis. "There was a danger", said Richardson, "[that] if CAUL started to get too assertive outside, they would actually be clamped down totally and told to stop meeting":
So I think [that] they had to exercise a certain care in how far they went
41The author could not discover, from minutes of meetings around this time or from any other source, the reason why it was decided not to hold a meeting in 1964.
83 and that they should in fact, rather than try and act externally, try and adopt a common view upon something which they would then go back and convey to their masters to take to the AVCC... Certainly there was no thought about dealing directly with the AVCC, with Hambly or anything (Richardson, University of Melbourne, Interview, 1996).
As Chairman in the early 1960s, Bryan remembers "hoping to meet the Chairman of the AUC, but only on a social occasion" (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). Bryan for one was keen to discourage any attempts to make direct contact at this stage. For example a suggestion made at the 1965 meeting that a letter be sent to the Commission was subsequently rejected. The Committee had wished to:
... draw the attention of the Commission to the fact that: a) new universities should have working collections processed and ready for use in their libraries before they open, and b) the funds to purchase the initial book and periodical stock should be drawn from capital expenditure and not from recurrent grants (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 22/8/65).
Among the reasons given for deciding not to take this matter up with the AUC was that "the Chairman had only recently advised the Australian Universities Commission of the formation of CAUL and thought it might not be tactful to follow this immediately with various requests on policy matters" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 3/11/65). It appears however that the reason for this action had more to do with prevailing sensitivities about being seen to overstep the boundaries established by the Vice- Chancellors. When questioned on this incident Bryan responded by saying: "I must have been chairman at that time. That sounds like me... I am surprised that we even thought [of] that. I hope I voted against that proposition. It was my conviction that it might have done more harm than good acting as a pressure group" (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
Bryan recalled how he was always worried that CAUL would be perceived in this way:
I can remember that there was a universities conference late in my period in Sydney and I was representing the Sydney Association of University
84 Teachers. The conference was held over in the University of New South Wales. Rupert Myers, the Vice-Chancellor, started off by saying that this was an open conference but that he didn't want too many 'RSPCA' [Royal Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals] statements. And there was a nice Vice-Chancellor from Auckland who said the library had such an insatiable demand for funds that one realised that one could never meet [it], so what one did was fix everything else up and give [the Library] 'all the rest'. He got a murmur of agreement and I couldn't resist (I was the delegate of FAUSA42 [at] that meeting and not representing CAUL) leaping up and saying, "well that's great but that means we get the dregs always, and if we are so important maybe you should start with us". And all that Myers said was "ah the RSPCA is up again". So we were in danger of being seen as a lobby group (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
Because of this attitude, some have said that CAUL was never seen as a "deliberate creation" (Borchardt, LaTrobe University, Interview, 1996); that it had to be "created through the back door" (Horton, University of New South Wales, Interview, 1996). The implication was that it was forced to keep a low profile with its members having to resign themselves to the fact that CAUL could not at this stage be regarded as an official mouthpiece for universities libraries.
CAUL's Informal Modus Operandi
The Round Robin Letters System. What grew out of this crisis, however, was a style of operation which was to become the groups most distinguishing - and some would say only useful - feature, namely the system of Round Robin letters. This system enabled the librarians to canvass the views of colleagues by circulating a letter to all members. Derek Fielding43 (University of Queensland) has noted that CAUL was characterised by,
... a constant exchange of information on topics of interest among
42FAUSA or the Federation of Australian University Staff Association was a national association whose stated aims were "to promote work of universities and colleges of Australia; to preserve their independence and integrity; and to promote the rights, interests and welfare of the members of their staff" (Einhorn, 1985, p. 204).
43Derek Fielding was University Librarian at Queensland from 1965-1992. He became Pro- Vice-Chancellor, Academic Services, at Queensland in 1992.
85 university librarians by means of round robin letters. Any University Librarian who wants views on a particular topic or problem simply initiates a letter to all members and in due course receives comments or information from all of them (Fielding, 1979, p. 17).
This method of corresponding first arose as a means of safeguarding against individuals, like Osborn, communicating with outside authorities unbeknownst to fellow members. The decision to take this kind of approach seems to have been first made at the 1961 meeting where the minutes stated that "all correspondence between members should be in the form of circular letters addressed to all other members for information" (University Librarians' Committee, Minutes of Meeting, 20/8/61, CAUL files). Wilkinson recalled the background to this decision:
[The Round Robins] grew out of the difficulties between Osborn and Metcalfe, in that Metcalfe wanted to be sure that individuals were not writing off in the name of CAUL... to the AVCC or to the Australian Universities Commission. So this protocol grew up in which you sent a copy of your letter to each of the other university librarians and in time... that grew into a much more structured sort of Round Robin system for technical and professional matters (Wilkinson, Macquarie University, Interview, 1996).
When asked what CAUL's main function was, most, if not all, of those interviewed pointed to the Round Robin letters. Neil Radford's remarks are typical44:
Its main function... was what we call the Round Robins; the information exchange which is still carried on by e-mail these days. Where, if you needed to know something, you could send it around and people could give you the benefit of their advice and experience, and you could contribute the benefit and advice of your experience. So that was the main thing that CAUL had going for it in those days (Radford, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
To many this type of correspondence epitomised CAUL's informal nature; the way in which members preferred to use the group as a means of simply exchanging
44Neil Radford was Librarian at University of Sydney, from 1980 to 1996.
86 information and ideas of a mostly practical nature.45 At the very least the value of the Round Robins lay in assisting the librarians to make a judgment as to how best to approach a particular issue or problem or to verify that the approach taken in their own institution was consistent with how things were being done elsewhere:
I thought it extremely valuable for the information exchange but also extremely valuable to me in confirming that I wasn't going off on stupid tracks in what I was doing in Newcastle... When I was asked advice I considered it. I had a high opinion of most of the people in [CAUL] so they were a great help to me, both in my professional career as an individual, I suppose, but also as university librarian. To my staff the CAUL correspondence was, you couldn't describe it as bible exactly, but it was there for people to look at if they wanted to check on problems they had (Flowers, University of Newcastle, Interview, 1996).
The bulk of correspondence, and also meeting agenda items, were taken up with discussions on what has been variously described by some as "trivial things" or "minutiae" (Horton, University of New South Wales, Interview, 1996; Steele46, Australian National
45The Round Robins were also renowned for being frank, entertaining, and revealing of the writer's personality. Leonard Jolley (University of Western Australia) was considered by his colleagues as being one of the more lively contributors as noted in an article by Bryan and Borchardt written in honour of Jolley following his retirement:
When the question of indexing CAUL correspondence was being discussed, Leonard commented forthrightly and wisely: "If we are thinking not of the past but of the future, I am sure it would inhibit expressions of opinion, which at the moment circulate amongst a very small group, if each of us thought that what was written might be reproduced at a later date. I am sure we all mean what we say, but we say it differently if we are saying it to colleagues or if we are saying it to outsiders".
Nevertheless, one of us does not mind having Leonard's personal opinion made public: "My communications seems to upset Dietrich. His simply puzzle me . . . I would have thought that I was saying the same thing as Dietrich and cannot understand why my communications give him a bellyache unless perhaps he has a natural tendency this way''. He has not - and he (and both of us) can at least say that of the many items of CAUL correspondence that cross our table in an ever increasing volume, Leonard's was always the one item that was read. It was unfailingly to the point, sufficiently cryptic to make us sit up and think and free from conventional sentiment and false pretension. It was also, as the few samples illustrate, highly idiosyncratic and personal. Behind every letter we can see Leonard the man, the genuine scholar and the concerned organizer of library services in an academic community (Borchardt & Bryan, 1979, p. 210).
46Colin Steele was Deputy University Librarian at the Australian National University from 1976 to 1980 before becoming University Librarian in 1980.
87 University, Interview, 1996). However many of those interviewed, especially younger librarians who were new to their posts, did emphasise the usefulness of these exchanges which covered a multitude of administrative issues and problems. A review of correspondence between 1963 and 1987 revealed essentially two types of topics. The first related to matters of a purely administrative housekeeping or technical nature. Typical of this category included subjects such as: "Loans of rare and valuable books", "Unsupervised student assistants in departmental libraries", "Xerox charges", "Library hours", "Library fines", "Carpet trolleys", "Overtime rates", "Theft detection devices", "Dogs and children in libraries", "Lice and mites", "Japanese/Chinese typewriters", "Post office delays", "In-service training", "Unions", "Professional reference assistance at night and on weekends", "Donations", "Tax incentives for donors", "Spine labels", "Study leave", "Noise in the library", "Automation", and "Interlibrary loans via Telex".
The second category related more to fundamental managerial issues which, according to those interviewed, provided information that was invariably used in preparing internal submissions. These topics include: "Exchange of budget information and library provision", "AUC capital grants for books", "Salaries of university staff", "AUC triennial submissions", "Circulation statistics", and "Library Budgets".
Library Statistics. Another important function that CAUL assumed at this time was the compilation of university library statistics. This task was taken on by Dietrich Borchardt and the statistics he compiled were published on an annual basis, first in the Library Association's Universities and College Libraries Section News Sheet (1960 to 1969) and then in the journal, Australian Academic and Research Libraries (AARL) which succeeded the News Sheet in 1970 and which Borchardt edited (Borchardt, 1988)47. However unlike ALCAE, which frequently used statistical data to press its case externally, the university librarians restricted their application to an institutional level, for reasons that have already been explained:
47Statistics for college libraries were compiled by ALCAE from 1969 and were included in AARL from 1971 (Ward & Brown, 1977, p. 125, 141).
88 Developments such as the CAUL Statistics became widely known and used but on specific matters it was rather more a case of the university librarians being able to argue within their institutions that the CAUL view or practice on a matter was such and such as opposed to, for example, a view someone was advancing based on their (limited) first-hand experience somewhere or a one-off practice they [had] heard about (Stockdale48, Flinders University, Letter to author, 28/6/96).
With the extent of its activities thus deliberately restricted, CAUL evolved into what many of its members described as nothing more than a kind of 'club'; a group that mainly existed for its congeniality, as a forum in which a professional identity could be fostered, and above all for the opportunity it afforded to exchange information on administrative and technical matters, via the Round Robin letters system:
I suppose I've used the word club deliberately because it did seem to me that CAUL really was essentially two things in those days. One, the meeting, and at the beginning of my time it was only an annual meeting. It was a chance to get together, to have dinner, to have a reasonably informal agenda. There was nothing that was binding on anybody, or nobody, I suspect, dared to suggest that a resolution of CAUL might be binding on anybody. And it was congenial, a chance to discuss things informally with colleagues, to talk about matters of the day in university libraries. That would be my overall impression at that stage.
The other side of CAUL, which certainly I found very useful in my early days as university librarian, was the CAUL letters system, which, with only a group of 19, certainly worked very well. It meant that if you had a problem in an area you could get out a letter, a broadcast letter to the others, and invariably you would get half a dozen very helpful responses. So that collegiate spirit was there amongst a relatively small group... (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).49
By engaging in this kind of purely professional activity CAUL not only satisfied the needs and expectations of most of its members, but perhaps more importantly ensured its continuance because this format suggested functions in conformity with the will of its
48Noel Stockdale was founding University Librarian at Flinders University from 1963 to 1987.
49Eric Wainwright was University Librarian at the University of Adelaide from 1981 to 1988. In 1988 he was appointed Deputy-Director of the National Library of Australia and will take up the position of Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Academic Support, at James Cook University in 1997.
89 masters: I was a part of the AVCC from '65 to '71 [as Vice-Chancellor at Flinders University] and again in the eighties for 5 years [as Vice-Chancellor at the Australian National University from 1982 until 1987]. The AVCC in both times was never very enthusiastic about these groups [the range of special groups including librarians] meeting if it was more than an exchange of professional ideas. I don't think the AVCC objected to them meeting as a sort of professional group but they didn't want them acting as lobby groups because they didn't have any control over them (Karmel, Vice- Chancellor, Interview, 1996).
90 CHAPTER 9 THE INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT OF CAUL
Members were by-and-large content to have CAUL serve the limited role as outlined in the preceding chapter during the first few years of its existence. Apart from the AVCC factor, the librarians wanted CAUL to remain a low key and informal group for two additional reasons. First, they were keen to maintain good relations with their own Vice-Chancellors. The fact that all the universities maintained a fair degree of autonomy in terms of how they distributed funds internally meant that the Vice- Chancellor, to whom most university librarians were responsible, was a most important point of influence. The librarians feared that any attempts at going over the heads of their Vice-Chancellors, by taking collective action at a sector level through CAUL, would jeopardise this critical local relationship. The second reason why CAUL's role remained restricted was that the university librarians lacked the same opportunity that the college librarians had in participating in policy-making process because of the absence of earmarked grants for university libraries and a specialist sub-library committee of the University Commission. The reasons why the AUC avoided giving university libraries this kind of special treatment is also explored in this chapter.
Institutional Loyalty Versus Collective Action
Unlike the fledgling colleges which had less autonomy than the universities, and whose principals did not mind some early "interference" to help them get established, the Vice-Chancellors were highly suspicious of outside bodies. The college librarians could operate on a collective basis with a degree of freedom, knowing that they could liaise directly with funding authorities while at the same time maintaining, in most cases, relatively good relations with their own administrations. However for CAUL such a joint means of operating was unacceptable:
I'm not sure what collective action a body like CAUL, even if it had a
91 secretariat and so on, could take. Vice-Chancellors would certainly have taken it amiss if - just as they precluded individual librarians writing direct on matters dealing with the AVCC to outside organisations - CAUL presented itself as a lobby group to various outside organisations. I think that would have been counter-productive for CAUL (Wilkinson, Macquarie University, Interview, 1996).
I do not believe, I did not ever believe, that the forming of another body to lobby governments would have got us anywhere... I did not see ourselves as a formal lobby that should for example [go] straight over the boss's head. I thought that would have been crazy and would have imperilled in each university whatever relationship the university librarian had built up with the Vice-Chancellor... Certainly I wanted the best of both worlds. I wanted to be free to operate outside as a professional librarian and free to operate inside without my outside professional colleagues interfering... (Flowers, University of Newcastle, Interview, 1996).
Having accepted CAUL's limitations, most librarians tended to put their energy into building closer ties with their own administrations and in working professionally in more broadly focused professional groups. Clearly for most of the group it was the "relationship with one's own Vice-Chancellor [that was] the most important thing" (Horton, University of New South Wales, Interview, 1996). Bryan was another who strongly believed in this principle. "The situation is so much affected by how these things were parochially centred", he said, "ones relationship with ones own university is what really counts":
I certainly was always persuaded that not only my best interests but my first loyalty lay with the University of Sydney. And I would have thought that engaging in joint action with other people would somehow have affected that position; it would have been a betrayal. No, I did feel quite strongly about it (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
It seems that most university librarians in this period of the late 1950s and early 1960s (with one major exception, to be dealt with in chapter 11) had good relations with their Vice-Chancellors and their libraries were held in high regard. Though some university librarians were clearly having difficulty coping with growth in student numbers at this time, they were nevertheless reasonably satisfied with the proportion of funding
92 allocated to their libraries by their universities. Consequently there was not the same need for them to act as a pressure group and lobby funding authorities as ALCAE had: "I don't think that was ever a big issue for CAUL, because libraries were well established, they had an assured place within the universities" (Wilkinson, Macquarie University, Interview, 1996).
CAUL and the Higher Education Policy-Making Process
Against this background, and the restrictions imposed by the AVCC to CAUL's activities, it is interesting to look a little more deeply into the funding and policy environment within which the university librarians operated. Unlike ALCAE, the AUC, the official funding body for the universities, did not create a special library sub- committee through which the university librarians could feed information and generally contribute in a more tangible way to the development of sector wide policy. The reasons why such a sub-committee did not eventuate have already been touched upon in terms of institutional autonomy and the strong propensity of universities to resist any interference by funding authorities in their affairs. This attitude by university authorities certainly discouraged the Government setting up or sponsoring any agency purporting to represent the interests of any segment of university activity such as libraries.
Some university librarians, like Derek Fielding from University of Queensland, pointed to the self-reliant attitude of the AVCC as a factor which prevented the establishment of an AUC library committee or of the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC)50 which succeeded the AUC in the late seventies:
The Universities Commission has never had a library committee and consequently there has never been a national policy making body for university libraries. On the other hand for the first several years of its existence, that is the late sixties and early seventies, the Commission on Advanced Education had a library committee which not only sponsored research projects but also encouraged and supported ALCAE which,
50The Tertiary Education Commission superseded the Australian Universities Commission in 1977. (See Chapter 13).
93 unlike CAUL, also has state subcommittees which have dealings with state Boards of Advanced Education. By contrast the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee has always been very jealous of any contact between CAUL and the Universities Commission (Fielding, 1979, p. 17).
Colin Steele (Librarian, Australian National University) at one time suggested that the CTEC "may be following the lead of the AVCC which has appeared somewhat wary of establishing formal links with such bodies as CAUL..." (Steele, 1981, p. 233). However Karmel, who served as chair of the AUC from 1971 to 1977, said that the establishment of a library committee, or any other special interest committee for that matter, simply ran contrary to the way the AUC preferred to operate: "I don't think the Commission would have wanted a sub-committee which was kind of a lobby group within the Commission. I think the general view was that the universities wanted to be left to look after those things themselves. But generally we avoided sub-committees" (Karmel, Vice-Chancellor, Interview, 1996).
Library Sub-committees of the Commission. However, the issue was occasionally discussed. The author found three occasions when setting up a special library committee was considered. The first was in 1966 when the AUC recommended the creation of an ad-hoc sub-committee to oversee the distribution of a special unmatched grant of $2 million to support the development of resources in the fields of law, humanities, and the social sciences. This committee was to comprise representatives from the Commission, the Australian Humanities Research Council, the Social Sciences Research Council, as well as legal and "library interests". The Third Report of the Commission stated that: "The task of this committee would be to review the specialised collections... and to report to the Commission on the best method of filling gaps with a minimum of duplication especially in regard to the mechanism to be set up for the recommendation and the approval of the purchase of material and the location of the material thus acquired" (AUC, Third Report, 1966, p. 73). However the proposal for the special grant was rejected by the Government of the day.
The second time was in 1974 when the AUC considered setting up a committee
94 on standards for university library buildings51. This proposal however was later rejected on the grounds that these kind of matters should be left to each university to determine. In a letter to the AVCC at the time, a representative of the Commission stated that: "nothing had been done to establish library standards and that, indeed, he had resisted pressure to build up standards in any areas which, he felt, would limit the freedom of universities" (AVCC, Minutes of Meeting, 23/4/74).
The third occasion was in 1978 when the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training (Williams Committee)52 recommended to the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) that they set up its own library committee:
The [Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training] recommends that the Tertiary Education Commission appoint a committee on libraries (to include librarians and users of libraries) to keep under review, before making its recommendations: (i) developments in technology that could add to the efficiency of libraries and affect their economic size in various kinds of universities and colleges; and (ii) schemes for the rationalisation of the use of library measures in the different States, which if not co-ordinated could add to the problems of a national system later (Williams Report, v. 3, 1979, p. 52).
In response to this recommendation, the Tertiary Education Commission simply stated that it "does not favour the establishment of specialist sub-committees. It does not in any case have the necessary resources for such tasks" (TEC, Report for 1982-84 triennium, 1981, v.1, pt, 5, p. 90).
51See also p. 121.
52The Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training (Williams Committee) was appointed in 1976 and reported in February 1979. The Committees overall task was to "undertake a review of possible developments up to 2000". Its main terms of reference were to examine "the provision of educational facilities and services" (e.g. accessibility for disadvantaged groups, and methods of evaluating quality and efficiency) and "the relationship between the educational system and the labour market" (e.g. application of manpower forecasts, the extent of and trends in youth unemployment, and the role of education in preparing people for work)(Williams Report, V. 1, 1979, p. 1-3). The Report of the Committee did not result in, nor did it recommend, any major structural changes to higher education.
95 Interestingly enough many university librarians also opposed the creation of special library committee's of the AUC and its successor the TEC. When the university librarians finally received word of the AUC's intention not to proceed with the aforementioned committee on library building standards, the CAUL minutes record that the "consensus of the meeting was against the existence of the sub-committee" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 14/8/74). It is not clear why CAUL rejected the proposal when it had originally expressed an interest in taking part in the Commission's deliberations. However, it must be said that this late expression of disapproval was more consistent with CAUL's attitude on such matters. Likewise in a review on the Williams Report and its recommendation for the establishment of a library committee of the Commission, Bryan stated: "It is true that, in Australia at least, not all academic librarians have been convinced of the value of specialist committees of this kind, but the record of the former Library Sub-Committee of the Committee on Advanced Education suggests that, overall, they can be of great value" (Bryan, 1979, p. 91).
The lack of enthusiasm for the creation of library sub-committees was again a combination of two recurring themes. These were essentially the fear that such a forum might restrict local decision-making and that most university librarians were satisfied with the level of support they received within their own institutions and therefore had little cause to go elsewhere for support. "What would libraries get out of it", asked Wainwright with regard to the first theme, "given an AVCC view where essentially each university was autonomous, because it was up to each university to decide what it wanted to do about its own library" (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996). As for the second, Eoin Wilkinson remarks: "I don't think that was ever a big issue for CAUL, because libraries were well established, they had an assured place within the universities" (Wilkinson, Macquarie University, Interview, 1996). Wilkinson points out that university librarians had received adequate professional recognition and, as far as lobbying for funding was concerned, their participation in the process of lodging institutional triennial submissions to the Commission "seemed to work by-and-large" (Wilkinson, Macquarie University, Interview, 1996).
Ear-marked Grants for University Libraries. This reluctance to have outside authorities
96 prescribing internal priorities also explains the absence of any special grants for university libraries of the kind that had been applied in the CAE sector. Greenwood has said that "the AUC took the view that ear-marked grants or directions about percentages would be an unwarranted intrusion upon the liberty of action of the universities concerned" (Greenwood, 1977, p. 573). Similarly Karmel remarks that the Commission "was reluctant to have too many separate lines of special funding. It took the general view that universities should be given block grants and they should make up their own minds. And so there wasn't great enthusiasm for ear-marked grants" (Karmel, Vice-Chancellor, Interview, 1996).
The author could find only two exceptions. The first was the failed $2 million grant recommended by the AUC in the Third Report, as discussed above. The other was a proposal put forward in Sixth Report for 1976-78. Here the Commission stated that it "would provide earmarked grants for the initial purchase of library materials for new universities and new medical and law schools" (AUC, Sixth Report, 1972, p. 245). According to Karmel the AUC was forced to revoke this decision, not because of any objections from the Vice-Chancellors, but because of a blow out in expenditure across all tiers of education as the result of budgetary problems being experienced by the Whitlam Labor Government.53
Alternatives to Ear-marked Grants. Despite the absence of ear-marked grants, the university libraries did benefit for a time from an arrangement which yielded similar kinds of benefits. In its Fifth Report for the 1973-75 triennium the AUC announced that it would allow institutions to purchase library material from general equipment grants:
... the Commission proposes that funds from the grants for equipment should be available for the purchase of library material. The Commission does not intend that funds from this source should be used for the purchase of single monographs or current periodicals, which should be acquired as part of the normal process of keeping collections of new or recent material up to date. It is the Commission's intention that funds available from equipment grants should be used by libraries to fill gaps in
53See Chapter 13.
97 their holdings which limit scholarly activity. It has in mind the purchase of sets of volumes, for example, multi-volume works of reference or backruns of journals, and the purchase of collections of books which are related in the sense that they deal with a certain area of study and are required to make good deficiencies in a field of academic activity which is being promoted within the university (AUC, Fifth Report, 1972, p. 136).
Unlike the concept of ear-marked grants, this arrangement gave the institutions more latitude in determining the way they distributed their allocations. In other words it achieved a kind of compromise: "It might have been seen as some kind of quid-pro-quo. And it didn't tie the hand of the individual Vice-Chancellor's, because they could decide to do it or not as the case may be" (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). The chairman of the AUC at the time, Peter Karmel, explained that the rationale behind this alternative to special grants:
... there was a separate grant for equipment and the reason why we had that was we thought it was easier to persuade the government to give special money for equipment than just to bury it in the total operating grant.... [In] those days each university put in a submission asking for this that and the other thing, the world usually, and I think the Commission was impressed by the concern about libraries. They had the capacity to build, to pick up large sets and backruns of journals and so on and one way of helping them was to allow the university to decide to spend some of the equipment grant on major library acquisitions, but not just on buying ordinary single volumes (Karmel, Vice-Chancellor, Interview, 1996).
As far as the university librarians were concerned, this was an ideal arrangement for it allowed each librarian to argue his or her own case internally:
[The equipment grant] became a very important thing because it gave libraries access to a proportion of the equipment funds the university received. And if the library could identify a ready formed collection of books, or back sets of journals and so on, it could get those out of equipment funds. And the Commission preferred to do that rather than ask for ear-marked funds. So that was really a breakthrough for university libraries... The access to those equipment funds was a bonus over and above your library allocation and in arguing for [them] that quote [from the Fifth Report] was used time and time again. That [was] a fairly clear statement of the Commission's intention... I think that carried quite a bit of weight. (Wilkinson, Macquarie University, Interview, 1996).
98 The use of the equipment grant to support special purchases as described, for example, by Wilkinson, dealt with one of the major issues Andrew Osborn had suggested the Commonwealth Government might deal with, as outlined in his 1959 letter to the Australian Universities Commission, but which the AVCC had forbidden him to pursue.
99 CHAPTER 10 PARTICIPATION BY UNIVERSITY LIBRARIANS IN OTHER PROFESSIONAL GROUPS
Another factor which influenced the development of CAUL during its formative years was the growing involvement by the university librarians in other professional groups. Although it is not within the scope of this work to provide a detailed account of the involvement of university libraries in other professional bodies (indeed this would constitute a study in itself), it is important to consider briefly how these other groups - in particularly the Library Association of Australian (LAA) and the Australian Advisory Council on Bibliographical Services (AACOBS) - attracted more attention from university librarians than did CAUL. The university librarians tended to work through these other professional groups because they were more formally constituted, had broader representation, and were untrammelled by constraints imposed by the AVCC.
Library Association of Australian
The Library Association of Australian (LAA) was one group in which many university librarians participated actively during CAUL's early years. Although there had been a Library Association (known as the Australian Institute of Librarians) since 1937, it was only in the 1950s that this organisation came of age with the adoption of a wider charter and a new found enthusiasm among its members to "promote, establish and improve libraries and library services" and to "improve the standard of librarianship and the status of the library profession" (Australian Library and Information Association, 1996, p. 2; Whyte, 1989, p. 81; Jones, 1985, p. 193).54 Bryan, whose work on the LAA's Board of Examiners has already been mentioned in relation to his involvement on the CACAE Library Sub-Committee, has highlighted the extent to which the university librarians were preoccupied with the activities of this peak group of librarians:
54The Library Association of Australia was formally constituted under that name by Royal Charter on 29 January 1964 (See Australian Library and Information Association, 1996, p. 1-5; Jones, v.3, 1985, p. 282). In November 1986 the Association changed its name to the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA).
100 A significant feature of the new association has been the enthusiastic participation in its affairs by university librarians. University librarians have served regularly on the Association's General Council [the main governing body] and in the conduct of the subordinate bodies. For sixteen of the first twenty years of its existence, the Australian Library Journal was edited from university libraries and university librarians have been increasingly involved in the Board of Examiners. Three of the four chairmen of the board since its inception in 1944 have been from university libraries (Bryan, 1977, p. 22).
The creation in 1951 of a specialist University Library Section (ULS)(later becoming the University and College Library Section or UCLS) within the LAA also produced an overlapping interest for the university librarians (Bryan, 1977, p. 22). This forum, which served a similar role to CAUL with regard to the exchange of information, was particularly active during CAUL's early years. Borchardt emphasised the importance of the ULS to university librarianship, and in particular the central role of the News Sheet (which he edited) in giving expression to professional matters and as a means of highlighting the contribution made by university libraries to the nation. In the inaugural issue of the ULS News Sheet Borchardt wrote:
The University Library Section presents itself: we are and wish to be an integral part of the Library Association of Australia and as such it is incumbent on us to show that we are alive. The University Libraries of Australia have care of a very large part of the bibliographic resources of the Commonwealth; in certain fields the University Libraries have unique collections without which intellectual work in this country would be impossible. The custody of these resources, their utilization and their exploitation requires bibliographic work and library techniques which in some respects differ from the work and techniques of more general libraries. This specialization, particularly of interests, forms a focus which will find expression in this News Sheet... [It] is our intention to give preference to news items and short notices of interest - real and potential - within our "natural" areas of activities. A library - need it really be said once more? - consists of books, buildings, bibliothecaries and borrowers and news about any of these will be welcome (Borchardt, 1960, p. 1).
Australian Advisory Council on Bibliographical Services
The group that undoubtedly had the greatest impact on CAUL during this period
101 was the Australian Advisory Council on Bibliographical Services (AACOBS) which had been set up in 1956, nine years before the establishment of CAUL. AACOBS came to be regarded as the main national group representing the major libraries. Most cooperative ventures in the area of library planning and coordination for the nation were channelled through it.
AACOBS was created in response to the 1950 UNESCO Conference on the Improvement of Bibliographical Services which established a blueprint for developing bibliographic services for participating nations. Modelled on the recommendations which resulted from the UNESCO Conference, AACOBS's main function was "To plan and recommend to appropriate authorities the further development of Australian bibliographical services, library resources and library services" (AACOBS, 1971, p. 8). To support the activities of AACOBS, an Australian Bibliographical Centre was established at the same time as the Council. The functions of the Centre, which was financed by the Commonwealth Government, were to "act as the Secretariat and to assist AACOBS and its committees in planning and in making its policy fully effective" and to "act as a bibliographical information centre and clearing house" which included the "compilation and publication of catalogues of Australian publications and other bibliographical work recommended by AACOBS" (AACOBS, 1971, p. 12, 22). The Centre was administratively part of the National Library of Australia (NLA), and for its first few years was staffed by one full-time librarian (AACOBS, 1971, p. 13). In 1960 a Standing Committee of AACOBS was established which was made up of elected representatives of the main Council.
In the first few years of AACOBS's existence not all university librarians were represented on this key body. When founded, AACOBS comprised of the following members:
(a) The Chairman of the governing body of the Commonwealth National Library (ex officio); (b) a representative of the Commonwealth National Library; (c) a representative of each of the six State Public Library authorities or body acting in that capacity; (d) a representative of each State Library Board or body acting in that
102 capacity; (e) three representatives of the Australian universities, appointed by the Vice-Chancellor's Committee; (f) a representative of the CSIRO [Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation] (g) three representatives of the Library Association of Australia (AACOBS, 1971, p. 10).
However in 1960 a decision was made to have all universities represented on AACOBS. This recognised the emergence of universities as the foremost research collection providers in the country, especially given their rapid development in the wake of additional Commonwealth Government funding provided in response to the Murray Report (1957).
AACOBS' first major objective was to investigate the state of the nation's book resources and to make recommendations for their further development. To this end Maurice Tauber, Professor of Library Service at Columbia University, was commissioned in 1961 to undertake a survey of Australian libraries. Confirming the general inadequacy of collections, Tauber's report (1963) concluded that "except in respect of Australian and, to a lesser extent, South-East Asian materials, there are no great research collections in Australia" (Tauber, 1963, p. 31). AACOBS responded to these findings by appointing a special National Book Resources Development Committee (NBRDC), chaired by Clifford Burmester (Assistant National Librarian), whose task it was to "prepare an acquisition plan on a national basis" and "to assess the implications of such a plan as it would affect individual libraries" (AACOBS, 1965, p. 1). The Committees final report, known as the Burmester Report, was published in 1965 and set itself the ambitious goal of raising Australian library resources within a decade, "to a level at which they will be independent of overseas resources for the greater part of Australian needs for the purposes of information, advanced reading and research" (AACOBS, 1965, p. 2). As part of its strategy, the National Book Resources Development Committee suggested that the States and the Australian Capital Territory create their own Book Resources Committees. Following endorsement by AACOBS of the Burmester Report in November 1965, Book Resources Committees were formed the following year and were given the responsibility, among other things,
103 to co-ordinate acquisition within their areas by: (i) surveying regional needs, (ii) identifying subject fields of particular interest to the region, (iii) agreeing upon joint acquisition programmes and allocations of specialised collecting responsibilities for the purposes of the region, and (iv) proposing special collecting responsibilities which librarians within the region would accept as part of a nationwide plan... (AACOBS, 1965, p. 1).
Given that these major developments coincided with the establishment of CAUL in 1965, it is not surprising to find that most university librarians were more interested in giving priority to the work of AACOBS and assisting with the implementation of the Burmester Report, in particular the establishment of the Book Resources Committees which remained a main focus of the Council's activity throughout the sixties and seventies, than trying to have CAUL duplicate such work.
Some of those interviewed for this study believed that AACOBS was clearly the more important organisation at this time and was the focus of attention for the university librarians:
... the thinking was of AACOBS as the national organism and that we didn't need to have yet another one for the university libraries... Why did we, why should we, have thought about CAUL as a power structure, because we were trying to make AACOBS the power structure... CAUL was not a very big player, would be my frank assessment (Richardson, University of Melbourne, Interview, 1996).
The minutes of an early meeting of university librarians held prior to the formation of CAUL, reveal how many of those who were opposed to Andrew Osborn's attempts to create a more formal group did so because they "had misgivings about setting up another body which might be in competition with AACOBS" (University Chief Librarians, Minutes of Meeting, 24/8/59, CAUL files). A further reason why many members resisted further formalisation of CAUL was because AACOBS already possessed "a secretariat and Commonwealth support and could take care of problems common to research libraries" (University Chief Librarians, Minutes of Meeting, 24/8/59, CAUL files). Horton observed that members of CAUL would not "have favoured building CAUL up or
104 [putting] any more resources [such as] staff into it", owing to the existence of AACOBS (Horton, University of New South Wales, Interview, 1996). Moreover it was felt that AACOBS had the potential to be more productive and influential than a relatively small and informal group of university librarians like CAUL:
I would have seen AACOBS as the better group. Of course the university libraries had the dominant position on AACOBS, in the early days particularly... [In] effect AACOBS became the tool of the university librarians and as such you could use it quite significantly... AACOBS [also] had much better secretarial support. I think that would have been relevant (Horton, University of New South Wales, Interview, 1996).
Indeed it appeared that if CAUL had any significant function at all it was as an adjunct to AACOBS. CAUL meetings were often scheduled to take place immediately prior to AACOBS meetings and "served a purpose in predigesting many AACOBS matters" (Southwell, 1988, p. 166). In the words of Stockdale, CAUL "played an important, albeit a parallel role in the wide range of national co-operative ventures which have emerged over the past 40-50 years" (Stockdale, Flinders University, Letter to author, 28/6/96). These tended, however, to be carried by AACOBS after 1956.
105 CHAPTER 11 THE PROFESSIONAL WORLD OF CAUL: STATUS AND RECOGNITION
The early sixties was also a period in which the status and salaries of librarians were in the process of being raised. This favourable trend gave librarians little cause to want to try to exert external pressure to achieve increased recognition and status. Of course, given what had happened in CAUL's relations with the AVCC, it was also felt that any attempt to exert pressure could jeopardise this process. By the time CAUL was formed, the university librarians were satisfied that they had won the battle for increased recognition.
However, the upgrading of the role and status of the university librarian had been a long time coming. It was only during the years immediately following the Murray Report that librarians were finally accorded the kind of salary and position that they believed equated with the level of their responsibility and the important place of libraries within the university. It is interesting to note that the main subject of the first meeting of university librarians in 1928 was the desire to convey to their "governing bodies" the "importance of the library in the university and the status of the librarian" (Conference of Representatives of Australian University Libraries, Minutes of Meeting, 22-23/8/28, CAUL files). The minutes of the meeting record the following "unanimously carried" motion:
This conference respectfully draws the attention of the governing bodies of the Australian universities to the desirability of giving more adequate recognition to the importance of the Library in university life and to the status of the Librarian in the studies of the university (Conference of Representatives of Australian University Libraries, Minutes of Meeting, 22-23/8/28, CAUL files).
Despite such entreaties, little progress was made over the ensuing decades to achieve these objectives. A major survey of Australian libraries was carried out in 1934 by Ralph Munn, Director of the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, and Ernest Pitt, Chief Librarian of the Public Library of Victoria. It backed up the claims made by the university
106 librarians:
No Australian University library appears to regard the development of its library as such a vital factor in its progress as do the leading universities of the United States... No university gives the librarian any appreciable discretion in the selection of books in the fields which are covered by a department of instruction. The professor chooses all books for his own department and no one dares to interfere in any way with his selection... the university's administration appears to expect little more of its librarian than technical proficiency (Munn & Pitt, 1934, p. 89, 91).
The problem of the role and status of the university library and librarian continued to be pursued at subsequent gatherings of university librarians who were displeased with the slow rate of progress being made. The minutes of the 1935 meeting note that, "this Conference considers that the staff in every one of the Australian University Libraries is insufficient in number and inadequately paid" (Second Inter-University Conference, Minutes of Meeting, 15-16/8/35, CAUL files). The librarians stated that their complaint was substantiated by the Munn-Pitt survey. In fact the following resolution contained within the minutes implies that Munn and Pitt did not go far enough in their criticisms of the existing situation:
... while appreciative of the emphasis laid in the Munn-Pitt Report on the importance of the Library in the University, and grateful for the support given to our efforts to obtain for University Libraries a larger share of University expenditure, and for their Librarians wider powers and higher status, we regret the lack of acknowledgment that many of the weaknesses pointed out in the Report had been often emphasized by University Librarians (Second Inter-University Conference, Minutes of Meeting, 15- 16/8/35, CAUL files).
Greenwood later summed up the message of the survey with respect to university libraries:
One has only to read the Munn-Pitt report of 1935 to recognize that even in the major universities the library did not occupy that central position which the [University Grants Committee in the United Kingdom] had stressed over a decade before. This did not mean that there was a total lack of appreciation of the importance of the library, or that influential
107 academics did not exert themselves to support the
building of the collection, but it did mean that the library was largely an academic appendage and that even the chief librarian possessed an inadequate status and remuneration, and scant influence (Greenwood, 1977, p. 540-541).
Despite the Munn-Pitt Report's comments on the adverse situation of university libraries and librarians, no great progress was made over the next few years. Jeffrey Scrivener55 (Librarian, University of Tasmania), who has charted the development of the chief librarian in higher education remarks that: "University authorities and their library committees seem to have been nettled by the observations in the report and pointedly dismissed it with defensive disdain" (Scrivener, 1984, p. 211).
Notwithstanding the passage of some twenty years, the next meeting of the university librarians in 1954 again focused on the issue of the status and salary of the chief librarian. The meeting resolved "that those universities which had not conferred membership of the professorial board, or its equivalent, on the Chief Librarian should be asked to consider the question" (University Chief Librarians, Minutes of Meeting, 9/6/54, CAUL files). At a meeting held the subsequent year participants agreed that this matter should be "kept before the University authorities and that the resolution passed at the last meeting should be re-affirmed" (University Chief Librarians, Minutes of Meeting, 22/8/55, CAUL files). To this end a decision was made to "prepare a covering letter setting out the present position" and to "circulate this for approval to members before forwarding it together with a re-statement of the previous resolution, to the Vice- Chancellor's Committee" (University Chief Librarians, Minutes of Meeting, 22/8/55, CAUL files). The following year a survey by Borchardt detailed the current situation:
Of the ten universities and university colleges now operating in the Commonwealth, two have granted their librarian full professional status and salary, one has granted professorial status and sub-professorial salary, the remainder pay salaries ranging from an equivalent to lecturer to an equivalent to associate professor or reader, without granting the librarian
55Scrivener was University Librarian at Tasmania from 1976 to 1987.
108 any status at all (Borchardt, 1956, p. 117).
Borchardt concluded that this situation "reflects the equivocal position of our profession, as well as in some cases, the lack of understanding of our work and the place of the library in the university" (Borchardt, 1956, p. 117). However within a relatively short period of time this situation was redressed in the majority of universities. While the appeals by the university librarians may have had some impact, broader sector developments were to accelerate the process of reform, especially the substantial financial commitment made by the Federal Government following the Murray Report (1957). One of the outcomes of this influx of funding was the introduction of more deliberate forward planning practices which afforded librarians greater opportunities for participating in the university's decision-making processes. A greater understanding and recognition of the important role performed by the library also contributed to the elevation of the chief librarian. So too did the appointment of a group of younger, more professionally motivated university librarians at about this time:
...there was an infusion of fresh energy and ideas in the leadership as a number of librarians, whose professional outlook had been formed in more limited times, retired and were replaced by younger men. In 1959 alone there were three such changes - at Sydney, New South Wales and Western Australia - and from 1956 to 1965 seven universities acquired new librarians, one of them (Sydney) twice" (Scrivener, 1984, p. 213).
Scrivener also noted the important example set by the new universities in this process of reform:
... a very significant impetus towards acceptance of librarians as partners in, rather than servants of, the academic process came from the circumstances in which the new universities of the post-Murray era were established. The interim councils appointed to plan and effect these new foundations were composed of progressively minded laymen and academics who generally saw their brief as the creation of a university appropriate to the late twentieth century. They were, therefore, sceptical of many traditional university attitudes and practices and set out to base the infrastructure of their institutions on rational solutions to perceived needs. One such perceived need was for the very rapid development of a basic library collection and service. The rational solution adopted in each
109 instance was the early appointment of a university librarian with the salary and status of a professor and the powers of a department head or even a dean; the close involvement of the librarian in financial, physical and academic planning procedures; and generally the according of the same degree of academic status to the professional staff (Scrivener, 1984, p. 214).
As far as playing an integral role in the planning processes of the university was concerned, Harrison Bryan commented that in the case of the newer universities, "almost without question [librarians] were involved from the very first" (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). He continued: "There had been a very considerable change in attitude by that time. Even as early as the establishment of Monash, [the librarian was] really involved as a significant part of the university from the very beginning" (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). Indeed, the circumstances surrounding the appointment of the chief librarian of Monash University, the first of the post-Murray foundations, illustrates the special status now being accorded to a post which had hitherto been so marginalised. Ernest Clark56 was the fourth member of staff appointed to the university, and upon commencement of duties was able to play an important leading role in early university planning exercises.
Another newly created university that gave even greater regard to its librarian was La Trobe (1964). In a precis of the institutions' first few years, Bryan noted that one of La Trobe's main achievements was the early acceptance of the librarian as "an important senior member of the university" (Bryan, 1977, p. 43). Bryan highlighted the fact that Dietrich Borchardt was "the first permanent appointment to the university, preceding even the Vice-Chancellor. In the formal structure of the university he occupies a position the seniority of which is unique in Australian universities" (Bryan, 1977, p. 43). Borchardt himself noted that La Trobe, "from the beginning equated librarians with teaching staff... The chief librarian had the rank of a professor, the next line down was associate professor and then there are senior lecturers, and that is still so today. So La Trobe has an impeccable record for treating its library as part of its academia" (Borchardt, LaTrobe University, Interview, 1996). The Librarian at Newcastle University
56Ernest Clark was Librarian at Monash University from 1960 until his death in 1971.
110 was similarly well treated: "I was one of the three people with automatic membership ex officio of senate and this was at a time when not all professors could sit on Senate, [but] the librarian's ex-officio position was guaranteed" (Flowers, University of Newcastle, Interview, 1996). These actions by the newer universities flowed through to the older ones:
The acceptance, by the new universities, of the principles that the library and its professional staff are an integral part of the academic process and should be treated accordingly set a standard towards which the older institutions progressively moved, each at its own pace, and on which the later foundations based their treatment of the library (Scrivener, 1984, p. 215).
Having achieved this long sought goal of greater professional recognition, the librarians had little cause for complaint by the time CAUL was established in 1965. A survey published in 1973, less than a decade after CAUL's establishment, revealed that all university librarians had achieved professorial equivalence (Hazell, 1973, p. 164-167).
Given their now privileged positions, the university librarians clearly believed that it was more profitable to make use of the channels open to them within their own institutions rather than go beyond them through CAUL. Moreover, since it was no longer uncommon for the university librarian to assist in the drafting of funding submissions to government, they could have a direct impact on pushing library related requests through their own administrations. Bryan noted that at Sydney University "[they] wouldn't have dreamt of having a triennial submission without the Librarian contributing to it" (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). Given the context within which the librarians now found themselves, it was not surprising that when asked to explain why it was that little effort was put into extending CAUL's activities, Borchardt replied: "... I don't think we should go out fighting as a group... I don't think that is very wise. We must be part of our institutions" (Borchardt, LaTrobe University, Interview, 1996). They had no sense of common goals that required independent action as a group outside their own institutions.
Lodewycks' Attempt to have CAUL Serve a Broader Purpose (1967-1969)
111 This orientation and the constraints it imposed on CAUL can be seen very effectively at work in a particular case. It appears that the only university librarian who had not been granted appropriate professional recognition by the late 1960s was Axel Lodewycks from Melbourne University. Because of his predicament Lodewycks was one member of CAUL who was clearly dissatisfied with the groups limited role. In an attempt to improve his standing within his institution, Lodewycks sought to revive something akin to Osborn's original notion of a more pro-active group which would register a protest on his behalf.
Lodewycks' case is worth exploring at some length because, apart from showing an intriguing exception to what was by this stage the norm with respect to the treatment of university librarians, it shows how, by triggering further embarrassing episodes with the AVCC, Lodewycks made the other university librarians even more determined to have CAUL continue to serve a limited purpose.
Harrison Bryan summarises Lodewycks' predicament at Melbourne in this way:
Lodewycks's time at Melbourne was one of mixed fortunes both for himself and for the Library. On the one hand, it saw the planning and erection of the standard setting Baillieu Library, the first modern functional university library building in Australia (and a revelation to both architects and librarians). On the other hand, the University's support for the Library, both in general and especially in financial terms, deteriorated at the very time that the introduction of Commonwealth funding for universities was being reflected in the rapid expansion of university library resources. The consequent souring of relations between the Librarian and the University administration embittered Lodewycks and left a legacy of ill feeling and mutual mistrust that in turn aggravated the rift with the administration and hampered the Library's development (Bryan, 1989, p. 100).
Lodewycks' tussle with his administration began early. After serving as Deputy University Librarian from 1948 he was initially passed over for the position of chief librarian when it became vacant in 1954. It was only when the appointee, Harold Holdsworth, left after only serving as head for three months, that Lodewycks was offered the position "quite grudgingly" as Bryan recalled, and at a lower salary than his
112 predecessor:
Early in 1956 I was informed by my administration that the librarianship was being offered to me. I was to discover some months later that at least two other librarians had previously been invited to accept the position but had declined; so I was by no means the university's first choice even at this stage. Holdsworth had held the position with its official status of a professor for purposes of salary classification, but it was offered to me with the lower status of an equation with the salary of an associate professor (Lodewycks, 1982, p. 118).
His subsequent efforts to raise his salary and status, and that of his staff, became somewhat of an obsession for Lodewycks' until he retired in 1973. A history of his frustrated efforts are painstakingly detailed in an autobiographical work entitled The Funding of Wisdom: Revelations of a Library's Quarter Century, the introduction of which conveys to the reader experiences that were clearly unlike those of his colleagues at this time:
The following account will inevitably include references to the financial administration of certain public utilities, namely libraries, during one of the most affluent periods of Australia's history. My experience in this area, especially during nearly twenty-five years in the administration of a library often designated at the 'heart' of the university in which it was situated, encountered the direct opposite of the extravagance which certain public authorities and some popular notions in recent years have associated with the financial administration of Australian universities. To the extent that such conditions affected the very 'heart', it is possible to infer that the pulse of the academic life at the university concerned was weakened rather than strengthened during the years that I shall attempt to review... My record of events, as I experienced them, may frequently convey overtones bordering on despair and disapprobation, for which I make no apology. It will also recall many ineptitudes, obvious inconsistencies and topsy- turvydoms, which had to be accepted as common manifestations of human behaviour and of conservatism in the conduct of corporate bodies (Lodewycks, 1982, p. 1, 3).
Lodewyck's main argument with his administration was with what he regarded as their total lack of appreciation and respect for the role of the librarian in an academic institution. This attitude manifested itself in the University's refusal to give the position of
113 librarian any real authority in managing his library. Instead a library committee was invested with the responsibility of managing the library's affairs, a system that had its origins in a library statute dating back to 1893. "The [library] committee", Lodewycks wrote, "was charged with the executive authority of 'broad management' and 'overall supervision', both normal responsibilities of the librarian from day to day as executive head of an establishment..." (Lodewycks, 1982, p. 251).
Lodewycks continually pressured his superiors to bring Melbourne into line with the other universities with respect to library governance, status, salaries, and funding levels for resources. However his curt manner and relentless upbraiding only served to infuriate his superiors and simply compounded an already bad situation. His succession of attempts, by one means or another, to force a change to the 1893 statute - even in the face of threatened disciplinary action by the University Council - was typical of his unyielding approach.
Borchardt recalled how, frustrated with his lack of headway within his own institution, Lodewycks resorted to constantly "writing personal letters to people like Harry [Bryan] and me, [saying] 'Would you please help me in this matter'" (Borchardt, LaTrobe University, Interview, 1996). While his fellow university librarians were sympathetic to his plight, they were disinclined nonetheless to become embroiled in a situation which might have led to them being accused of interfering in another university's affairs. Moreover they feared the repercussions of appearing to endorse the methods Lodewycks used to draw attention to his predicament, chiefly his "predilection for taking aggressive positions on paper" (Richardson, University of Melbourne, Interview, 1996).
Lodewycks' situation was also well known throughout the sector at the time. Peter Karmel, who was the founding Vice-Chancellor at Flinders University, was one who was well aware of these events and who was highly critical of his approach:
I think individual Vice-Chancellors would have probably made it clear to librarians that they wanted to maintain a good bilateral relationship with their own librarians and they weren't going to be pressured by a sort of collective view. [Lodewycks'] relationship with his Vice-Chancellor was
114 always bad and I think the Melbourne Vice-Chancellor would have been more and more angry about having pressure put on him in that way. So I guess he was a very disaffected person... some [universities] had good relationships between individual librarians and their Vice-Chancellor, but there were some bad ones and the bad ones presumably wanted everyone to put pressure on; that would have been Lodewycks (Karmel, Vice- Chancellor, Interview, 1996).
It must also be remembered that this was a time when the university librarians were keen to promote good relations with their Vice-Chancellors to secure their own reputations. "Universities were very jealous of their own autonomy and position", said Eoin Wilkinson, "and I don't think they would have welcomed new-comers like librarians, who were still trying to get status and an accepted position, by over-reaching themselves" (Wilkinson, Macquarie University, Interview, 1996). For example, after having already experienced from his previous employers something like the treatment Lodewycks' was experiencing, Harrison Bryan was a member of CAUL who was now particularly keen to avoid the kind of tactics Lodewycks was employing. Bryan was encouraged by the altogether different relationship he had with university authorities at Sydney compared with what he had experienced previously at Queensland where, he said, he was "just ignored." He said that this new association "worked quite effectively" and he was against anything that "imperilled its effectiveness", especially those "hot heads within CAUL that might have done so" (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
Denis Richardson who eventually replaced Lodewycks at Melbourne and who succeeded in breaking the deadlock between the library and university management was similarly cognisant of the dangers in applying his predecessor's approach:
Certainly my predecessor had a long period of unfortunate relationship with the administration of the university, and part of it - a certain degree of it - was self-inflicted injury because of his own persona, the way he went about things. When I first came I started to read into the back files and gave it up. I gave it up when I got to a letter he had written to the Vice-Chancellor, at the bottom of which - it was a fairly assertive letter, not the sort of letter I would have written... there were fourteen copies listed; everybody to whom he'd sent a copy of this letter. I though this man is a fool if he thought he could deal with his Vice-Chancellor on this sort of basis. And there had been cases where Axel had been told that he
115 should not do this publicly (Richardson, University of Melbourne, Interview, 1996).
It will be recalled that Chairs of CAUL rotated every two years and followed the order of the founding of the universities. Lodewycks' turn to be Chair came in 1967 and this was the person who was to create the next open conflict between CAUL and the AVCC. Lodewycks proceeded to use his position as chair to attempt to transform CAUL into a group which would right the kind of wrongs he had experienced at Melbourne. Like Osborn before him, Lodewycks decided to take matters into his own hands as a way of realising his vision of a more politically active group. His opportunity came following a process of review of salary scales for university library staff that attempted to get equalisation with academic staff, just the problem that had bedevilled him at Melbourne.
Debate on Academic Salary Equivalence for Librarians. During the early sixties a number of attempts were made to apply a common set of salary scales for academic staff across the country. Despite the increased Commonwealth involvement in higher education following the Murray Report (1957), responsibility for determining academic salary levels continued to rest with individual State governments in consultation with staff associations and individual institutions. "In these circumstances", remarked one commentator, " the decisions on academic salaries continued to be tardy and the uncoordinated timing and diversity of rates selected... engendered a state of recurring confusion and discontent" (Gallagher, 1982, p. 36).
As a result of continuing pressure from institutions and staff associations to adopt a more co-ordinated approach, in 1964 the Commonwealth Government commissioned an independent inquiry into academic salaries, by Justice Richard Eggleston. The recommendations presented in Eggleston's Report of the Inquiry into Academic Salaries (1964), were subsequently adopted by the Commonwealth and included a basic salary for Professors, Readers, Associate Professors and Lecturers and maximum salary for Senior Lecturers (Eggleston Report, p. 7, 26). However scales for other staff, including librarians, were still left for the universities to determine (Gallagher, 1982b). In 1966 a further review of salaries took place, this time by the incoming chairman of the AUC,
116 Lenox Hewitt. Again consideration of scales for many university staff classified as non- academic, such as librarians and administrative staff, were excluded from the investigation. As a result of pressure from the AVCC, Hewitt agreed to make a decision on the level at which these staff not covered by his review would be equated with academic salary scales. In August 1967 the then chairman of the AVCC, Dr James Matheson, wrote to Hewitt proposing that academic salary scales apply for positions at and above Senior Lecturer and that those below would equate with "comparable salary scales in the relevant Public Service or to internal scales which have been determined by the University itself" (Letter from Matheson to Hewitt, 21/8/67, AVCC files). Finally, in December 1967 agreement was reached between the AVCC and the AUC that this would be the approach taken by all universities on the subject of academic equivalence.
This decision became the subject of much debate at the CAUL meeting in Brisbane in August 1967. There was great concern about the possibility of having fewer library positions equated with academic positions because it would imply both loss of professional status generally and possible reductions in salary for individual library staff members. Lodewycks, as Chair, wrote asking for opinions about what he should do with respect to this matter, in particular whether he should write on behalf of CAUL to appropriate official bodies.
Opinion varied considerably as to the level at which library positions should be equated with academic scales, as well as the most appropriate way for CAUL to articulate its concerns to the AVCC and AUC. At one extreme there were those members who urged that a strong protest be registered through the Chair, Lodewycks, and that CAUL formally write to the AUC objecting to the position taken on the matter. For example:
I would approve your raising the question of the equation of library and academic salaries with the Chairman of the AUC or with the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee... I would see no objection to referring to FAUSA the question of the maintenance of equation between libraries and academic salaries... university librarianship demands, in addition to professional skills, academic qualifications and abilities not all that
117 different from those of teaching staff... (Letter from Jolley57 to Lodewycks, 21/12/67).
Whatever short-term benefits may come to some by the adoption of Public Service scales, the experience of the past twenty years in both Australia and Britain surely demonstrates that the best way to secure satisfactory salary scales for senior staff of university libraries is to equate these scales with those received by teaching staff... I see at the moment both at the national and at the institutional level a deliberate attempt to lower that status of university librarianship. I feel that we should not acquiesce in this degradation without protesting as strongly and intelligently as we can. (Jolley, University of Western Australia, Round Robin Letter, 25/1/68).
My own view is that we should urge the AUC to adopt academic equivalence for Library staff. The reasons for this are obvious and I understand the whole matter was discussed by CAUL in Brisbane recently, but that was presumably before the views of the Vice-Chancellors' Committee were known. One great danger I see in the suggestion to follow Public Service salaries is that it would lead to different sex scales which some of us have been able to avoid by having academic equivalence58. In a profession where females predominate so much as they do in librarianship this is of great importance... (Clark, Monash University, Round Robin Letter, 20/9/67).
On the other side of the debate were those who felt that no action at all should be taken. Not surprisingly, Bryan was especially hesitant about making a protest to external bodies:
... As you would expect from my previous contributions to our correspondence, I am far from being an "all the way" academic equationist. I remind you, however, that I have pressed for and succeeded in obtaining (and having reaffirmed, after the AUC/AVCC expression of opinion) equations down to and including lecturer in this University. I do think this degree of equation should be maintained and this University seems to have maintained it, despite the AUC and / or AVCC.... My
57Leonard Jolley was University Librarian at the University of Western Australia from 1959 to 1979.
58At this time Public Service employment conditions continued to discriminate against women. Their wage was approximately 75 per cent of that awarded to men and in many cases married women were prevented from holding permanent employment. It was only from the late 1960s that the marriage bar was removed and equal pay conditions gradually introduced (Mackinolty & Radi, 1979).
118 personal advice is against equation below the level of lecturer and this advice I have given, as you know, to the Vice-Chancellor...
I think we court disaster, either immediate or ultimate, anytime we look like setting ourselves up as "pseudo-academics". I am sure there are circumstances where equation "all the way" works well - I suspect only in small Universities where the Librarian is a considerable power in the land - but I doubt if these circumstances apply to many of us. I found in Queensland that the sub-lecturer equation which I secured, after much effort, when we were small, proved a very double-edged weapon when I tried to move into the lecturer and above group. The University was quite prepared to use as an excuse to deny this, the absence of sufficient purely academic qualifications on the part of the officers concerned. They would not accept professional or combined qualifications for what they blandly stated I wanted regarded as academic appointments. I will not bore you with a maudlin account of my long and vain personal struggle to secure professorial equation, but this equation was resisted on exactly the same basis.
These are [some of] the reasons that lead me to advise against direct complaint to AUC or AVCC and against enlisting FAUSA [Federation of Australian University Staff Associations] support. If the majority think otherwise, then I urge great care and I implore restriction of effort to maintaining or affecting equation only with lecturer or above (Bryan, University of Sydney, Round Robin Letter, 26/1/67).
Dan Sprod59 (University of Tasmania) was another who was reluctant to take any action:
The opinion of senior staff here is that it may be unwise to raise the question of professional librarians salaries with the Vice-Chancellors' Committee. The feeling is that this Committee is unlikely to support further equation of library salaries with the academic range and may even take some action which would be to the detriment of the equation so far received (Sprod, University of Tasmania, Round Robin Letter, 21/7/67).
There was also a lack of agreement on the substance of any CAUL position. In a letter to members, Lodewycks admits that some of his colleagues believed that there should be equation between library and teaching staff salaries, "at least from the level of lecturer upwards", while he favoured "equation from the level of tutor upwards"
59Daniel (Dan) Sprod was University Librarian at the University of Tasmania from 1966 to 1975.
119 (Lodewycks, University of Melbourne, Round Robin Letter, 19/12/67).
This debate lasted for a over a year. In the end Lodewycks took matters into his own hands and wrote a protest letter to the AUC on behalf of CAUL, justifying his action on "the absence of any expressed opposition" rather than any consensus of opinion (Lodewycks, University of Melbourne, Round Robin Letter, 2/2/68). From a reading of his published account of his time at Melbourne, The Funding of Wisdom, it appears that as well as seeking to champion the interests of university librarianship generally, Lodewycks' decision to write to the AUC was also self-serving in that any pressure applied on the AUC by CAUL might change entrenched attitudes held by his own institutional administration which had at this time resolved to only consider academic salary equation for library staff above the level of senior lecturer (Lodewycks, 1982, p. 272). In his book, Lodewycks states that the decision to restrict equation was yet another demonstration of how his university administration regarded the library profession with contempt. All previous attempts by Lodewycks to reform internal attitudes by writing numerous letters to his Vice-Chancellor and other senior officers at Melbourne had been dismissed as an "elaborate hoax" (Lodewycks, 1982, p. 191). As Chair of CAUL he now had the opportunity to articulate his concerns via another avenue. Lodewycks said in his letter to the AUC:
The views of all members of CAUL having been solicited in this matter, it is evident that a majority of these views does not favour any reduction in the present standards of salary classification, which in most Australian universities have existed as a link between appropriate grades of graduate librarians and grades of teaching staff from the level of tutor or demonstrator upwards, or at least as a similar link from the level of lecturer upwards (Letter from Lodewycks to Hewitt, AUC Chairman, 22/1/68).
Lodewycks concluded his letter in a manner typical of the style hitherto reserved for his own university administration in his ongoing fight to have all his professional staff given appropriate recognition:
The Australian university librarians are held responsible for adequate
120 standards of librarianship in their respective universities... A majority of their number are extremely concerned that the recommended revision would inevitably result in a significant lowering of present standards of librarianship at all levels. Such a deterioration could no more be afforded in the standards of academic librarianship than it could be afforded in the standards of teaching and research in universities. The relatively minor financial savings involved could only be achieved at an unjustifiable cost to the pedagogic and research aims of every Australian university (Letter from Lodewycks to Hewitt, AUC Chairman, 22/1/68).
Lodewycks was soon made to realise, after the letter had been dispatched, that there were many within CAUL who took exception to his decision. The ensuing debate between Lodewycks and members regarding his decision reveals the extent of the sensitivities that still pervaded CAUL vis-a-vis the various AVCC edicts about avoiding external contacts. It also reveals strongly Lodewycks' peculiar personality characteristics and the lengths to which he would take arguments.
As with the Osborn incident years earlier, the Vice-Chancellors were quick to voice their disapproval on this occasion. In a tersely worded rebuttal to CAUL's actions, the Chairman of the AVCC first reminded Lodewycks that when the Vice-Chancellors approved the formation of CAUL it was "understood" that CAUL "would act in a consultative capacity only" and that they were "therefore most surprised" that CAUL had "seen fit to write direct to the Chairman of the Australian Universities Commission" (Letter from Matheson, AVCC Chairman, to Lodewycks, 4/3/68). The letter from the AVCC went on to say that the Vice-Chancellors' Committee was "very disturbed by [CAUL's] action", and that the "best interests of the Australian universities cannot be served by individual groups such as yours attempting to deal direct with the Australian Universities Commission and I have to ask you not to proceed in this way in future." The AVCC insisted that CAUL "acted improperly in intervening on the salaries question" and that each Vice-Chancellor had been asked to "explain to their librarians the action the Vice-Chancellors' Committee [had] taken" in an attempt to "remedy a difficult and embarrassing situation."
Like the AVCC's original instruction in 1959, this latest incident also seems to have had a deep impression on CAUL and made CAUL even more determined to resist
121 such activity on future occasions. Bryan appears to have been the most opposed to Lodewycks' attempts to settle the salary matter through the AUC, saying that he "will not only not support any continued collective attempt of the kind" but will "publicly dissociate" himself from Lodewycks' letter. In a candidly written letter to Lodewycks Bryan expressed the belief that CAUL would have to be "extremely circumspect" about communicating directly with the AUC in future, "at least until we have managed to restore our relations with the A.V.C.C" (Letter from Bryan to Lodewycks, 23/2/68).
In defence, Lodewycks maintained that it was CAUL's duty to express an "opinion on professional matters of principle affecting the vital responsibilities and standards of university librarianship in Australia" (Lodewycks, University of Melbourne, Round Robin Letter, 6/3/68). In a manner reminiscent of the style of approach taken with his own university management, he argued that CAUL would be neglecting what he perceives to be a fundamental responsibility to represent the interests of university librarianship by whatever means necessary:
CAUL cannot and does not represent the specific claims of any section of university employees in negotiations for revised scales of remuneration. It has always been understood, however, that CAUL does represent an Australia-wide sphere of responsibility, experience and professional expertise, from which it derives a certain capacity to offer competent advice on matters of principle. [CAUL cannot], even under pressure from lay authorities, retreat to a position of indifference or inaction, [and accept]: 1. Conflicting standards of salary classification in the respective Australian university libraries. 2. A decline in general standards of university librarianship in Australia. 3. Sub-graduate standards of professional education for librarians employed in Australian universities. 4. The authority of laymen in matters of librarianship (Lodewycks, University of Melbourne, Round Robin Letter, 6/3/68).
He even argued furthermore that the Vice-Chancellors have no authority to prevent CAUL from approaching the AUC:
The A.V.C.C. exists as an advisory body in the general sphere of university administration. It is doubtful, however, that it can logically in
122 this capacity act executively in preventing responsible moves on the part of CAUL to maintain a channel established by the A.U.C. for consultation in matters of librarianship (Lodewycks, University of Melbourne, Round Robin Letter, 6/3/68).
These sentiments were repeated in another letter to members written some twelve months later: "I have always understood the A.V.C.C. to be an advisory body without the power to lay down rules for the conduct of the members of the respective universities" (Lodewycks, University of Melbourne, Round Robin Letter, 11/4/69). Lodewycks' sense of frustration was no doubt related to the absence of any progress made within his own institution:
La Trobe University... retained its statutory equation with academic salaries in all professional library grades, while a number of other universities retained the equation at least down to the level of lecturer. As for the University of Melbourne, any link below the grade of senior lecturer was now a dead letter and henceforth two disparate sets of criteria for new salary determinations operated in respect of the divisions of the professional library staff thus arbitrarily created (Lodewycks, 1982, p. 272).
Borchardt's view of this episode captures the essence of this problem of Lodewycks' both at Melbourne and in his actions as Chair of CAUL:
Lodewycks was harassed by his institution, he was a very bad administrator and a bad politician... He was completely out of faith with his institution. So there we are. He was not the best person to write [the sort of letter he did], right as it was, quite correct what he said about the treatment of librarians. But anyway, I share his stance but not the way its done (Borchardt, LaTrobe University, Interview, 1996).
Despite his hectoring of his colleagues to pursue these issues, Lodewycks was instead ignored and the whole matter was dropped. Far from taking a more independent stance, as he had tried to do, CAUL can be seen in future to comply even more rigidly with the wishes of the Vice-Chancellors. This is illustrated in the following example where CAUL made a point of strictly adhering to the AVCC rules governing the behaviour of inter-university groups.
123 In early 1974, long after the dust had settled on the Lodewycks incident, CAUL became aware that the AUC was drafting a set of standards for university library buildings and was interested in participating in the process60. Rather than make another direct approach to the AUC, the then Chairman of CAUL, Derek Fielding (Librarian, University of Queensland), instead first contacted the AVCC to get its advice on how they should proceed. In reply the Vice-Chancellors acknowledged the appropriateness of CAUL's actions: "While CAUL wished to be involved in any discussions on such standards, it was aware of the AVCC rules forbidding inter-university groups communicating direct with the AUC" (AVCC, Minutes of Meeting, 21/3/74). The Vice- Chancellors further stated that in fact they would be prepared to consider recommending to the AUC "that a member of CAUL be invited to take part in any discussions initiated by the AUC on standards for university library buildings." The AVCC resolved to "tell Mr. Fielding to write to the AVCC explaining the matter, and, if the AVCC is satisfied" it would write to the AUC with a recommendation that CAUL become involved. Fielding respectfully complied with this decision by formally writing to the AVCC with details of CAUL's proposal and recommending that "the AVCC take the matter up with the AUC" (Letter from Fielding to AVCC Secretary, Hambly, 28/3/74). Despite CAUL's efforts on this occasion a decision was made not to proceed with the standards committee by the AUC.
This example does however serve to illustrate how much CAUL had changed from the original group envisaged by Osborn and how determined the majority of members were in resisting any attempts to replicate this earlier model. It also shows the marked difference between CAUL and its college counterpart, ALCAE, whose actions were not so conditional upon the consent of their chief executive officers.
60See also p. 93.
124 CHAPTER 12 CONCLUSION: CAUL AND ALCAE (1965-1973)
By way of conclusion, a comparison of CAUL and ALCAE during their formative years, as described in Parts One and Two of this thesis shows ALCAE to be the more pro-active and dynamic of the two groups. The main reason for this had to do with the different contexts within which each group operated. Given the special place afforded to college libraries within the CAE curriculum, and the need for sector planners to obtain advice on how best to proceed, ALCAE was presented with a unique opportunity to participate in the policy-making process. These circumstances gave the group a clear mission and sense of purpose. This sense of purpose was further enhanced by the great reliance members had on ALCAE. Many at this early stage in their careers were lacking in experience and ALCAE provided a mechanism through which ideas could be exchanged and encouragement offered as the librarians proceeded with the onerous and urgent task of upgrading a group of libraries which had hitherto been starved of funds. These factors combined to produce a highly cooperative, determined and energetic group who viewed its main objective as championing the interests of college librarianship within the purview of this funding body.
These characteristics contrast sharply with those of CAUL during this same period. To begin with the university librarians were not as goal-driven as their CAE colleagues, having lacked the same opportunity to become involved in sector decision- making fora. In Bryan's opinion ALCAE was more active "because the Commission encouraged them in the first place" (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). Unlike ALCAE the university librarians were not encouraged to participate in the work of the Australian Universities Commission and therefore did not have the same incentive to create a more formal group like ALCAE which needed to respond to the demands for information and advice placed upon them by the CAE commission. In the absence of such a specialist sub-committee, the university librarians lacked the same focus and sense of mission that ALCAE possessed.
As already mentioned, there were also other reasons why the university librarians
125 did not develop any definitive role for CAUL beyond the exchange of information. As Bryan has said: "Our situation was never completely rosy, but by comparison [we were] always very much better off than the colleges" (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). In the words of Denis Richardson; "You got into difficulties but never into disasters... [we] weren't tempered in the fires of adversity like the college librarians (Richardson, University of Melbourne, Interview, 1996). The university librarians, like their institutions, preferred to operate independently and resisted interference by outsiders.
Moreover, unlike the college librarians who devoted their efforts almost exclusively to developing ALCAE, the university librarians tended to regard AACOBS and other national professional forums as the more important groups within which to develop their interests. For these reasons the university librarians did not have the same need to use CAUL as a forum for cooperative action. However as has been clearly illustrated, this was not entirely a matter of choice since the AVCC had specific rules which restricted the activities of inter-university groups like CAUL. It was these rules, and the fear of transgressing them that, perhaps more than any other single factor, compelled CAUL to remain an informal group with a narrow range of activity. These factors prevented attempts by early reformers to change the group into something analogous to ALCAE.
126 PART THREE
THE ASSOCIATION OF LIBRARIANS IN COLLEGES OF ADVANCED EDUCATION
1974-1988
127 CHAPTER 13 COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY (1972-1987)
By comparison with the expansionist approach of the fifties and sixties, the higher education sector was, from the middle to late seventies onwards, forced to operate within a far more austere environment. This environment was one where political expediency and economic decline ordained that universities and colleges were to become more accountable to governments if they were to continue to be funded from the public purse.
Demand for higher education increased markedly until 1975. Between 1969 and 1975, for example, university enrolments increased from 97,252 to 147,754 while for the same period the CAEs student population grew from 42,813 to 125,383 (CACAE, Second Report, 1969, p. 11; TEC, Report for 1982-84 triennium, v. 1, pt, 1, 1981, p. 34). This trend was influenced by rising population levels (increasing from 11.5 to 14 million between 1965 and 1975) and sustained economic growth. The combination of these factors led to a high demand for labour, low unemployment, and increased affluence across a large cross section of the Australian community. However this situation changed dramatically in the mid seventies as a result of a downturn in the economy and a shift in the political climate. As a consequence support for the continuing expansion of higher education by the Commonwealth was abruptly curtailed. The following chapter outlines the main changes that took place in Commonwealth higher education policy from 1972 until 1988.
The Whitlam Labor Government (1972-1975)
As outlined in Chapter 1, from the late fifties there was a gradual increase in the Commonwealth Government's contribution to the funding of higher education which resulted in it matching dollar for dollar all capital expenditure and one dollar for each $1.85 provided by the States. The Commonwealth's financial commitment was further extended when, following the election of the Whitlam Labor Government in 1972, a decision was made to accept full responsibility for the funding of CAE's and universities.
128 At the same time the Whitlam Government abolished tuition fees and introduced a living allowance scheme for students. A decision was also made to have the Commonwealth Government fully fund the State teachers colleges from 1974, which resulted in these institutions being incorporated into the CAE sector. These changes were very much a reflection of the new government's broader agenda of reforming social policy, a key part of which was ensuring equality of educational opportunity.
The Australian Labor Party's (ALP) education platform had been enunciated during its years in Opposition. At its Federal Conference in 1969 the ALP had stressed that the Commonwealth had a central responsibility in extending access of all Australians (especially disadvantaged groups) to all levels of education. In his 1972 election campaign Whitlam reiterated his Party's position in this area:
The most rapidly growing sector of public spending under a Labor Government will be education. Education should be the great instrument for the promotion of equality. Under the [Liberal Government] it has become a weapon for perpetuating inequality and promoting privilege... The inequality which begins [at] school has become entrenched and inescapable by the time a student is ready for tertiary education. Fees represent less than 5% of university income but a very large percentage of parents' or students' income. From the 1974 academic year, fees will be abolished at universities, colleges of advanced education and technical colleges. The Commonwealth will assume full responsibility for financing tertiary education, as all the Labor leaders, Federal and State, [have] agreed (Whitlam, 1972, p.12, 14-15).
Although Whitlam also provided substantial financial assistance to schools, it was in the area of post-secondary education where Whitlam's philosophy of social equality was most clearly seen:
From the perspective of social policy, Whitlam accelerated changes in tertiary education initiated by Menzies and the Murray Committee, in principle democratising access by abolishing fees. Although Whitlam had written little on education, this was obviously a major reform in his own eyes, given his commitment to the liberal sensibility that education was a key both to social development and to individual self-development. Whitlam in this regard was always a meritocrat, a social liberal who viewed the rigged running race of unequal life chances as a great
129 squanderer of human resources (Beilharz, 1994, p. 92).
Whitlam's reforms, however, were ill-timed. As inflation levels rose rapidly during the Labor Government's period of office (1972-1975), and as the international economy went into recession, it became increasingly apparent that the significant financial requirements of the various education sectors (especially the rapidly expanding CAE sector) could not be met (Beswick & Harman, 1983, p. 24-27).
Matters first came to a head in 1975 when the Whitlam Government, in response to budgetary pressures, rejected financial recommendations totalling well over $6 Billion from the various education commissions for the 1976-78 triennium (Smart, 1982, p. 29). Given that funding had already quadrupled over the previous two years, the Labor Government was finding it increasingly difficult to justify further increases in education expenditure. It was forced therefore to devise ways of rationalising its funding commitment to the university and college sectors. To this end, in his 1975 Budget speech, the Treasurer announced that the 1976 calender year would be separate from the normal triennial programme and that funding would be held at 1975 levels in the case of recurrent funding, with reductions to capital outlays (Smart, 1977, p. 40-41). The commissions were subsequently invited to lodge revised triennial estimates for a new 'rolling' triennium to commence in January 1977 (Harman, 1982, p. 164; Smart, 1982, p. 29). Karmel, who was Chairman of the AUC at the time, recalled the turbulent events surrounding this decision:
[In] the 76-78 [triennium] there was a recommendation for special money, but I'm pretty sure that that didn't get up because that's when the whole thing blew apart... the whole thing failed because [of what] the Labor Government set up. I mean there was the Universities Commission, there was the advanced education [commission], they'd set up TAFE61 [Tertiary and Further Education sector], they set up the Schools Commission and they all put in huge bids and the whole thing was so large that whole thing collapsed. We had a year out of the triennial arrangement in which the
61TAFE constituted the third sector in Australian post-secondary education. Whereas the CAEs offered courses that served professional occupations, the TAFE sector offered training primarily for tradespeople and technicians. Courses ranged from mechanical engineering, public administration and hotel and catering management, to fashion, home science and commercial art.
130 Government I think continued to support the operating grants but cut most of the other things severely.
In the early years when they were starting off the various commissions were able to recommend what seemed to be quite large amounts and get away with them. But as the whole system grew, the total amount of money became more and more. And I think I'm right in saying the 1976 to 8 triennium involved a total claim by the four commissions of about 5 or 6 billion dollars which was a huge amount in those days and the thing just blew apart... the bill simply got too high (Karmel, Vice-Chancellor, Interview, 1996).
The Fraser Liberal-National Government (1975-1983)
In December 1975, following a series of budget scandals and the blocking by the Opposition of revenue supply in the Senate, the Whitlam government was dismissed under extraordinary circumstances by the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr. So ended a period of Commonwealth support for the expansion of Australian higher education which dated back to the Menzies' Government-inspired Murray reforms of the early sixties.
The incoming Liberal-National Government under Malcolm Fraser set imposing restrictions on the Commonwealth's financial commitment to higher education that would take effect from 1977. This approach was driven by the Coalition's pre-election promise to rectify the economic mismanagement of the Whitlam years. One political commentator summed up the new Prime Minister's approach to government, which was in marked contrast to his predecessor: "In government Fraser was pragmatic and saw a clear role for government. He was concerned to wind back the increase in public expenditure, sought to diminish trade union power (with little success) and was conscious of the need to reduce inflation" (Henderson, 1994, p. 255). In an effort to control inflation - while at the same time trying to encourage private sector development with a view to accelerating economic growth - the Liberal-National Government immediately set about the task of cutting back public expenditure and reducing the size of the public sector (Beswick & Harman, 1983, p. 24-27; Harman, 1986, p. 574).
The relationship between the new government and higher education institutions
131 deteriorated almost immediately. In an interview with the author, Frank Hambly (Secretary, AVCC) contrasts the cordial relationship between the Vice-Chancellors and Whitlam with that of his successor:
[The AVCC] started to develop new relationships with the bureaucracy of the day [under the Whitlam Labor Government] and with Kim Beazley [the Education Minister]. Beazley was very keen to work closely with the Vice-Chancellors over the whole abolition of the fees issue and the transition to full Commonwealth funding. I remember sitting down with Sir David Derham62 and Sir Zelman Cowen,63 in September '73 with people like Beazley himself [and] some government officials, and just nutting through all the implications of fee abolition... People started to look to the Vice-Chancellors more and more under Whitlam. Now, once Fraser came in 1975, things changed. There was so much hostility towards Fraser personally that the Vice-Chancellors didn't have an all that crash hot relationship with him. I remember he came and met with the Vice- Chancellors on a couple of occasions. On the first occasion [before the election] Fraser spent a whole evening with Sir David Derham and Sir Zelman Cowen picking their brains, because they were great constitutional lawyers, about how you could prevent a Governor-General being sacked by a phone call to the Palace (Hambly, Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, Interview, 1996).
Frank Hambly also mentioned an incident at Monash University, following the election, where Fraser "got stuck into the then Vice-Chancellor at Monash". According to Hambly, following the opening of a building at the university, Fraser had been forced to "hold out in the toilet for some time" for security reasons while waiting to leave the campus, action which Fraser thought was "very inhospitable treatment from the Vice- Chancellor". "So", Hambly concluded, "we really didn't have a great relationship with Fraser" (Hambly, Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, Interview, 1996).
Higher education was one of the areas singled out by the Fraser administration for review as part of the government's budgetary reform process. The Commonwealth's
62Derham was Vice-Chancellor, University of Melbourne, from 1968 to 1982.
63Sir Zelman Cowen was Vice-Chancellor, University of New England, from 1967 to 1969, Vice-Chancellor, University of Queensland from 1970 to 1977, and Governor-General of Australia from 1977 to 1982.
132 justification for reducing funding for the higher education system was based on two main premises. The first was that institutions had been wasting tax-payers money. Here the Federal Government seemed to be responding in part to allegations made by the press and business groups who were accusing higher education institutions of fostering inefficient management practices and "empire building", whilst insisting that enrolments were being expanded unnecessarily. These tendencies were deemed to be especially unacceptable during times of economic hardship which were now being felt as the recession took hold and as unemployment rates increased. Smart has suggested that by this time " the attitude of large segments of the public, the media and policy-makers towards education has gradually been transformed from one of basic support to one of suspicion and even hostility" (Smart, 1982, p. 28). As a result of these claims, the Fraser administration demanded that institutions become more accountable for the expenditure of Commonwealth grants and that they operate more efficiently.
The second justification the Commonwealth used for reducing its financial commitment to CAEs and universities was that demographic indicators revealed that the participation rate of young people in higher education was declining (Karmel, 1988, p. 122-123). Between 1974 and 1978 annual university student growth rates fell from 7.4% to 0.9%, while over the same period CAE rates fell from 13.2% to 7.4% (TEC, Report for the 1982-84 triennium, 1981, v.1, pt. 1, p. 34).
In response to these factors the Liberal-National Government set about revising the Commonwealth's approach to higher education policy (Harman, 1982, p. 57). The Fraser administrations' first move was to extend the practice of 'steady-state' funding which had begun with the previous Labor Government's decision to freeze education funding for 1976 at 1975 levels. From 1976 Commonwealth expenditure for both universities and colleges was reduced in real per capita terms for recurrent funding, and
133 grants for capital works were progressively reduced (Smart, 1982, p. 29). As a consequence of this policy the proportion of GDP spent on higher education fell from 1.33 percent in 1972-73 to 1.175 percent in 1983-84 (Harrold, 1987, p. 5).
At the same time the Commonwealth assumed greater control over the direction of higher education. The aim was to make the sector more accountable for the expenditure of public monies and to more closely align it with broader political, economic and social agendas being pursued by the Commonwealth (Lindsay, 1982, p. 39). This shift in policy was achieved by essentially three means, namely through the creation of a single national Tertiary Education Commission (TEC), the issuing of government policy guidelines to the TEC, and the rationalisation of the CAE sector.
Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. In 1977 the Commonwealth set up a new Tertiary Education Commission to facilitate greater control over the distribution of funding and to achieve a more co-ordinated approach to the development of all forms of post-secondary education in Australia, including the university, CAE, and technical and further education (TAFE) sectors. (Smart, 1977, p. 37; Harman, 1984, p. 12). The Tertiary Education Commission (TEC), or Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC) as it later became known, replaced the Australian Universities Commission, the Commission of Advanced Education, and the Commission on Technical and Further Education, with each of these three sectors now being represented on the CTEC by separate advisory Councils (St.John, 1981, p. 11).64 In line with Commonwealth's broader policy objectives, the CTEC's ultimate responsibility was "to achieve the most effective use of resources available for tertiary education" (TEC, Report for the 1982-84 triennium, 1981, v. 1, pt. 1, p. 1).
The CTEC Guidelines. A second policy device introduced by the Commonwealth at this time was the practice of issuing annual guidelines to the CTEC. These Guidelines outlined the maximum amount of funding the Commonwealth Government was willing to
64This name change occurred in June 1981. For the sake of consistency the author has used the acronym CTEC rather than TEC when making general reference to the Commission.
134 provide to the Commission for higher education. The Guidelines spelt out, in broad terms, how this money should be spent, thereby providing a means by which Government could begin to try to align higher education with broader political and social and economic policy objectives. One education commentator described the implications of this new procedure:
Whereas government policy prior to 1975 was to fund according to the advice of the Commission regarding the needs of the tertiary sectors, with the needs being largely determined by predictions of student enrolments, the current procedure involves the specification of a level of funds consistent with the government's broad fiscal policy and a determination of student numbers by calculation of the level that can be financed by the level of funds provided. In retrospect the change can be seen to signify the end of a whole approach to planning tertiary education which was initiated after the Murray Report. The decision fundamentally changes the nature of the Commission by removing it from its position as a buffer between institutions and governments and establishing it firmly as an agent for implementing government policy (Lindsay, 1982, p. 38).
Rationalisation of CAE Sector. An integral part of the Fraser administrations' policy agenda was to create a smaller, more efficient Public Service. In order to achieve this the Commonwealth Government commissioned a Review of Commonwealth Functions (1981) chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, Sir Phillip Lynch. The so-called 'Razor Gang', as the review committee was commonly known, scrutinised all government portfolios, including education. This review epitomised the Fraser Government's desire to show a public commitment to addressing the economic problems that were besetting the nation during this period:
[In] these circumstances, it is not surprising that there have been pressures from supporting interests for the Prime Minister 'to wield the axe'. Moreover, with the new international austerity mood of budget cuts and trimming of government functions, in company of such other heads of government as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan no doubt the Australian Prime Minister will want to boast of his achievements in paring bureaucracy and public spending (Harman, 1982, p. 165).
As far as higher education was concerned, the review concluded that the CAE
135 sector was generating more graduate teachers than were needed to meet the requirements of the school system. This problem of oversupply proved somewhat of an embarrassment to the Fraser Government which had pledged to scale-down the public sector. To rectify this situation the Razor Gang recommended that thirty CAEs specialising in teacher training should amalgamate with other CAEs or else merge with other institutions, including universities. The Prime Minister swiftly backed up these findings, stating publicly that his Government had been "concerned at the proliferation of separate institutions" and was proposing "immediate action to minimise this trend and to provide for more efficient use of resources" (Fraser, 1981, p. 23).
Fraser subsequently announced that Commonwealth funding support for these thirty colleges would be in danger of being withdrawn after 31 December 1981 unless they amalgamated. Having reached a total of around sixty-eight colleges, following the addition of teachers colleges in 1974, the CAE sector contracted to forty-five institutions between 1981 and 1983 as a consequence of the Commonwealth's ultimatum. The States most affected by this decision were the two largest, New South Wales and Victoria, where in some cases as many as five separate colleges merged to form a single institution.65
Harman summed up the mixed response from the sector to these amalgamations:
Opinion still differs sharply on whether the amalgamations of 1981-83 were necessary and about the outcomes. Supporters of the amalgamations argue that the major consolidation that occurred was essential in order to overcome planning mistakes of the late 1960s and 1970s and claim that the important achievements have been larger, more flexible institutional units, improved choice of courses for students, stronger academic programmes, better student services, some minor short-term cost savings, and the promise in the longer term of substantial savings in both recurrent and capital expenditure... On the other hand, critics point to the adverse affects on many individual staff, the damage of institutional morale, inefficiencies in some new multi-campus institutions, failure to achieve all
65For example the new Sydney CAE was made up of the following pre-amalgamation institutions; Alexander Mackie CAE, Guild Teachers College, Nursery School Teachers College, and Sydney Teachers College. Two universities, the University of Wollongong and James Cook University, also absorbed local CAEs (Harman, 1986, p. 582).
136 the promised advantages in the short term, loss of many desirable features of smaller institutions, and the failure by both Federal and State governments to consult with affected institutions to a sufficient degree (Harman, 1986, p. 583).
The Hawke Labor Government (1983-1987)
In 1983 the Fraser Liberal-National Government was defeated in the polls and a new Labor Government led by Bob Hawke took office. Under the new Labor administration, Commonwealth interest in higher education was revived. In contrast to the years of relative neglect experienced under Fraser's leadership, higher education once again became the centrepiece of government policy as it had been during the Menzies and part of the Whitlam years.
In line with the Australian Labor Party's philosophy that all levels of society ought to be given the opportunity to improve themselves through education, the new government committed itself to raising higher education participation rates, with special emphasis given to offering increased access to disadvantaged groups. Like Menzies in the sixties, Hawke believed in the capacity of education to serve broader national interests such as employment and economic growth. The use of educational resources to strengthen the economy by increasing the supply of skilled labour and to train managers and business people to compete more successfully in the international marketplace was a policy strategy enthusiastically promoted by the Hawke Government. Moreover, the Commonwealth hoped to have higher education act as a panacea for the growing unemployment rate (which by 1983 had reached a record level of 9.9%) by encouraging more young people to remain in the education system after leaving high school.
This linking of education with national interests was also reflected in greater participation by various key Commonwealth Departments in the formulation of higher education policy. One of the Hawke administration's policy initiatives was to foster a more coordinated policy-making structure within the Commonwealth bureaucracy, whereby government departments and agencies were encouraged to view their individual portfolios within the context of broad government objectives. Marshall cites numerous
137 examples of this increasing trend between 1983 and 1986 (Marshall, 1988). For instance the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Science recommended the modification of certain tertiary programs to suit better the requirements of industry employers. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations argued that there was a direct correlation between the success of their labour market programs and the quality and content of vocational training. The Departments of Finance and Treasury believed that tertiary education needed to achieve greater cost efficiencies, particularly in the area of research activity and staffing. Other agencies like the Australian Science and Technology Council and the Economic Planning Advisory Council sought to demonstrate how tertiary education could be made to contribute to national economic development. This trend, however, served to hinder the CTEC in fulfilling its role because the government bureaucracy increasingly determined the direction of higher education policy:
[There was] a perception that CTEC was not being responsive enough to the requirements of industry and the government's own directives... Universities and colleges, it seems, have come to be regarded as economic policy instruments of substantial importance. That this is the case can be viewed as the outcome, to a considerable extent, of the activities of a number of government departments. [During the latter half of the 1980s] the commonwealth bureaucracy played a salient role in placing tertiary education on the political agenda and creating an administrative environment which effectively undermined CTEC's viability (Marshall, 1988, p. 19).
This interventionist approach was reflected in the Hawke Government's use of the CTEC Guidelines. As mentioned above, the practice of issuing guidelines to the CTEC was instituted by the previous Fraser Government. However, whereas the Liberal- National Government issued fairly broad policy directions to the CTEC which gave the Commission considerable latitude in terms of how policies should be implemented, the Hawke Government's guidelines tended to be far more prescriptive. This again reflected the input of various government agencies (Marshall, 1988, p. 24).
Despite the Labor Government's interest in higher education, however, it was not prepared to invest large sums of money to aid its development. Although participation rates increased from 340,000 to 393,000 or 15.6% between 1982 and 1987, real
138 recurrent funding only rose by 7.5% over this period. The Commonwealth expected the sector to cope with this expansion by streamlining its operations. This approach was reflected in the commissioning in 1985 by the Minister for Education, Senator Susan Ryan (1984-1987), of a major review of efficiency and effectiveness in higher education. The committee charged with this task, chaired by the CTEC chairman Hugh Hudson, was asked to examine:
- the nature and extent of changes in the utilisation of resources and productivity in higher education since the assumption of full Commonwealth funding responsibility;
- the potential for achieving better utilisation of existing resources especially through increased usage throughout the year, and the application of new technologies;
- means of improving the capacity of institutions to respond flexibly to the requirements of economic growth and to community needs, with particular reference to staffing mechanisms;
- further steps which could be taken to improve delivery of courses and reduce unnecessary duplication; and
- measures to monitor performance and productivity in higher education institutions, to assist institutions to improve their efficiency and accountability (Hudson Report, 1986, p. xv).
The Hudson Committee, which published its final report in September 1986, advocated the replacement of the more traditional collegial style of academic governance with more business like management practices. Among the Committee's many recommendations were: the systematic review of the performance of academic departments within institutions, better utilisation of physical facilities, the distribution of internal resources on a more competitive basis, and the application of strategic planning methods (Hudson Report, 1986, p. 19-29).
139 CHAPTER 14 ALCAE AND THE TEACHERS COLLEGES
The difficulties experienced by ALCAE from the mid-1970s until the late 1980s very much parallel these wider developments, starting with the decision taken in 1975 by the CAE Commission to discontinue the practice of providing special financial support for libraries. This decision was part of an overall strategy by the Commission to encourage the maturing colleges to take more responsibility for determining their own priorities, much like the approach taken with the universities. This shift in Commission policy was also motivated by the growing financial uncertainty that was besetting the Whitlam Government at this time. The Commonwealth was entering a period where it could no longer afford to give special support to one area of college activity.
Broader financial difficulties experienced by the Whitlam administration also indirectly influenced a decision to terminate the Library Sub-Committee of the CAE Commission in 1975-76. The Commission could no longer afford the administrative costs of such specialist committees. Again, it was now up to individual institutions to assume responsibility for the development of their own libraries.
In the absence of the kind of official role previously afforded to them by the Commission, ALCAE struggled to convince institutions and governments alike of the need to maintain their previous support for libraries. This loss of official backing for libraries caused many members to begin to question the ongoing worth of a body like ALCAE.
But perhaps the first major event, eventually destabilising the sector and to be further developed in 1981 by amalgamations, was the inclusion of the teachers colleges in the CAE sector in the early to mid 1970s.
The Whitlam Government's decision to have the teachers colleges included as part of the CAE sector from 1974 resulted in an increase in the number of colleges from twenty six to seventy eight. Although the Martin Committee had recommended in 1965
140 that teachers colleges be included as part of the CAE sector, the Menzies government at that time had argued that these colleges should remain the responsibility of each State which structured teachers college courses in accordance with local school curricula. However as time went on, many teachers colleges desired to free themselves from the restrictions placed upon them by State education departments by coming under the Commonwealth umbrella, a move which would also yield potentially greater financial provision. Connell has described the chain of events that led to the decision to incorporate these colleges into the CAE sector:
In 1972, a [Commonwealth Government] Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts recommended that the Federal Government should support non-government primary and secondary teachers' colleges as well as government ones. In the following year, a report by the Special Committee on Teacher Education (Cohen Report)66 advocated the further development of multi-vocational colleges and the freeing of the State teachers' colleges from the authority of State departments of education. It argued for joint Federal-State funding of State colleges, but did not recommend assistance to the non-State institutions. In the event, the government accepted the advice on the fostering of multi-vocational colleges. In addition... from 1974 [the Commonwealth decided] to assume complete financial responsibility for the State teachers' colleges and the pre-school teachers' colleges. Further, it decided to abolish the payment of fees in the colleges, and to begin to provide assistance to the non-government colleges. Thus, from 1974, the State teachers' colleges became independent of the direct authority of the State departments of education, though subject to the surveillance of the higher education authority established in each State (Connell, 1993, p. 390).
This decision served to accentuate even further the differences in the size and nature of the various types of colleges that now made up the sector. At one extreme there were the large Institutes which in 1974 had as many as 10,000 students enrolled across a
66The Report of the Special Committee on Teacher Education (Cohen Report)(1973) was appointed by the Commonwealth to advise the Australian Commission on Advanced Education (ACAE) on the funding requirements of teacher education; to "examine and report on claims of institutions that they are being developed as self-governing institutions under the supervision of an appropriate co-ordinating body in each state..."; and to "give consideration to the future status as single-purpose or multi-purpose institutions of those colleges which assistance is recommended" (Cohen Report, 1973, p. v).
141 wide variety of disciplines (e.g. RMIT67). At the other extreme there were now numerous former teachers colleges with a single discipline whose student body in 1974 ranged in size from 171 students (Nursery School Teachers College) to 3, 558 students (State College of Victoria, Melbourne), with the majority enrolling less than 1200 (CAE, Fourth Report, 1975, p. 166-188). Although the Commission encouraged the teachers colleges to become more like the original CAE's by developing a wider range of courses, it acknowledged that this process would take time. This view was reinforced in the Commission-sponsored Report of the Special Committee on Teacher Education (Cohen Report)(1973): "Patience is called for. The multi-vocational concept could be discredited if pressed in an arbitrary fashion on institutions which, over the years, have developed their own traditions and strengths" (Cohen Report, 1973. p. 88).
This decision to accept the teachers colleges into the CAE system had a profound effect on college libraries in general and ALCAE in particular. The merger of the two groups of librarians was not met with any great enthusiasm by the original ALCAE group. Coming from institutions with different traditions and priorities, the librarians from the teachers colleges were not imbued with the same kind of enthusiasm for the special educational potential of libraries that had been cultivated within the original CAE environment. The original ALCAE members found this merger all the more difficult to accept given the fact that they had become a tight-knit group that had grown accustomed to working closely together through the demanding establishment phase of the CAE sector. More significantly, they had shared a common purpose and vision for achieving the kind of library envisaged by the early CAE planners:
Into this growing, confident group [of college librarians making up the original ALCAE] were suddenly placed the teachers colleges, and there was a feeling of having to start over again just as some results were being achieved. Although the teachers colleges needed assistance and support, it was thought that they changed the whole pattern of the colleges of advanced education, not only within themselves but in the 'public consciousness' (Crittenden, 1984, p. 187).
67Subjects taught at Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology included Agriculture, Applied Science, Art and Design, Building, Surveying and Architecture, Commercial and Business Studies, Engineering and Technology, Liberal Studies, and Paramedical Studies (CAE, Fourth Report, 1975, p. 174).
142 In an interview McNally clearly recalled the unmistakable "dichotomy" that existed between the two types of colleges (McNally, Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996). Crittenden believed that teachers colleges joining the CAE sector "wrecked the college of advanced education system". "When they introduced that", he said, "and allowed the teachers colleges to become CAE's, I think it down-graded the colleges from what was originally conceived of as colleges of advanced education" (Crittenden, Canberra College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996). The critical difference with the teachers colleges, according to Crittenden, was that they "didn't have that same sort of concept of new teaching methods" and that, therefore, their "concept of the library was quite different" (Crittenden, Canberra College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996). The librarians from the larger and more innovative Institutes (e.g. WAIT, SAIT, NSWIT and RMIT68) in particular blamed the teachers colleges for not adopting the concept of the centrality of the college library in the teaching-learning process so eagerly embraced by the original group of CAEs:
I don't think the teachers colleges changed dramatically by being introduced to become CAEs, I think they just continued on - improving themselves a bit and their libraries, perhaps their teaching methods a bit - but not adopting this new idea [of making the library an integral part of college curriculum] that we had as the original CAEs (Crittenden, Canberra College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
With the original CAE concept now diluted, and with it a special emphasis on the role of libraries, ALCAE had now lost the main argument it had used to press for additional resources.
Professional Status
According to some of those interviewed, the fact that some of the librarians in
68Western Australian Institute of Technology, South Australian Institute of Technology, New South Wales Institute of Technology and Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.
143 charge of teachers college libraries lacked professional qualifications also produced some tensions within the group and made assimilation even more difficult to achieve. Crittenden made the comment that the teachers college librarians were, in his view, "not of tertiary institution standard... often untrained [and] usually without a degree". This was at a time when, said Crittenden, many librarians "were attempting to make the Library Association a professional organisation with a degree as the basic professional standard." "I don't like to cast aspersions on people", he continued, "but the [teachers colleges] librarians were just not the sort of people who could develop a tertiary library. But this was one of the major problems" (Crittenden, Canberra College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996). This coincided with a period where the Library Association of Australia had, after much vigorous internal debate, decided to settle on recognising the satisfactory completion of an under-graduate level librarianship degree or graduate diploma as the basic acceptable standard for professional recognition by the Association (Keane, 1982; Bryan, 1971).
This issue of professional qualifications was the subject of debate within ALCAE even before the introduction of teachers colleges into the CAE system. For example in 1971 Allen suggested that institutions that appoint chief librarians without appropriate qualifications should be made ineligible for CAE status:
.....I suggest that, in future colleges without professional librarians in charge of their libraries should be excluded from our considerations and recommendations - indeed that we should represent to CACAE that such institutions should not be permitted to remain or to become CAE's. (Letter from Allen to Ward, 25/5/71).
Other members, however, were prepared to take a more liberal stance, arguing that ALCAE was established for those in charge of libraries as a means to "help each other" and that "colleges should be represented regardless of the status of the library in the organisation or the status of the individual" (ALCAE, Minutes of Meeting, 31/8- 1/9/72). However the addition of the teachers colleges seemed to coalesce opinion and in 1975 a resolution was passed which stated that "all librarians responsible for the management of College of Advanced Education Resource Centres... [must] have an
144 appropriate tertiary qualification, plus professional library qualifications as accepted by the Library Association of Australia" (ALCAE, Minutes of Meeting, 25/8/75).
Funding Imbalances
Apart from these differences, the original group of ALCAE librarians was also resentful of the diversion of funding that was needed to upgrade the teachers colleges, especially when the CAE libraries had struggled for so long to try to bring their libraries up to a reasonable standard:
I remember when they introduced the teachers colleges, there was a sort of general feeling among the original librarians of the CAEs, "ah, we just got ourselves going properly and now we have to start all over again, [to] try and drag these newly introduced institution up to our level..." It was a sort of feeling of no joy at all; it was a feeling of depression [that] we were now given "another" group of institutions to try and, as I say, drag up. And that's I think when disillusion started actually (Crittenden, Canberra College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
The fact that many of the teachers college libraries were in need of remedial attention tended to detract from the achievements of the original group of libraries, many of whom were struggling to reach the CACAE's Interim Standards by 1975, as had been the Commissions' and ALCAEs' goal.69 Additional funding had to be provided to upgrade teachers college libraries, and although the Commission was not prepared to offer a special purpose grant for this purpose it did build extra finances into the total recurrent funds it provided for each teachers college for the 1973-75 triennium to take account of this situation (CAE, Fourth Report, 1975, p. 28). The minutes of a meeting held by ALCAE that same year noted that despite the allocation of the $5 million of the third unmatched grant, there was a concern that the situation in the poorer resourced country colleges would not be improved to the extent that had been hoped owing to "the possibility of the money being spread more thinly because of new [teachers] colleges" (ALCAE, Minutes of Meeting, 22/8/73).
69See Chapter 5.
145 ALCAE State Branches and Newsletter
The increase in the size of ALCAE's membership, occasioned by the introduction of teachers colleges, necessitated structural changes which, in the opinion of the group's original members, made ALCAE a less effective body. In 1974 the group's Articles of Association were revised to allow for the formation of State or regional branches of ALCAE with members elected to a national executive for a two year term. According to members of the original ALCAE, this had the effect of weakening the sense of group cohesion. It also had the effect of dispersing the efforts of the group, and produced in members a tendency to focus on State issues at the expense of a single national agenda:
I think there was some resentment at first [at the sudden enlargement of the group]... I mean, we went from a relatively small, relatively homogeneous group in terms of what we were doing (rather than our age - there were places like RMIT that could date themselves back to the last century). And suddenly you found these other people coming in and they swamped you... So, suddenly, [there were] more of them than there were of us. I think that was difficult to accommodate. And they had different agendas altogether (McNally, Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
I think there were too many of them actually to really get the sort of impetus we had at the beginning. A fairly small group of people can make a much better impact than a large group of people scattered over the whole country... Victoria had always had a state branch. The rest of the states didn't in the early stage, partly because there were only a few CAEs in the other states... until the teachers colleges were introduced. Western Australia and South Australia only had one [CAE]... Because of the increase in numbers of colleges the idea of having state branches of ALCAE became a possibility, and I think that decreased the importance of that central body (Crittenden, Canberra College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
Around this time ALCAE started to issue its own newsletter which was seen both as a way both of communicating more effectively with a larger number of members and of promoting ALCAE's activities. The ALCAE Newsletter began under Allen's chairmanship in 1972:
146 ... [Allen asked for] opinions on the possibility of publishing the deliberations of ALCAE meetings. It was felt that a tangible expression of ALCAE's viability was desirable, both for the benefit of members and for political purposes. It was therefore RESOLVED: that ALCAE proceedings should be published annually, or as appropriate, and be distributed at a cost determined by the Standing Committee.... (ALCAE, Minutes of Meeting, 31/8-1/9/72).
The Newsletter was published until the mid 1980s and ranged from two to four issues per year. Each issue contained a wide range of information. The following extract from the 1980 statement of objectives from the May 1980 issue indicates a typical range of subjects covered:
This publication should aim to keep members informed about recent events and developments in the field of librarianship. Occasionally, items relating to higher education and other fields deemed to be of potential interest to members will be included.
Future issues for the year are planned to have the following regular features:
1. "Editorial" commenting mainly on matters discussed in the issue. 2. "Chairman's letter". 3. "State summaries," will bring to you noteworthy items from each Australian state and territory. 4. "Editor's notes," will contain miscellaneous information... 5. "Contributions" will report on recent research (broadly defined to include various surveys) carried out by members or in their libraries. This section can also act as an information exchange for recorded information (e.g., taped seminar, audio visual presentation of a subject, details of recently introduced automated systems). In this section members can inquire for information on matters of interest to them (e.g., can someone tell me about...?). 6. "Library lunacies," will give a chance to those who wish to share their humour with other members. 7. "Correspondence".
8. A section in each issue is planned to have a theme. Future themes will be announced in the "Editorial". The theme for the second issue will be "External use of CAE libraries" (ALCAE Newsletter, no. 1, May, 1980).
147 CHAPTER 15 THE COLLEGE COMMISSION REVIEWS SUPPORT FOR LIBRARIES (1975)
The Fourth Report (for the 1976-1978 triennium) of the Commission of Advanced Education, published in June 1975, was seen by many college librarians as marking the turning point in the fortunes of CAE libraries and ALCAE. This report was in most respects no different from the three previous triennial reports issued by the College Commission. It followed the same format as earlier reports. It outlined the Commission's recommendations to the Commonwealth regarding the development of sector policy and suggested funding levels for the forthcoming triennium. The main difference, however, was that libraries were no longer given special emphasis by the Commission, a fact made all the more obvious by a discontinuation of the previous practice of having a separate chapter in the report devoted to them. Comments made by college librarians reflect their perception of the significance of this shift in policy:
To an important degree the fourth report of the Commission signalled the end of the creative phase of its life. From this point on the Commission is in a reactive phase, responding to pressures from governments and attempting to accommodate the CAEs to declining funding levels. In doing so it appears to have betrayed what it had previously claimed made the colleges "equal but different" - namely a unique emphasis on the learning aspects of education.
It is reasonable to say that in 1972 the visionary gleam was still safe in the Commission's eye but by 1975 it had fled! In what seems an incredible change of attitude, if one ignores the triennial spacing of its reports, the Commission, though comprising the majority of its 1972 members, served notice that it had vacated the field in the struggle to up-grade libraries to the level necessary to meet functions required of them. The library no longer has a "central significance" claimed for it, but it is now referred to as "an important factor" in the educational quality of the colleges (Parr, 1980, p. 203, 202).70
Clearly there is a shift in tone in the Fourth Report of the Commission on
70Edward Parr was Principal Librarian at Nedlands CAE from 1979 to 1981. In 1984 he became Director, Learning and Information Centre, at the Northern Rivers CAE (which became a campus of the University of New England in 1989 and Southern Cross University, Lismore Campus in 1994) where he remained until he retired in 1996.
148 Advanced Education (Formally the ACAE) as Ward, in a pre-publication review, observed:
For the first time in a C.A.E. report, there is no separate chapter on libraries. Instead they are included in Chapter 5 as "College Facilities", together with building projects, computers, car parks and sports areas. The term "facilities" seems a little cool. By definition facilities make things easier for us. Seeing libraries in this light seems a far cry from the U.G.C. [University Grants Committee] claim of the twenties that a library was the heart of a university. But other times other cries. This does imply that libraries are among the things that most people want, while the heart metaphor suggests that they can be hidden away (Ward, 1975, p. 119).
Cessation of Unmatched Grants for College Libraries
Ward points to the cessation of the unmatched grants as being the main indicator of this shift in policy towards college libraries:
The section starts confidently. 'Libraries continue to be an important factor in the educational quality of the colleges.' But what evidence is there that their development will be supported as actively as before? The Commission will not make further special grants for libraries, although it recognizes that deficiencies remain... (Ward, 1975, p. 119).
It appears that a major factor in this apparent turn-around was that the Commission had at this stage considered that the so called "emergency situation" in libraries, referred to in the Second Report, had now passed and that the time had come for the colleges themselves to decide how much support would be given to libraries in the context of competing institutional priorities. Ward acknowledged this at the time when he said that "the fate of a library is now largely one with the fate of the institution it serves" (Ward, 1975, p. 117).
So, despite the Commission's recognition of ongoing shortages, it was decided that no further special grants would be made available to libraries. It was now "for each college to determine its own priorities in allocating recurrent funds for the improvement of library services" (CAE, Fourth Report, 1975, p. 39). The chair of the Library Sub-
149 Committee, Gordon Greenwood, himself admitted that the time had come when ongoing special grants could no longer be justified: "When library provision is indisputably substandard, as it was in many colleges, special remedial grants are wholly justified, but it cannot be expected that they will be continued indefinitely" (Greenwood, 1977, p. 574). Some concession was made by the Commission, however, in making it easier for the colleges to provide support for their libraries by allowing for "the purchase of library material [to] be funded from the equipment allocation within the capital program" for the "1976-78 triennium only"; an arrangement that was similar to the AUC's policy of allowing for the purchase of library material out of equipment grants:
I believe that the intention is to avoid having library materials competing with other recurrent costs such as salaries, which are difficult to prune and to control. Previously when other recurrent costs have risen unexpectedly, library funds have been the easiest to reduce to meet the emergency. By treating them as capital this can be prevented (Ward, 1975, p. 119).
Sector-wide Standards for Libraries Abandoned
This transfer of responsibility back to the institutions themselves for the continuing maintenance of libraries also applied to the use of standards. No longer would there be a commitment to sector-wide standards as had been the case with the so-called 'Interim' standards specified by the Commission in its Second Report (1969) for the building up of collections. The Commission announced in its Fourth Report that it would not be recommending any revised standards for CAE libraries in the future. As with arrangements for funding, the Commission now deemed it more appropriate for the colleges themselves to assume responsibility for determining their own collection levels:
There is a great variety among colleges which in turn gives rise to differing needs in the size and nature of their collections. Because of this variety the Commission does not propose to issue specific guidelines or standards. We believe that colleges can now make use of previous guidelines which, allied to their own present knowledge and experience, will enable them to make the necessary judgements on improvements to their libraries" (CAE, Fourth Report, 1975, p. 40).
150 Although some members of ALCAE were appalled with this turn of events, Ward saw it as entirely inevitable, if not realistic, given the already generous attention that had been bestowed on libraries by comparison with other spheres of college activity. Ward acknowledged the increasing desire of many colleges to have greater control over how they allocated their finances.
A further reason for the College Commissions' decision to drop its standards setting function is evident in the quotation above. The large variation in the rate of growth and variety of colleges now in existence made it almost impossible to specify reasonable sector-wide standards. Ward, who had anticipated this change in approach, had written to Victor Crittenden prior to the Fourth Report, warning him of the uncertainty of further special grants and suggested that ALCAE would be wise to now think about "how to sustain the institution's own contribution and raise that to the point where outside library subsidy was not needed (!)" (Letter from Ward to Crittenden, 15/4/74). On another occasion he said that the Commission's decision not to proceed with updating standards could be viewed in a positive light, despite the increased onus on the colleges themselves to ensure that their libraries were adequately maintained from regular funding sources. This, he said;
... would seem to be an improvement in giving college administrators and librarians the liberty to plan and, here's the rub, then to justify the library collection they need... [This approach] recognizes that the diversity and the greater maturity of the colleges makes nonsense of any strict specification covering the whole group, and it implies that the need for adequate library collections cannot be ignored by administrators (Ward, 1975, p. 118).
Whatever the implications, it became clear to the CAE librarians that their libraries were no longer regarded as a priority:
I suppose my response [to the decision on standards] was that the priorities that had been placed by the commission on the library were fading. That together with the abandonment of the special grant. In fact... earlier there used to usually be a chapter on libraries in the [Commission] Reports... And suddenly there wasn't, there were just a couple of
151 paragraphs. And so the interpretation was that libraries had dropped down a significant way... (McNally, Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
Termination of the Library Sub-Committee
This policy shift also brought about the demise of the Commission's Library Sub- Committee. Like its decision to terminate ear-marked grants, the Commission justified its action on the grounds that it now wished to encourage institutions to manage their own affairs rather than have them determined by an external committee, though it also pointed to funding constraints as an additional reason:
... under the Government's policy of restraint in public expenditure, firm staff ceilings have been placed on the Commission's secretariat and expenditure is being maintained at a conservative level. Under prevailing circumstances, therefore, the Commission has decided to trim its activities and to maintain only one standing advisory committee, namely a Capital Program Committee... The Commission has always been concerned that adequate library resources be provided in each college and that these be considered alongside the other resources and facilities necessary for the balance in the operation of a college as a tertiary educational institution. You may be assured that these are matters to which we will continue to give our earnest attention (Letter from Swinbourne, Commission on Advanced Education Chairman, to Peake, 5/10/76, in reply to an earlier letter from Peake concerning the termination of the Library Sub- Committee).
This rationale was reiterated in a subsequent letter to ALCAE:
The Commission agreed that, while it had been appropriate in the 1970-72 and 1973-75 triennia to provide special assistance for libraries and to establish a Library Committee to advise on the distribution of the special assistance, it was now appropriate that college councils should exercise responsibility over the whole of colleges' recurrent budgets... (Letter from Swinbourne, Commission on Advanced Education Chairman, to Peake [n.d. 1976]).
The Impact on ALCAE of Policy Shifts
152 A moving away from a sector-wide approach to library development towards an emphasis on local decision-making took away a large part of ALCAE's reason for being, which had principally been to lobby for, and help support, these kinds of centralised policy initiatives. "[Those] unmatched grants were a thing of the past", said one college librarian:
They had come and gone and there was no way an unmatched grant was going to come to a CAE. And because ALCAE had been so instrumental in getting and administering and reporting on the unmatched grants, it then [entered] a period of time when it didn't have that money as its impetus (O'Brien, Kuring-gai College of Advanced Education, Interview, 199671).
Moreover, now that the Library Sub-Committee had ceased, the college librarians felt that they were no longer in a position to be able to exert any real influence on the policy-making process:
The Library Committee was a great support for the librarians. [It] was our means of communicating [with] the Commission and when that ceased we lost that sort of support. We did have ALCAE but ALCAE didn't have any direct link to the Commission, and the Library [Sub-]committee did (Crittenden, Canberra College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
Dorothy Peake (Chief librarian, New South Wales Institute of Technology Sydney) who was chair of ALCAE during this period said quite unequivocally in an interview that: "There was no purpose in the organisation once the special grants and the library Sub-Committee went". She added that "it was [now] up to the [individual] institution to do what had to be done", and that therefore there was now "no point in a committee [like ALCAE]... there was no goal really for the organisation" (Peake, New South Wales Institute of Technology, Interview, 1996). Peake talked about the transformation that occurred within ALCAE by contrasting the group before and after these events:
71James O'Brien was Head, Resources Centre, at Kuring-gai CAE from 1977 to 1989. In 1991 he became Head Librarian at University of Western Sydney, Macarthur.
153 When the organisation has a purpose, and certainly ALCAE did in the beginning (I just came in in the end when its purpose was disappearing), it was lively, because there was something happening. But any organisation that doesn't have any real purpose becomes just a meeting place and a talk-fest. So I guess ALCAE gradually, too, became like that. But in the beginning it wasn't (Peake, New South Wales Institute of Technology, Interview, 1996).
Those interviewed generally agreed that from this point forward the group was "less successful... just because", said McNally, "governments took on other agendas" (McNally, Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996). Jack Ward was particularly resigned to the fact that not much more could achieved once the library sub-committee was disbanded. He believed that it was inevitable that it would be discontinued, given what the Commission had now become:
It was for that reason that I had given up any hope of getting more money out of them; the messages all round was, "oh well we've done you pretty well and you're on your own now". There were [also] some new members of the Commission and they thought that they'd been very indulgent to libraries and now it was somebody else's turn (Ward, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Interview, 1996).
A second, and related, factor which had a bearing on the winding down of ALCAE was the maturation of the colleges themselves. By the mid to late seventies many of the colleges had progressed to the point where they were becoming far less dependent on the Federal Government for advice and special financial assistance.
Like their parent institutions, the librarians too had become more confident and self-sufficient as their libraries expanded, with the result being less reliance on ALCAE as a form for advice and collegial support. ALCAE's function in helping the librarians and their libraries get established had diminished and a more independent group of librarians had begun to emerge. Dorothy Peake likened the CAE's in their first few years of development to being like "children that were being fed" and who needed encouragement. However as time went on, she said, they were "growing and becoming more mature", to the point "where the Commission would have thought, 'Well, they're
154 established now and they are on their own, and these institutions have to behave sensibly'" (Peake, New South Wales Institute of Technology, Interview, 1996). Bill Hitchins, from the Ballarat College of Advanced Education, also emphasised the influence of this process of maturation: "There was the feeling that being in a developmental stage - the stage that I came into things [was over and the colleges were now becoming] more stable, mature kind of institutions" (Hitchins, Ballarat College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
This trend towards self-reliance, combined with a growing realisation among members that the prospect of further special grants would be unlikely, had the librarians turning their attention inwards to their own principals and directors for support rather than lobbying centrally through ALCAE. This trend is in many ways reminiscent of the experience of the university librarians. Peake, who regarded what had happened as "just a natural evolution", commented that the college librarians were "now fighting within the institutions for what they could get".
Thus, by the mid seventies the signs were that ALCAE's role as a forum for collective action was diminishing and that, said Peake, it was now "up to everybody to do their own lobbying" (Peake, New South Wales Institute of Technology, Interview, 1996). In the words of another librarian, "we were [now] functioning at a level of self-help" (Macpherson, Mitchell College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996). As James O'Brien (Kuring-gai CAE) explained, the fact that the librarians had been told that they would not receive any further special assistance was all the more reason for transferring personal energies from a national to an institutional level:
So [the librarians] saw that the way to proceed was to work within their own institutions to get more money coming into their libraries by lobbying at their own individual local level, and they did not see that ALCAE [would help] (O'Brien, Kuring-gai College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
Threatened Split (1975). The combination of this withdrawal of priority support by the College Commission, the trend towards greater institutional independence, and above all
155 the introduction of the teachers colleges caused one member of ALCAE, Geoff Allen (Western Australian Institute of Technology), to question the continuing viability of the group in this changed environment.
In a letter written to Ward shortly after the release of the College Commission's Fourth Report, Allen said: "Originally I thought that with ALCAE we were achieving a degree of co-operative effort, but the recent developments since the large increase in the number of CAEs has, in my opinion, destroyed the effectiveness of that organ" (Letter from Allen to Ward, 15/7/75). Allen felt that the Institute librarians would have their interests better served if they aligned themselves with the university librarians, given the fact that their institutions appeared to share greater similarities with the universities than they did with the other colleges:
I happen to hold the opinion that the larger CAEs - WAIT, RMIT, SAIT, NSWIT, possibly QIT and Swinburne, and also possibly the Canberra CAE - are likely in the course of time, to become universities, in fact even if not in name. Library-wise, I feel that most of those I've named are already in the same league as the universities and have little in common with the smaller general purpose colleges, the mono-colleges or the converted teachers colleges (Letter from Allen to Ward, 15/7/75).
Allen proposed that the group of librarians belonging to the larger CAEs consider joining CAUL if, he said, "the university librarians were willing":
Therefore, I would suggest we might either from ALCAE or individually or as a sub-group, put it to the university librarians that certain CAE libraries have in fact the character of university libraries, and in the new order we should be aligned with them and become members of some transmuted CAUL rather than remain in ALCAE (Letter from Allen to Ward, 15/7/75).
As far as the future of ALCAE was concerned, he believed it could still continue to "look after the needs of the smaller and mono-discipline colleges" (Letter from Allen to Ward, 15/7/75).
156 Allen may have been taking the lead from the Institute directors who, in an effort to disassociate themselves from the smaller colleges, formed a breakaway group known as DOCIT (Directors of Central Institutes of Technology) in May 1975, not long before Allen pushed for a split within ALCAE. Like ALCAE, the DOCIT group were also more interested in affiliating themselves with the universities, with whom they felt they shared more in common than with the smaller colleges (Watson, 1986). John Scutt,72 who was Secretary of the Australian Committee of Directors and Principals (ACDP) - the equivalent body to the AVCC - remarked that there "were many varying interests and conflicting interests amongst the group [of directors and principals], particularly between the large institutes of technology and smaller single purpose institutions, and as long as the organisation was in place, that persisted to varying degrees" (Scutt, Australian Committee of Directors and Principals, Interview, 1996). Despite these agitations, the DOCIT group failed in its bid to have their Institutes given university status.
Allen likewise failed to convince the university librarians to have the Institute librarians be accepted as part of CAUL. The minutes of a CAUL meeting held in August 1975 noted that "It was not considered appropriate that membership of CAUL itself be expanded at a future date to encompass other than university librarians". The minutes concluded that "Members did not think that it would be profitable to combine CAUL and ALCAE" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 20/8/75). In a follow-up letter to ALCAE, the then chairman of CAUL, Derek Fielding, said that he would be "reluctant to see CAUL enlarged to include the Colleges". He maintained that the college libraries were "of a different order of magnitude" to those of the universities, and that therefore "there would be very little in common between many of them and the university libraries". Fielding also added that the fact that the soon-to-be-formed Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission was to have separate councils representing college and university interests implied that "the two library bodies should remain separate (Letter from Fielding to Ward, 12/11/75).
72Scutt was Secretary of the ACDP from 1976 to 1990. The ACDP's stated aims were to "provide a forum for directors and principals of colleges of advanced education to meet and to exchange information with the purpose of increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of colleges of advanced education" (Einhorn, 1985, p. 62).
157 ALCAE therefore remained separate and intact. Some of those interviewed about this episode denied that Allen's proposal for a division within ALCAE was given any wide-spread consideration by ALCAE members, even by those, like him, who were Institute librarians. Jessie Harley for one remembers that "most of the members of ALCAE were rather against that" (Harley, Swinburne College of Technology, Interview, 1996). Certainly Ward, who was renowned for his magnanimous support of the colleges which were less endowed than RMIT, took the view that ALCAE should continue to function as it had, though he nonetheless sympathised with Allen's reasons for wanting a separate group:
[The introduction of the teachers colleges] really complicated the Victorian scene... that was one of the great weakeners of the whole process... [This] might well be the basis of Allen's suggestion of a separation of the larger colleges because you did have some extremely small rudimentary, almost mono-discipline institutions ... and the discrepancy between the stages of development and their problems were very great for a while. There was such a flood of them [that] came in all at a bang. That did complicate matters greatly (Ward, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Interview, 1996).
Bill Hitchins argued that in Victoria, which remained the most cohesive and productive section of ALCAE during this latter period, there was never any question of a split. However Hitchins qualifies his statement by acknowledging that Institutes such as Allen's were, in his words, definitely "way up there" compared with the other colleges and that this may have caused tensions in some sections of ALCAE (Hitchins, Ballarat College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996). Margaret Macpherson, who was part of the New South Wales group, also played down these suggestions of the formation of a breakaway group. Macpherson believed that such suggestions were not "terribly divisive" because "people still remained within ALCAE and were prepared to contribute to the general debate" even if, she said, "they did have separate discussions and interests" (Macpherson, Mitchell College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996). Nevertheless these kinds of debates did raise questions in the minds of college librarians about the continuing relevance of ALCAE in this changing environment.
158 These debates were also, according to another institute librarian, a manifestation of a desire on the part of many librarians to become more independent and self-reliant, in short to become more like their university colleagues:
[At this stage of development of CAE libraries you started to get] more personalities like Geoff [Allen]... a group of people who were beginning to have the confidence to be a little more assertive. I think that in the beginning there might have been a tendency to be much more cooperative and gentle... [They] were much smaller libraries that they were handling. Eventually these libraries grew. Geoff Allan had a very big library. The Institutes in particular were growing quite rapidly so they were becoming pretty much more sure of themselves, and they were more or less likely to agree. Similar to the CAUL, you see it is the same trend. I think that would be an historical development (Peake, New South Wales Institute of Technology, Interview, 1996).
159 CHAPTER 16 A SLOW DECLINE: THE IMPACT OF GOVERNMENT
Given the changes outlined in the last two chapters it is not surprising that ALCAE's inability to continue to have an influence on the broader policy-making process during this latter period also contributed to a decline in interest in the group by some of its members. ALCAE's capacity to participate directly in, and have some of influence on, the policy-making process was a main factor driving the group of college librarians during the early years. However, in the new climate of economic stringency occasioned by the onset of recession around 1975, ALCAE found it increasingly difficult to argue for additional funding for libraries when many other college operations were also suffering as a result of cut-backs; operations moreover which, unlike libraries, had not previously benefited from special consideration by the Commission. This chapter will chart the progress of ALCAE's main post-1975 initiatives in this changed external environment to help explain why ALCAE never again achieved the kind of influence and sense of purpose it had previously enjoyed. It now entered a period of slow decline.
Despite the onset of steady-state funding and associated shifts in policy in the mid 1970s, some college librarians felt that they could still persuade funding authorities to maintain their support for libraries as before. Having fought so hard in the past to build up libraries, many now felt it was their duty to keep applying pressure, notwithstanding these external realities. Ward noted that ALCAE remained for some time a "fairly idealistic group", because of "that early success and [having been] caught up in all those early developments." So that even though, said Ward, "at a certain point that all stopped, ... they continued to push... [forward]. [They found] it perhaps difficult to accept external changes" (Ward, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Interview, 1996). Peake also observed that some members at the time were "just not accepting" that circumstances had changed. But Peake also believed that ALCAE had no choice but to continue with its efforts to have libraries improved during this period:
... we were desperate. I mean there was no question that the colleges were very under-resourced and were not used to giving their money to the
160 library. It was always seen as something a bit secondary... So I think that explains these efforts, really to try and raise the profile of the library and its needs. That is probably what kept ALCAE going (Peake, New South Wales Institute of Technology, Interview, 1996).
It was a case that, despite the odds, members felt that "at least we would be doing something, [that] we'd be drawing attention to our plight and that maybe some of it would penetrate to some people (Yocklunn73, Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
However as time passed members began to accept ALCAE's limitations in this more difficult climate. More than anything else, it was the emergence of a growing sense of resignation and apathy among members as a result of their inability effectively to lobby government authorities - an activity that was hitherto considered central to ALCAE's being - which contributed the most to a weakening of the group during its latter years. This deterioration in group morale can be traced through the evolution of ALCAE's two main initiatives undertaken over this later period, namely its campaign to have expenditure on libraries maintained at adequate levels, and ongoing efforts to secure college library representation on the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. These were continuations of earlier activities rather than representing a search for a new mission that might save the organisation from decline.
Failed Lobbying Campaigns
Ear-marked Grant for 1976-1978 Triennium (1973-1975). As far as funding for college libraries were concerned, the series of unmatched grants provided by the Commonwealth, discussed in Part One, had provided a much needed boost to collections and services. Harrison Bryan summed up the impact of this series of grants thus:
The results of three successive transfusions of such funds have been quite
73John Yocklunn was Chief Librarian at the Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education from 1983. After the Institute became the Gippsland Campus of Monash University in 1990, Yocklunn assumed the position of Associate University Librarian.
161 startling. By 1971 the twenty major colleges had increased their annual expenditure fifteen fold, their total bookstock had multiplied by five and the number of staff by six. However inadequate many of the individual libraries still were this was a major national rehabilitation (Bryan, 1977, p. 18-19).
Notwithstanding the value of these unmatched grants, as the last of these sums had been issued in 1973, the college librarians were predicting that even more money would be required if all libraries were to reach in 1975 the minimum collection levels specified by the CACAE Interim Standards. ALCAE therefore decided to lobby the Commission for a fourth unmatched grant. To this end, in 1974, the then chairman of ALCAE, Paul McNally, informed members that a "Survey of the Needs of CAE Libraries" would be conducted by Jack Ward and Jessie Harley and that the results would form the basis of a submission to the Commission for the provision of a further special grant to be made available for the 1976-1978 triennium (Letter from McNally to ALCAE members, 22/3/74). The data collected by Ward and Harley revealed that another Commonwealth unmatched grant of "no less than" $5 million was needed. ALCAE argued that a bid of this size was justified on the grounds that few CAE libraries could really be expected to reach the CACAE Interim Standards by the 1975 target date. ALCAE members agreed that if their proposal for a further $5 million were to be accepted then this "could be considered as the last grant to be earmarked for library purposes" (ALCAE, Minutes of Meeting, 12-13/9/74).
At the September 1974 meeting the following resolution was drafted and forwarded to the Commission:
ALCAE supports the need for a further unmatched grant or special grant for libraries from the Australian Government. The previous grants and the grant of $5 million in the 1973/75 triennium have made a significant difference in the Library Resources of most of the older established CAEs. Some will reach the [CACAE Interim] standards as proposed in the 2nd [CACAE] Report. Others will come near to the Standards by 1975. There are however some institutions lagging and they require a continuation of the special funding. The acceptance of the Teachers Colleges as CAEs adds a further need for special funding to bring them up to these minimum standards. ALCAE therefore would like to emphasise the need for future
162 special funding in the 1976/78 Triennium" (ALCAE, Minutes of Meeting, 12-13/9/74).
However soon after this resolution had been drafted ALCAE learned that the Commission had already made a decision not to issue any further special grants.74 As a result of this policy shift, the Commission was unwilling to pursue ALCAE's request.
New CAE Library Standards. Another strategy employed by ALCAE to draw attention to the plight of college libraries was to try and persuade the Commission to adopt an updated set of library standards to replace the Interim Standards that had been published by the CACAE in 1969 (CACAE, Second Report, p. 61) as discussed above in Chapter 4. The college librarians believed that the production of new, more rigorous standards might provide the basis upon which ALCAE could convince the Commonwealth to provide renewed financial assistance as it had in the late sixties upon the formulation of the Interim Standards.
The first attempts at revising the CACAE standards were made as early as 1971. During its three day March 1971 meeting, ALCAE and the CACAE Library Sub- Committee held a joint meeting at which the college librarians recommended that the "CACAE sponsor studies or grant research assistance to permit the establishment of viable long-term standards for CAE library provision which are relevant to the Australian situation" (ALCAE, Minutes of Meeting, 15-17/3/71). In 1974 a comprehensive investigation into standards was initiated as part of the College Commission's 1973-75 Educational Research Programme. John Dean (Head, Department of Library Studies, Western Australian Institute of Technology) and Eric Wainwright (Department of Library Studies, Western Australian Institute of Technology) were commissioned to conduct the study, the results of which appeared in 1976 as Measures of Adequacy for Library Collections in Australian Colleges of Advanced Education.75 The objectives of the Dean- Wainwright project, as set out by the Commission, were to produce:
74See Chapter 15.
75The Preface to the Report indicates that "the greater part of the work on the project was carried out by Eric J. Wainwright" (Wainwright & Dean, 1976, V. 1, p. xvi).
163 (a) A quantitative measure, or series of measures, which would be of use in evaluating the present adequacy of Australian CAE library collections, and in predicting necessary future growth of such collections.
(b) A series of procedures which would enable CAE libraries to ensure as far as possible that materials acquired within the broad quantitative guidelines developed above were in fact of use in serving the libraries' purposes (CAE, Fourth Report, 1975, p. 200).
In the meantime, following its recommendation to the Commission, ALCAE decided to set up its own small standards sub-committee and nominated John Levett76 (Tasmania CAE)(ALCAE, Minutes of Meeting, 15-17/3/71). A complicating factor for ALCAE in this matter was that the University and College Libraries Section (UCLS) of the Library Association Australia had embarked on the production of its own standards for college libraries. As a result, ALCAE decided that Levett's committee should only undertake some preliminary investigations in order to make use of what the UCLS would produce. However progress on the UCLS standards was slow and Levett began to have doubts about the LAA's ability to deliver within a reasonable time frame. In an undated letter (probably 1972) Levett reported on his own work:
Hitherto no formal work has been done [on standards], other than the attached statistical comparison of CAE and University libraries, due, among other things, to a delay in the availability of the draft UCLS [Universities and College Libraries Section of the LAA] Standards.
This leads to the need for a fundamental decision. Are the Standards to be prepared by an LAA body or by ALCAE? ... an ALCAE committee might be more direct and have more cohesion; in addition any LAA Standards would have to be approved by General Council, a lengthy, possibly unpleasant business - the Public Library Standards have been in the mill for 6 years now and a number of professional friendships have been strained as a result (to put it mildly) (Letter from Levett to ALCAE members, [n.d. 1972?]).
In his letter Levett stated that he anticipated that UCLS standards would be produced by the end of 1972, however twelve months later these standards were still only in draft form. In 1973 the minutes of the ALCAE Annual General Meeting record that an
76Levett was college librarian at Tasmania CAE from 1971 to 1977.
164 UCLS seminar on standards had taken place in May but that "the results were inconclusive" (ALCAE, Minutes of Meeting, 22/8/73). As a result the meeting resolved that Levett's committee "should [now] as a matter of urgency, investigate the production of standards" and commit to a "concentrated effort... [which] would be more profitable than correspondence" (ALCAE, Minutes of Meeting, 22/8/73). This growing sense of urgency was partly due to the inclusion in 1973 of the teachers colleges in the CAE sector. The resultant growth in the size and diversity of the sector rendered the original Interim Standards even more outdated.
By the following year the concern felt by ALCAE at a lack of progress was unmistakable as revealed in the following ALCAE document entitled "Topics for a Possible Section on Libraries in [the College Commission's] Fourth Report":
ALCAE at Canberra 2 years ago decided we needed standards - no significant action has occurred since. UCLS distributed proposals [for standards] but this faded out. We have time only to scratch surface at this meeting. Continuing work is needed. To get the standards beyond [the CACAE Interim] standards will require hard work. There is a need for standards now. Commonwealth largesse is now unlikely, so a concrete need exists... If there is a cold wind, CAE libraries are mostly unlikely to reach [the CACAE Interim] standards by 1978 except for a few who have reached that threshold already (ALCAE Paper, "Topics for a Possible Section on Libraries in Fourth Report", 29/5/74).
However the author of this document, the name of whom is not given, expressed doubts as to the practicality of trying to devise common standards given the increasing diversity of institutions now making up the CAE sector. Handwritten notes found appended to a copy of this document reveals an underlying sense of frustration:
No single set of standards will fit the colleges. Consider, art and music, paramedical, agriculture for separate studies. Should standards be ideal or practical... The problem is the variety of institutions. There is no empirical justification other than comparison of conditions in other libraries. Some standards are likely to frighten administrators. Is it feasible to produce standards based on need in so wide a range of institutions?... What should be the minimal size of core collections regardless of the role of the institution? Range of courses taught affects size of collection. Average number of students per course suggests [one approach]. Journal usage
165 standards are needed - particularly for staff - roughly 100 titles per major subject field. (i.e. a field taught over 3 years in depth). There is a need to sustain higher rate of current acquisition.... Gawd! Where does this get us!... In general, precise specification of standards for the future are undesirable considering the variety and changing applications of most colleges (ALCAE Paper, "Topics for a Possible Section on Libraries in Fourth Report", appended notes, 29/5/74).
Despite these doubts, the work of Levett's committee was stepped up with less reliance being placed upon some future contribution from the work of the UCLS standards committee. At a meeting held in September 1974, Levett's committee presented draft papers "on guidelines and suggested criteria on formulating and applying standards" (ALCAE, Minutes of Meeting, 12-13/9/74). ALCAE's efforts were further frustrated with the release of the College Commission's Fourth Report the following year in which the Commission communicated its intention not to endorse any new standards (CAE, Fourth Report, 1975, p. 40).77
However, despite these various obstacles, ALCAE remained committed to using the concept of library standards as a means of keeping libraries on the Commission's agenda. At a meeting held in October 1975 the then Chairman, Dorothy Peake, reported that the lack of progress on standards had been a matter of concern for ALCAE members, even though Levett and his committee continued to work towards the completion of a draft document on standards for CAE libraries (ALCAE, Minutes of Meeting, 25/10/75). Notwithstanding this dissatisfaction among members, the meeting resolved to endorse the activity of the Levett committee, though at the same time wishing it to "bring its work to an early conclusion in view of the worsening financial climate and its implications for education and libraries" (ALCAE, Minutes of Meeting, 25/10/75).
By this stage the effects of the recession of the mid to late 1970s were beginning to take effect and once again these broader external environmental factors were shaping ALCAE's fortunes. With little further progress being made on drafting standards, Peake communicated to all members again through the April 1976 issue of ALCAE's
77See Chapter 15.
166 Newsletter: "New standards are urgently needed before 1977 so that they can be used to obtain action" (ALCAE, Newsletter, no. 1, April, 1976).78 Peake argued that standards are now needed more than ever given the worsening funding situation: "The inflation rate on monographs and serials continues to rise steeply so that funds being provided to college libraries are buying less with less... This year is a stand-still for education but inflation is hitting libraries so hard that it can only be regarded as a regressive year for college libraries..." Peake added that: "Unless special consideration is given to libraries in 1977 I think that ALCAE must review the quality of college libraries and make its views heard in political circles... [especially as] some libraries report not having reached minimum 1969 [CACAE Interim] standards by 1975" (ALCAE, Newsletter, no. 1, April, 1976).
Soon after Peake's 1976 statement ALCAE members received word that the document on standards prepared by Dean and Wainwright and sponsored by the College Commission's 1973-75 Educational Research Programme, had at last been released. For this reason, at the 1977 Annual General Meeting of ALCAE it was decided to discontinue the work being carried out by the Levett committee and that ALCAE would now try to make use of the results of the Commission sponsored study (ALCAE, Minutes of Meeting, 28/8/77).
Although the Commission's interest in library standards had waned by the time the results of the Wainwright and Dean study were published in October 1976, at the time the investigation was commissioned in 1974 the Commission was still of the opinion that some attempt ought to be made to up-date the original CACAE Interim Standards. The objectives of the report were therefore couched in the context of Commission's earlier enthusiasm for actively promoting and encouraging the development CAE libraries beyond basic levels of adequacy:
No planning formulae existed for the long-term development of library collections in College of Advanced Education. The standards promulgated in the Second and Third Reports of the Australian Commission on
78See Chapter 14 for a history of ALCAE Newsletter.
167 Advanced Education and its predecessor, the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education, were promulgated basically as short- term goals to be achieved by CAE libraries in a period when CAE's were either in the middle of changing their role from that of technical colleges, or else in their initial growth periods as new institutions. The targets outlined in the reports were necessarily bound by the financial resources available in particular triennia, and could not be regarded as long-term guidelines. Although other standards and guidelines had been suggested by such bodies as the Victoria Institute of Colleges and the Library Association of Australia, any quantitative recommendations therein appeared to be either wholly intuitive or closely based on recommendations made for colleges and universities overseas, particularly the United States. Although such recommendations may well have been appropriate for the institutions for which they were designed, they would be unlikely to be appropriate for Australian College of Advanced Education, with their diverse mix of sizes, subject ranges, and geographical locations in relation to alternative library resources. It was seen as a necessity that measures be developed which were both valid and practicable to the Australian context (Wainwright & Dean, 1976, v. 1, p. xvii).
Even though the Wainwright and Dean report offered the college librarians revised standards formulae upon which to present a case to the Commission for increased funding provision, its release in late 1976 occurred at a time when the external political and economic climate was no longer amenable to any centrally co-ordinated expansion of college libraries. Wainwright recalled how the Commission even lost interest in having the report published following its completion:
The problem was that broadly by the time we'd finished the work the whole funding scene had changed. There was a significant delay [in releasing the final report], probably because somebody in the Commission made the judgement; 'This looks like spending more money, [so] we'll sit on it'. I thought at one stage that it would never come out. It was rather depressing because I had really slogged at it. It was really a hell of a lot of work. And I [really thought at the time] that nothing would happen (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
This was a time when the Whitlam Government instituted its steady-state funding policy following its rejection of the financial recommendations of the various education
168 commissions:79
Unfortunately, the publication of the report, which recommended major increases to basic library collections, came at a time when both political and economic events had become generally unfavourable to expansionist policies in education. It is nevertheless a matter for profound regret that this report appears to have been consigned to limbo without receiving any formal consideration by the body that commissioned it (Allen & Brockman, 1983).
At this point one detects a growing mood of pessimism setting in as members became noticeably less confident about the possibility of success. In a document tabled at the 1977 Annual General Meeting of ALCAE, Allen stated: "The present government seems to be even more adept than its predecessors in shelving reports. Certainly there is an ominous lack of response to Dean-Wainwright" (Paper by Allen presented at ALCAE Meeting, 28/8/77).
Despite this major setback, Allen advocated that ALCAE embark on a fresh campaign of lobbying. In order to elicit a response to the Dean-Wainwright Report, Allen suggested that ALCAE "gets things moving" by writing to "all or any of" the following: "The Commission on Advanced Education", "the Commonwealth Minister for Education", "State authorities", "our own institutional councils", "potentially interested members of parliament" and "the press" (Paper by Allen presented at ALCAE Meeting, 28/8/77). At the same meeting ALCAE members resolved to broaden their campaign in the hope of increasing their chances of success. A two part plan was agreed to and subsequently executed. First, a questionnaire was devised by ALCAE and distributed among college libraries in order to determine how their collections compared with the levels recommended in the Dean-Wainwright Report. Second, ALCAE members were asked to comment on the Wainwright Report so that a "consensus view" could be put to the Advanced Education Council (AEC) of the newly formed Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) which had been created the same year.80 Once agreement was
79See Chapter 13.
80See Chapter 13.
169 reached among members, ALCAE would then ask the Advanced Education Council to "establish an ad-hoc Committee to consider the Wainwright-Dean Report and the adequacy of CAE libraries..." (ALCAE, Minutes of Meeting, 28/8/77).
Although the survey confirmed the inadequacy of library collections when assessed against the Wainwright-Dean formula (only two out of the 54 colleges reviewed were deemed adequate), the exercise failed to yield any response from government authorities (Parr, 1980, p. 203). ALCAE's attempt to have the Advanced Education Council of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission establish an ad-hoc standards committee was likewise unsuccessful. In his review of the year 1979, the then chair of ALCAE, Victor Crittenden, reported that CTEC had said that it did not intend to set up another permanent library committee, although it "was prepared to appoint a special purpose Committees to consider matters of concern from time to time" (Crittenden, Chairman's Annual Report for 1979). However no such committee materialised. At the 1979 Annual General Meeting of ALCAE, Crittenden remarked that "There has been no enthusiastic response to discussions on the Wainwright/Dean Report" from ALCAE members, adding that if members wanted the recommendations of the Report to be "kept alive" they would need to "do some work on it" so as to "bring it into line with present thinking within today's financial constraints" (ALCAE, Minutes of Meeting, 31/8/79). This apparent lack of interest may have been a sign that members had come to the realisation that there was no point trying to make an issue of standards now, given the clear message of government that it would not respond to special requests for additional funding.
The Wainwright and Dean report was not mentioned again until the 1981 Annual General Meeting where it was stated that any "practical use of the Wainwright report depended largely on the persuasiveness of chief librarians" (ALCAE, Minutes of Meeting, 21/1/81). This statement seems to imply an acceptance by members that any future progress would be more likely to come from the efforts of individuals rather than by means of collective action through ALCAE.
One final attempt, however, was made to press the Wainwright-Dean Report into
170 service as a lobbying tool. In 1983 the Chairman of ALCAE, Judith Edwards81 (Capricornia Institute of Advanced Education), formally wrote to Allen (Western Australia Institute of Technology) to ask if he would be prepared to "draft a submission to the CTEC/AEC from ALCAE showing the need for increased funding for the purchase of library materials" (Letter from Edwards to Allen, 28/6/83). Having agreed to prepare such a submission, the approach taken by Allen was to base his case for increased funding by determining "the extent to which college libraries are above or below the Wainwright/Dean formula..." (Letter from Edwards to Allen, 7/7/83). This renewed attempt received endorsement from members at the 1983 Annual General Meeting of ALCAE where it was agreed that, "an on-going objective for the next twelve months should be the establishment and maintenance of standards for CAE libraries" (ALCAE, Minutes of Meeting, 29/8/83).
Following this meeting it was decided that ALCAE's campaign be broadened to include university libraries and that CAUL be invited to participate. It was also resolved that the paper to be prepared by Allen be used as the basis of a submission highlighting "the specific and relatively high levels of inflation in library materials, and the consequent effects on the adequacy of academic library resources" (ALCAE, Minutes of Meeting, 29/8/83). So as to maximise the impact of the campaign, all agreed that "a simultaneous approach to politicians, on as many fronts as possible, would be useful" (Letter from Edwards to Southwell, CAUL Chair, 15/9/83). The intention was simultaneously to dispatch the submission to the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee, the Australian Conference of Directors and Principals, and the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. Members also resolved to have the paper published in the journal, Australian Academic and Research Libraries.
However ALCAE once more failed in achieving its objective, this time through a combination of misjudged timing and an internal dispute over the planned approach. Upon receiving a draft copy of Allen's paper, ALCAE chair Judith Edwards, who had
81Judith Edwards was Chief Librarian at Northern Rivers CAE, Lismore, New South Wales, from 1975 to 1979 and Chief Librarian at Capricornia Institute of Advanced Education, Rockhampton, Queensland (which became the Central Queensland University in 1992) from 1980.
171 asked for the document in the first place, requested that the document be modified to maximise it's impact as a lobbying instrument. According to Edwards the modifications needed mainly concerned the correction of alleged statistical inaccuracies. Edwards stressed how vital it was to be able to "use it to lobby politicians and the CTEC for supplementary funding for libraries" (Letter from Edwards to ALCAE Standing Committee, 15/9/83). She maintained that every effort should be made to increase the likelihood of success and therefore believed that a carefully corrected, edited and shortened version of the paper "may be more likely to be read by politicians" than the version Allen had circulated (Letter from Edwards to ALCAE Standing Committee, 15/9/83). Allen, however, refused to make the suggested changes, preferring to publish his paper in its original form.
Following a series of drawn-out and often heated exchanges between Edwards and Allen the whole campaign was terminated. In a letter to members, Edwards conceded that ALCAE was "now unable to proceed along the lines recommended at the [August 1983 Annual General] meeting", and expressed the disappointment of the executive that the "wishes of the ALCAE meeting have been ignored and that material is to be published which the meeting believes to be misleading but are really unable to do anything about it" (Letter from Edwards to ALCAE Standing Committee, 25/10/83). Edwards continued:
Despite the fact that I advised Geoff (Allen) of the recommendations of the meeting, he has, on his own behalf, sent the paper, unedited, to the Australasian College Libraries for publication. When I discovered this I rang the editor and advised that the paper should not be published. He, however, takes the view that the paper belongs to Geoff Allen and not ALCAE and that he will therefore publish it with a note pointing out the possibility of errors in it.
Margaret McPherson originally had indicated willingness to re-survey libraries to correct the statistics and possibly edit it into a shorter edition to be used to lobby politicians as originally agreed. However Geoff has indicated to her that... the paper should not be edited... Margaret, after discussion with Geoff now feels that she cannot proceed with editing in view of his attitude. In the light of these events it seems it would be not only embarrassing but actually dangerous to lobby politicians with [an unedited] paper (Letter from Edwards to ALCAE Standing Committee, 25/10/83).
172 Edwards finally decided that the best course of action was to "completely reject the paper in it's present form and make it clear that it does not have the endorsement of ALCAE".82 Edwards was at a loss as to what to do next: "Where do we go from here? Plans for lobbying politicians were based on this paper. Do we start again on another or forget the whole exercise?" (Letter from Edwards to ALCAE Standing Committee, 25/10/83).
In the midst of this internal controversy, some members were now beginning to question the effectiveness of using any published standards for lobbying purposes. In a letter to Edwards, Colin Cayless83 (Librarian, Queensland Institute of Technology) stated:
From the discussions I had with John [Brockman] it seems that there is little difficulty in demonstrating the paucity of CAE collections in relation to the Wainwright/Dean Survey in 1975 and indeed in relation to the [original CACAE Interim Standards]... There is, however, difficulty in getting anyone to accept that these comparisons are valid: certainly the Wainwright/Dean formula seems now to be too ambitious. The [CACAE] recommendations on the other hand are much too generalistic, i.e. difficult to apply to a specific library and capable of mis-interpretation. The problem, therefore, seems to be one in which Geoff's [Allen] results will demonstrate that we have some sort of case, but that we still have no real way of convincing funding authorities of this... (Letter from Cayless to Edwards, 18/8/83).
Fortunately for ALCAE, Judith Edwards and her colleagues were able to avoid the embarrassment of having to terminate their campaign because of not having a suitably prepared paper, because at around this same time CAUL - with whom they had planned to join forces - decided that now was the wrong time to approach the Federal Government. As reported by Edwards, the chair of CAUL, Brian Southwell (Librarian, Monash University), indicated that he and his colleagues were dubious "about the timing
82Allen's paper, which was co-authored by John Brockman (Branches Librarian, Western Australian Institute of Technology) was published as Allen, Geoffrey & Brockman, John (1983), "The funding of college libraries in Australia", Australasian College Libraries, V. 3 n. 3, November, 109- 129.
83Colin Cayless was Chief Librarian at Queensland Institute of Technology from 1977 to 1986.
173 of an approach based on spiralling book prices because they have stopped spiralling" (Letter from Edwards to ALCAE Standing Committee, 25/10/83). In a letter to Edwards, the incoming ALCAE chair, John Cummings84 (Sydney College of the Arts) reported that it had been agreed to suspend the campaign on this basis:
... in response to your letter explaining the situation with regard to Geoff Allen and the ALCAE statistics... it was agreed that in the present climate of economics and budgeting there is little advantage in mounting a national lobbying campaign at this time. It might be more appropriate to gather information and establish standards for a future push when the economy has recovered somewhat (as it appears to be about to do)(Letter from Cummings to Edwards, 23/12/83).
As part of her review, as chair, of the events of 1983, Edwards included a summing up of ALCAE's bad fortune on the campaign front:
Despite the fact that matters foreshadowed in the 1983 Annual Report have been pursued actively by the Executive, the outcomes on the whole have not been pleasing.
The plan to make an onslaught on the C.T.E.C. with the Geoff Allen paper was abandoned by the Executive after Mr Allen refused to edit the work and indicated that he had already arranged for its publication in Australasian College Libraries. The Executive, after discussion with the state representatives, believed that it would be against the wishes of the annual meeting to distribute the paper without alteration to some of the data and general editing. Furthermore, the premature decision by Mr Allen to publish the paper without editing meant that the Association would be embarrassed if it used the paper in an edited form by having two sets of conflicting data relating to the one piece of research. The Executive therefore decided not to make any further use of this publication.
CAUL indicated that they believed a joint approach to the C.T.E.C. based on rising costs of library materials was ill timed in view of evidence which they had that book prices were stabilising... (Edwards, Chairwoman's Report 1984).
84Cummings was Head, Information Resource Centre at the Sydney College of the Arts from 1977 to 1988. In 1986 John Cummings became Katherine Cummings following gender reassignment surgery. Cummings' life story is told in her autobiography, Katherine's Diary: The Story of a Transsexual.
174 Notwithstanding these setbacks, in a letter to members of the Standing Committee Edwards declared - with some measure of confidence - that, "the proposal to lobby for funding for collections has by no means been discarded but simply deferred until the time appears more appropriate" (Letter from Edwards to ALCAE Standing Committee, 4/4/84). However despite this assertion no documented evidence could be found of any renewed campaign activity, nor do any of the members of ALCAE interviewed recall any further action taken along these lines.
Re-constitution of Library Committee of the Commission (1975-1984). One of ALCAE's other major objectives for this later period was to gain college library representation on the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC). This they hoped to achieve by persuading the CTEC to establish a special library committee of the Commission similar to the one that had functioned under the former Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education (CACAE).
As soon as the original Library Sub-committee of the College Commission was disbanded in the mid-1970's, ALCAE began applying pressure to have the committee reconstituted. Over a period of ten years or so numerous letters were sent to government officials and CTEC representatives. Among these was a letter addressed to the CTEC in response to the Williams Report's (1979) recommendation for the establishment of a library committee of the Commission85 to which the Commission had replied that it did not intend to set up such a committee "at this stage" (Awcock86, Chairman's Letter, 13/11/79).
Like its attempts to have revised standards recognised, part of the reason for ALCAE's push to have the library committee reconstituted was another way of trying to counteract the worsening funding situation. At the 1981 Annual General Meeting of ALCAE, Ward's successor at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Barrie
85See Chapter 9 under heading CAUL and the Higher Education Policy-making Process.
86Christopher Awcock was Head, Resource Centre at the State College of Victoria from 1967 to 1982.
175 Mitcheson,87 made the suggestion that "in view of declining Government funding for tertiary education, with consequent adverse effects on academic libraries, it was more than ever important for college librarians to have representation on the TEC..." (ALCAE, Minutes of Meeting, 24/8/81). To this end Mitcheson recommended that letters be written to various people, including "the Secretary of the Advanced Education Council, and to the Commonwealth Minister for Home Affairs and the Environment requesting representation for college librarians on the Advanced Education Council" (ALCAE, Minutes of Meeting, 24/8/81). Despite such approaches, the author could find no evidence of a response from those to whom letters were sent. In 1982 the then Chair of ALCAE, Judith Edwards, admitted that she remained committed to a "push for representation at the highest level", however she expressed "some cynicism as to the likelihood of getting a librarian on the [Advanced Education Council]." The response was still along the lines of; "However, we can but try..." (Letter from Edwards to Joan Martin, Secretary, ALCAE Victoria, 26/11/82). Edwards, though, continued to acknowledge the importance of such formal representation:
The recognition of ALCAE by bodies which have influence over CAE libraries has been a high priority of the Association over the past twelve months. Much effort has been expended at the official and unofficial level to try to obtain representation of ALCAE on such bodies. The other main thrust this year has been to prepare for an onslaught on funding authorities over the declining budgets for library materials and reduced purchasing power of them (ALCAE, Chairwoman's Report 1983).
One of the last attempts to gain representation on the CTEC was in 1984 when Edwards used the occasion of Dr Gregor Ramsey's appointment to the post of Chairman of the Advanced Education Council (AEC) of the Commission to press for the creation of a library committee:
... we know that you are aware of the uneven development of libraries in colleges of advanced education over the past decade. We are confident
87Jack Ward retired as Librarian at RMIT in 1981. His successor was Barrie Mitcheson who served as Institute Librarian from 1981 to 1987 before becoming University Librarian at Macquarie University in 1988.
176 that you will guide the Advanced Education Council towards a means of rectifying this situation and, to this end, ask that you give consideration to the appointment of a Library Advisory Committee to the Advanced Education Council (Letter from Edwards to Ramsey, 25/7/84).
This also failed to produce results, and from this point the on author could find no evidence of any further attempts made by ALCAE to exert influence at a national level, either through lobbying for the revivification of a library committee or by any other means.
As well as ALCAE's growing frustration with being unable to exercise any influence on policy-making forums, other factors also contributed to a further decline in interest by college librarians in ALCAE from around the mid 1980s. Not the least of these was the disruption caused by institutional amalgamations initiated by the Fraser Government in 1981.
The Impact of College Amalgamations
The fact that both ALCAE's major campaign's to achieve influence with the government and better support for college libraries, fade around the middle of the eighties can be attributed to a significant degree to the effects on ALCAE of the series of institutional amalgamations that were initiated during this period as a result of the Fraser Government's decision to reduce the size of the CAE sector.88 The resultant halving of ALCAE's membership made it difficult for the group to maintain its previous level of activity. As James O'Brien (Kuring-gai CAE) points out, ALCAE became essentially a Victorian and New South Wales operation because these were the only States with a sufficient number of members to undertake any major enterprises:
If you look at the other States it was easy to see how [this reduction in ALCAE's activity] happened. The Northern Territory [now] had only one institution. Perth had one, two at the most... The Queensland people got down to two or three... there were very few representatives from
88See Chapter 13.
177 Queensland because of the shrinking number of institutions. The Brisbane CAE used to be five separate institutions, [amalgamations] brought the membership down to one. Tasmania went to one. The ACT was always one. So the only States that really had multiple institutions were Victoria and New South Wales (O'Brien, Kuring-gai College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
For many, the hardest-felt impact of amalgamations was the loss of individuals who had made a significant contribution to the group. In 1982 Dr Geza Kosa89 (Burwood State College Melbourne) informed members, by way of the Association's Newsletter, that ALCAE had only been able to achieve its "current strength" as a result of "the dedicated work of all its members... who will withdraw during the year." Kosa made the point that the reduction in membership "will increase the burden placed on the remaining members" (ALCAE, Newsletter, Editorial, no. 1, May, 1982, p. 1). Although wishing to remain confident, Kosa's words betray the strain the group was experiencing at this time: "However, we must not forget the human side of college amalgamations because, in the final analysis it is the human being who makes or breaks any institution or organisation" (ALCAE, Newsletter, Editorial, no. 1, May, 1982, p. 1). In the next issue of the Newsletter published later that year Kosa remarked: "I share the view that although our membership has been reduced by about fifty percent due to the college amalgamations, the Association will remain strong and viable. Our Association survived the past three years and thereby proved that it confidently can meet almost any challenge" (ALCAE, Newsletter, Editorial, no. 2, November, 1982, p. 1).90
The human cost of the amalgamation process, and the disruption it caused to ALCAE through the loss of valued members, was given particular emphasis by O'Brien:
In that whole process through the 1980s, I was aware that, in several
89Kosa was Chief Librarian at Burwood State College Melbourne from 1976 to 1982 and was Editor of the ALCAE Newsletter between 1980 and 1982.
90It is interesting to note that Kosa was himself personally affected by the amalgamations process, having been demoted from the position of Chief Librarian at Burwood State College to that of Associate College Librarian when his college was amalgamated with others to create the Victoria College at the end of 1982.
178 cases, [the] amalgamation process worked very very detrimentally to people on a personal level. Former heads of CAEs soon found themselves amalgamated and didn't have a job... and it was devastating to people, it was devastating. I know of at least two people who suffered very severe nervous disorders, people who found their lives shattered by this. We're talking now about the library profession and I'm quite sure if you went into the teaching profession you'd find similar stories. That's one of the things that I've felt very badly about over the years, the personal cost to individuals, to people whom I know have made a contribution to ALCAE who suddenly were no longer there (O'Brien, Kuring-gai College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
The amalgamation process also forced members to focus less on the activities of ALCAE. As Kosa had noted, librarians were busy dealing with the "dramatic administrative reorganisation of the amalgamating libraries", which would inevitably include "acute staffing and financial problems" over the years following amalgamation. Although these initial problems were in the "long run" supposed to lead to "stronger" and "more viable" institutions, offering "better educational opportunities for students and better professional prospects for library and other staff members", Kosa acknowledged that this process would take some considerable time and effort to achieve the desired results. (ALCAE, Newsletter, Editorial, no. 2, August, 1981, p. 1). Cummings recalled that the pressures from amalgamations produced a "temptation to look after your own internal organisation rather than look at the broader picture of college librarianship overall" (Cummings, Sydney College of the Arts, Interview, 1996).
Finally the amalgamation process in particular, and funding constraints generally, resulted in some ALCAE members having difficulties obtaining the necessary funding from their institutions to attend meetings:
There were problems related to getting us together to be able to discuss these sorts of things and we were doing most of [the work] by correspondence. We didn't have any funds and there were restrictions on travel by staff. Librarians were usually the end of the line as far as travel grants and things like that were concerned. Even getting funds to attend library conferences was difficult (Crittenden, Canberra College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
179 Crittenden cited reduced attendance as part of the reason for the ALCAE becoming a less effective body because, he said, not all members could "get together as a group to really thrash out [issues]" (Crittenden, Canberra College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
180 CHAPTER 17 A SLOW DECLINE: THE DISPLACEMENT OF ALCAE BY OTHER GROUPS
As has been outlined in Chapter 13, from the late 1970s - beginning with the Liberal-National Government under Malcolm Fraser (1975-1983) - the Commonwealth Government began to insist that higher education institutions become more accountable for the expenditure of increasingly scarce public monies by encouraging them to employ more cost-effective and efficient methods and procedures as part of their operations.
Against this background there emerged between 1978 and 1985 a series of new library organisations and initiatives whose purpose it was to explore ways that libraries could respond more effectively to these external pressures. These organisations included two major State-based cooperative library networks; CAVAL (Co-operative Action by Victorian Academic Libraries) and CLANN (College Libraries Activities Network, New South Wales), both of which became operational in 1978. Both CAVAL and CLANN shared the common objective of fostering cooperative arrangements between member libraries through reciprocal borrowing and a shared computerised cataloguing network. In a climate where governments demanded the application of more efficient and effective methods, the two computer based library networks were, in the eyes of government, the epitome of how libraries ought to be operating. This view is reflected by statements made by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission in its various reports, including the following from the Report for 1982-84 Triennium (1981):
Even where annual acquisitions decline, total holdings will continue to increase, placing pressures on library space and on librarians to improve the efficiency of their operations. Libraries have sought to improve the efficiency of internal operations while maintaining the quality of services and the level of acquisitions, not only through increasing use of automated systems, but also through increasing co-operation. Such co-operation is both through informal agreement (such as exists in the areas-of- responsibility arrangements for acquisitions of the major libraries in the Sydney metropolitan area), and through formal network arrangements (such as CLANN (College Library Activities Network in New South Wales) and CAVAL (Co-operative Action by Victorian Academic Libraries). Although the major aim of both these networks was to develop automated shared cataloguing systems for member libraries, they also
181 provide a ready forum through which joint action in other areas can be initiated...
The Commission commends co-operative ventures which aim to improve the availability of library resources and services to users and to raise the efficiency of library operations. To the extent that cost savings and/or improved effectiveness of operations accrue to participating institutions through the use of such co-operative schemes, operating costs can be met from their recurrent funds, and the Commission does not propose to recommend earmarked grants for these ventures (TEC, Report for 1982- 84 triennium, 1981, v.1 pt.1, p. 89-90).
By the mid 1980s the national group of college principals, the Australian Committee of Directors and Principals, (ACDP), was also beginning to recognise the need to have member libraries respond more effectively to these external economic and political conditions. In order to address adequately the issues facing libraries in the eighties and to provide the college principals with expert advice with which to put their case to governments and their funding authorities, the ACDP decided to establish its own Working Party on Library Resources (1985-1986). With a similar purpose in mind, the New South Wales branch of the ACDP, the New South Wales Advanced Education Conference (NSWAEC), set up its own library sub-committee called SIGNAL (Special Interest Group of the New South Wales Advanced Education Conference - Administrators of Libraries and Information Resources Centres) in 1986.
These new library organisations appealed to the college librarians because they not only offered a forum for the exchange of information as ALCAE did, but they also offered, through the provision of networked computer systems and services and resource sharing arrangements, immediate and practical solutions to college library problems, functions which ALCAE was not set up to provide. Other professional associations like the LAA and AACOBS, discussed in Chapter 10, (in which there was increased representation for college libraries by the 1980s), provided broad-based national forums in which college librarians could participate effectively. Consequently, between the new State-based operational organisations and the well established national organisations there was very little left for ALCAE to do.
182 The following sections examine in more detail CAVAL, CLANN, SIGNAL and the ACDP Working Party on Library Resources, and the impact they had on ALCAE during its declining years.
CAVAL (Co-operative Action by Victorian Academic Libraries) and CLANN (College Libraries Activities Network, New South Wales)
CLANN and CAVAL were both set up as companies limited by guarantee in November and December 1978 respectively.
CAVAL had its antecedents in the early seventies when the three Victorian university librarians - Brian Southwell (Monash), Dietrich Borchardt (La Trobe) and Denis Richardson (Melbourne) - considered ways and means of achieving more cooperation between Victorian institutions: "By 1975, the three university librarians were meeting regularly to discuss possible avenues for cooperation, and realised that it was essential to build resources cooperatively, share access to resources and, in general, view cooperation in a wider context than merely the containment of cataloguing costs" (Wilkinson & Cameron, 1984, p. 124).
In the mid seventies university and college administrators began to look more closely at ways to contain increasing library costs. In 1974 the Victorian Universities and Colleges Committee (VUCC)91 established a committee on library cataloguing to consider how costs could be shared between institutions. This committee, chaired by David Derham (Vice-Chancellor, University of Melbourne) in turn recommended in 1975 to the main VUCC that expert advice should be sought on the feasibility of setting up a shared computerised cataloguing network between academic libraries in Victorian. The report of the consultant, Jack Cohen & Associates Pty Ltd, was issued in 1976 and had as its core recommendation the establishment of a bibliographic network and a "Central Office" to "manage the design and development stage and network operations when the
91The VUCC was made up of Vice-Chancellors', college administrators and principals who met regularly to discuss ways of improving cooperation between higher education institutions.
183 system is completed" (Cohen, 1976, p. 6). Following further work by a special Steering Committee of the VUCC, chaired by Professor Evan Williams of the University of Melbourne, such a network, to be known as CAVAL, was finally set up in 1978 with the following objectives:
(a) To promote co-ordination in the development of member library services and collections. (b) To develop improved methods for identifying and locating recorded information in member libraries. (c) To create and maintain systems for the improved exploitation of library resources. (d) To develop programmes to improve access to the collections of member libraries (CAVAL, Annual Report, 1978, p. 3).
Upon its establishment CAVAL comprised 23 colleges, four universities, and the Library Council of Victoria (which controls the State Library)(CAVAL, Annual Report, 1978, p. 8). CAVAL's first major undertaking was the establishment of an automated cataloguing service for member libraries which commenced in 1979. By the beginning of 1981 CAVAL's bibliographic database contained 125,000 records, representing the newly acquired holdings of fourteen libraries (Groenewegen, 1981, p. 127). In order to "promote and facilitate such shared use of library resources" CAVAL next initiated a reciprocal borrowing scheme in 1981 for academic staff and students of participating institutions (Groenewegen, 1981, p. 128).
Like CAVAL, the establishment of CLANN in New South Wales was motivated by a need to reduce library costs, though it differed from the Victorian network in that its focus was exclusively on CAE libraries.
In 1975, the New South Wales Higher Education Board commissioned Dorothy Peake (Chief librarian, New South Wales Institute of Technology Sydney) and Carmel Maguire (School of Librarianship, University of New South Wales) to initiate a study to investigate "more cost-effective cataloguing systems for all CAEs in New South Wales" (Maguire & Peake, 1976, p. 9). In their final report, Investigations of the Cataloguing Requirements of New South Wales College of Advanced Education Libraries (1976),
184 Peake and Maguire present their case for a centralised database:
In common with most other Australian CAE libraries, few in New South Wales have had either the time or the resource allocations necessary to develop sound basic collections... New South Wales CAE libraries could also, because of their youth, be argued to be at a disadvantage compared with those in Victoria where several of the multi-disciplinary Colleges were created from long-established technical colleges and institutes in Melbourne and in the provincial cities... [Also] the fact that the same materials are processed many times over in the different libraries represents wasteful duplication of effort...
Attempts by the College libraries to reduce costs of technical processing are hampered not only by past lack of resources but also by the fact that many of the libraries are isolated geographically, from each other and from other large libraries. These factors of basic undernourishment and geographical dispersion mean that the limits within which any of the Colleges can unilaterally introduce innovations of an order likely to reduce costs without reducing quantity and quality of services are very tight indeed.
[The] Colleges need to cooperate with each other and with other libraries... In fact no library today, no matter how large, can be self- sufficient. The most obvious cooperation among libraries is the borrowing and lending of physical items through a system known as interlibrary lending...
The movement of physical items from place to place is becoming ever more expensive and more prone to delays and dysfunctions. Meanwhile the movement and manipulation of information in electronic codes becomes cheaper and more reliable. Although Australian libraries are well aware of developments in telecommunications and computer technology, most, including those of the New South Wales CAEs, lack the resources to plan, design and operate systems that take advantage of these developments. There is, in other words, no way that the potential benefits from the application of advanced information technology to their cataloguing systems...
In view of the pressures operating on the college libraries and on the bodies responsible for allocating resources to them, it is not surprising that the New South Wales Advanced Education Board..., charged with overall responsibility for the development of Colleges of Advanced Education in this State, decided to fund this study of cataloguing requirements in the libraries of the Colleges in New South Wales (Maguire & Peake, 1976, p.
185 2, 3-4).
In their report Peake and Maguire included a set of detailed recommendations for the establishment of "a College Libraries Activity Network in New South Wales", including an administrative structure for such a network and the technical specifications of its automated cataloguing system. The objectives of this group called CLANN were simply stated: "To reduce the rise in per unit library costs" and "to achieve greater resource sharing" (Maguire & Peake, 1976, p. 69).
In an interview with the author, Peake stressed that the idea for CLANN "made a lot of sense" because "you had all these little libraries all cataloguing the same book, and [that was] costing money". It was on this basis, she said, that with the backing of the State Public Service "we sold it to the [State] Higher Education Board [and that] led to CLANN" (Peake, New South Wales Institute of Technology, Interview, 1996).
The report by Peake and Maguire was submitted to the Higher Education Board in July 1976. Soon after the Board accepted the recommendations of the report and moved to:
1. take appropriate action to implement those recommendations that related to the establishment of a College Libraries Activity Network in New South Wales, CLANN, and to negotiate a contract with a private firm for the provision of a machine readable catalogue (MARC) based service for those members wishing to move quickly to automated services;
2. receive for further consideration, recommendations which related to the purchase of a computer facility dedicated to library needs and operated on behalf of CLANN members, noting that support for this recommendation would depend on the availability of funding (Peake, 1981, p. 119).
Following a meeting between all New South Wales CAEs in late 1976, a Technical Committee was set up to draft standards and an interim Steering Committee was established to help expedite CLANN's incorporation which eventually occurred on 24 November 1978. Early membership of CLANN consisted only of college libraries. However, by 1980 two government departments joined the network (New South Wales
186 Departments of Agriculture and Education).
Like CAVAL, CLANN's first task was the creation of a bibliographic database. The CLANN database was started with an initial grant of $33,000 from the New South Wales Higher Education Board. The size of the database grew rapidly with 144,000 records by the end of 1979, CLANN's first full year of operation, expanding to 228,528 by the beginning of 1982 (CLANN, Annual Report 1979-80, p. 5; Annual Report 1981- 82, p. 6). The creation of a database was followed in 1982 by the introduction of reciprocal borrowing scheme between member institutions.
Both CLANN and CAVAL were part of the operations of State-based library services and resulted from local initiatives involving the State organisations tapping into government funding. They were successful in convincing college administrators and governments to back cooperative ventures that would yield a tangible return for their investment in the form of a more cost-effective library system with less duplication of resources. ALCAE with its broader, more diffuse, objectives dealing at a national level was an entirely different kind of organisation to CLANN and CAVAL and was therefore not in a position to compete with these groups.
John Cummings (Sydney College of the Arts), who served on CLANN's Board of Directors for a number of years, recalled how there was "never any resistance" in offering support for the network: "We made the case and pointed out the advantages [and] we were told to go ahead. We were given the necessary funds to buy the necessary equipment and it carried like a train" (Cummings, Sydney College of the Arts, Interview, 1996).
Both the Victorian and New South Wales CAE librarians became heavily involved in the activities of these two organisations. Those college librarians interviewed indicated that at this stage of CAE library development, where the emphasis was on networking library systems and formal cooperative arrangements, they tended to believe that more could be achieved through these bodies than ALCAE. CLANN and CAVAL had the
187 technical expertise and infrastructure, as well as the formal backing of State and Commonwealth co-ordinating and funding bodies, to achieve tangible solutions to the problems of funding that were besetting the CAE libraries during the eighties. O'Brien (Kuring-gai CAE) noted that "more and more people who came to the ALCAE meetings were more concerned about these other groups and how to get influence on them than they were about ALCAE itself" (O'Brien, Kuring-gai College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996). Hitchins (Ballarat College of Advanced Education, Victoria) observed that CLANN and CAVAL now became regarded by college librarians as the premier groups through which all cooperative activity between libraries could be coordinated which consequently took a "lot of stuff off the [ALCAE] agenda, virtually taking [away their] reasons to meet" (Hitchins, Ballarat College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
However CLANN seemed to have had the most impact on the ALCAE group in New South Wales. This appears to have been the case for two main reasons. The first, and most obvious, reason was that unlike CAVAL, CLANN was established as a purely college library network and therefore attracted more interest and effort from the college librarians. Although CLANN later expanded its membership to include other types of libraries, the focus was essentially on meeting the particular needs of the CAE sector. A second reason was that much of the impetus for setting up CLANN came from an influential college librarian, Dorothy Peake (New South Wales Institute of Technology Sydney), who succeeded in generating a high degree of enthusiasm among her colleagues for this initiative. CAVAL, on the other hand, was very much a combined effort by university and college librarians in Victoria. ALCAE Victoria, for a variety of reasons, remained a stronger and more active group during this latter period (a factor which will be explored in detail in Chapter 18) than the New South Wales group.
John Scutt, Secretary of the Australian Committee of Directors and Principals, (ACDP) asserted that the initiative of Peake and Maguire won the college librarians much kudos, with the activities of CLANN being "always reported on fairly regularly and in quite favourable terms" by the ACDP. Moreover Scutt maintained that "things like CLANN were recognised as movements in the right direction and therefore cooperative
188 efforts between librarians were... appreciated" (Scutt, Australian Committee of Directors and Principals, Interview, 1996). Peake herself stated that CLANN was "the sort of thing that made you look as though you were more efficient" (Peake, New South Wales Institute of Technology, Interview, 1996). She recalled how she "had quite a few visitors from the Commonwealth Government, and they were very pleased with what they saw." Peake indicated that CLANN gave New South Wales CAE librarians "quite a bit of a boost":
... sharing of resources instead of everybody doing their own thing, their individual thing, was quite popular. I mean you could argue that with CLANN there was more efficient cataloguing, and so it did become something that they could use, an example of how things ought to be done. (Peake, New South Wales Institute of Technology, Interview, 1996).
CLANN reminded many members of the first few years of ALCAE, in that it was a body that not only enjoyed the support and financial backing of the colleges and sector authorities but was also as a group of libraries, according to Lois Jennings92 (Macarthur Institute of Higher Education), "very goal orientated and [had] set strategies and targets" (Jennings, Macarthur Institute of Higher Education, Interview, 1996). Although they were different types of groups with different functions, the attraction of CLANN was that it represented a response to changing circumstances, whereas ALCAE did not. ALCAE, as has been mentioned above, had not tried to reinvent itself but instead kept on doing what it had always done, namely to act as a forum for college librarians and as a platform from which the librarians could represent the interests of college librarianship by lobbying governments and funding bodies. However, as has been seen in previous chapters, times had changed and ALCAE's approach of simply pressing for additional finance and demanding appropriate recognition for college libraries was no longer yielding results as it had been the case in the more expansionist period of higher education back in the sixties and early seventies. CLANN on the other hand was an organisation which suited
92Lois Jennings was Head, Information Resources Centre at the Macarthur Institute of Higher Education from 1984 to 1986. From 1987 Jennings was Head Librarian at the Canberra College of Advanced Education (CCAE). In 1990 the CCAE became the University of Canberra at which point she became Manager, Information Services Division and Librarian.
189 the times and had something new to offer. James O'Brien (Kuring-gai CAE), identified the distinctive goal-driven and proactive nature of CLANN as a main reason for its appeal over ALCAE:
CLANN came along and was very popular with all of the CAE libraries in New South Wales and they focused their attention on [that] development... Here again they got money from the government to do things in the very early days... People put their energies into CLANN.
Whether or not it was at the expense of ALCAE I don't know, but I can say to you that from my memory of meetings in those days, if you had a chief librarians meeting of CLANN you'd get 100%, if you had an ALCAE meeting you would not get 100%. You'd find that people would cut the ALCAE meeting in favour of the CLANN meetings... it was producing direct benefits to their libraries in NSW (O'Brien, Kuring-gai College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
The appearance of more economical and flexible computer systems at this time was also a key factor in attracting the attention of the college librarians who were keen to explore their potential in the context of library networks. Peake believed that CLANN was;
a manifestation of the circumstances of the day... I think it was the times... Computing was coming in, and it was a complete change and it was really exciting. I think a lot of that rubbed off on the people involved. We were really quite passionate about achieving something (Peake, New South Wales Institute of Technology, Interview, 1996).
Others agreed with Peake's portrayal of the groups influence: "I think that Dorothy [Peake] is probably right, that people did find CLANN in those days to be quite invigorating and an exciting way to work" (O'Brien, Kuring-gai College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
To O'Brien, the emergence of CLANN was the clearest sign of how college librarians in New South Wales "began to think of themselves more independently [rather] than as part of a larger group" like ALCAE (O'Brien, Kuring-gai College of Advanced
190 Education, Interview, 1996). The majority of those interviewed agreed that the existence of CLANN in New South Wales significantly diminished interest in ALCAE in that State as well as nationally:
After CLANN was established, the ALCAE became much less important in New South Wales because there was no purpose in it. [In] New South Wales ALCAE was never so important [as CLANN which] was quite a different development. It just happened to be [formed] with ALCAE members. (Peake, New South Wales Institute of Technology, Interview, 1996).
SIGNAL (Special Interest Group of the New South Wales Advanced Education Conference - Administrators of Libraries and Information Resources Centres)
Another body which also diverted attention from ALCAE in New South Wales was a special library interest group of the New South Wales Advanced Education Conference (NSWAEC)93 referred to as SIGNAL (Special Interest Group of the New South Wales Advanced Education Conference - Administrators of Libraries and Information Resources Centres) which was set up in 1986. Whereas CLANN provided the computer network and reciprocal borrowing infrastructure to facilitate cooperative activity between college libraries, SIGNAL assumed responsibility for investigating ways of improving CAE library operations in general.
The idea for SIGNAL originated in 1985 when the NSWAEC decided to set up a series of sub-committee's or Special Interest Groups. Like the University Vice- Chancellors, the New South Wales Principals and Directors of Colleges were also becoming concerned at the rising number of groups who approached funding and coordinating authorities and other outside agencies independently of their own institutional administration. In order to curtail this practice, the NSWAEC created its own special interest groups, where issues and concerns would be channelled through the main body rather than be directed to outside authorities.
93The NSWAEC was the New South Wales branch of the Australian Committee of Directors and Principals or ACDP.
191 ALCAE was not perceived by the NSWAEC as being a particularly troublesome group in terms of by-passing its own institutional management and going directly to government funding authorities. Nonetheless the NSWAEC warned the college librarians to restrict their activities to matters which would not interfere with the decision-making powers of individual institutions. John Scutt recounted that the issue of groups lobbying independently was not "pursued quite as closely as the AVCC, but we did get to the stage where we drew up a policy document which covered the conditions under which categories of university staff could meet, and it was modelled fairly closely on what the AVCC had in place..." (Scutt, Australian Committee of Directors and Principals, Interview, 1996). The NSWAEC certainly left no room for interpretation as to how they wanted groups like ALCAE to act. Section 3.4 of the terms of reference governing special interest groups stated that they "shall not enter into negotiation or debate, or correspond with funding or other authorities on matters concerning the allocation of resources to the sector generally or the specialised area in particular" (NSWAEC, "Guidelines for Special Interest Groups" reproduced in letter to ALCAE, 30/7/85).
Apart from trying to prevent professional groups from circumventing the college Principals, the NSWAEC also had in mind the more positive outcomes that could result from the establishment of its own special interest groups. The Principals believed that having at its disposal a source of specialist advice would lead to more informed decision- making:
The N.S.W. Advanced Education Conference recognises that certain specialised groups may wish to meet as staff members of Colleges on an ad hoc or regular basis in order to discuss common problems of a professional nature and develop possible solutions to those problems. Professional debate resulting from such meetings will enhance the quality of advanced education in this State and encourage a dialogue between the Advanced Education Conference and the specialist group on matters of mutual concern and interest. Moreover, the establishment of such groups will provide the Conference with a source of specialist advice on matters of concern to the Conference (NSWAEC, Guidelines for Special Interest Groups reproduced in letter to ALCAE, 30/7/85).
It was in response to these issues and concerns that the special interest group for
192 libraries, SIGNAL, was established. The overall goals of SIGNAL were:
1. To identify problems of a professional nature common to college libraries and information resources centres in New South Wales 2. To identify opportunities for achievement within college libraries and information resources centres in New South Wales 3. To experiment with innovative approaches to the products and services provided by college libraries and information resources centres in New South Wales 4. To gather and process information about college libraries and information resources centres in New South Wales for dissemination to the Conference of Principals 5. To evaluate information about college libraries and resources centres supplied to the Conference of Principals by external agencies for comment (NSWAEC, 1985, p. 2).
The NSWAEC very much viewed SIGNAL's core role as examining strategies to deal with the funding difficulties being experienced by libraries during this period. This is reflected in a letter to SIGNAL members from the Chairman of the NSWAEC, Dr David Barr:
With regard to the information gathering projects to be undertaken by SIGNAL, the Principals discussed possible areas of research. It was considered that as the Library funding position may not improve at the State and National level, SIGNAL should examine how the library resources can be maximised within the funding restraints. The Principals have asked that SIGNAL investigate this matter and that your recommendations be forwarded to the Conference.
I believe there would also be some interest in your group putting together a set of performance indicators which could be used to measure the performance of the Library and which would be sensitive to maximise the funds spent in Libraries (Letter from Barr to SIGNAL, 27/4/87, ALCAE files).
SIGNAL therefore spent much of its time reviewing performance measures for academic libraries94 and improving statistical methods:
94SIGNAL reviewed a number of recently published reports in this area, including the Report of the Hudson Committee, Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education (1986)(See Chapter 13).
193 SIGNAL has devoted much of its attention during 1987 to problems relating to library statistics. We have been concerned to provide College Principals and Directors with both relevant and meaningful data... SIGNAL has found the discussions [on this subject] to be very beneficial and indeed a real 'consciousness raising' exercise. Members found that while they had always examined statistics relating to their own Library, no detailed attempt to compare and question the relevancy of data collected had been undertaken previously. SIGNAL proved to be the vehicle that encouraged this development...
... SIGNAL discovered early in the year that many Libraries were not keeping statistics either at all... or not collecting data in a manner that produced comparable figures. Thus one of our early meetings was devoted to correcting errors and agreeing to common methods of compiling data... We have also examined various overseas publications relating to performance measures for academic libraries (Letter from SIGNAL to Dr Melvin McMichael95, NSWAEC Chairman, 18/11/87, ALCAE files).
The creation of SIGNAL met with a mixed response from ALCAE members. Some, like Lois Jennings (Macarthur Institute of Higher Education) who took a leading role in setting up SIGNAL, saw it as an opportunity to form an active partnership with the college principals thereby providing a more effective means of influencing sector policy. In a letter on the subject shortly before SIGNAL's creation, she expressed the hope that the research projects to be undertaken by the group would "result in information useful for management decision making by both library managers and principals" (Letter from Jennings to Ken Knight96, New South Wales Advanced Education Conference Chairman, 14/3/86). In an interview Jennings explained her motivation for assisting with the establishment of SIGNAL:
In the places I've been in, I've tried to be a manager and work with my principal and my Vice-Chancellor. I have sensed that some people like to use those external groups almost as lobbying groups... It seems to me that the librarians in those groups wanted those groups to be very autonomous and not seen as part of their own institution and beyond the authority of their own institutions. I always have difficulty with that because I feel
95Dr McMichael was Principal of Mitchell CAE from 1984 to 1989.
96Knight was Principal of Kuring-gai CAE from 1982 to 1988.
194 we're only able to meet [in these groups] because we're being funded by our own institution. I never thought it was wise to be almost in a confrontation with your boss using an external group...
I think from memory the focus [of SIGNAL] was that we were going to start to look at research type activity. So it very obviously wasn't a [type of] political lobbying group. But it was a group to get together and come up with knowledge that none of us would have individually. Its spirit was very much to say, let's focus on professional knowledge where we can advise the principals of the issues and give them information that will improve their decision making (Jennings, Macarthur Institute of Higher Education, Interview, 1996).
Other college librarians, though, viewed the establishment of SIGNAL as a direct threat to ALCAE's independence because it acted to keep "a lid on librarians and making sure [we] didn't talk direct to Canberra and things like that" (O'Brien, Kuring-gai College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996). Certainly statements made by the NSWAEC that SIGNAL was to have nothing to do with ALCAE, only added to the Association's marginalisation in its last few years of existence. A letter to Jennings written by the incoming NSWAEC chairman, David Barr, declared that "SIGNAL is not to have affiliation with ALCAE, an organisation which is not recognised by the AEC" (Letter from Barr to Jennings, 14/10/86). SIGNAL continued to function until the end of 1989 at which time ALCAE also ceased to exist as a result of Dawkins reforms under the Hawke Labor Government that led to the disbanding of the binary system of higher education.
For all intents and purposes, then, ALCAE had been superseded in New South Wales by SIGNAL which during its short life engaged in the sorts of activities previously performed by the former group, including the evaluation of college library statistical data and services.
Australian Committee of Directors and Principals Working Party on College Libraries
At a national level, too, by the middle of the 1980s, the main body of principals and directors, the ACDP, had begun to supplant ALCAE's role by conducting
195 investigations designed to give greater prominence to the educational function of college libraries and by calling upon funding authorities and colleges to provide adequate financial assistance to libraries. Investigations of this nature were devised partly to 'keep a lid on librarians', as O'Brien had put it, by letting it be known that the ACDP was the only legitimate forum through which they could press their case. However the ACDP national body, like the New South Wales branch, the NSWAEC which had developed SIGNAL, was also motivated by a genuine desire to have all college operations functioning as efficiently and effectively as possible in order to maximise the use of scarce resources, as well as providing the kind of evidence needed to build a case for additional funding. "We needed some sort of documentation", said the ACDP Secretary, "... some sort of quantitative measure of the sorts of points that people would want to make in submissions to government" (Scutt, Australian Committee of Directors and Principals, Interview, 1996).
In 1985 ACDP commissioned what was arguably the most comprehensive study of college libraries undertaken since the days of the former CACAE Library Sub- Committee with its various sponsored studies and investigations (such as Bryan's The Function of the Library in a College of Advanced Education (1970)97 for example), and was more substantial than anything ALCAE had undertaken since its early years. The aim of the study was to "investigate the effects of low levels of funding on library resources, and quality", and to recommend strategies to the Commonwealth Government, and other stakeholders, to ameliorate this situation (ACDP, 1986, p. ii). The Working Party which carried out the investigation consisted of two principals, Rob Napier (Principal, Orange Agricultural College) and Dr Barry Sheehan (Director, Melbourne College of Advanced Education), and two librarians, Lois Jennings (Macarthur Institute of Higher Education) and Chris Mulder (Western Australia College of Advanced Education). The study was essentially a response to the deleterious impact on college infrastructures of steady-state funding conditions which, by the mid-1980s, had plagued the sector for almost a decade. As far as libraries were concerned, collections and services were being adversely affected by inflation and the devaluation of the Australian dollar. In an effort to draw attention to
97See Chapter 4.
196 the plight of college libraries the Working Party paid particular attention to demonstrating how libraries tied in with the broader socio-economic policy of the government of the day as a way of convincing them to provide greater levels of support.
During its period in office, the Hawke Labor government was particularly concerned with finding ways of using the higher education sector to strengthen the economy by increasing the supply of skilled labour, training managers to compete more successfully in the international marketplace, and generating youth employment opportunities. To this end the Labor administration had initiated a number of programmes which it expected the higher education sector to support. These included encouraging institutions to diversify course offerings and raising Australia's scientific and technological profile. Universities and colleges were also expected to support the Government's social equity programme by improving access opportunities for disadvantaged groups.
However the Government's expectations were that these policy initiatives would be carried out without any real increase in funding levels, hence the focus on greater efficiency. The Commonwealth expected higher education to "do more with less", by putting the onus on the colleges to devise more creative funding and management strategies at a local as well as at a sector level, as had already been achieved to some extent with the setting up of cooperative networks like CAVAL and CLANN.
The Commonwealth was, however, looking for further practical demonstrations of this kind. The ACDP Working Party was accordingly mindful of the need to couch its recommendations in the language of these political imperatives, with the final report devoting a great deal of space to demonstrating how its recommendations could serve the wider policy objectives of governments:
The Working Party recognised that in the immediate future, funding of Colleges of Advanced Education is likely to be very restricted, and that community and government attitudes increasingly require effective management and accountability for expenditure... (ACDP, 1986, p. ii).
197 As an aspect of its political sensitivity, the report of the Working Party, entitled Managing College Libraries for Value (1986), did not suggest that support for libraries during times of stringency should be automatic:
The need to justify activities and show they are valued has challenged the practice of using tradition and past investments as the reasons for funding activities. No longer is it possible for organisational units to pursue activities as ends in themselves. Output must relate to demands and offer benefits to both college and the clientele it serves.
College libraries must be included in the performance audit. The managers of college libraries and information resource centres must be able to demonstrate that their services to clients and their internal operations have a positive influence on the ability of a college to achieve its educational mission (ACDP, 1986, p. 10).
The ACDP report, however, documented very strongly how library managers have in fact attempted to meet government expectations by optimising the use of scarce funding through the application of creative management techniques, the use of new technologies, and by developing resource and bibliographic data sharing arrangements between libraries through schemes like CAVAL and CLANN:
The potential for greater cost-effectiveness is being realised by careful allocation of staff resources. The automation strategy is arguably a critical tool in the achievement of these objectives (ACDP, 1986, p. 6).
The last ten years have been a period of dramatic change for the operation of college libraries. There have been measurable achievements in the improved utilisation of human, materials and financial resources... the changes reflect developments in the channels of distribution [i.e. networks of libraries and other forms of cooperative activity] used by libraries and made possible by technology... (ACDP, 1986, p. 32).
[These developments] reflect innovative management strategies. There has been a conscious decision on the part of library managers to change the nature of their interactions with one another. Independence and the philosophy of self-sufficiency have given way to interdependence and sharing.
College libraries in New South Wales and in Victoria exemplified this new strategic approach to the management of information resources with the
198 formation in 1978 of the CLANN Network and the CAVAL Network. Through contractual agreements, libraries have been working with one another in a conscious effort to optimise the use of existing library resources and to plan for the development of future resources (ACDP, 1986, p. 38).
College libraries are very much a part of [the] new information age. Quite in the face of severe funding problems - perhaps partially because of them - college library managers in Australia have exploited the greater cost effectiveness, and flexibility of the new information technologies. They have been challenged to find the means of satisfying the needs of an increasingly sophisticated clientele, and to further optimise the use of existing resources (ACDP, 1986, p. 105, 106).
Having shown how libraries have done their best to comply with these political imperatives, the Working Party argued for additional support on the basis that libraries need to be compensated for external factors outside of their control which were in effect cancelling out much of the benefit derived from the development of more efficient work practices. These external factors were principally inflation and the devaluation of the dollar:
College libraries must not only adjust to the financial stringencies which are now common to all areas of college activity, but they must also accommodate to the fluctuating fortunes of the Australian dollar against the currencies in which most books and serials are purchased. These financial problems occur at a time when demands for library services are escalating, and the role of libraries is being rendered more complex by rapidly developing information technologies and major changes in the institutions of higher education which they serve (ACDP, 1986, p. iii).
Abundant evidence was presented throughout the report to substantiate the claims of the Working Party:
The average increase for publications between 1983 and 1984 was 9.43%. Price rises for books for the same period vary depending on the discipline. For example History rose by 8.77%, Poetry/Drama by 21.45% and Technology by 11.95%... Movements in the exchange rates for the Australian dollar play havoc with library budgets given that tertiary libraries depend heavily on the international publishing market for their supplies... The effects of the devaluation have been variously estimated as
199 raising the prices of library materials by 24% to 31% during 1985 alone (ACDP, 1986, p. 96, 97).
The Working Party pointed out that adjustments also needed to be made to existing funding arrangements which did not take into account the changing role of libraries and the additional demands placed upon them by Government:
The conventional focus for funding within colleges is based on EFTS [Equivalent Full Time Student] numbers... The underlying planning premise for such funding approaches is, that in order to support each EFTS, a certain number of dollars need to be spent per EFTS on academic staff, non-academic staff, and physical resources.
While this approach may be straightforward for planning academic staff/student ratios, it encounters problems when transferred to support services and facilities. From a library manager's perspective, the phenomenon of students going into a library is different from students going into a classroom. The library can be serving its own EFTS population and also providing service to the EFTS population of other colleges. Students (and staff) do visit other libraries and use their services and facilities. Also, an indirect use of other libraries occurs through the interlibrary loan service. In addition to the student population, a library may also be serving community borrowers. The resulting imbalance of trade is not accommodated in funding based EFTS (ACDP, 1986, p. 104).
The Working Party demonstrated political shrewdness by arguing that it would be in the best interests of the Government to address these problems. They concluded that unless reforms were made libraries would be unable to support adequately broader Federal Government initiatives. These were initiatives that the Working Party maintained relied heavily on college libraries for their success:
A problem common to most college libraries is that their ability to respond to clear needs is being seriously diminished, and as a result the education of students is suffering. In particular, disadvantaged students are placed at risk. Those without the personal financial resources to seek alternatives to library-provided materials (or even to photocopy closed reserve materials), and those with special cultural needs requiring intensive staff resources for assistance in accessing and marshalling information and development of study skills, are likely to have their success in tertiary studies further jeopardised.
200 Furthermore, the infrastructure for the development of the potential problem solvers and creative thinkers who are so important to Australia's scientific and technological development and economic recovery is under threat if college libraries are not adequately funded. Under such conditions academic staff will be forced to take on a different role and provide much more information. Consequently, the quality of mind we seek to develop and upon which the future of this nation depends will not be stimulated. It will become a recipient rather than an initiating mind, reactive rather than independent (ACDP, 1986, p. iii-iv).
The Working Party claimed that a continuation of steady-state funding would be counterproductive to the Government's goal of achieving greater levels of quality and efficiency of across the college sector. To illustrate its point it referred to the benefits derived from new computer systems and the need for continued investment in this area:
The developed nations of the world are rapidly moving from a heavy dependence upon industrial production, to information-based economies. If it is to survive, and to grow in the new order, Australia must similarly shift the fundamentals of its economic structures (primary and secondary production), towards the emergence of technologies. Its education systems must keep pace with these technologies, if the nation as a whole is to successfully master the transition. College libraries are very much part of this new information age. In the face of severe funding problems, perhaps partially because of them, college library managers in Australia have exploited the greater cost-effectiveness, and flexibility of new information technologies...
Technological investment has provided the opportunity to maximise the libraries' potential to present information in forms to which clients have become accustomed. It is vital that libraries, as they enter the so-called 'information age' continue such investment in the future... (ACDP, 1986, p. 123).
Although it is difficult to determine the degree of influence this report had, it does serve to show how initiatives which used to be the province of ALCAE were now being appropriated not merely by other groups, but in a sense by the parent body.
ALCAE played no part in initiating this major undertaking. Apart from the submissions made by individual college librarians, the Report itself includes no indication that a contribution was made from ALCAE to the final report of the working party. This
201 is confirmed by ALCAE correspondence and minutes of meetings where scant mention is made of the report. Moreover there is no evidence that the college librarians made any collective attempts, through ALCAE, to use the study for lobbying purposes. As was more typically the case by this stage, reports of this nature were mainly used by librarians on an individual basis, "to enable librarians to build a stronger case within their own institutions for access to funds" (O'Brien, Kuring-gai College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996). All of this points up the extent to which ALCAE was now in eclipse.
202 CHAPTER 18 AN ASSOCIATION SEARCHING FOR A ROLE: ALCAE'S FINAL YEARS (1986-1988)
A number of factors, covered in the previous chapters, all culminated in a questioning by members of the continuing worth of ALCAE during its final years of operation. In summary these factors included the following: ALCAE's lack of success in lobbying governments, a decreasing reliance by members on the group due to the maturation of the colleges and a desire for greater independence (especially the larger institutes), the effect on morale and finances caused by the amalgamation process. Above all, the factor that seems to have contributed the most to a decline in ALCAE during its latter years was the proliferation of competing organisations which were undertaking more effectively than ALCAE could, aspects of the broad national task it had set itself and which, at a State level, were satisfying the operational requirements of college libraries, something that ALCAE was incapable of doing.
A letter written by a college librarian in 1986 sums up the sense of exasperation and frustration that had built up within ALCAE. The letter was from Carol Mills98 of the Riverina-Murray Institute of Higher Education to John Cummings, the then Chairman of ALCAE, in which Mills outlined some issues she wanted raised in absentia at the upcoming meeting to be held in Darwin in June 1986: "I have no particular concerns of my own to add at present", she wrote, "beyond that of the perceived (by me) weakening of the strength of ALCAE as a group which can make itself heard and respected" (Letter from Mills to Cummings, 19/5/86).
Mills put this down to a variety of reasons, most of which the author has already made reference too. These included the reduction in group revenue caused by shrinking membership which, she said, has had the effect of "reducing the scope of ALCAE". She also pointed to the decline in funding as a factor which was distracting members from
98Carol Mills was Chief Librarian at the Riverina-Murray Institute of Higher Education, Wagga, New South Wales from 1984 to 1988. When the Institute became part of Charles Sturt University in 1989, Mills continued as Director of the Wagga campus library.
203 devoting time to collective activity by forcing them to spend a greater proportion of their time coping with local problems. "Many of us have had", she wrote, "the same, or even less, staff and more user pressure, leading to us to tend to spend less time on concerns not directly related to our actual operations."
However the factor which Mills singled out as having the most detrimental effect on ALCAE was the multiplying of the number of library groups which she contended had the effect of dispersing the labours of members, thereby lessening the credibility of the college librarians in policy-making fora: "We as a profession have many bodies; ALCAE, LAA [Library Association of Australia], AACOBS [Australian Advisory Council in Bibliographical Services], CAUL [Committee of Australian University Librarians], CAVAL [Co-operative Action by Victorian Academic Libraries], CLANN [College Libraries Activities Network, New South Wales]... which interlock, but also overlap, reducing their individual strength and convincing our leaders and purse-string holders that we are a hazy, wimpish lot who can't even help get our objectives sorted out." Although admitting that she herself could offer no solution to this problem, Mills nonetheless suggested that the group should somehow make an effort to "consider ways of strengthening the corporate identity of ALCAE... [otherwise] we will pay for this in due course in terms of the quality of our future services and the environment in which we work...". "Not exactly a topic for putting on the agenda", she added, "but more a search for the right feather to tickle our fellow members and ourselves..." (Letter from Mills to Cummings, 19/5/86).
Review of ALCAE (1986)
Mills' sentiments appear to have been typical of how members were feeling at this juncture for her letter was followed by a general re-evaluation of ALCAE that took place at the time of the 1986 Annual General Meeting in June. In his chairman's report, delivered at the June meeting, Cummings made the following observation: "I could not help noting that we were perceptibly less strong as an organisation than we had been, even a year earlier" (Cummings, Chairman's Report, 29/6/86). Cummings noted, among other things, the impact on ALCAE of the financial difficulties being experienced by some
204 institutions and sympathised with those like Mills who could not justify the expense of attending the meeting:
[One problem] is the declining budget allocation to libraries which causes some members of ALCAE to hesitate to attend meetings other than local, simply because their conference funds have been slashed... Darwin, as a venue may be an extreme case for some stretched travel budgets, but whereas eight years ago my College did not hesitate to send me to the LAA [Library Association of Australia]/NZLA [New Zealand Library Association] Conference in Auckland, this year my attendance would not have been possible had I not fortuitously been a member of AACOBS National Council and therefore able, for the first time, to draw on their travel assistance (Cummings, Chairman's Report, 29/6/86).
Such absences, he added, only serve to frustrate attempts to debate properly strategies for improving the group: "The frustration caused by declining purchasing power for library materials overlaps the inability to attend those meetings which might - just might - provide joint strategies to ameliorate this slow decline from strength to weakness, or, in extreme cases, from weakness to debility" (Cummings, Chairman's Report, 29/6/86).
Cummings, like Mills, also highlighted the "drastic decline in membership" caused by amalgamations which, he believed, would possibly have "more serious" implications for the "continued vitality of ALCAE" than funding problems. "This situation will worsen", he maintained, "as existing colleges, such as WAIT [Western Australia Institute of Technology], move into the university sector".99 He cited, as a measure of ALCAE's predicament, the fact that "no State could be found willing to take on the ALCAE national executive duties for the next two years" (Cummings, Chairman's Report, 29/6/86).
"These are a few of the problems", Cummings declared, "are there any solutions?". He suggested that the time may finally have arrived for members to accept
99WAIT had been granted university status and in January 1987 became the Curtin University of Technology.
205 that ALCAE "has outlived its usefulness." He added that if members deemed this to be the case then "one drastic answer" might be formally to divide the groups functions "between the various organisations with which we overlap - UCLS [Universities and College Libraries Section, Library Association of Australia], AACOBS, and, in the case of NSW at least, the Special Interest Group currently being established as a sub- committee of the Conference of Principals [i.e. SIGNAL]" (Cummings, Chairman's Report, 29/6/86). Cummings, however, rejected such a course of action, believing that it would inevitably compromise the interests of college librarians:
I do not believe this is satisfactory. AACOBS... is not specific enough to suit our needs, covering as it does all spectra of librarianship, and Special Interest Groups [e.g. SIGNAL] must tend to be parochial, and, although they may gain influence in the seats of power where their recommendations are supported and carried forward by the Principals, there is no guarantee that Principals will be any more supportive of their professional librarians than they have been in the past, and will have absolute power to stifle any initiatives which come to them from committees which must operate through their parent bodies (Cummings, Chairman's Report, 29/6/86).
Cummings next proposed that ALCAE enter negotiations with CAUL "to create a joint organisation", believing that this might well "cut through the problems" of those colleges which were in the process of becoming universities. Here again Cummings dismissed his own suggestion by admitting that he "would not hold out any confidence for a hospitable reception from CAUL" which he regarded as being inclined "to look on the CAEs with suspicion" and who have, he added, been unwilling to enter into cooperative activity with college librarians, and "consistently, in NSW at least, declined to enter into formal reciprocal borrowing arrangements at the undergraduate level". Moreover Cummings argued that the imbalance in the number of institutions, which he noted "still favours the colleges", would in his opinion further obstruct any such proposal since the universities "might well feel threatened by suggestions of an amalgamation" between the two groups.
Finally Cummings concedes that he "cannot, at this stage, see any satisfactory alternative to ALCAE at the National and State level". He therefore concluded that it
206 would only be at such time when the colleges ceased to exist as a "discrete" sector that any "comfortable modus vivendi [could hope to] be established" (Cummings, Chairman's Report, 29/6/86). Like Mills, Cummings could only encourage fellow members to give this matter their "most serious consideration" in the hope that the group of college librarians could still continue to exert influence on a national level in the way it had been able to do previously:
I think we must all try to think more on a national and less on the local level, and must above all, communicate more fully and freely, in order to achieve a uniformity of standards throughout the sector and an upgrading of these standards, not only to restore previous levels of service and professionalism where these have been eroded, but also to bring these levels up to a point where we can negotiate with other tertiary educational organisations from a position of strength (Cummings, Chairman's Report, 29/6/86).
Motivational speeches such as these, in addition to words of encouragement found in numerous pieces of correspondence, are particularly noticeable during these final years of ALCAE. For example Cummings very much viewed an important and necessary role of the Chair to provide a strong sense of leadership so as to sustain interest in the group during this troubled phase of ALCAE's life. Among Cummings efforts to sustain interest in, and commitment to, ALCAE was his attempt to revive the Association Newsletter which he viewed as an important means of keeping the group working together. During the earlier years, the Newsletter was regarded by many ALCAE members as a valuable professional and political tool. This was emphasised repeatedly by successive chairmen and the Newsletter's editors. As early as 1974 Christopher Awcock (State College of Victoria), who was ALCAE chair from 1979 until 1982, felt obliged to stress the value of the Newsletter and to appeal for more support for it: "The Association's Newsletter is to be thought of as the proof of our public professional existence and our contribution to Australian Librarianship. PLEASE SUPPORT IT" (Awcock, Chairman's Letter, 13/11/79). During 1984, publication of the Newsletter lapsed completely because of declining interest and a reluctance by members to contribute funds to meet the necessary costs of its production. The only avenue for inter- meeting communication between members was reduced largely to correspondence. Now,
207 as was the case for most areas of ALCAE activity during these later years, it fell to the chairman to try to rekindle interest in the Newsletter. In his chairman's address to the 1986 Annual General Meetings Cumming's stated:
I feel there has been a significant loss of communication between CAEs and attribute this in large part to the cessation of the ALCAE newsletter. I am aware that newsletters take a lot of energy and that contributions always have to be wrung out of the branches by cajolery, blackmail or threats of physical violence; but the idea of a voluntary round-robin similar to that operating within CAUL has not worked for us, and I urge a return to publication of the ALCAE newsletter. I will even, probably foolishly, offer to edit such a newsletter if this meeting decides to revive it (Cummings, Chairman's Report, 29/6/86).
The meeting decided to resume publication of the Newsletter, "but on a more informal basis and at irregular intervals" (Cummings, Chairman's Report, 29/6/86).
Crittenden remarked that at this "particular period the chairman had to be a 'ginger man'... Someone who could try and get people to do things" (Crittenden, Canberra College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996). He noted that this was in fact an indication of how much the group had changed since its earlier, more confident and active period: "That wasn't the case in the early period where we had a fairly enthusiastic group of people who operated or wanted to operate as a group" (Crittenden, Canberra College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996). With reference to Mills' letter, Cummings explained to the author why he had placed so much importance on seeking to enliven his colleagues:
I think that she was pointing out some of the reasons for the problems that I saw. And I think the final paragraph [of Mills' letter] is really supporting what I said, that unless people are motivated to take part and encouraged and 'tickled', then its not going to happen and ALCAE will disintegrate of its own momentum, or lack of it, rather than going on to regain the strength that it formerly had (Cummings, Sydney College of the Arts, Interview, 1996).
Cummings' hope for a revitalised national ALCAE, however, came to nought. Although he had intended, as the 1986 Chairman's report shows, to make the subject of
208 ALCAE's renewal the centrepiece of what he referred to as a "National Plan for ALCAE", the author could not locate any subsequent references to such a proposal (Cummings, Chairman's Report, 29/6/86). When questioned on this matter Cummings replied that this initiative was most probably abandoned when news was heard of the Federal Government's plan to dismantle the binary system of higher education in favour of a single unified national system:
I think ALCAE might have done something if it had not been for the unified system coming in '88... I imagine that [the National plan for ALCAE] would have been overtaken by the Green Paper. When Dawkins brought his Green Paper down in 87 everyone was very aware that this was going to be the way of the future... it was fairly clear that the decision had been made (Cummings, Sydney College of the Arts, Interview, 1996).
ALCAE Victoria
From about mid eighties, the only significant activity undertaken by ALCAE was in Victoria. As in the early period, Victoria remained the group's most vital branch right until the end. In contrast to the apparent decline in interest elsewhere, the Victorian branch continued to pursue an active agenda with members maintaining a relatively high level of commitment and loyalty to their group. Ward speculates as to the reasons why this might be the case:
I don't think [ALCAE National] was able to be a common purpose - show to anything like the extent that the VIC Chief Librarians were. Because of the distance and the relative infrequency of meetings of individuals, it never developed, and I suppose, at another level that's the fate of CAUL too. So it was always dispersed in its attitudes or ineffectual in its processes, more inclined to let things lapse between meetings. Everyone would get excited with all the stimulus and then went blithely back to reality... So I would say that it was the dear old tyranny of distance and difference of situation that made it difficult for ALCAE to operate and the VIC difference is that Victoria is a pretty compact State... (Ward, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Interview, 1996).
Other Victorian members agreed with Ward's explanation of that State's unique quality of solidarity and endurance. Two other members, Bill Hitchins (Librarian, Ballarat
209 College of Advanced Education) and John Yocklunn (Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education), gave special emphasis to the proximity of member libraries because it enabled members to get together relatively frequently and thoroughly debate issues:
The Victorian group did meet fairly frequently and work things through. [An issue] would be carried through to the national group but often Victoria would have a background of having discussed this and worked it through more than, it was my impression, New South Wales CAE people did (Hitchins, Ballarat College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
We were all in the same geographical location which helped. And we could physically meet regularly. It was not something we could do with our New South Wales colleagues. Writing or a phone call is not quite the same as seeing someone [for] meetings six or eight times a year... we managed certainly six to eight meetings a year from '83 to '90 which was quite a lot of meetings... So ALCAE was very active in Victoria (Yocklunn, Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
Yocklunn also cited the calibre of the members themselves as having a bearing on the continuing viability of the Victorian branch:
Once we had the momentum from Jack Ward's day, maybe we just kept going on. I mean it just needs the people there and the issues to be raised. Yes, I think why we were active was that there were a number of people committed to [ALCAE Victoria] and were prepared to put the work in and prepared to put part of the college library resources on the line [to support] that belief [in the group]... We probably had some of the best college librarians in Australia in Victoria who happened to be there at that time. And that's evidenced by the fact that most of them went on to become very senior university librarians (Yocklunn, Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
The combination of these factors seemed to have instilled in ALCAE Victoria a greater sense of confidence in what could be achieved than was evident in the more dispersed national association, or indeed within New South Wales which seemed to be more preoccupied, most notably with the development of CLANN. As stated previously in Chapter 17, this difference between the Victorian and New South Wales branches of ALCAE seemed to have a lot to do with the fact that CAVAL (the equivalent of CLANN in Victoria) was not made up of only college librarians as was the case with CLANN.
210 This meant that the Victorian college librarians did not have the same opportunity to discuss the entire range of CAE library issues within CAVAL as their New South Wales colleagues had within the CLANN group. Consequently ALCAE Victoria remained the main forum for college librarians within that State.
Yocklunn described how the peculiar vitality of the Victorian group was especially evident in the group's interest in campaigning for increased recognition of college libraries, across Australian but especially within Victoria, at a stage when the rest of ALCAE had all but given up on such activity:
I don't think there was frustration, but an acceptance of this was how things were and you could either fight it or you could sit back and let them swallow you. So we decided to fight back. I suppose the difference was that we were all very active to the very end lobbying... I think the fact that we really believed in lobbying and conscious raising helped.
As for [ALCAE] national... of course nothing very much happened there and all they had to do was [organise] an annual meeting and maybe a conference, but quite often these didn't happen... the national group of course wasn't having that much success. I mean it was clearly fairly sporadic in its activities. So, apart from a few letters that went to CTEC,... there was no sustained campaign or saturation at the national level. Of the others, I think that ALCAE NSW... did deal with some of the local issues [but] South Australia and Queensland [had] died fairly early in the piece (Yocklunn, Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
Lobbying Activity (1986-1988). ALCAE Victoria now committed itself to mounting one of the most ambitious campaigns ever attempted by ALCAE. The plan was to try to generate more funds for college libraries by appealing to a wide range of stakeholders from government authorities and college administrations, to staff associations and individual benefactors.
The idea for this major enterprise primarily came from Yocklunn who, having had a unique career at a senior government level, was regarded by the group as the most appropriate member to devise an appropriate approach. Before his appointment as Chief Librarian at the Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education in 1983, Yocklunn served in a number of library and government posts beginning with the Treasury in Canberra. In
211 1967 he moved to Papua New Guinea where, among other things, he acted as Executive Officer of the Public Service Board and Principal Private Secretary to the Chief Minister. He was also responsible for founding that country's National Library and served as National Librarian from 1978 to 1983. Yocklunn had also gained experience in politics with his participation in Papua New Guinea's main political party, the Pangu Pati. His contribution to government and political reform during this period was acknowledged in 1975 when, on the occasion of the Independence of Papua New Guinea, he was knighted by the Queen.
In an interview, Yocklunn described his first impressions of the college library scene upon his return to Australia:
I came at the end of 1983 from Papua New Guinea to the Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education as it was then and I immediately struck the problem that the college libraries seemed to be badly funded, certainly badly funded in relation to university libraries. I had the impression that libraries in general and in colleges weren't as valued as they were in universities. They weren't regarded as central to the function, to the role of the college.
For example the book collections were inadequate. There was inadequate staffing. The buildings were old or needed maintenance or [there was a need for] new buildings. [I had also] found that there had been a number of amalgamations in Victoria prior to my arriving so the old State College became Victoria College... however there were no actual savings in amalgamations for the library...
And then a further problem was that the head librarian or others had a lot of travel and a lot of communication costs. So [the amalgamation] didn't save anything as far as the library was concerned. But there was a perceived saving in so far as the top layer of administration had been removed. At that stage of course there was a recession and there was the devaluation of the dollar. In fact, when I came from Papua New Guinea, the conversion rate was frozen.. and for a couple of weeks after I'd came in December '83, I couldn't touch my money and in that time it had devalued by about 5 or 10%, and that was a fairly large sum... (Yocklunn, Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
Yocklunn believed that a body like ALCAE, that had specific responsibility for the college sector, ought to take the initiative in attempting to rectify this situation. In a
212 published transcript of a paper presented to an ALCAE national seminar held in 1985 in Adelaide, entitled The Funding Crisis in College Libraries: Origins, Effects and Solutions, Yocklunn wrote:
What can be done about the funding crisis in college libraries? Clearly the problem is one relating to the allocation of resources by governments. It seems to me that the only real solution to the funding crisis is to lobby successfully for an increase of the allocation for the higher education sector in general and for college libraries in particular. In other words, it is necessary to create a situation in which governments find it expedient and politically acceptable to grant a higher proportion of the available funds to colleges... As college librarians we all have a responsibility to take action to reverse the current trends in library funding. Unless we do, the quality of higher education itself, will decline into irreversible mediocrity (Yocklunn, 1986, p. 110, 111).
With the support of fellow members it was agreed that ALCAE Victoria "should involve itself much more in lobbying" and a decision was made to devote the major part of the group's work to this area of activity. At the time, Yocklunn portrayed this move as something of a revival of ALCAE's earlier focus on lobbying by pointing out in his address at the Adelaide seminar how successful the Association had been in the past in lobbying for funding (Yocklunn, 1986, p. 111).
Certainly this decision, as in the early years of ALCAE, gave ALCAE Victoria an excuse to continue to operate at a time when the branch, like the national body, was seriously debating whether or not to carry on meeting: "ALCAE certainly in '85 was going through this exercise, [asking:] 'Do we really need an ALCAE?'. This was [also true of] ALCAE Victoria. And in the end they decided, yes, they did need an ALCAE [and] one of the objectives they identified for 1985 was lobbying" (Yocklunn, Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996). Yocklunn explained that, like the rest of ALCAE, the Victorian branch was likewise discouraged by the difficulties they were experiencing throughout this later period. However, the decision by the branch to continue to play a pro-active role seemed to revitalise the group by providing it with a sense of purpose: "... we [were] frustrated, we probably were. But we felt that at least we would be doing something. We'd be drawing attention to our plight and that maybe some
213 of it would penetrate to some people" (Yocklunn, Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
In early 1985 a special Lobbying and Public Relations Working Party (also known as the Public Affairs Working Party) was set up and convened by Don Schauder (Chisholm Institute of Technology). The group's task was "to identify those issues in relation to lobbying, profile raising and public image that need to be addressed by ALCAE Vic and to prepare a paper for consideration by ALCAE Vic" (ALCAE Victoria, Minutes of Meeting, 28/2/85).
The centrepiece of the Lobbying and Public Relations Working Party's strategy was the organisation of an extensive public relations campaign which, Yocklunn, who was also a member, explained, "was necessary to establish a general climate in the community sympathetic to colleges and their libraries" (Yocklunn, 1986, p. 110). The Working Party hoped to accomplish two objectives as a result of this campaign. The first was, as expressed in the minutes of its first meeting, simply to "Get more funds". Members preferred to acquire this extra funding for "specific projects such as specialist collections or failing this, acquisitions in general" (ALCAE Victoria, Lobbying and Public Relations Working Party, Minutes of Meeting, 1/5/85). The Working Party's "primary targets" for this objective included such wide ranging groups and individuals as the Federal Ministry of Education, CTEC, the State Minister of Education, the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, private companies, trusts, and individual benefactors. Those identified as "secondary targets" consisted of "Local MPs, education unions, student bodies, [and] staff associations" and "private sources" who would "benefit from specific projects" (ALCAE Victoria, Lobbying and Public Relations Working Party, Minutes of Meeting, 1/5/85). The group's second objective covered standards "including such questions as the status and remuneration of chief librarians". The approach here was twofold. The first was to develop a "College Library Charter", from which "standards can be developed and justified" (ALCAE Victoria, Lobbying and Public Relations Working Party, Minutes of Meeting, 1/5/85). As described by Yocklunn, this charter was intended to "articulate the role, potential and needs of college libraries in the community, and would list services currently provided to the community by college
214 libraries" (Yocklunn, 1986, p. 110).
The second strategy was to "gain widespread acceptance of realistic standards" (ALCAE Victoria, Lobbying and Public Relations Working Party, Minutes of Meeting, 1/5/85). In addition to some of the groups targeted for the Working Party's first objective, this undertaking entailed soliciting support from college directors and councils in addition to community groups and "educational bureaucracy (state and federal)" (ALCAE Victoria, Lobbying and Public Relations Working Party, Minutes of Meeting, 1/5/85).
ALCAE Victoria also determined to be self-reliant in the execution of its campaign, showing little inclination to involve colleagues interstate. The reason for this was that the national body was neither interested in coordinating a nationally based campaign nor were they able to offer any financial assistance by this stage. Consequently the Victorian group were compelled to work alone. "[By this stage] we didn't rely on the ALCAE National very much", recalled Yocklunn:
We felt we needed to do it ourselves on a Victorian level because clearly they didn't have the resources to do it at a national level and there weren't too many active branches of ALCAE by that time in other States. I think it had all but died in SA and Queensland at that time and that only left NSW (Yocklunn, Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
ALCAE Victoria instead relied on the resources of its own members to make contributions as well as obtaining support from other local groups such as CAVAL: "Each college library in Victoria used its own postage, used its own secretarial resources, its own paper and printing. The costs were shared out amongst all the colleges without any budget line allocated. So it just came from the operating expenses of all the colleges" (Yocklunn, Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996). The Lobbying and Public Relations Working Party even envisaged the setting up of a "fighting fund" with donations from "book trade" and other sources (ALCAE Victoria, Lobbying and Public Relations Working Party, Minutes of Meeting, 1/5/85).
215 Apart from documents and minutes of meetings outlining strategies and so on, evidence exists of some considerable effort being put into the realisation of these plans over a three or four year period. For example letters were written to influential groups seeking their support, public relations material was distributed in the form of pamphlets, and profiles of librarians and their libraries were included in local newspapers: "When the newspapers wanted something about libraries or whatever, then we would chase up our people and we would make sure that they would get someone to talk to or something to photograph or something like that" (Yocklunn, Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996). Support was also sought from the other main group of Victorian librarians, CAVAL, in terms of helping with planning and publicising their campaign.
Although acknowledging the value of this initiative in terms of sustaining a focus for the group, members were less certain as to whether it actually achieved a great deal. Another member of ALCAE Victoria, Bill Hitchins (Ballarat College of Advanced Education), does not recall it having any great impact (Hitchins, Ballarat College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996). Yocklunn summed up his view of the achievements of the Lobbying and Public Relations Working Party:
... we took an attitude that we didn't expect miraculous results and we didn't expect funding to suddenly flow. But we regarded it as a conscious raising exercise so that [funding authorities and other sector stakeholders] were aware of academic and college libraries in particular. The other factor we tried to encourage was that if [funding authorities etc.] thought about college libraries they would then think of ALCAE and consult us or at least let us know what was going on. So there were the two focal points (Yocklunn, Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
Yocklunn also believed that ALCAE's campaign contributed to a general push by a number of other groups, like AACOBS and CAVAL as well as the ACDP with the publication of its report on Managing College Libraries for Value,100 to highlight issues that were of concern to college libraries. As far as the "overall picture" was concerned,
100See Chapter 17.
216 Yocklunn and his colleagues were satisfied that, "as much was being done as could be done to make the decision makers aware of the problems of libraries" (Yocklunn, Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996). Around 1987, however, the campaign "petered out" because, according to Yocklunn, "it became evident that there was no point in pushing for college libraries anymore" due to the impending demise of the college sector (Yocklunn, Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
Despite its acceptance of these broader events, ALCAE Victoria remained committed to the end as is illustrated by the following anecdote concerning a debate over what to do with ALCAE's remaining funds:
About early '90 [ALCAE National] wrote to us - it might have been '89 - and said, we're winding up because of the amalgamations. And they said look we want to use the remainder of the group's funds to write a history of ALCAE and the college libraries - what that meant exactly we never got to find out. So we wrote back a letter and said that we think this was a waste of money. We'd rather have that money spent on, for example, formulating some performance standards, update Wainwright and other things - get some good performance factors for academic libraries - which still don't exist. And we got a letter back to say, "no we're committed to [the history] and that's what we're going to do". It was never actually written... (Yocklunn, Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
So to conclude, by the late eighties, it is only in ALCAE Victoria where we see any semblance of the group's earlier manifestation. From the highly cooperative, committed and active group with a strong national focus, ALCAE is seen to become, during its last decade and a half, almost superfluous.
ALCAE's diminishing coherence and sense of purpose occurred primarily as a result of a changes to Commonwealth higher education policy which occurred around 1975. These external changes were triggered by the onset of world-wide recession and a rise in inflation levels which led the Whitlam Labor Government, and its successor, the Fraser Liberal-National Government (1975-1983) to reduce funding to universities and
217 colleges. The prolonged period of steady-state funding introduced under the Fraser administration was particularly damaging to the CAE sector, making it difficult for many of the smaller institutions to develop the necessary resources to cope with increasing student enrolments. The decision by the Liberal-National Government in the early eighties to reduce the number of colleges by amalgamating many of the smaller teachers colleges also caused considerable disruption to sector development and was in marked contrast to the Commonwealth's previous policy of encouraging rapid sector expansion. The Fraser Government and the Hawke Labor Government which followed it and took office in 1983, also demanded that higher education devote more attention to instituting more efficient practices, both at a system and institutional level. This requirement forced educational policy-makers and institutional administrations to engage in more cooperative ventures and as a basis for counterbalancing inadequate funding levels.
These external events had a significant impact on the development of ALCAE during this latter period. First, the decision by the College Commission to withdraw special funding for libraries gave ALCAE less of a reason for being, given that much of its early activity centred on monitoring the series of three unmatched grants and advising the Commission on ongoing funding requirements for college libraries. Second, the cessation of the CACAE Library Sub-committee left ALCAE without a voice in official policy-making fora, further contributing to a decline in purpose. Third, the Commonwealth's decision to integrate teachers colleges into the CAE sector in 1973 and the increase in size and the growing independence of the larger institutes of technology led to a reduction of internal group cohesion which threatened to split ALCAE. Fourth, ALCAE's failure to convince the funding authorities, through its various lobbying campaigns, of the need to provide special consideration to college libraries to compensate for the deleterious effects of steady-state funding, generated a sense of apathy and loss of interest amongst members. Fifth, the Fraser Government's decision to reduce the size of the CAE sector through amalgamations resulted in a substantial reduction in group membership which caused many members to question the continuing viability of ALCAE. Sixth, the transference of interest by college librarians to CLANN and, to a lesser extent, CAVAL within the States which had the two largest remaining branches of ALCAE, Victoria and New South Wales, also contributed to a decline in ALCAE as a national
218 body. Initiatives like CLANN and CAVAL were felt by the college librarians to be more capable than ALCAE of influencing decision-makings and offsetting many of the financial problems which faced the sector at this time by achieving a more efficient and effective use of resources - outcomes which also corresponded with the Commonwealth's broader policy agenda.
All these factors culminated in a review of ALCAE around the time of its 1986 Annual General Meeting when members debated whether or not the group should be maintained, a debate which was overtaken by the Hawke Government's decision in 1988 to disband the CAE sector. With perhaps the exception of the Victorian branch, ALCAE had been transformed in its lifetime from a dynamic, forward looking organisation into one not unlike CAUL had been, a body which continued to exist largely in order to maintain a sense of collegiality and identity for the college librarians as well as an opportunity to exchange ideas and information.
However some saw ALCAE as continuing to make an important contribution to college librarianship in this later period, albeit in an indirect sense. James O'Brien described the group's "most significant achievement" as "getting that group of CAE librarians working together on a national basis, making those contacts, having those meetings" (O'Brien, Kuring-gai College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996). "I think they made an important contribution" remarked McNally, "and much of that was done, not so much directly through ALCAE, but as a result of ALCAE being there" (McNally, Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996). Bill Hitchins described ALCAE as a "facilitator and a channel for things to happen elsewhere":
I don't think to me [it was] purely what ALCAE did... I don't think it sought to work in that way in fairness to it... All these associations are just cooperative hubs [to] facilitate things to happen elsewhere... To try and look at specific things and identify those as ALCAE things is difficult and yet its role is as important as oil in an engine is (Hitchins, Ballarat College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
219 Hitchins and others maintain that ALCAE not only succeeded in promoting a more collaborative approach to library issues in general, but also contributed, in a more immediate way, to the success of CAVAL in Victoria and CLANN in New South Wales. "Without ALCAE", Cummings insisted, "I don't think there could have been a smooth and relatively rapid absorption of the college sector into CLANN" (Cummings, Sydney College of the Arts, Interview, 1996). Hitchins said the same of CAVAL:
The fact that [CAVAL] has succeeded and worked, is built on the existence still of groups like ALCAE that worked in the way that ALCAE did. I think the task of creating CAVAL without the chief librarians not in any way meeting and being used to meeting, used to dealing with one another [would not have been possible]... The fact that the college sector was prepared to kind of embrace that idea and embrace something with the universities at the time that they did, and anticipated it in the way that they did, was based on the kind of understanding and relationships that something like ALCAE had fostered (Hitchins, Ballarat College of Advanced Education, Interview, 1996).
220 PART FOUR
THE COMMITTEE OF AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARIANS
1974-1988
221 CHAPTER 19 A FIRST ATTEMPT AT REFORM
In contrast to ALCAE's fairly unsettled history after 1975, the changes to CAUL during this period are far more subtle and gradual. The chapters of Part Four will the history of CAUL up until the late 1980's with particular regard to the reasons why this informal group, having remained virtually unchanged for over twenty years, now began to be seen by an increasing proportion of its members as a group that could play a more central and active role in the development of university librarianship.
As shall be shown, however, this process of change was both slow and tedious. A study of CAUL in the mid to late 1970's reveals little if any difference in the way the group functioned when compared to the previous period. The emphasis was still very much on the subordination of collective activity in preference to maintaining individual autonomy and institutional independence. The majority of members still wanted CAUL to remain a low key and informal gathering and continued to counter any attempts to transform the group into something more dynamic.
Nevertheless despite the obstacles to change, by the early 1980s some discernible signs begin to emerge of a tendency towards greater formalisation in the organisation. There are a number of factors which probably influenced this trend. They include the very forces, such things as changes to government higher education policy and steady-state funding that eventually had contributed to the decline of ALCAE. They compelled CAUL members to work more closely together to devise strategies to respond to the new, more austere environment. Another factor was the gradual replacement of some older - and arguably more conservative - members with younger, more progressive librarians. These new university librarians tended to feel less threatened by the constraints imposed by the AVCC than did their predecessors. Growing disillusionment by members in AACOBS during this later period also contributed to renewed interest in CAUL as a forum for developing policy for university librarians.
Finally internal and external pressures eventually culminated in a decision in the
222 mid-1980s to reform CAUL operations. These reforms included the election of a chair and an increase in the number of meetings as CAUL assumed a new identity and program of activities. The concluding chapter, which covers the period following the cessation of the binary system in 1988, discusses how these structural changes, stimulated by - among other things - a resurgence of interest by the Federal Government in libraries, led to the development of a more dynamic and formal organisation not unlike the early ALCAE.
The Victorian Initiative
The first serious push to reform CAUL was made in 1975, followed by a further attempt the subsequent year, when Denis Richardson (who had recently replaced Lodewycks at Melbourne) and two other Victorians, Borchardt from La Trobe and Brian Southwell from Monash University, recommended that CAUL assume a "larger and more positive role" in supporting the development of academic libraries (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 20/8/75). Richardson recalled, in an interview with the author, the background to this proposal, which included - as the minutes of the meeting record - "the need for funding to maintain a permanent secretariat". When Richardson was appointed to the position of University Librarian at Melbourne in 1974, he began to hold regular meetings with Southwell, Borchardt and Ken Horn from the State Library of Victoria101, "just to have lunch together and talk things over" (Richardson, University of Melbourne, Interview, 1996). Richardson said that it was at these gatherings, and not within CAUL itself, that the idea of setting up a CAUL secretariat came about and where a formal proposal was developed. "I had no recollection", he said, that anyone within CAUL was saying "'We've got to change and how do we do it'":
There was no pre-debate or lobbying [at CAUL] or people taking positions or people working in the background and setting something up so that it would happen. Certainly not in the way that the three of us in Victoria [i.e. Richardson, Borchardt and Southwell] had got together and developed a formal proposal that we then took to the meeting and tabled. We'd got ourselves organised on the secretariat. We sorted out what we thought and marched in and said, "well, we've got this idea and here it is", [and we] put it on the table (Richardson, University of Melbourne,
101Horn was Victorian State Librarian from 1967 to 1981.
223 Interview, 1996).
Richardson remembers that although AACOBS was still considered by many within CAUL as the "primary mechanism" for co-operation among Australian librarians at this time, he nonetheless felt that CAUL was capable of making a contribution beyond the kind of "gentlemen's club" that he had experienced when he first joined the group. Moreover Richardson believed that CAUL's main pastime, the Round Robin letters, was not a sufficiently worthwhile role for such a group and that they should be aspiring to greater things:
CAUL at that time to me was the Round Robin system and a meeting once a year where we got together and had - I must say - a rather desultory dialogue about issues, a conversazióne with a pleasant dinner the night before. The Round Robin system of exchanging comment and information about things as it went on over the years became something of a nonsense, I thought. It got to the stage where later on my feeling was that some people were saying; "How do I do this?", "tell me how to do this", "tell me how to run my library", "what do you do about this?" and everybody would write religiously down what they did... I got a bit snaky about what I regarded as the laziness of some of my colleagues. Instead of them getting on and running their organisations, they asked everybody else how they did it...
There wasn't a coherence of thought about CAUL. It was a clubby type thing, [there was no sense of] "Let's get together and exert some powerful influence" (Richardson, University of Melbourne, Interview, 1996).
Richardson indicated that he was strongly motivated by what he perceived to be a need for a much more co-ordinated approach to the development of library resources across the country. This conviction, he admitted, had been cultivated to a large extent by his experience in the National Library of Australia as Acting Director-General and before that as Deputy Director-General of the National Library of Australia, positions which he held prior to taking up his position at the University of Melbourne. With his national perspective, he saw that a body such as CAUL had the potential to play a more active part in broader developments than was then the case:
... it was something that had slowly flowered, a feeling that [university
224 libraries] were becoming increasingly important as bibliographic resources and that the universities were starting to develop a more significant role on the national scene, countering... the State libraries. The State libraries were slowly, not wasting away, but their importance in the national scene it seemed to me was shrinking while the universities were clearly starting to grow. There were a number of university libraries, particularly [Sydney University], that were becoming quite significant bibliographical resources (Richardson, University of Melbourne, Interview, 1996).
A Crisis on the National Front
The time was also perhaps ripe for attempting to change CAUL because of what was happening elsewhere within the national library scene. In earlier chapters we discussed the way in which university librarians had participated in other professional groups because of the constraints on CAUL. However, this situation was now beginning to change as some within CAUL, like Richardson and Borchardt, became increasingly disillusioned with AACOBS and other national groups and initiatives and their growing incapacity to represent effectively the interests of university librarians. "What we were talking about [doing] internally with CAUL", said Richardson, "were [prompted by] things that were happening on the AACOBS front... and elsewhere" (Richardson, University of Melbourne, Interview, 1996).
One outcome of the financial and political turmoil being experienced by the Whitlam Government (1972-1975)102 was the provision of reduced funding for the National Library of Australia (NLA). Given that AACOBS was financially dependent on the NLA, new sources of funding now had to be found to support its activities (Fielding, 1988, p. 51). In order to ensure the continuing viability of AACOBS, a decision was made at its August 1973 meeting to increase membership, which, up to this point, had been restricted to the country's main libraries, namely the National Library, the State libraries, the CSIRO and the university libraries. Inclusion of a wider range of institutions was one way of increasing its funding base. The Council now declared that "there should be no inbuilt limitation to the overall size of the Council" (AACOBS, 1974, p. 13).
102See Chapter 13.
225 Consequently as a result of the resolutions of this meeting the minimum size of the Council increased;
from fifty-one to sixty-two members by a reduction of the representation of the Library Association of Australia, increased representation for public, school, special and college of advanced education libraries, and the introduction of new categories of membership for the libraries of technical and further education institutions, schools and departments of librarianship conducting courses recognised by the Library Association of Australia (AACOBS, 1974, p. 13).
This decision to increase the number of membership categories came into effect in 1975, the same year that the Victorian university librarians attempted to develop a more active role for CAUL. Over subsequent years, AACOBS progressively increased its membership as it continued to be plagued by financial difficulties. The following extracts, taken from the 1977 and 1979 AACOBS annual reports, give an indication of the difficulties it experienced:
Two problems have developed progressively over the years... In the first place, the National Library, with the best will in the world, has not been able to provide more than the minimum necessary to keep AACOBS afloat administratively. In the second place, there has been a degree of unease expressed that either the Library or AACOBS or both might find increasingly invidious the appearance of subordination which the present arrangements might be taken to demonstrate.
To these grounds of dissatisfaction have been added two further sources of unease. First, the increasing restrictions placed on the National Library's budget have caused it to establish its support of AACOBS below the level that many members believe is required even for administrative viability. It has proved impossible, for example, to have the Working Parties meet regularly enough, in their view, to enable the effective transaction of their business. Second, as a direct flow-on from the work of these groups, AACOBS has been increasingly frustrated by its financial inability to mount investigations, or conduct the research, or undertake the surveys which the Working Parties have identified as highly desirable for the achievement of the objects of AACOBS (AACOBS, 1977, p. 13-14).
The history of AACOBS has reflected changing government and community attitudes to the expenditure of public funds. In the early days enthusiasm and co-operation achieved a great deal in spite of the fact that
226 at first little money was available: an important contributing factor to this achievement was, no doubt, the fact that the Council's membership at that time consisted entirely of persons able to commit their libraries to agreed courses of action. The sixties saw more generous funding of public activities and this was reflected in greater financial support for AACOBS through the National Library. The austerity in public funding which has been a feature of recent years has restricted the National Library's capacity to support AACOBS. Attempts to obtain funds, as distinct from contributions of time and secretarial assistance, from other members of AACOBS have had limited success because the same austere attitudes towards public spending which affect the National Library have also reduced the capacity of other members to contribute (AACOBS, 1979, p. 11-12).
This trend towards wider representative membership eventually culminated in a 1981 decision to amend the AACOBS constitution to extend membership yet further but also to constitute a voting system. One consequence of these decisions was that all university librarians were no longer guaranteed a seat on the central National Council (Fielding, 1988).
The increase in the number of smaller libraries represented on AACOBS was a source of frustration for the university librarians because they were now no longer in a position to focus so much on matters of special interest to them, as they had been able to do when they were in the majority. In 1970, for example, university libraries had constituted more than fifty per cent of the total number of libraries represented on AACOBS (AACOBS, 1971, p. 23-24). This numerical dominance by the university librarians had raised objections from non-university libraries about the composition of the Council becoming too "unbalanced" (AACOBS, 1971, p. 10-11). However what really irritated the university librarians were the persistent accusations made by the librarians of some smaller libraries that they were trying to control AACOBS by using CAUL as a "monolithic voting bloc" (Southwell, 1988, p. 166). "There [was] a certain psychological feeling there", noted Richardson. "People were saying; 'We're not going to have all these bloody universities telling us what to do'" (Richardson, University of Melbourne, Interview, 1996). Those university librarians who had committed themselves to making AACOBS work defended themselves from such accusations by arguing that it was the larger libraries alone who had the authority to make decisions on behalf of their
227 institution and whose collections made up the most important bibliographical resources in the country.
These tensions were apparent in the AACOBS report for 1980 (the year before the constitutional amendments noted above) where the contribution made by the larger members libraries was duly acknowledged:
The work of AACOBS has been greatly affected by the presence of institutional representatives who were able directly to commit their institutions to certain courses of action. This fact has perhaps not had enough recognition as a most influential element in the success of AACOBS. It is an element which may disappear if and when the long promised constitution of an incorporated AACOBS has been formally adopted. Yet it is significant that in spite of the numerical growth of membership, the founding institutions have throughout these twenty-five years retained a moderating as well as a leading role (AACOBS, 1982, p. 15).
This reduced control over proceedings, as well as the carping criticisms they received from some AACOBS members, caused some members of CAUL to regard AACOBS no longer as a body capable of serving the interests of university librarians. The sentiments expressed by Borchardt and Richardson are worth quoting at length because they give a sense of the level of anger and frustration being felt by the university librarians at the direction AACOBS was taking. In Borchardt's opinion AACOBS had been "castrated and thrown into the sea" by having its membership expanded:
The membership of AACOBS grew and grew and that was a cause of some consternation to some of us. And quite a few of the AACOBS people, especially the State Librarians, jumped up and down: "Oh! the university librarians they are forming a caucus, and they decide before we meet what's to be done". That is a bloody lie! It really is a lie because you couldn't get two university librarians to see the same way, they all had different ideas...
[The] difference between the university librarians and the rest was that the university librarians could do [what the other representatives could not]. I was still in Tasmania, I think, and I could commit the university without going back to any further authority. But State Librarians could never do that. The little public librarians who came on later, they were just pisspots.
228 They couldn't do a thing and the same with the college librarians... When I was on AACOBS that was what happened. I didn't want CAUL to become like that. The growth in the development of AACOBS is not something I am very proud of, but there was nothing I could do about it.
In this democratic society everybody has a right to be everywhere on every committee. So all these pisspot little libraries wanted to have delegates to AACOBS. And what could the delegates do? Suppose we decided that there would be a new approach to the free distribution of government publications, well they couldn't commit themselves, they had to go back to their principals, their library committees or what not. And we, as university librarians, didn't have to do that (Borchardt, LaTrobe University, Interview, 1996).
Denis Richardson, the other university librarian responsible for pushing to upgrade CAUL against this background of discontent with AACOBS, expressed similar views:
[With] the other sectors like the Specials and the Schools, you know the votes were being counted up against us... When you got into a democratic situation of everybody who paid their money to join AACOBS getting a vote, the votes became stacked. There might be fifty AACOBS members in Victoria and four universities. AACOBS had to get as many members as possible paying as many subscriptions as possible. On the one hand the universities were being told to pay a schedule of fees which put them up at the top of the membership, and I don't recall that we got votes in relation to how much we paid in. So that a school library or a special library coming in paying say $250 a year would have the same voting power as a university library paying $2500 a year. I suspect that that was the case... Because the State libraries had disappeared as a power centre, the main libraries were the university libraries and the National Library and CSIRO... Because they are sitting on a larger share of the resources and services they are going to go away and say, "stuff them! They can have their say, but it is what we have to do or are going to do that is really going to determine the shape of the future. It is not what two hundred mickey mouse libraries say what ought to happen..."
And that's perhaps what led to the increasing focus by the centre where the power is. Not political power [but resources power]. I am sitting on an organisation which is lending ten thousand items a year to other libraries, and here's a library that never does anything accept borrow from everybody telling me what I ought to do. Well, you get to a point where you say, "Well bugger them!"... (Richardson, University of Melbourne, Interview, 1996).
229 In addition to what was happening within AACOBS, the failure of other major national initiatives to materialise gave the university librarians all the more reason to focus on developing a more effective body for themselves through which they could develop their interests nationally.
This included the failure of the recommendations of the STISEC Report to materialise. STISEC (Scientific and Technological Information Services Enquiry Committee), established by the National Library in 1971 with the support of AACOBS, had set out to "investigate the national need for scientific and technological information services in Australia" (STISEC, 1975, v. 2, p. 12). One of the outcomes of the Report of this enquiry, tabled in Parliament in 1973, was the creation of an Australian Library- Based Information System (ALBIS) through which the National Library would provide a scientific and technical information service by means of a combination of distributed collections and networked databases. Along with other schemes undertaken at this time, ALBIS too fell victim to delays and funding cuts:
The election of the Whitlam government brought a false dawn. In opposition, the Australian Labour Party had promised funds for AACOBS activities and that it would accept advice from AACOBS. It had also shown interest in the need for a national system of public libraries. In office, the new government took a long time to pay attention to these matters. It was not until 1975 that it set up the Committee of Enquiry into Public Libraries and, unfortunately, by the time the Committee reported, the new government had reverted to old attitudes. However the Whitlam Government accepted the STISEC Report and appointed a new Director- General of the National Library who was dedicated to implementing the Report.
What followed typified all those divisions in the Australian library community which AACOBS has, over the years, only thinly concealed. The National Library prepared plans for the Australian library based information service (ALBIS), but there was constant criticism from the library community that its members were not being consulted. By 1975 the matter had become pretty academic as the government had run into the world financial recession and the hope of large funding for national library resources rapidly disappeared. At the end of 1975 a new government came to power which quickly made it evident that an Australian library based information system was very far down its list of priorities (Fielding, 1979, p. 24).
230 Richardson (who went to Melbourne in 1974) and others had experienced these set-backs first hand, with many university librarians being involved with the failed ALBIS project. Recalling this period, Richardson considers that his looking to CAUL to improve the general situation was a reaction to what he described as a 'trough' in the fortunes of library development at a national level that occurred at this time: "It was rather like a souffle that all sort of went up and then all of a sudden sank":
... all the arguments that were going on were increasingly desultory arguments, it seemed to me, about how AACOBS ought to be re- structured and I suspect by '76 some of the impetus had gone. [We] had that whole shake-up of the Whitlam debacle and the National Library had lost its funding for ALBIS... I think there'd been an imperceptible change of climate and a general decline of vigour in the whole debate. The National Library had already begun to lose some its steam... there was a trough... a down in the whole scene there (Richardson, University of Melbourne, Interview, 1996).
Resistance to Reform
Despite the appeal by the Victorian university librarians to "organise [CAUL] better" to counter these events, their attempt at the 1975 meeting to convince their colleagues to transform CAUL failed to gain support. "There wasn't any great enthusiasm", Richardson recalled, "other than among the three of us for having a formal CAUL secretariat and having a better mechanism for CAUL" (Richardson, University of Melbourne, Interview, 1996).
Richardson and his supporters had argued that such a mechanism was needed "to advise universities of the views of CAUL on matters such as the photocopy and copyright problem". Copyright was seen as a particularly contentious issue at this time with legal proceedings being directed against the University of New South Wales Library for its alleged breach of the Copyright Act (Horton, 1981). This issue was cited by Richardson as an example of important matters which required a response from CAUL as a group but which were unable to be satisfactorily dealt with because of the groups informal structure. After some debate the meeting finally stopped short of creating a secretariat
231 but was convinced of the need to address more fully such critical issues as copyright. To this end the following resolution was passed:
That the chairman of CAUL write to the AVCC, outlining the history of CAUL and pointing out that because of constraints of time on this year's agenda certain important matters, notably the question of copyright and photocopying, were closed off before they had been fully dealt with. The members of CAUL, recognising the complexity of university librarianship, and the importance of university libraries to the nation's information resources, feel that CAUL should be able to meet, if not regularly, at least more frequently on important matters such as the copyright question. It would then be possible to develop views more fully (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 20/8/75).
The incoming chairman Leonard Jolley (Librarian, University of Western Australia) decided not to follow up the resolution with a formal request for support for more frequent meetings. In a letter to members he stated that it would be "unwise" to approach the AVCC at this time because it "was unlikely to receive a sympathetic hearing":
The responsibility for not approaching the AVCC about extra meetings of CAUL is mine. It is true I did not get the minutes of CAUL till rather late. I was rather puzzled as to how to go about approaching the AVCC so I asked our Deputy Vice Chancellor, who attends these meetings more often than our Vice Chancellor, what I ought to do and his advice was that it was pretty useless to do anything for the time being when the whole financial outlook for the universities was so uncertain (Jolley, University of Western Australia, Round Robin Letter, 17/2/76).
This issue of a secretariat continued to be pressed at the next meeting of CAUL the following year where, the minutes note, "a range of views was expressed in discussion of the desirability, feasibility and political implications of establishing a secretariat for CAUL". Again Richardson urged his colleagues to take up his proposal, arguing that the creation of such a structure was "essential for CAUL to have an effective voice" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 11/8/76). Borchardt also added his support, stating that he "saw a role for a secretariat in data collection and information research" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 11/8/76). However the meeting again was unable to agree to any upgrading of
232 CAUL. In fact all that members could agree on was that there should be more adequate preparation of material tabled at meetings: "Although views varied on the topic, there was general agreement that more careful and detailed preparation for CAUL meetings would be worthwhile. It was suggested that members placing items on the agenda for future meetings should be asked to supply a supporting paper" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 11/8/76).
The establishment of a secretariat was opposed for a number of reasons. Richardson contends that "the whole focus" of CAUL at this juncture was still on "thinking very hard about how to get AACOBS right". Among those who voiced the most opposition was Bryan who, Richardson said, was considered by his colleagues as one of the most senior and influential of the group at that time. According to Richardson, Bryan argued "very strongly" that AACOBS was in greater need of financial assistance: "The question was that we'd have to put money up - and [Bryan] said if he was going to put more money up he'd rather put more money into AACOBS, [because] AACOBS was seen as the focus of where we should put our efforts in terms of a cooperative mechanism" (Richardson, University of Melbourne, Interview, 1996). Judging by his comments at the 1976 meeting, Bryan saw little value in reforming CAUL at the expense of AACOBS: "He felt university support was more likely to be forthcoming for a broader based group than CAUL" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 11/8/76). Others agreed with Bryan, including Christopher Hunt103 (La Trobe University) who urged that AACOBS should be "revitalised rather than having CAUL established as a rival" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 20/8/75).
Some still maintained that the system of Round Robin letters - whereby each member could express or invite comment and suggestions on professional matters - was the most useful part of CAUL: "I guess I also thought it was not worth wasting money on a Secretariat... It seemed to work fairly well... I believe that the important part of CAUL was the correspondence which had the virtue of being amusing as well as constructive" (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). Noel Stockdale was
103Hunt was University Librarian at La Trobe from 1982 to 1985.
233 another who contended that further formalisation was unnecessary because "mechanisms for information gathering", such as the Round Robin correspondence, "existed with present arrangements" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 11/8/76). It quickly became apparent to recent arrivals to the group like Richardson and Wainwright, that many saw no need to expand beyond this function:
They found it useful to have the letters system. They would help each other out when necessary on minor things. They felt they had some degree of commonality in what they were doing, but they really didn't want an outside body doing things that might really impact on the way that they ran their own libraries (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
Like Bryan, these members did not believe that CAUL "suffered badly from not having a Secretariat" and they felt that "the little bit to be done" for each meeting could be covered adequately "by any chief librarian" (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). Fielding too considered that "the load of duties on the chairman and secretary of CAUL was not excessive" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 20/8/75). Following a further debate on this issue at the 1978 meeting, the minutes record that members considered CAUL a "unique group in the library world which should continue its informal 'modus operandi'" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 9/8/78).
Institutional autonomy. But there were of course deeper and more compelling reasons for resisting change that would lead to a more formally constituted organisation. Among these reasons was the fact that many members still strongly held to the belief that their primary allegiance was to their own institution. This sense of a potential conflict between decisions CAUL might take as an organisation and institutional decision-making was still very much evident during this latter period. It was perhaps felt most strongly by those more senior librarians who were steeped in the early history of CAUL, approaching retirement, and who saw no need to disturb the status-quo.
Dietrich Borchardt, for example, conceded in retrospect that CAUL's capacity to exercise any real influence in its own right was ultimately limited by the fact that "every
234 university has to make its own decisions" (Borchardt, LaTrobe University, Interview, 1996). Borchardt's response in many respects sums up the attitude of those who resisted elevating the group beyond a congenial forum for the exchange of information. They did not want to be, as Borchardt put it, "tied down" by having their local decision-making confined by any "CAUL position" on a particular matter. Borchardt likened this situation to the political concept of Australian 'federalism' where, he asserted, "the rights of States" like the rights of individual librarians, "have to be watched" (Borchardt, LaTrobe University, Interview, 1996). Despite Borchardt's support for greater formalisation, he was nonetheless wary of letting this get in the way of the good relations he had fostered within his own institution. "We were willing to fight for [a more formal] CAUL" he confesses "but we were not going to cut our throats in our own institutions" (Borchardt, LaTrobe University, Interview, 1996).
As alluded to in Part One, this reluctance by the university librarians to focus too much attention on a body such as CAUL, reflected a desire to maintain good relations with their institutions, in particular their Vice-Chancellors. By the late 1970's many of the university librarians were approaching retirement and, having strengthened their internal relationships over many years, where naturally enough not inclined to forsake local loyalties at this stage of their careers by acting in a way that might be perceived as being contrary to the interests of their own institutions. Wainwright remarks that this "would have been the majority view of the old style librarians at that stage, who on balance probably did have very good relations with their Vice-Chancellor" (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
Part of the reason why this relationship between Vice-Chancellor and university librarian appeared to outweigh so distinctly external alliances, according to Wainwright, had to do with the particular hierarchical structures that existed in universities during this phase of sector development. In responding to Bryan's assertion that he was against anything that "imperilled" the relationship between librarians and Vice-Chancellors and feared that "hot heads in CAUL might have done so", Wainwright said:
Many of those longer serving librarians had grown up in an era when the
235 universities were much smaller, and there was indeed a direct link - sometimes of some substance - between the chief librarian and the Vice- Chancellor. That is rarely true today. I mean we've got whole layers of deputy Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors and the amount of time that the university librarian would interact with the Vice-Chancellor is extraordinarily small in most cases. And the librarian had relatively greater status back in the sixties and seventies than they do now in the organisation. You will find that they were really higher up in the organisation. In the restructuring of a lot of the university management, librarians slipped down the scale. It would be rare now I think for university librarians to report directly to the Vice-Chancellor rather than to some other manager (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
Wainwright believed it was therefore entirely understandable that, where "that relationship [with the Vice-Chancellor] was satisfactory", these librarians would have been "a little bit concerned about anything from outside that would effect that relationship" (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
As evidenced both by his statements in CAUL minutes and correspondence, and by remarks made by those interviewed, Derek Fielding (Librarian, University of Queensland), more than any other member of CAUL epitomised this attitude. He emerged in this later period as the most staunch advocate of placing individual autonomy above collective action. In reply to the question of making CAUL a more formal body so that it might exert greater influence, Fielding is noted as saying that he "saw few occasions when he would seek external support in domestic situations" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 11/8/76). The fact that he eventually became Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Academic Services, at Queensland in 1992 testifies to the strong ties he had within his institution:
... people like Derek Fielding, who had a very strong line of communication within his own administration, [were not] willing to see that jeopardised in any way by CAUL... And his subsequent career reflects that he did have a very strong position in the university, the library had a very strong position, and he could see no need for diverting his representation around through CAUL to the AVCC when he had a direct line to his own Vice-Chancellor (Wilkinson, Macquarie University, Interview, 1996).
236 Fielding - along with others who shared a like conviction - was to continue to exert considerable influence in opposing the increasing attempts by some of the newer members of the group to reform CAUL in the 1980s.
Financial concerns. Another argument used to counter attempts to create a secretariat as part of upgrading the work and profile of CAUL, was that this kind of development could not be justified in terms of the additional costs required. Members using this argument often cited financial restrictions experienced by their own institutions at this time as the main reason for opposing such a move. In fact the few articles that have been written on the history of CAUL highlight the absence of finances as the main reason for the group's perceived lack of achievements: "With no funds and no secretariat, CAUL's visible achievements are few..." (Southwell, 1988, p. 166). Fielding also identifies funding as one of the major constraints in this later period: "CAUL has its limitations. It has no funds and therefore much depends on the energy of individual members and particularly of the Chairman" (Fielding, 1979, p. 17). He maintained that "several CAUL meetings could be held for the same cost as maintaining a secretariat" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 20/8/75). Bryan noted that the late seventies was the worst time to be expecting members to provide extra finance for CAUL given the impact of steady-state funding restrictions that were being felt across the sector: "I didn't think the University of Sydney Library could spare money for that kind of thing... By 1978 we couldn't spare much money for a secretariat" (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). But of course it had no funds because the librarians who wanted to keep CAUL informal and low profile, were not willing to provide funds which would allow it to function more effectively. The funding argument was still being employed well into the eighties. This was despite a growing "sense of urgency" from some quarters "that this should happen" (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
Internal divisions. In addition to concerns about costs, there were those who doubted whether much agreement could be reached on any major subject within such a diverse group of very senior and independently minded individuals, and therefore saw attempts at creating any mechanism for achieving greater unity as being largely a waste of effort as well as money.
237 Noel Stockdale, for one, insisted that further formalisation would be pointless because, in his opinion, "uniformity of CAUL views was unlikely" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 11/8/76). Flowers even stated that he actually "saw disadvantages in providing the means for university libraries to be treated as an apparently homogeneous group" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 11/8/76). Borchardt was another who believed that, during his time, CAUL did not expand beyond its basic functions due in large part to the fact that its members were "too different, too individualistic", with some who "would never go along with anybody else" (Borchardt, LaTrobe University, Interview, 1996). Neil Radford (Librarian, University of Sydney) speculates as to why agreement was so difficult:
Same reason why CAUL can't agree on things today. (Same reason AVCC can't agree on things today. Same reason that an academic board...) You've got a lot of intelligent people, very committed people with strong views who are accustomed to being listened to, and probably accustomed to being obeyed back home. And then they get to the CAUL meeting where they're all peers. Nobody is in charge, nobody is senior, and there were some strong personalities in that group who would try and have their own way, Allan Horton being a good example. Derek Fielding is another strong person. It's difficult to keep them down, to keep them from dividing the group (Radford, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
Richardson put such divergence of opinion down to "earlier attitudes of self- sufficiency and independence and stand-aloneness"; the kind of desire for independence that the author has already discussed in Part One. Like Radford, Richardson also identifies Fielding as the one who most exemplified this trait:
I think Derek was a prime example of that. His attitude was that University of Queensland didn't need to cooperate with anybody... they were fully self-sufficient. In other words they couldn't care less about what everybody else's problems were. He was there to serve the university and its requirements. And in so far as you could meet those that was fine. So why should he cooperate with anybody (Richardson, University of Melbourne, Interview, 1996).
Colin Steele related to the author an amusing anecdote to illustrate this trait:
238 [At meetings] people showed up either on that morning, flying in - and certainly flying out by four. One rainy Friday... they talked about mutual cooperation all day. It was a wet Friday in Canberra at four o'clock. The taxis didn't appear at all and the nearest to anarchy and fighting amongst the librarians [occurred] to get the taxi to Canberra airport. And I won't mention some of the names [of those who talked about] cooperation who said "Stuff these people, I am getting my plane" (Steele, Australian National University, Interview, 1996).
This inability to agree and take concerted action became more of a liability for CAUL as the economic climate began to worsen from the mid seventies onwards, especially in regard to many key issues on which one might have expected some level of agreement from the group and on which group action might have had some effect. Radford has pointed out that lack of unanimity tended to be more or less accepted by members as a natural corollary of the elite status of such a group of individuals. However some concerns were beginning to be expressed that divisions within CAUL were damaging its credibility and reputation within policy-making circles at a time when concerted action was most needed to come up with solutions to counter the effects of steady-state funding.
The Commonwealth Government's policy of steady-state funding, which was initiated in the mid-seventies, put pressure on institutions and funding authorities to rationalise their various activities, including libraries.104 As mentioned previously, the advent of increased Commonwealth funding for higher education during the sixties and early seventies allowed university library collections to expand rapidly. During this period priority attention was given to providing extra capital funding to build new libraries to accommodate this growth. However with the decline in capital funding from 1975 onwards, universities were forced to devise ways of containing the growth of collections. The first signs of this trend came from the University Grants Committee (UGC) in the United Kingdom who were also trying to come to terms with the effects of steady-state funding. In 1975 the UGC established a special working party:
104See Chapter 13.
239 to consider the minimum essential capital requirements of university libraries (excluding copyright libraries) in regard to reader places and storage, in light of current limitations on UGC capital resources, with particular reference to possible ways of providing for the remote storage of books and periodicals in repositories to avoid the necessity for a continual expansion of central library facilities (Atkinson Report, 1976, p. 18).
The report of the working party, Capital Provision for University Libraries, commonly referred to as the Atkinson Report after its chair, was issued in 1976. The Atkinson Report specified a 'cut-off' point in the size of its university libraries using a formula based on student numbers. The working party also coined the term "self- renewing library" in which "new acquisitions will be offset to a considerable extent by withdrawals" (Atkinson Report, 1976, p. 3). The report was widely denounced by the academic community in the UK as reported by Hunt:
The governing bodies of many universities explicitly protested against the Atkinson recommendations. The report was seen, more clearly than library matters often are, as an attack on scholarship and standards. The theoretical and official equality of British university degrees appeared to be threatened by limitations on growth of libraries outside Oxford and Cambridge. Even the Board of the British Library, then with Lord Eccles as Chairman, let it be known that it was in favour of the role of the Lending Division in the proposed dispensation.
Philosophical deficiencies aside, and criticism notwithstanding, the Atkinson recommendations are, and appear likely to remain, official UGC policy on new university library buildings (Hunt, 1980, p. 2).
Like its response to the much earlier Report of the Inquiry into Academic Salaries by Eggleston (1964),105 CAUL's reaction to the Atkinson Report with respect to its implications for Australia universities again illustrates the difficulties the group of university librarians had in acting decisively on broader policy matters. Harrison Bryan, who published a response to the report at the time of its release, described it as a "extremely dangerous document" and "an extremely glib over-simplification" (Bryan, 1976, p. 220). He, along with some of his colleagues, feared the implications of such an
105See Chapter 11.
240 approach in Australia, commenting that there was a real "danger of transplanting a proposal untenable in the country of origin to an environment where its worst features would be considerably exaggerated" (Bryan, 1976, p. 220). Bryan advised that it was "both proper and prudent" to "counter this threat by constructive counter proposals" and believed CAUL was the most appropriate body to take such action. Borchardt was among those who warned against complacency and recommended the establishment of a CAUL working party to address the issue:
I add gladly, as one must, my thanks and appreciation to the efforts by Harrison Bryan and by Elizabeth Watson to help us understand the Atkinson Report through the excellent resume and the mis-en-scene they have provided. Although Australian university libraries have in general received considerate treatment from their parent institution during the past 15 or more years, none can claim that there is no danger of a change... I propose that a small group of us, say three members of CAUL, should volunteer, or be asked to prepare a paper for the AVCC setting out the implications of the Atkinson concept for Australian university libraries, spelling out in detail the differences between the U.K. structure of supply and services, and their counterparts in Australia. However obvious the relevant point may be to us, they are not at all obvious to Vice- Chancellors, nor to a large number of academic teaching and research staff... It is in my view absolutely essential that we prepare such a document as soon as possible for the next AVCC meeting. We must not be caught with our pants down, so to say, waiting until the AVCC has on its own initiative looked at the Atkinson Report and, maybe, found it to their liking. Lest it be thought that I merely wish work onto others, I would be willing to help prepare such a statement for the AVCC. Those who support this proposal ought to advise our chairman at once so that we can set the ball rolling (Borchardt, LaTrobe University, Round Robin Letter, 4/1/77).
As with many such attempts to pursue weighty and far-reaching policy issues with CAUL, members were unable to decide on what to do and the Round Robin responses were very revealing. For example Stockdale replied: "I find myself unable to decide what could or should be done by CAUL on the Atkinson Report":
The main reason for my indecision is the apparent lack of interest in it in this University. It has certainly not been quoted or even identified in discussions about our accommodation problems. While this is not a sufficient reason in itself for not doing anything, it may be that we should
241 hasten slowly. For example, if we set up a Committee to prepare a report, we should perhaps think of it as a form of insurance, a view to be available when needed rather than something to be sent off immediately to the AVCC or any other body... (Stockdale, Flinders University, Round Robin Letter, 2/3/77).
As Noel [Stockdale] points out, if a report is wanted there may still be no immediate need to present it: it may be sufficient to have it ready. It is hard for me to gauge the urgency of the matter, but it is to be hoped that no attempt is made to impose the Atkinson recommendations on Australian libraries until the forthcoming British studies become productive. Perhaps we should keep in touch with the investigators in the U.K... I imagine that there are difficulties ahead. Meanwhile, budgeted provision for this year, while by no means princely, is better than might have been expected (Raymond, University of Adelaide, Round Robin Letter, 4/3/77).106
I am in agreement with the opinion expressed by others that we should not rush into making a report to call attention to this matter. While the grapevine and my own old boy network are not 100% reliable, there is no evidence available to me which suggests that anyone at the University of Queensland is thinking in Atkinson terms. On the contrary I have been assured that Stage 2 of the Central Library will have very high priority on the University's submission for the 1978-80 rolling triennium. I read [Bryan's] article in AARL [Australian Academic and Research Libraries] with interest and agreement and I would be surprised if a joint effort would lead to major additions to what he has to say. Nevertheless I would not oppose the production of a report by a small sub-committee of CAUL provided that I am not asked to be one of the participants at this particular time (Fielding, University of Queensland, Round Robin Letter, 10/3/77).
There appears to be a general feeling amongst members of CAUL that it might be useful to have a considered study in hand but that it would be as well to hold back its submission to the AVCC until an opportune moment. It seems to me then that it is up to Dietrich [Borchardt] to get his committee together and for his committee to decide whether it has anything to add to what has already been expressed publicly... It is pretty useless to guess the political or economic future but it may well be that the Atkinson Report will have been forgotten before most of us have any possibility of having our claims for a new building examined (Jolley, University of Western Australia, Round Robin Letter, 18/3/77). Borchardt expressed exasperation in the face of such vacillation, accusing the
106Ira Raymond was University Librarian at the University of Adelaide between 1964 and 1982.
242 group of being weak and ineffective. In a letter to members, penned in Borchardt's distinctively candid style, the reader is able to gain a sense of the level of frustration that some members experienced when trying to have CAUL tackle matters of import:
I note with interest and sad bemusement the reaction from many CAUL members to the suggestion that a start should be made on a unified approach to the Atkinson Report and its implications for Australia.... I am not willing to put effort into this unless there is agreement and support from CAUL. Perhaps the chairman would care to make a positive decision?... CAUL members are spending a great deal of time compiling relatively unimportant if not irrelevant communications. When more positive action is suggested everybody gets frightened. No wonder we are not often listened to, as a group (Borchardt, LaTrobe University, Round Robin Letter, 21/3/77).
Regardless of whether or not the issuing of a CAUL statement objecting to the report would have achieved anything, Borchardt nonetheless insisted, in an interview with the author, that the sentiments expressed in his letter were a valid summing up of CAUL's deficiencies in general (Borchardt, LaTrobe University, Interview, 1996).107
Although the CTEC in Australia did not consider anything as drastic as what had been proposed in the UK by the University Grants Commission, it was nonetheless keen to give some consideration to ways in which Australian university libraries could operate more efficiently in a similar steady-state environment. In 1979 the CTEC commissioned
107As far as the author could tell, CAUL never issued a statement or made a submission to outside bodies on the local implications of the Atkinson Report. However it did hold its own seminar following the August 1979 meeting - where attendance was "limited to the university librarians" - at which the group considered the Atkinson Report as well as the wider issue of storage options for library collections. Following this seminar CAUL decided to publish the proceeding because:
... it became apparent that the quality of the papers, the lively discussion which they generated, and the critical importance of the topic were such that their wider dissemination would be useful... [and because] they should be of special concern to the coming generation of library administrators who will have to deal with our storage problems when those who participated in this seminar are no longer on the active list" (McKinlay, 1980, p. v)
(See McKinlay, John (ed.)(1980), Storage Options for Australian University Libraries : Papers From the Committee of Australian University Librarians (CAUL) seminar held in Canberra on 25 August 1979, Bundoora, La Trobe University Library).
243 two library projects as part of its Evaluative Studies Program which were designed to address these broader issues. The first was a study of Inter-Library Loan activity and the second involved a study of off-site collection storage options for libraries. The broad rationale behind these two projects was set out in the TEC Report for the 1982-84 Triennium:
Many universities are seeking other ways to reduce library costs without loss of quality of service, and to improve the efficiency of both technical library operations and reader services while maintaining the level of acquisitions. Two forms of rationalisation are being widely introduced. The first relates to improving the efficiency of internal library operations through the application of automated systems. The second calls for co-operation among groups of libraries and seeks to achieve long-term efficiencies and reductions in costs by resource sharing through inter-library loans, co-operative acquisitions, storage and cataloguing...
Space problems have led several universities to transfer material to off-site storage areas. In view of the shortage of substantial capital funds necessary for major library extensions, three universities have sought funds to construct less expensive library storage facilities. Universities maintain however that off-site storage is an additional drain on recurrent funds because considerable costs are involved in selection, transportation, storage and maintaining accessibility. The development of microforms and the installation of compactus shelving, while helping to alleviate the problem in some areas, are not at this stage seen by libraries as long term solutions. It is in this context that the Commission is funding a study of alternative storage strategies for libraries under its Evaluative Studies Program. The results of this study will be of interest to all universities and may provide some direction for the future (TEC, Report for 1982-84 triennium, 1981, v. 1, pt, 2, p. 70, 71).
The increase in loan transactions, particularly inter-library loans... reflects the substantial increase in use of [university] libraries.... It is clear from [available statistical data] that university libraries are significant net lenders within the national inter-library loan system. Approximately one half of inter-library loans are to libraries from other educational institutions, State and municipal libraries, private sector libraries and overseas libraries... (TEC, Report for 1982-84 triennium, 1981, v. 1, pt, 2, p. 65-66).
[The Commission is funding an Evaluative study of the inter-library loan system]. The project will examine the existing Australian inter-library loan system with particular reference to volume, direction and cost of loan procedures. It is expected that the analysis will provide information on
244 which to base improvements to the system... (TEC, Report for 1982-84 triennium, 1981, v.1, pt, 5, p. 132).
The Commission expects that the [evaluation of the operation of the inter- library loan system] will make a contribution to rationalising library resources, and that the [the study of alternatives to open-access storage] will help decisions on how to cope with steadily expanding bookstocks (TEC, Report for 1982-84 triennium, 1981, v.1, pt. 1, p. 90).
The Inter-Library Loan study was carried out by Professor Melvin Weinstock and Connie Wilson of the School of Librarianship at the University of New South Wales and the investigation into storage options was undertaken by Richard Stayner and Valerie Richardson, under the direction of Professor Jean Whyte, in the Graduate School of Librarianship, Monash University. As a result of a series of delays both projects ran overtime. While the Stayner investigation was completed in 1983, the results of the Inter- Library Loan project were not published until 1986, some half dozen years after it was originally commissioned.108
Although CAUL took no direct part in either investigation, members were nonetheless acutely aware of the implications such delays were having on the reputation of university librarians. Fielding made the following confession in a letter to his colleagues in December 1982: "I also worry about the damage to our image as a capable profession of the interminable delay in seeing results from the Wienstock [Inter-Library Loan] and Stayner [Storage] studies" (Fielding, University of Queensland, Round Robin Letter, 7/12/82).109
108The final report of the CTEC sponsored Inter-Library Loan study was produced by F. Exon from the Western Australian Institute of Technology who took over the investigation in 1984-85. Much of the delay in the publication of the results of the study was attributed by Exon and others to the slow progress made by Weinstock himself and the need to restart the investigation process following Weinstock's untimely death in 1984 (Exon, 1986, p. 3).
109It is interesting to note that Jean Whyte, who oversaw the storage project at Monash, partly attributed the initiation of this investigation to Fielding. In the introduction to the final report by Stayner and Richardson, Whyte noted:
In 1979 Derek Fielding, Librarian of the University of Queensland, proposed to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission that it fund a study of the various measures which university libraries might take to cope with the problems caused by collection growth. Mr Fielding suggested the topic and asked whether the Graduate
245 In a published commentary on the CTEC Report for the 1985-87 Triennium (1985), published in 1984, Colin Steele expressed similar misgivings about the conduct of university librarians and the profession in general:
There is no comment [in the CTEC report] on the ill-fated CTEC interlibrary loan project which never got off the ground at ANU, was taken up by and then withdrawn from the University of New South Wales Library School under Professor Mel Weinstock and for the last year has been submerged within the Canberra bureaucratic processes... Many might feel that the CTEC has been over patient and that once again the library and information profession is its own worst enemy in Australia.
Steele added that this was an example of "the profession's public inability to be seen as a coherent political force" (Steele, 1984, 187-188).
One aspect of inter-library lending, not covered by the CTEC sponsored investigation, that proved particularly controversial among the group of university librarians was the issue of charging.110 According to Radford and others, the issue of whether or not to charge for the inter-library lending of resources between libraries "divided CAUL for years" (Radford, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). The debate arose because those libraries who were supplying the majority of inter-library loans to other institutions were finding it increasingly difficult to maintain this service because of funding constraints. Although formally opposed to the idea of charging, Australia's peak library body, AACOBS, nonetheless appreciated the pressures that some universities were under to introduce such a practice as indicated in the following extract from a letter written to the AVCC Chair, Professor Donald George, from the AACOBS Chair, Robert Sharman:
School of Librarianship at Monash University would be interested in undertaking such a study (Stayner & Richardson, 1983, p. iii).
110The CTEC investigation was essentially an information gathering exercise to determine patterns of Inter-library loan activity and made no specific recommendations regarding the type of system that should be employed. The survey data collected from libraries was used in the final report merely to clarify the status-quo for the purpose of "lay[ing] some of the ghosts, as well as providing a reliable basis for decision-making" (Exon, 1986, p. 55).
246 AACOBS recognizes that very severe demands have been placed on net lenders, and realises that in the present period of Australia's economic and political development, some libraries are in danger of suffering very severe financial difficulties. Library budgets have remained static and, when the effects of inflation have been taken into account, have experienced relative decline. Increases in serial prices are of such a high order that very few libraries indeed - if any - have had the purchasing power to increase the number of serials to which they subscribe. Many subscriptions have had to be cancelled, and this has placed an even greater strain on the libraries which are prepared to lend (Letter from Sharman to George, 12/10/81, AVCC files).
Sharman had written this letter to the AVCC for the purpose of conveying AACOBS' "firm opposition to the idea that charges should be levied for inter-library lending". The AVCC responded to AACOBS's concerns by acknowledging that universities contemplating the introduction of charges "must take account of the universities' relationships with one another and other institutions and organizations with which inter-library loans were effected". However, at the same time, the AVCC let it be known to AACOBS that any decision to charge was ultimately "a matter for university management and not the librarians to determine" (AVCC, Minutes of Meeting, 15/9/81).
The introduction of compensatory charges by certain libraries, starting with the University of New South Wales, was for a period strongly opposed by other university libraries. According to members this opposition resulted in a series of vigorous exchanges within CAUL:
... there were only one or two in favour of [charges] in the beginning, and they were voted down very emotionally. And gradually over some years the membership view on that turned around. The first time we debated the issue one or two people proposed charging and everybody else rejected it. CAUL's view was there should not be charges. The people who think there should went home and licked their wounds and came back next year (Radford, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
Allan Horton (University of New South Wales) first triggered this debate at the 1980 meeting when he informed members that he was considering imposing charges at his own library:
247 Mr Horton spoke briefly to his statement of intention to charge $5 for an interlibrary loan transaction from January 1981. He explained that UNSW Library had three options open to it - to do nothing and allow the level of service to deteriorate, to restrict service to those titles of which UNSW holds the only copy in Australia or to introduce charges which would allow cost recovery (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 25/8/80).
The minutes go on to record that there followed "lengthy discussion" on this issue, with "some members" stating that they were "totally opposed in principle to charging". Some university librarians even threatened to "cease borrowing from or lending to the UNSW if it imposes charges". Despite this opposition Horton eventually decided to introduce charges and reported on this to the 1982 CAUL meeting:
Mr Horton opened discussion by stating his belief that setting charges for interlibrary loans was a matter for individual institutions and that the University of New South Wales was determined to introduce its announced change of $5 per photocopied item on 1st September 1982... It would have been to the advantage of all libraries if a uniform fee could have been agreed upon, but New South Wales would now act on its own in raising the charge from $1 to $5 (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 19/8/82).
Horton's decision aroused a strong response from certain members, Denis Richardson included among them: "Mr W. D. Richardson commented that postgraduate students would suffer if the charge were to be raised, that costs at the University of Melbourne were $3 per item and that his institution would not associate itself with the increased charge proposed by Mr Horton" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 19/8/82).
Once again there was some concern within CAUL as to the damage such debates were causing to the group's credibility. Even the steadfastly independent members like Derek Fielding were disturbed by the level of division this topic had generated: "An open discussion in recent years on charging for inter-library loans would have demonstrated the lack of unity amongst us. In my opinion displays of disunity will bring us no credibility at all" (Fielding, University of Queensland, Round Robin Letter, 20/1/83).
The AVCC. The final, and arguably the most pervasive, factor which hindered reform within CAUL was the residual fear of retribution from the AVCC as a consequence of the
248 series of early clashes with that group. These early incidents still made members extremely wary of attracting too much attention from the Vice-Chancellors by creating a more formal organisation - much less mounting any kind of lobbying campaign - lest the Vice-Chancellors move to censor CAUL. "Fear of offending AVCC", said Radford, "kept CAUL very quiet on issues of national significance" (Radford, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
These apprehensions were very much evident during the 1976 meeting, where Richardson presented the Victorian' university librarian's proposal for creating a CAUL secretariat. He was immediately met with a reminder from Allan Horton that such formalisation "might bring with it imposed limitations as the AVCC had set certain guidelines for formal bodies" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 11/8/76). "Enough people would [have been] aware of the risks", Wilkinson later concurred, "of transgressing the terms of communicating direct" (Wilkinson, Macquarie University, Interview, 1996). The newer generation of university librarians, who began to come onto the group during the early 1980s, quickly became aware that this resistance to formalising CAUL's organisation was mainly due to this factor:
I think it was still a hang over from the brush many years before with the AVCC and a concern among many of the older surviving librarians who had perhaps been told off by their Vice-Chancellors, that said, no we don't want to go too far because the AVCC wouldn't like it. Certainly I can remember that coming up (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
An attitude of utmost caution predominated whenever consideration was given to initiating contact with outside bodies, especially the CTEC. Southwell remarked that "as late as 1980 a suggestion that CAUL should approach the CTEC directly was rejected on the grounds that the Vice-Chancellors would disapprove" (Southwell, 1988, p. 166). The case to which Southwell refers related to a discussion at a CAUL meeting of the 25 August 1980, about possible Commonwealth Government funding for the proposed
249 Australian Bibliographic Network (ABN).111 In a statement that highlighted prevailing sensitivities, the minutes of the meeting record a decision to continue to observe the AVCC's decree some twelve years after the Vice-Chancellors original reproach: "Some members felt that University Vice-Chancellors would not appreciate a direct approach from CAUL to the TEC but felt that any approach to the TEC should be made via the AVCC" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 25/8/80). Radford observed that when he joined the group, in that same year, this was still the "governing ethos" within CAUL:
[When] I first joined CAUL a few issues came up... they were things to do with Government funding and so on. And the new members like me and Colin Steele and so on would sometimes say, "Well why don't we write to the Universities Commission about that and express concern on [such and such], because of the damage this is causing for university libraries"... And the older members would take fright immediately: "Oh no we can't do that, we can't do that, and we must get the AVCC's permission before we do anything."
That was the way in which they had been brought up to regard the AVCC/ CAUL relationship as one of AVCC very firmly holding the reins. Certainly when I joined that was the governing ethos. You didn't step out of line in case the AVCC came down on you (Radford, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).112
For all the reasons discussed above, CAUL remained a fairly limited platform for collective action and the university librarians who were placed in positions where they
111The Australian Bibliographic Network is a national system based at the National Library of Australia. In August 1981 the National Library was given the approval of the Commonwealth Government to establish ABN, but the Government was not prepared to fund the system. ABN became operational in November 1981 and operates on a user pays basis (Jones, 1985, v. 3, p. 34-36).
112It is interesting to note that Frank Hambly (Secretary, AVCC) showed considerable surprise when the author recounted the number of occasions that CAUL backed away from dealing with funding authorities because of the negative reaction it believed it would receive from the Vice- Chancellors:
I'm interested by that. It gives an impression that they were very deferential to the Vice-Chancellors. I certainly didn't have that impression at the time; that they were really so concerned about the what the Vice-Chancellors thought on issues... I suppose that's demonstrated some sort of respect for the Vice-Chancellors and their office. I don't know what the vice-chancellors would have done if they'd gone ahead [and had direct dealings with funding authorities]. But all I can say is that this is one group that obviously took account of the guidelines that we put out (Hambly, Interview, 1996).
250 had the potential to exert some influence on behalf of CAUL usually considered it undesirable, unwise, or simply too problematical to attempt to do so.
University librarian appointed to CTEC. This was the dilemma faced by Noel Stockdale of Flinders University when he found himself appointed to the CTEC, the only university librarian ever appointed to such a post. Stockdale, who served on the Universities Council of the CTEC from June 1980 until August 1983, was one of the more conservative members of CAUL and typical of those who rejected the need to reform the group. He did not see it as his role on CTEC to advance the interests of CAUL, but instead was intent on being seen to be serving in an individual capacity, employing his specialist knowledge to help the Council clarify, where appropriate, matters pertaining to librarianship generally. By so doing he hoped to contribute to the realisation of informed policy-making with regard to university libraries. In a letter to the author he explained how he viewed his position on the Council and the issue of representation of the interests of CAUL:
My personal view is that, unless there are contrary specific terms of appointment, one serves on a committee to help it fill the functions for which it was established; that one has been appointed because of the contribution it is expected one can make... In my own case it would have been assumed I was knowledgable in the area of university librarianship but also in the way universities were structured, how they operated, their relationships with other organisations, their problems and difficulties. As a member of the Council I certainly saw it as my role to participate in all discussions on subjects where I felt I could make a contribution. I saw my role also as assisting the Council in its understanding of library matters, especially the clarification of points made by universities in their triennial submissions or on the library implications of proposals for new academic developments or library problems common to all universities... By these means I believe the presence of a university librarian on the Council was beneficial to the interests of university libraries not because they or their libraries were being 'represented' but through the Council being better informed in its discussions on library matters (Stockdale, Flinders University, Letter to author, 28/6/96).
Stockdale, like many of his colleagues, strongly believed that university librarians must first and foremost "work within their own institution" and was especially wary of
251 attempting to lobby outside this context, warning those who were inclined to do so to be "sensitive to the consequences of their actions for their institutions" (Stockdale, Flinders University, Letter to author, 28/6/96). He was also conscious of the limitations the AVCC placed on external groups like CAUL: "I believe there was very little 'lobbying' by university librarians outside their own institutions. The universities virtually without exception required all approaches to external bodies by officers of the institutions to be filtered through the institution" (Stockdale, Flinders University, Letter to author, 28/6/96).
A colleague of Stockdale's, Eoin Wilkinson, observed that Stockdale's approach reflected the "very close link [he had] with his own administration" which, he surmised, would have made Stockdale confident in the belief that "he could probably do things more successfully on a campus basis" (Wilkinson, Macquarie University, Interview, 1996). Given this conviction, Wilkinson did not find it surprising that Stockdale "would have resisted CAUL being seen as a lobby group" "He wouldn't have welcomed it at all", Wilkinson continued, "because I think his view would be that individual librarians could achieve more via their own campus rather than collectively as a group that had no status or standing with the AVCC or CTEC" (Wilkinson, Macquarie University, Interview, 1996).
Another colleague, Eric Wainwright, who had worked with Stockdale in South Australia, described him in similar terms:
Generally Noel was a fairly conservative figure.... I never felt that he was really convinced about the value of collaboration... he got on well with his Vice-Chancellor. He was well funded - and he was well funded... He'd been successful within his own university. And as one of the first people appointed to the university he knew all the senior people personally, and there was nothing probably to be gained from external influences on his situation. I can see it from his point of view. And I think that that view carried through to his views about the limitations of collaborative action up at the national level as well (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
This outlook was seen to have influenced the way he conducted himself on the Council:
252 I think it is true... that Noel never played the 'I'm representing libraries on CTEC' role. He wouldn't have seen himself simply as a channel for whatever advice CAUL might wish to give him and through him to CTEC... My memory of it was... - and that [was] the nature of the man I think - if CAUL agreed on anything, he wouldn't necessarily see himself as being a channel for that resolution going straight up to CTEC. He would play his role as an individual within CTEC (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
Those who were keen to reform CAUL - which by this time included several new members - were inclined to regard the choice of his appointment as a lost opportunity as far as providing a voice for CAUL at this critical juncture was concerned. They had hoped to see a more pro-active individual on the CTEC rather than someone of Stockdale's more conservative disposition. Even those, like Allan Horton, who had been on CAUL for a number of years and who lacked enthusiasm for change, remarked that he "wouldn't have thought that Noel was the best person for it" (Horton, University of New South Wales, Interview, 1996). Others shared Horton's sentiments to a greater and lesser degree:
Noel is one of these people who has a physically commanding presence, strong persona, congenial, good club man, very pleasant. The sort of person you sit down and talk to but I would not have identified him in the CAUL group as either a mover or shaker or a person who originated original thoughts...
I mean he obviously created a new university library but he was a sort of manager at work, not a creative professional compared with somebody like Meg Cameron [Deakin University], who bubbles ideas out of every orifice all the time. And therefore I'm not quite sure what he would have done on the Universities Council for libraries. It would have been a stolid middle of the road position I would have thought...
I don't know whether he would necessarily have said, I'm not here to represent libraries, but I think if he'd put a library view it would have been a middle of the road view, it would have been a carefully protected view, certainly not a provocative one. I might be doing him a great injustice, but that's the perception I have (Richardson, University of Melbourne, Interview, 1996).
... certainly Noel wouldn't let us down, but he certainly wasn't as dynamic
253 as a couple of the others who would have [done] better in that job - but may have done more harm... (Flowers, University of Newcastle, Interview, 1996).
Noel is a quiet person, [a] quiet, thoughtful, guy. Not, shall we say, action orientated. And there was quite some surprise when he was chosen... Noel was a very experienced person. He knew the context of things, and the ins-and-outs of all of this. So there was no feeling he would say the wrong thing or do the wrong thing. Just a feeling that somebody a bit more pro- active might have been better - and I can't think of any names (Radford, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
Even librarians from outside the sector like Jack Ward were also somewhat dubious about his suitability to the position as far as being an advocate for university libraries was concerned:
Undiplomatically, I must say I thought that Noel Stockdale was about the least appropriate person to be appointed to it. Noel was such an incredible conservative in my view... Noel had sometimes expressed... the view that really [he] shouldn't be bothering about libraries. He no doubt wouldn't have expressed that in his new role but he had in the past. Also his sense of what should be in libraries was often expressed in the traditional pseudo-scholar's attitude that the great works of the classics were the important things. [The more] rare editions by irrelevant ancient writers, the greater was your intellectual force (Ward, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Interview, 1996).
However it appears that as far as the CTEC was concerned Stockdale was the ideal choice. The Commission tried to avoid candidates who they believed would act as representatives of interest groups like CAUL. According to his Vice-Chancellor, Peter Karmel, the Council was looking for somebody who possessed "fairly independent views", and Stockdale fitted this profile. "If some one said 'let's have a librarian'", Karmel remarks, "someone would have then said 'yeah, well we don't want the shop steward'. And someone like Noel didn't run the Party line" (Karmel, Vice-Chancellor, Interview, 1996):
[He] was something of an outsider in the library, he was much more sympathetic to the general view that universities had to make up their own
254 minds and that libraries didn't deserve special treatment. So in spirit he didn't really go along with some of the CAUL things... I'm sure they would have put him on because he wouldn't be representing library interests [but] in those days there was an attempt to avoid representativeness as much as possible on these Councils (Karmel, Vice- Chancellor, Interview, 1996).
Even though CAUL members were anxious to take full advantage of this opportunity they were nonetheless aware of the limitations of trying to exert any real influence in a broadly based policy-making forum like the CTEC where "the number of times library issues came up in terms of the total was probably pretty small" (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996). In a letter to the author, Stockdale explained that was unrealistic to expect any concrete outcomes as a consequence of him serving on the Council and how he hoped that his colleagues would appreciate his position:
Library issues did not appear on the agenda as often as many other topics which were agonised over from year to year. Rather they appeared when specific maters were raised either by universities or emerged following new developments such as, eg, automation, the Atkinson report... I believe all the university librarians were pleased a librarian had been included in the membership of the Council. There may have been a measure of disappointment subsequently that nothing tangible appeared to flow from the appointment but most had a good understanding of the way the system worked and did not have unreal expectations...
I can not say that my being on the Council made a tangible difference in terms of funding. As mentioned above, no earmarked grants were made from recurrent funds. My input may have contributed to a better understanding of a capital building project which may then have received a slightly higher priority, but I doubt it. So many factors were taken into account in determining these priorities that the best that can be said is that the input may have facilitated the process. I think my appointment may have resulted in a better understanding of libraries and their role in the universities. I hope it did (Stockdale, Flinders University, Letter to author, 28/6/96).
Stockdale was likewise aware of the inherent limitations of using the CTEC as a means of influencing policy, whether it be library matters or any other aspect of higher education:
255 The Commission's advice to the Minister was not the only advice he received. The other significant source was the Department of Education (under its various names) and I imagine there was little comparing of notes between the department and the Commission. In the final analysis, I expect it was the development in Cabinet of public policy in relation to higher education, eg the expectation that any qualified applicant should be able to obtain a place in a higher education institution, and budgetary considerations that emerged from Cabinet that determined the overall pace and direction of higher education. The Commission however would have had a central role in ensuring that the Minister was kept fully briefed so that all options and their implications were laid out in submission to cabinet (Stockdale, Flinders University, Letter to author, 28/6/96).
Stockdale ultimately believed that the only sure way of advancing the interests of university libraries was to do so, not through CTEC or CAUL or other outside bodies, but through ones own institution: "Recognition, it could be argued, originates in the home institution which then reflects its view of its library in the priorities it assigns to it in its external submissions" (Stockdale, Flinders University, Letter to author, 28/6/96).
Notwithstanding the lack of enthusiasm from some within CAUL regarding the choice of candidate, all agreed that the appointment of one of their number to the Council was an important breakthrough. The mere fact that a university librarian had been selected was generally regarded as a timely acknowledgment of the importance the Federal Government placed on university libraries. This was confirmed by the following press release from the Federal Minister for Education at the time of Stockdale's appointment: "Mr Fife said that Mr Stockdale was the first librarian ever to be appointed to a Council and that his appointment reflected the significance attached by the Government to the provision of library facilities in higher education" (Fife, 1980, p. 3).
In an article on the CTEC report for the 1982-84 triennium, Steele described the appointment as "a step in the right direction and an acknowledgment of the problems of libraries in the 1980s" (Steele, 1981, p. 233). Steele believed that Stockdale's presence did make a difference, noting that there was a discernible lapse in interest in libraries following Stockdale's departure from the Council. In an article at the time Steele wrote:
256 It is sobering to note what is essentially a passive view of libraries adopted by the CTEC, i.e., by its commentary on trends and statistics in very general terms. This may be due to the limited resources in the CTEC secretariat and also to the fact that Noel Stockdale, the Librarian of Flinders University ceased to be a member of the Universities Council in August 1983 (Steele, 1984, p. 192).
Despite their reservations, even more recent and progressively minded members of CAUL believed at the time that Stockdale's presence should, at the very least, result in a greater awareness of the activities and workings of the Commission as well as give the CTEC a greater appreciation of library matters:
I think it was taken as an opportunity and that we had a direct line to the CTEC with somebody that knew something about library matters... there is no doubt his being on CTEC also gave him some extra authority, and he was a source of information about what was going on. He was able to generate a knowledge of how CTEC worked and some of the politics of higher education. So he was a source of advice about a variety of issues...
I think it gave a greater sense of reality to some of the discussions on broader matters of resources and funding... It was definitely seen as a plus by the group that he was on the Commission. And certainly he provided useful input into discussions that we couldn't have known about in any other way, as to what was happening at a broader level. I think that was good for CAUL (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
"It was a great achievement to get a university librarian on there", recalled Radford: "we were very pleased that there was a university librarian on it... we all agreed that having got a guy on the committee we'd better support him. And feed him information and make sure he knew what our feelings were" (Radford, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
Regardless of whether or not having a librarian on the CTEC had any noticeable impact on higher education policy with respect to libraries, the author contends that Stockdale's period on the Universities Council certainly contributed to the evolution of a more politically conscious CAUL. Although it is difficult to find examples of how this translated into any definitive action, this notion is nevertheless confirmed by personal
257 accounts such as these:
CAUL was a little bit isolated from the real world of higher education, it didn't fully appreciate that libraries were just a part of a bigger scene... In retrospect I suppose that was part of CAUL growing up and realising that there was real politicking in the business of how libraries got funded with more and more competition for the education dollar. There was a stage at which CAUL would have to get its hands dirty, and go and lobby and talk to people... (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
258 CHAPTER 20 NEW MEMBERS AND THE PROCESS OF INTERNAL REFORM
In the previous chapter we have examined many of the pressures that helped to prevent or inhibit change in CAUL, but there was also countervailing pressures which we will examine more fully in this chapter.
Wainwright has alluded to the influence of new members who came onto the group during the early 1980s as an important part of the "growing up" of CAUL. These new members included Colin Steele from the Australian National University (1980), Wainwright himself from the University of Adelaide (1981) and Dr Neil Radford (1980) who replaced Harrison Bryan as librarian at Sydney University. This chapter gives an account of how, despite ongoing resistance, the efforts of these individuals contributed to internal changes within the organisation.
Like the reform minded Andrew Osborn in the late fifties and early sixties and Denis Richardson and his Victorian colleagues in the seventies, Steele, Wainwright and Radford had a vision for CAUL that extended beyond mere collegiality and the exchange of information. In the words of Radford, they wanted CAUL to be "a body with a bit more clout" (Radford, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). "There is no doubt", said Wainwright, "Neil, Colin and myself felt that the organisation could have been rather more than it was" (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996). All of them wanted to be "part of the process of change" by supporting a "move to a more active, more involved CAUL" (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996). Wainwright explained his own motivation:
I certainly was, in those days, very collaboratively minded. I thought you could get better value for money in a number of areas by working closer together, but I found that in Australia at the time, although we were very helpful and collegiate to one another, CAUL deliberations very, very rarely resulted in coordinated action on anything...
[This] certainly effected my view that a greater formalisation of CAUL would lead to greater resourcing and greater activity [for university
259 libraries]. And I was certainly of the view that CAUL needed to be more active in relation to libraries. The future of university libraries was a real issue. It required some attention at the Government level (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
Radford's first experiences of CAUL were of a "very confused organisation that couldn't get its meetings together". Like Wainwright he also believed that CAUL needed to become a more formal and politically conscious group so that it could exert more collective influence, though, clearly at this early stage, its functions were too narrow, and the attitudes of individuals too rigid, to accommodate such ideas:
I thought the meetings were not much more than an information exchange. And that was an expensive way of exchanging information and having a good chat to people whom you hadn't seen since last year and having a nice lunch... It didn't seem to be achieving a great deal that couldn't have been achieved through correspondence or something else. So I would have been keen to see CAUL be a bit more active.
But, as I say, in the early days, my early days, we were held back by Brian Southwell and Derek [Fielding] and other people, who knew - or who thought - the AVCC would not have welcomed [more activity] (Radford, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
Exchanging information and compiling statistics was, said Wainwright, "useful" but "trivial in the grand scheme of things" (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
Colin Steele too was disillusioned with CAUL and recalled how he did not have the "foggiest recollection" of what the group's main functions and aspirations were when he first joined it. He was particularly struck by the group's lack of action and dismayed by the mood of conservatism that pervaded its meetings.
The following excerpt from an interview with Steele gives a fascinating picture of the kind of group that he encountered:
It certainly was an old boy's club then... CAUL was very small, it must
260 have been only 17 or 18... And it was usually held [at the Australian National University] because they often came to Canberra for other purposes, like it was next to an AACOBS meeting. It was almost totally male, except for Meg Cameron [Deakin University], and they would allow people to smoke.
So Smith Richardson [University of New England] and Dietrich Borchardt would smoke these huge cigars in the small seminar room we've got down here [at ANU]. The stench in the afternoon was quite remarkable... And then a couple of them would fall asleep, because they'd had some white wine or red wine at lunch time... The only thing I can remember, which is very unfair, was that Denis Richardson used to fall asleep in the afternoon and Earl Gow [La Trobe University] would have to take over. Denis was a very good chair but every afternoon he would fall asleep... (Steele, Australian National University, Interview, 1996).
As Wainwright recalled, he, Steele and Radford tried to a greater or lesser degree to "push the organisation towards greater activity" during the 1980s (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996). Of the three, Steele appears to have been the most active as evidenced by numerous references to his attempts to reform the group in the minutes of meetings, correspondence, and other documents. This is also confirmed by statements made by his colleagues: "My memory would have been that Colin tried a little bit harder than I would have to get some changes" (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
Steele, who was born in the UK, worked at the Bodleian Library at the University of Oxford before taking up the position of Deputy University Librarian at the Australian National University in 1976. After becoming University Librarian at the ANU in 1980, Steele wasted no time in trying to raise the profile of university librarianship in Australia.
Lobbying in the National Capital
Steele's earliest recorded attempt to extend CAUL's role occurred at the 1981 meeting. Here Steele offered to assist CAUL by using his contacts in the national capital to expand the group's profile within policy-making circles:
261 Mr Steele noted that location within the ACT fostered informal contacts with various members of these organisations (i.e. AVCC, CTEC, and the National Library of Australia) and offered to act as a personal link as and when required by CAUL (CAUL, Minutes Meeting, 26/8/81).
By making this suggestion Steele hoped to convince his colleagues of the need for CAUL to start exercising some influence on behalf of university libraries: "My comment was that most of the money was coming from Canberra and that's where you've got to lobby" (Steele, Australian National University, Interview, 1996). Steele recalled that in adopting this strategy he was taking advantage of a fortuitous encounter with the secretary of the AVCC:
That was basically because Frank Hambly's son was in the same class at school as my son, and you'd see Frank Hambly, Chairman of the AVCC, at the parents' night. So I would say to Frank, "What do you think of libraries", and Frank would say "This is far more than you'd ever get by holding official meetings". So it's things like that... that was the raison d' être of all that... (Steele, Australian National University, Interview, 1996).
Like Richardson's early attempts to create a more dynamic and influential organisation, Steele's proposal was partly motivated by the declining influence of university librarians on AACOBS. However it was also prompted by the fact that a newly formed national body known as the Australian Libraries and Information Council (ALIC) had not been afforded university library representation.
ALIC was established in 1981 (with its first meeting held the following year) by the Commonwealth Government to advise the Ministers with responsibilities for Culture and the Arts on "the formulation and progressive development of a national plan for the development of library and related information services at the national, State and local government levels" and "the establishment and operation of mechanisms to facilitate resource sharing in the field of libraries and related information services" (Conference of Commonwealth/State Ministers with Responsibilities in the Arts and Cultural Matters, Minutes of Meeting, 11-13/2/81, AVCC files).
262 According to Harrison Bryan, who was at that time Director-General of the National Library and chairman of ALIC, the State Librarians' Council and the National Library had agreed that ALIC would be made up of the following members: The Director-General of the National Library, the State Librarians, the Director of the Northern Territory Library Service, one nominee of the Commonwealth Minister for Science and Technology, one nominee of the Australian Conference of Principals of Colleges of Advanced Education, one nominee of the Conference of Directors-General of Education, and one nominee of the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee (Bryan, 1984, p. 84). However, as Bryan explained, the university librarians were originally overlooked:
When the constitution of ALIC was being discussed - before it became public of course - I agreed with the original suggestion which was made by the State Librarians Council, that the Director-General of the National Library and the six State Librarians really should be the core [members of ALIC].
But we needed to have some way - not of direct representation because that was impossible - to ensure that there was a voice on [ALIC] for university libraries, special libraries, and for college libraries. I proposed originally that we would have a nominee from the AVCC and one from the ACDP, and one from the Conference of Director General of Education in each State. [But instead] the bloody Commonwealth Department of Education put its nose in - I was too inexperienced at talking with the bureaucrats to counter this too much - and said that instead there should be three representatives from the Commonwealth Department of Education... [and consequently a university librarian didn't get on]. [The university librarians] thought that they had been short changed (Bryan, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
Like the early debates about the effectiveness of AACOBS and similar initiatives, this ongoing frustration with national developments provided Steele with the opportunity to reinforce his case for a revitalised CAUL. And in a subsequent meeting of CAUL he further justified the need for members to allow him to exercise some influence in Canberra on CAUL's behalf on the basis "that not all universities were now represented on AACOBS and that it appeared that membership of ALIC might not include university
263 representation" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 19/8/82).113
Members reacted to Steele's offer to represent them in Canberra with a mixture of indifference and caution: "It was felt that having a CAUL member in this position would be helpful, although it was reaffirmed that official CAUL statements should only emanate from the Chairman" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 26/8/81).
On the one hand there were those like Radford who saw it as an opportunity for CAUL: "Colin had personal friends in the bureaucracy, and could have lunch with them and put our case" (Radford, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). Even some of the older members of the group, although expressing some reservations about the appropriateness of this approach, admitted that Steele's position and location did offer possibilities:
I would have supported the view that it would be to our advantage, but I can understand why they wanted to restrict the role of spokesman to the chairman. [Colin] was very much a man who wanted to establish relationships with different individuals. Of course being located in Canberra, a small community, would have given him an excellent position to be able to do that, because he had the status that went with his position. The [Australian National University] was the senior academic body in Canberra and he would have had relationships with the various Academies.114 (Horton, University of New South Wales, Interview, 1996).
It is worth exploring the reasons for the lack of enthusiasm, and occasional outright opposition, to Steele's efforts to persuade the majority of CAUL members to embrace his reform agenda, not only to highlight the continuing reluctance of the group
113Although a university librarian (Noel Stockdale) was eventually appointed to ALIC, many in CAUL were highly critical of this body for a number of reasons, including the fact that its aims overlapped with those of AACOBS (Richardson, 1984). As a reflection of these overlapping aims AACOBS and ALIC were merged in 1988 to form a single body known as the Australian Council of Libraries and Information Services (ACLIS)(Bryan, 1994, p. 167-169).
114The Academies are made up of distinguished local and international academics who are recognised as being at the forefront of their respective fields. The four Academies are; the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, the Australian Academy of the Humanities, the Australian Academy of Science, and the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering.
264 to expand its role, but also to illustrate the extent to which the issue of personalities still constrained the group at this late stage of its development.
Richardson, who is among those who best articulates the reasons for the ambivalence towards Steele's methods, commented that despite possessing the "best will in the world" and a great "enthusiasm" for seeing CAUL improved, Steele had too many factors working against him (Richardson, University of Melbourne, Interview, 1996). These factors all centred on what Richardson described as "a sense of distrust" of Steele by some older members. A distrust, first of all, of somebody who was new to the group and wanted to make changes too early: "Don't forget [he was] a new person relatively, a young Turk... There was, and would have continued to be, healthy caution on the part of the membership as a whole, while admitting, yes, [Steele's proposal] could be useful sometime" (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
Combined with this factor was what Richardson identifies as Steele's distinctive "persona and general nature" reflected in his unrelenting enthusiasm for developing these links with outside bodies on behalf of CAUL (Richardson, University of Melbourne, Interview, 1996). Radford commented on how this trait coloured people's responses to Steele's suggestions:
Some members resented the way Colin used to try and pull the strings in Canberra, and how he used to boast about it, saying "Oh, by the way I saw Frank Hambly at the polo", or, "when I was in the Commonwealth Club last night I saw sir this and lady that". Colin's a bit of a name dropper and would like to think he's got some influence. And he does have some influence. But that got up the noses of some members... People would have been glad for Colin to [work] on CAUL's behalf if he could achieve something around the back door, but there was an official way of doing things and that was for the Chairman to write a letter (Radford, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
There was also some distrust of somebody who, having come from overseas, was deemed to not appreciate fully local political realities which, it was felt, made him an inappropriate intermediary for the group. Richardson, who shared Steele's British origins, explained the implications of this trait:
265 This problem of people coming into Australia and lobbing into a place like Canberra and really having no feeling about the rest of the country is a very great problem. I had been here forty years and [I am] still not a naturalised Australian, but I lived in Western Australia, Western Victoria, Queensland before I went to Canberra.
Canberra is a totally unreal, artificial environment, and anybody who lives in Canberra and has never lived anywhere else has absolutely no sense of what the rest of this country is about or like, or what its attitudes or mores are. I think that people sitting in outside cities and listening to Colin say, "just trust me, I'll talk over the fence to Frank [Hambly]". [They would thought] "There's no way in the world mate we're going to trust you. A: you're in Canberra, B: You've never been anywhere else. You don't know what it means to be a person living in Adelaide, let alone a university librarian living in Adelaide or Melbourne" (Richardson, University of Melbourne, Interview, 1996).
The anti-Canberra/anti-ANU factor. Perhaps the two factors that obstructed Steele's purpose more than any other were what he termed the "anti-Canberra" (commented on by Richardson above) and the "anti-ANU" factors. This rivalry between States, as well as between institutions, was most clearly exemplified by Steele's relationship with the more influential and independently minded Derek Fielding from Queensland, also an immigrant from the United Kingdom. Steele recalled how every time he offered to help gain CAUL greater influence within the national capital, "somebody like Derek Fielding would jump up and say, 'Oh we're not having Colin if he's not chairman of CAUL saying these things because ANU is a-typical... We could not possibly have anybody in Canberra saying things that would let us down in Queensland'" (Steele, Australian National University, Interview, 1996). Fielding was, as always, reflecting a view held among many of his colleagues, namely their that institutions should be regarded as separate institutions and that attempts by central authorities to generalise as far as developing policy and allocating resources was concerned, should be strongly resisted:
Derek fervently disagreed with me because he felt that money would be ear-marked or taken off the top by Canberra - in the way we almost might be reaching now - that would prevent him from getting his full recurrent funds. And he kept saying in this same vein, "my relationship with my Vice-Chancellor", "I decide what happens in the university of Queensland". And we kept saying to him things like, "OK if you only want half a cake, you can have your whole half a cake, but, you know, what
266 we're trying to do is increase the cake and make a more effective cake"...
Yes, he was very strong. But it was the idea of Canberra having a larger role... that triggered it off - "my relationship was with my Vice- Chancellor", and "I don't want anybody in Canberra dictating what's going to happen with my library funds". That's a valid viewpoint, but I just felt that that was a little parochial (Steele, Australian National University, Interview, 1996).
As Richardson points out, however, this suspicion of Canberra was not restricted to the far North of the country:
There was also the general feeling, which is endemic of Canberra: "We don't trust Canberra". There was a stronger feeling against Canberra, I always felt, in Sydney because it was closer than Melbourne. Melbourne didn't seem to be as antagonistic to Canberra because it felt further away. It cared less about Canberra than Sydney did (Richardson, University of Melbourne, Interview, 1996).
According to another member of CAUL, Eoin Wilkinson (Macquarie University), the main difficulty with Steele's approach was his miscalculation of "the competitive nature of institutions" and "the wariness of people to hand over too much to a Canberra- based organisation". Wilkinson sees these internal struggles as simply a reflection of broader sector tensions which a State-Federal dichotomy of responsibility for higher education produced: "It's one of the big, unresolved questions in Australian universities [that] they operate by-and-large under State [Government] Acts... [though] Federally funded, and working within a Federal system" (Wilkinson, Macquarie University, Interview, 1996).
Steele inadvertently aroused these State and institutional rivalries by his persistent calls for CAUL to form a closer, more formal association with the AVCC as another means by which the university librarians could gain more influence. For example at a CAUL meeting in 1982 he is reported in the minutes as having said: "It was possible that CAUL should develop a role beyond that of dissemination of information to that of a political voice, and the suggestion was made that CAUL seek the support of the [AVCC], even to the extent of setting up a CAUL secretariat in the AVCC office"
267 (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 19/8/82). Steele's proposal brought immediate disagreement as evidenced in the Round Robin discussion of it. Fielding put his view strongly:
I have very strong reservations about embarking on a formal relationship with the AVCC as suggested [by Steele]. Although communication between me and successive Vice-Chancellors here about library matters discussed at AVCC meetings has not always been good, this has generally been from lack of time or the insignificance of the item concerned.
I am anxious to avoid any situation in which there might be a tendency for the Vice-Chancellors collectively to meet with CAUL or its representatives and then to take decisions which each Vice-Chancellor might attempt to implement in his own institution. I believe that it is better for each of us to develop a relationship with his own Vice-Chancellor which creates the optimum situation for the library at that university.
I can see the point of meeting the AVCC either collectively or through selected CAUL representatives when there is a matter of general interest to discuss... I would prefer to confine formal relationships with the AVCC to occasions when there are specific matters to discuss and there is substantial similarity of view among ourselves... Perhaps I should say that I don't have a paranoia about Vice-Chancellors either collectively or individually. I do have a concern to be the principal adviser to [Queensland University's] Vice-Chancellor about matters relating to Queensland University] (Fielding, University of Queensland, Round Robin Letter, 20/1/83).
Many agreed with Fielding's views. "I am in substantial agreement with the views Derek expressed in his letter of 20 January", wrote Wilkinson, "and like him I would be very wary of CAUL embarking on a formal relationship with the AVCC" (Wilkinson, Macquarie University, Round Robin Letter, 11/2/83). Stockdale also aligned himself with Fielding:
My position on this would be very close to Derek's. I also believe we would benefit from more discussion among ourselves before we talk with bodies like the AVCC. There may well be specific matters which could be the basis of meetings with the AVCC or representations to them but there has been no impediment to such relationships in the past and I don't believe there would be in the future. This is different, however, from a structured on-going formal relationship if that is what Colin envisages
268 (Stockdale, Flinders University, Round Robin Letter, 27/1/83).
Flowers concurred:
I support whole-heartedly the position expressed by Derek and Noel. I wish to preserve the practice whereby each University Librarian is responsible for advice on library matters to his own institution and his own Vice-chancellor. Decisions for individual libraries should not be made on the basis of a majority vote of either the librarians or the vice-chancellors. Of course, I agree with Derek: "I would prefer to confine formal relationships with the AVCC to occasions when there are specific matters to discuss and there is substantial similarity of view among ourselves" (Flowers, University of Newcastle, Round Robin Letter, 9/2/83).
Although Flowers said he was willing to "continue to trust our two colleagues who have special relationships with the Force, - i.e., Noel formally with CTEC through his membership of Universities Council and Colin more informally through the Canberra old boy network", he nevertheless cautions Stockdale and Steele "to continue to differentiate between the occasion on which they are presenting their own institutional views and the occasions on which they can speak for all of us" (Flowers, University of Newcastle, Round Robin Letter, 9/2/83).115
Steele persisted in pushing for reform of CAUL, despite his being continually "jumped on", as he put it, by certain members: "Basically I got sat upon by Derek in particular. I keep mentioning Derek because we went through the eighties on that theme, even when he was chairman of CAUL... It [i.e. a secretariat] just didn't get up at all. It just disappeared, and two years later I would get up and say the same thing" (Steele,
115The only formalisation of relations between the Vice-Chancellors and the university librarians occurred in New South Wales. In 1980 the New South Wales Vice-Chancellors Conference set up the Office of Library Cooperation (OLC) as an agency to promote cooperation between research libraries within that state. However OLC membership was not limited to university libraries, but also included the State Library of New South Wales. In some respects the activities undertaken by OLC were analogous to CLANN in that its main objective was to facilitate the sharing of cataloguing data and reciprocal borrowing arrangements between member libraries. In 1990 OLC was replaced by UNISON (University Libraries in the State of New South Wales). Under UNISON all universities within New South Wales were offered full membership, while the State Library and UNILINC (formerly CLANN) were given "observer status" (Roberts, 1989; Radford, 1992, p. 24; New South Wales Vice-Chancellors Conference, [1990]).
269 Australian National University, Interview, 1996).
Consciousness raising. However Steele also attempted to persuade members by less direct means by publishing, throughout the 1980s, a series of review articles on the CTEC triennial reports in which he highlighted the damaging impact that funding and policy trends were having on libraries. Each article would invariably include statements designed to goad his colleagues on CAUL into action, as typified by the following extracts from his review of the Commission reports for the 1982-84 triennium and the 1985-87 triennium:
In conclusion it is not going to be any easier in 1982-84 for universities and colleges and, depending on their assignment of priorities, for their libraries and librarians. Library issues will however not disappear and will have to be tackled and resolved. Librarians will have to spend less time talking to themselves and their friends and dedicate more effort to communicating with their enemies. Comments made on lobbying and arguing cases are vital. Thus Frank Hambly: 'More and more the AVCC is becoming involved in lobbying the Government... and I find that much of my time is spent that way... However, as I indicated before, as far as I am concerned, it is the senior public servants - the Government advisers - who are the people to be persuaded.' In Volume 2 of its report, the TEC itself has been much more critical of the Government than seemed the case in Volume 1. The Commission and its staff are in a difficult position, with a Government which would seem to accept its 'expert advice' on some issues but not on others, and it has to operate within the limits of funding made available to it.
The general conclusion by the TEC is that the decline to be experienced in the period 1982-84 can only be avoided in the longer term "by increased Government financial assistance or by cutting back activities" (Vol. 2, Pt. 1, p. 2). The same will be true of library funding unless individual institutions preserve their libraries at the expense of other areas. If they do not, the retreat at least will be, as Harrison Bryan has put it, ". . . from a plateau and not further down the slippery side of an abyss, as was the case in the years immediately preceding Ralph Munn's surveys." Some small comfort? (Steele, 1981, p. 233-234).
It is clear that library provision is only part of a greater lack of interest by Government. Any lobbying will require greater skills and coordination than have been shown to date by the library and information profession. Professor Don Aitkin in The Age newspaper of 24 September 1984,
270 writing re the higher education budget, said the following about academics and scientists but his words could well be applied to the library and information professions: "To lobby in the customary Australian way, hinting at electoral threats should one's demands not be met is not something Australian scientists are any good at. For one thing they have no threats at their disposal... it is hard for them to become effectively 'political'... a gulf seems to have developed between the scientific community and the Government" (Steele, 1984, p. 193).
Steele explained to the author what he was trying to achieve with these reviews, and how he regretted not having conveyed his message to a wider audience in order to generate a greater awareness of the plight of libraries and by so doing increase the pressure on his colleagues:
[They] keep talking to each other. Who cares what we say to each other apart from the philosophical and developmental [benefit]. The politics is out somewhere else. We should be talking to them [i.e. the Government] and [writing what I did] was one way of keeping prodding. Because if I wasn't getting anywhere in CAUL, I could at least put something in print... it was to provoke and prod...
The reports were published in AARL [Australian Academic and Research Libraries] which is silly. But I kept sending copies to people at the same time, like Noel Dunbar [Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Australian National University]. If I was doing it now I would have spun an article off which was half a page for The Australian... or The National Times (Steele, Australian National University, Interview, 1996).
Moves Towards Greater Formalisation
Eric Wainwright was one of the 'new generation' of university librarians and a recent member of the group in the early 1980s who, like Steele, wanted to see CAUL change. Neil Radford noted that Wainwright "was keenly interested in CAUL becoming more active" (Radford, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
271 Wainwright's main criticism of CAUL was that it did not possess the kind of formal structure needed to assimilate properly, and respond to, external environmental changes such as the erosion of funding levels, and the increasing costs of resources. He believed that CAUL should take a more proactive approach in dealing with these broader sector issues because, he said, at that "stage of the game", it was "fairly obvious to everybody that the good times were not just going to return again and that there likely to be continuing problems" (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
Wainwright summed up his experience of CAUL thus: "... in the early days the agendas were often very long. We lost sight of some of them. We just didn't seem to get anywhere. We seemed to revisit... the same things without anything being resolved, or real action or change occurring" (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
An example Wainwright gives, of the difficulty CAUL had in responding to major issues, was the failure of the group to weigh up adequately the pros and cons of pressing for a special library sub-committee of the CTEC. Wainwright recalled how Harrison Bryan, having seen at first hand the benefits such a committee had for assisting with the development of the college libraries, tried repeatedly to convince his colleagues to push for the establishment of such a committee for university libraries. Some years after his departure from Sydney University in 1980 - having taken up the position of Director- General of the National Library of Australia - Bryan dispatched a letter to Allan Horton in which he stated: "I did say, several times, that we should press the AUC and its successor to have a Library Committee, but that view was not shared by many others. I think it might have helped but I think the opportunity has now been lost" (Letter from Bryan to Horton, 19/1/83).
Although Wainwright agreed that such a notion would have probably been rejected by CAUL, either on the grounds that such a forum would interfere with members' own local autonomy or that it would not receive the support of the AVCC, he believed that it clearly illustrated the limitations of CAUL in giving consideration to matters of import:
272 I don't think [this issue] was pushed that hard. I think that [Bryan's] view is probably right. I suspect that he would have canvassed it around informally. But a number of things did happen that way. They didn't necessarily happen in a debate in the committee, but people would sound out ideas informally and would see whether they were runners. But my memory of it is that there was never a full-blown detailed discussion over it. The pros and cons were never fully worked out.
And again that reflects the way the body operated, because it would come up as an agenda item, no paper work, [and nothing about what the] benefits might be. The back up work that needed to be done for an issue to be seriously addressed was not in place (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
The main problem with CAUL, Wainwright contends, was a structural one, since there was "no driving continuous force in backing the committee up and doing the necessary preliminary work for an issue to be examined properly". "I think it was a real problem", he continued, "complex issues like [lobbying for the establishment of a CTEC Library Sub-committee] really required some preliminary work because people will not make a decision cold on a few views expressed around the table" (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996). Moreover, Wainwright noted that a shortage of meetings also restricted deliberation. He recalled how it was virtually impossible to explore properly these kinds of broad questions "at a single day meeting once a year of twenty people with an agenda of twenty-five items" which, he emphasised, was routinely a "jumble" of "extremely major" matters mixed with "extraordinarily minor" items. Because of this situation, said Wainwright, "very, very few serious submissions from CAUL [to government]" were made:
We just weren't able to respond in the time frames in which the Government tended to work and wanted advice. And in so far [as] there were responses at all, it would have to be one of the members accepting the task and writing in person (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
In order to respond to these demands Wainwright believed at the time that what was required was more frequent meetings, better leadership, and above all a secretariat which would equip CAUL with "a greater amount of support effort, of gathering data
273 and information, back cases, [and] bolster arguments..." (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996). However given the level of resistance from the longer serving and more influential members of CAUL to attempts to disturb its status-quo, Wainwright said that he had not been very hopeful of bringing about these kinds of changes. He admitted that it would have been "quite ridiculous" to think that anything that he suggested "could have actually have been achievable" given prevailing attitudes. Despite these reservations, Wainwright said he "did believe that CAUL could be a more effective,... [a] more supportive body and a more active [one]" (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
Wainwright, however, admitted that he was not willing to put a lot of effort into CAUL, not only because of a growing realisation that the time was not right for change, but also because he - like many of his colleagues - simply did not have enough time to spend thinking about CAUL:
Colin [was] more active than I was. Although I was behind making changes to CAUL, I thought it was peripheral to what I was doing. I was right in the middle of major changes at the university of Adelaide, everything changed in my period there. We changed our whole systems approach, we totally remodelled the building, we changed our whole technical processes structures, we re-organised staff, and I was so involved in that change management process - I was only the fourth librarian there since 1890. Everything, even local collaboration, was secondary...
So those were the sorts of things that diverted me away from thinking about whether CAUL was really worth spending any great time worrying about how to make it a better organisation (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
Both Steele and Radford acknowledged how much their institutional responsibilities limited the amount of time they could dedicate to pushing for improvements within CAUL, especially during their first few years of tenure. "Someone like Neil Radford couldn't give a lot. I couldn't give a lot", said Steele (Steele, Australian National University, Interview, 1996). Radford himself made the point that members who wanted things to happen "realised that if CAUL was going to achieve anything it really
274 had to have somebody who was devoting a bit of time to it". However he admits that progress was constrained by the fact that "we were all busy people, the head librarians, and couldn't devote time to it" (Radford, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
No immediate changes to CAUL resulted from these efforts during the first half of the 1980s. Wainwright said that trying to convince the members of the need for CAUL to play a more pro-active role in helping advance the interests of university librarianship was a "very slow, frustrating process" during this period:
I think maybe I'm being too unkind, but I certainly never felt that there was that push for a strong political leadership, for example, or even a strong push for real collaboration on projects. Where they happened through other mechanisms it was usually on a regional basis like CAVAL. They didn't happen at the national CAUL level. I'd be hard put to think of a major project which resulted in real action in my time on CAUL (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
Despite their lack of success, however, the pro-reform librarians like Wainwright, Steele and Radford believed the ongoing pressure that they were applying - combined with the demands of an increasingly stringent and complex education climate - would eventually force the group to expand its range of functions. "It was inevitable", asserted Radford rather candidly, "that the atmosphere would change and CAUL [would] get off its bum and do something" (Radford, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). Radford said he could sense the "momentum" building up over this period through the efforts of a few within the group, like Steele, who continued to agitate for internal reform. As the decade moved along, Radford observed that the kind of views espoused by Steele and his pro-reform colleagues "increasingly... became more widely accepted in CAUL" (Radford, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996). Wainwright also noticed the group as a whole "gradually beginning to accept that [they] may have to operate differently" (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
275 CHAPTER 21 CAUL CONSTITUTION (1986)
The external pressures and internal efforts at reform discussed in the last chapter culminated in the decision to prepare at last CAUL's first constitution, a decision which represented the first real evidence that the group as a whole was willing to accept some change to its operations, however limited they proved to be.
The idea of a constitution was first raised at a CAUL meeting held in February 1985. Under the heading "Future Structure, Funding and Role of CAUL", the minutes noted that, following a "brief discussion, it was agreed that a small working party should be formed to draft a constitution for CAUL, to consider funding and related matters, and to report back to the August meeting of the Committee" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 21/2/85). It light of the discussion above, it is interesting to note that in addition to Wilkinson, who served as chair, the other members of the working party were Steele and Radford.
The deliberations of the working party were, however, pre-empted to some extent by a decision that was also made at the February meeting to have an elected chair who "should be elected for two years and not hold office for more than two consecutive terms" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 21/2/85). It was also decided, presumably to save on expenses, that "the provision of secretarial support will be the responsibility of the Chairman" and that "a Minute Secretary will be provided by the Library in which the meeting is held" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 21/2/85).
At the August 1985 meeting of CAUL, the working party invited members to comment on its first draft of the constitution. The discussion that resulted recapitulated all of the issues that had troubled CAUL over the last few decades. According to the minutes of the meeting, Fielding was the first to comment on the draft, expressing "his opposition to further formalization of CAUL" because other, formally constituted, professional bodies were better able to investigate matters of interest to university librarians (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 28/8/85).
276 The meeting next turned its attention - perhaps because of Fielding's expressed opposition - to exploring "ways and means" of making CAUL "more effective without funds". It was agreed that "the most useful features were the meetings and correspondence", activities which did not incur any significant costs. The fact that it had already been decided, at the previous meeting of CAUL in February, that the chair was expected to function using only his or her own secretarial support, reflected the continuing sensitivity on the subject of finances. However it seemed to have been left to Wainwright to try and convince the rest of the group to look seriously at the issue of raising funds. He argued that "one could not expect an elected chairperson to stand without resources, and with the expanded range of activities, advance papers, follow-up, etc" that he envisaged CAUL would be expected to deal with in future.
The issue of finance was eventually put to a vote. Only 12 out of the 19 members voted for membership dues, which would have provided for a permanent source of funding, and the idea was abandoned - as recorded in the minutes of the next meeting - "in view of the lack of support" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 23/4/86). Further discussion on this matter followed at the next meeting of CAUL, held in April 1986, where it was agreed that special levies might be made and that that part of the draft Constitution that related to the question of finance should be made to read: "The Committee may resolve to raise funds by calls on members libraries and the amounts of such calls, if any, shall be determined by vote at a meeting of members" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 23/4/86). Wainwright recalled the sense of frustration he, and a few other pro-reform members, felt about this outcome:
[We had hoped that at the August 1985 meeting] that all members of CAUL [would agree to] give a sizeable subscription that would then go to funding a proper secretariat and to have funds for various collaborative activities - a number of potential projects which we really hadn't defined in detail. [But it] didn't happen and I was at the time very angry about this (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
The Constitution, however, in the form reproduced below, was finally endorsed at the
277 October 1986 meeting of CAUL and published the following year:
COMMITTEE OF AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARIANS CONSTITUTION
Objectives The objectives of the Committee of Australian University Librarians (C.A.U.L.) shall be, amongst other things: (1) to promote and improve the quality of Australian university libraries and their services, collections, staffing, operations and facilities; (2) to represent the interests and support the needs of Australian university libraries; (3) to advance the progress and activities of higher education insofar as they relate to university libraries; and (4) to do such things as are conducive to the attainment of these objectives.
Membership Membership is open to university librarians or equivalent, whose institutions have representation on the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee. If the university librarian is unable to attend any meeting, he or she may nominate a representative to attend in his or her place.
Chairman The Chairman shall be elected from among the members for a term of two years and shall be eligible for re-election but may not serve more than two terms consecutively. A Deputy Chairman shall be elected in the same manner who shall act for the Chairman in his or her absence.
Finance The Committee may resolve to raise funds by calls on members libraries and the amounts of such calls, if any, shall be determined by vote at a meeting of members. All moneys payable to C.A.U.L. shall be paid to the credit of C.A.U.L. in an appropriate account to be operated on, and in such a manner, as a meeting of C.A.U.L. shall determine. Funds shall only be used for purposes approved by a meeting of C.A.U.L.
Frequency of Meetings There shall be at least one meeting held each year.
Amending the Constitution This Constitution may be amended by a two-thirds majority of members at
278 a meeting, provided that notice of the proposed amendment has been given at the time of calling the meeting.
Working Parties The Committee may appoint Working Parties of one or more members, with power to co-opt, to address specific issues.
Winding Up A motion to wind up the Committee shall be considered only at a special meeting, called for the purpose on at least fourteen (14) days' written notice, and must be approved by not less than two-thirds of the members present. Upon the motion being approved, all the assets of the Committee shall be realised. After payment of all just debts and liabilities, the whole of the balances will be applied for purposes to be determined by the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee.
Election of Chair and Increase in Number of Meetings
Despite agreement not being reached on the fundamental question of funding or secretariat, the final draft of a CAUL Constitution did include two important innovations, both of which were designed to make CAUL a more efficient and productive body. The first was an increase in the number of meetings per year from one to two116 to allow for more time to debate issues and try and reach some consensus. The second was to change the way the chairman was appointed to office.
Previously the position of chairman was rotated according to the sequence of the date of foundation of each university. This system meant that from time to time an unwilling or unfit librarian would assume this office, and because the group relied so heavily on the chair to organise meetings and follow up on committee business, the presence of such an individual would severely restrict the quality and scope of CAUL's endeavours.
Some of the chairmen were more effective than others... I think that that was one of the weaknesses of CAUL in those days. The chairman was
116Although the Constitution stipulated that there be "at least one meeting held each year", two meeting per year became the norm.
279 sometimes not up to the job... The result was that sometimes you had a year when there was a very effective and dynamic chairman, and the next one was less effective and dynamic. Then you couldn't do anything to prevent the less effective one from taking office because it was his turn because his university was the next in line... Either they weren't very interested or they were too busy, or they didn't feel able to go to Canberra and lobby the AVCC about something... Some of them in fact didn't give any time at all to CAUL and virtually nothing happened from one meeting to the next and that was unfortunate...
A few people - not me really - but a few of the others became concerned at the fact that next year so-and-so will be the chairman and we better [laugh] do something to stop him because we will never get anywhere if he's the chairman. That was the beginning of the change...
We had had a couple of poor chairmen up to that point and people were afraid that the next one would be a continuation of this 'steady as she goes', no action, ineffectual organisation. By this time the move was gathering pace to get CAUL off base and moving, running (Radford, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
It was now agreed that all chairmen would in future have to be elected to office. Radford claims that the primary motivation for pushing for a constitution in the first place was really to ensure the selection by election of an effective chair:
That was my recollection. I don't know what the catalyst was for getting a sub-committee together to look at the Constitution, but it was connected to the change in the chairmanship, the method of having a chairman. It was when we decided we didn't want to have this rotation year by year of the person from the oldest university... we wanted to have an elected chairman, and that implied a constitution and some more formal ways of organising ourselves (Radford, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
Others also emphasised the extent to which this system of appointing a chair constrained the group and how important it was for a body like CAUL, without funds and a formal structure, to have a capable and committed chair to provide leadership, motivate members and take responsibility for shouldering much of the workload: "Everybody realised that the organisation did depend very much on the chair and that you really ought to ensure that the person in the chair was going to run with it rather than just have it thrust upon them by an accident of history" (Wainwright, University of Adelaide,
280 Interview, 1996). "I think people aspired to have a strong chairman at the time", said Flowers, "[because] there were a couple of chairman that weren't very good... [they] were quite weak. They didn't do as thorough a job as the better ones did" (Flowers, University of Newcastle, Interview, 1996).
Those who wanted to change the system of appointment had in mind a more pro- active organisation that required strong leadership, whereas those who still regarded CAUL as an informal group did not regard the role of chairman as being so vital. The problem was convincing them that strong leadership was indeed an essential requirement. Wilkinson, for example, argued that the Round Robin letter system that comprised much of CAUL's activity was primarily a "self-regulating system" and as such was not reliant on its chair:
I don't think [it mattered] because there was the built in system of correspondence which reflected issues at a given time and emerging problems... So that even if a given chairperson didn't have as much time to give to it, the distribution and sharing of information still went on unabated... The system of revolving chairmanships with the secretarial work that went with it, seemed to work well enough at that stage given the smaller number of universities (Wilkinson, Macquarie University, Interview, 1996).
However despite these kinds of reservations that reflect the historical development of the organisation and the ambivalence to formalisation and action that characterised that history, the reforms were now accepted by all members.
Outcomes of Constitutional Reform
Those who were pressing for changes to CAUL were initially optimistic that the adoption of a constitution would have a marked effect on the way the group operated. For example, in a report published in his local university paper Wainwright reported:
The Committee of Australian University Librarians meeting that I attended on 23rd April was notable for the high measure of agreement reached on a number of issues. A new Constitution was adopted, designed to make
281 CAUL a more efficient lobbying body to governments, and to allow for funding of projects of interest for the university libraries. The Committee will meet twice a year in future to allow actions to be followed up more effectively... (Interface, University of Adelaide, 4, 17, May 1986).
Unfortunately the reforms never quite fulfilled Wainwright's expectations. A review of CAUL minutes and correspondence of the period from 1985-86 to the end of the decade reveals a similar pattern of activity that prevailed before the changes were made, notably an emphasis on a sharing of information within the group. The increase in the number of meetings no doubt afforded a greater opportunity to engage in this type of activity. Richardson confirmed that during his term as chair during from 1986 to 1989, CAUL activity still centred on "basically a Round Robin type correspondence" (Richardson, University of Melbourne, Interview, 1996).117 Much of the correspondence over this period was still concerned with matters of a purely technical or practical nature. As far as having an elected chairman was concerned, members recall that the potential benefits were largely negated by a lack of time the incumbent could devote to CAUL.
Some limited progress, however, was made during both Richardson's, and later Radford's, chairmanship118 when they decided to second a member of their own staff to support CAUL business:
I was the first chairman under the new regime. I ran CAUL out of my own office and I had one secretary... Paula, who was my secretary right through until my retirement. She was used to me being involved in the [Library] Association and AACOBS and other things. She was used to handling a lot of documentation from outside bodies and she organised the CAUL material... she was very good as an office manager. I was able to cope because I'd got somebody who was accustomed to me having a lot of external correspondence and activity. It wasn't anything that fazed her particularly (Richardson, University of Melbourne, Interview, 1996).
Denis semi-seconded one of his senior staff to be a sort of part-time executive assistant, and Denis delegated CAUL work to this person. And
117Richardson was re-elected for a second term at the CAUL meeting of 13/11/87.
118Neil Radford served as chairman in 1990 and 1991.
282 then I did the same when I became chairman, and that was the start of getting someone in there that had a bit of time to get meetings organised and get the letters drafted and whatever else... And that was the first time anyone was seconded, instead of the chairman doing it himself (Radford, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
However, although this sort of help was useful with the preparation of agendas, background papers and the like, an examination of meeting minutes and correspondence, revealed no discernible trend towards any widening of scope of CAUL's activities or exerting wider influence, with one exception.
Cost Supplementation for University Libraries and the Monash Index. In 1984 CAUL took steps to try to alleviate the detrimental effect on the purchasing power of libraries caused by a combination of a devaluation of the Australian dollar and high rates of inflation. Fielding summarises the reasons for the growing concern amongst the university librarians at this development:
Most university library acquisitions are published overseas. Devaluation following the floating of the Australian dollar in 1984 brought a crisis in purchasing and led to substantial subscription cancellation programmes, concern about the decline of the total national library collection, and renewed moves towards rationalisation of collection building and co- ordination of subscription cancellations (Fielding, 1991, p. 117).
CAUL members agreed that they should take some action in this matter. A series of attempts was made between 1985 and 1987 to try to and persuade the CTEC and the AVCC to have the method by which library costs were calculated within Commonwealth grants modified to take better account of the effects of inflation and devaluation:
The issue at the time was an attempt to ensure that the library component of university funding was adequately reflected in the total funds that were to be received by universities. It was impossible, and many people wouldn't possibly have wanted it anyway, to have library inflation ear- marked for action within each university. But we believed that it was possible to ensure that the figure that the university and TEC used in supplementing the universities took full account of the very high rates of inflation at that time for books and periodicals received from overseas
283 (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
In short, the steps by which the CTEC went about supplementing grants, and the methods used, was as follows:
The arrangements which [are] in operation [by the CTEC] involve partial cost supplementation for the programs recommended by the Commission. The Commission recommends grants at the cost level in which the Government's guidelines are expressed. The approved grants are then adjusted from this base period cost level to the cost level prevailing at the end of the year preceding the year to which the grants relate, in accordance with movements in the indexes maintained by the Commission. Adjustments to recurrent grants are based on movements in indexes for academic salaries, general salaries and wages, and non-salary items.
[CTEC's Non-Salary Cost Index] reflects movements in costs of non- salary items of expenditure, including consumables, books and periodicals, stationery, postal expenses and maintenance costs. Weights are based on average expenditure on these items for universities as a whole. The index is compiled from a variety of sources including the Australian Bureau of Statistics (TEC, Report for 1982-84 triennium, 1981, v.1, pt, 1, p. 67-67; v.1, pt, 5, p. 156).
The index used by the CTEC to calculated cost-supplementation for libraries was known as the "Three Universities Indexes" or "Monash Index". This had been developed in 1976 by Monash University Library in conjunction with the AVCC. The index comprised 'three' components; a monographs index, a binding index and a serials index. An elaborate method was devised for each of the components, whereby a randomly selected sample of titles acquired by Monash was applied to a formula which yielded an estimate of the movement of costs over time (Mitchell, 1990). In 1979 sample data from other universities began to be used for the compilation of the serials and monograph indexes.119
The main weakness of the Monash Index was "its inability to separate out the
119Data for the serials index came from Monash, University of Queensland and the University of New South Wales while Monash, Queensland and Flinders University each contributed data to the monograph index (Mitchell, 1990, p. 11).
284 effects of fluctuations in exchange rates [which] makes its general applicability doubtful when the Australian dollar is volatile" ([Mitchell], 1991, p. 27). This flaw in the index became more obvious as the economic climate worsened, prompting CAUL to lobby the AVCC for a review of its application by the CTEC. This matter was first raised at the August 1985 meeting of CAUL at which "grave concern was expressed about the impact of devaluation on library budgets for books and serials" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 28/8/85). The meeting noted that the main area of concern was the "delay in the reflection by the Monash Index... of price increases in library materials and a further delay in the reflection of these movements in the supplementation of the base recurrent grants to universities" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 28/8/85). "Several members", the minutes record, "referred to the critical nature of the situation and advised that they anticipated substantial serials cancellations or serious deficits" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 28/8/85). Wilkinson stated that this was a situation "without parallel" and recommended that members act to "ensure that AVCC and CTEC recognised the dimensions of the crisis" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 28/8/85). Member were, however, still reluctant to agree on raising such matters directly with the CTEC, since the minutes state that any expression of concern to the Commission be made "through" the AVCC. Eventually it was decided that "appropriate action could best be taken within individuals institutions and that the matter should be minuted with this in view" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 28/8/85). Notwithstanding this unwillingness to take more direct action, it is nonetheless difficult to to find any previous issue, on a matter of broad sector policy, that yielded such a united response by CAUL.
Over subsequent years members mobilised a great deal of effort to alert Vice- Chancellors to the problems of cost indexation. For example in June 1987 Eoin Wilkinson (Macquarie University) drafted a submission to his Vice-Chancellor in which he presented statistical evidence to show that the Monash Index in his view, "and that of the Committee of Australian University Librarians", was "not working in the way that CTEC intended" (Wilkinson, 1987, p. 1). Wilkinson contradicted a claim made by the CTEC chairman, Hugh Hudson, that the CTEC's cost supplementation arrangements for library
285 non-salary costs was working well. Wilkinson was referring to a letter from Hudson to the chairman of the AVCC, Michael Birt (University of New South Wales), where it was stated that the CTEC were satisfied with existing cost supplementation arrangements:
The cost supplementation arrangements are designed to maintain the real value of approved grants over time. In the case of the non-salary portion of recurrent grants, the adjustment is made annually at the beginning of each grant year. The library materials component is adjusted using the AVCC Three Universities Index for Books and Periodicals. Thus, as your letter acknowledges, the adjustments made to grants for increased library costs will, in due course, reflect the effect of exchange rate movements and other cost increases in library materials being experienced this year.
It is generally accepted that these arrangements serve universities well. A request from the Commission to the Government for a special one-off grant, or for a departure from these arrangements, is unlikely to be successful, and could lead a review of the such supplementation procedures. Such a review would not necessarily be to the advantage of institutions (Letter from Hudson to Birt, 21/10/85, AVCC files).
Wilkinson noted in his paper that "this view has not been fully supported by subsequent developments for various reasons", pointing to estimates from CAUL which show an alarming increase in serial cancellations over preceding years and forecasting that a continuation of this trend based on proposed 1988 cancellations figures. He added that a continuation of existing arrangements would seriously impair the ability of universities to conduct research activity:
The effects of these cancellations will be such that some scholarly and research journals will no longer be held in Australia and new research journals will not be subscribed to and therefore not available from Australian libraries. The gaps in some libraries will be similar to those which occurred in the Great Depression of the 1930's. The ability of Australian libraries to support research is now seriously under threat (Wilkinson, 1987, p. 1).
Wilkinson goes on to point out the deficiencies of the Monash Index:
It has been put to me that documents released by CTEC indicate that there may be up to a year's time-lag in the cost supplementation arrangements.
286 Non-salary cost adjustments are made retrospectively annually at the beginning of each grant year. However... when, in two successive years, libraries are faced with cost increases and exchange rate fluctuations which have added increases of the order of 30% to the cost of periodicals and a lesser but still substantial amount for books there is a need for a catch-up provision if the earlier level of purchasing is to be restored.
In the case of Macquarie University in 1976, 20,000 books were purchased for the collection which exceeded 450,000 volumes (by gift, exchange and purchase) by the end of the Library's first decade of collecting.
During its second decade (1976-1985) the Library's acquisitions rate slowed and at the end of 1985 the collection had reached 750,000 volumes. Even with the supplementary funding received, the number of books purchased totalled only 10,431 for 1986, the second lowest annual figure, the lowest being 9,962 in 1982. This is equivalent to less than one new book per year for each undergraduate, postgraduate student and member of the academic staff. If 10% of serials had not been cancelled in 1986 book purchases in 1986 would have been even lower and the ability of the University to purchase books in 1987 would have been put at risk.
I am not a statistician but it seems that there may be some distortions arising from the method of calculation of the [Monash Index]. It would seem that the book and periodical components are treated with equal weight (i.e. 1.04 x the sum of the two index values). This would depress the reflection in the index of the cost movements because the greater increase has been in periodicals which in most universities account for considerably more than half the expenditure in the books and periodicals item. Clearly the book and periodical components should not be simply added together...
Estimates by the Committee of Australian University Librarians indicate that cancellations of serials by [other] university libraries [show a similar trend and] estimates of proposed cancellations of 1988 subscriptions indicate that this pattern is continuing... (Wilkinson, 1987, p. 2).
Based on this evidence Wilkinson concluded: "Reconsideration of the library material component in the CTEC Non-Salary Costs Index would seem to be called for" (Wilkinson, 1987, p. 2).
Efforts were also being simultaneously directed at the AVCC. For example in August 1987 Brian Southwell (Librarian, Monash University) wrote, on behalf of CAUL,
287 to the convenor of an AVCC Working Party on the Monash Index, Stephen Harrison (Bursar, University of Sydney) in which he conveyed the "disquiet among university librarians" regarding the Index (Letter from Southwell to Harrison, 12/8/87).
Statements made by the Universities Advisory Council of the CTEC in the CTEC Report for the 1988-90 Triennium (1987) suggests that the effort being made by CAUL, both collectively and individually by its members working on their Vice-Chancellors, was now beginning to have some effect:
The devaluation of the Australian dollar has... added to the difficulties facing university libraries. In 1986, libraries were forced to cancel millions of dollars worth of periodicals so as not to over-spend their budgets. Book orders have been similarly affected, as some libraries purchased up to 95 per cent of their books from overseas (CTEC, Report for the 1988- 90 Triennium, 1987, v. 1, pt. 3, p. 23).
The University Advisory Council went on to acknowledge the shortcomings of the Monash Index, arguing along the same lines as CAUL members had been doing in their various submissions to their Vice-Chancellors:
The adjustments [made by the Index] will not reflect the effects of the devaluation, however, until some 12 to 18 months after the event due to the time-lags involved in obtaining actual data... In the meantime, universities must either meet the increased costs in other ways or make cancellations (CTEC, Report for the 1988-90 Triennium, 1987, v. 1, pt. 3, p. 23-24).
In 1989 CAUL took the initiative and set up a special sub-committee, chaired by Edward Lim120 (Monash University) to consider how the method used for cost indexation might be improved. On the recommendation of the sub-committee CAUL appointed a consultant, Dr Eric Sowey (School of Economics, University of New South Wales), to provide expert advice because the sub-committee members "did not feel qualified to undertake this task" (Lim, [1992], p. 6). Sowey recommended to CAUL that the Monash Index be modified so that it might more accurately reflect inflation rates for books and
120Lim succeeded Brian Southwell as University Librarian in 1988.
288 periodicals. These modifications, which included a change to the sampling method and an increase in the number of universities contributing data, were subsequently made and resulted in the development of two new indexes, CICOP (CAUL Index of the Cost of Periodicals) and CICOM (CAUL Index of the Cost of Monographs). Although some universities made use of the CICOP and CICOM data, Edward Lim noted that "many libraries could get estimates of book/serials inflation from book/periodical suppliers like Blackwells and Faxon, and from their own inhouse expenditure data" (Lim, E-mail to author, 6/5/97). For this reason at the March 1997 Meeting of CAUL "It was agreed that the current collection of both CICOP and CICOM be completed, and then cease" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 21/3/97).
Despite the dwindling application of the data collected by CAUL over more recent years, the groups initial efforts to draw attention to the problems associated with cost-supplementation between 1985 and 1987 perhaps represent the first signs of CAUL taking on a more determined and concerted approach to participating in the broader policy-making processes. Significantly, Frank Hambly (Secretary, AVCC) identifies this as the one area of sector policy where CAUL had made a real contribution:
The librarians were very keen to have [the Monash Index developed] so that they could use it as an instrument to sort of lever their Vice- Chancellors or their university management to [make sure that they received] adequate resources for their own libraries; that they got their fair share of the funding. Their drawing attention to [the deficiencies of] the index was a very successful activity. So that's something that they did do! (Hambly, Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, Interview, 1996).
However, while some members saw this initiative as evidence of the emergence of a more pro-active and decisive group of librarians who were willing to use CAUL as a forum for exerting some influence on sector policy, others were not so sure. Colin Steele, for example, was dismissive of the part played by CAUL in the indexation debate: "I think we did far more in terms of the 86-87 devaluation issue on AACOBS than we ever
289 did on CAUL" (Steele, Australian National University, Interview, 1996).121 Wainwright noted that even on this issue the university librarians were still unwilling to put their case directly to the CTEC as a group: "I can't remember CAUL formalising that process of interaction. My interpretation would be that some members of CAUL had interactions [informally] with the CTEC rather than CAUL formally" (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996). But Wainwright sees this as a rare instance of the group acting in a concerted fashion on a major policy matter:
I think that with problems of inflation of serials and all the things that came with that, there did come some realisation that everybody was in the same boat facing a new type of problem. But, really, I think that was because that particular set of issues was where we could do something collectively and couldn't individually. But that was an exception. It was almost an emergency type reaction (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
We are left with the conclusion that CAUL really changed very little during the years leading up to the merger of the university and CAE sectors under the new Unified National System at the end of eighties.
Wainwright implies that whatever the changes were, they were of a subtle and incremental kind: "I think that the two meetings, the elected chair, all of that was a starting point... I think by the time I'd left [in 1988 to become Deputy-Director of the National Library of Australia] I thought there were stirrings for real change, although not very much happened in practice" (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996). However when asked whether there were any specific outcomes that occurred as a direct result of the structural changes introduced in 1986, Wainwright replied: "No, I'm afraid nothing does come to mind. I couldn't say I could seize on anything in particular that would be regarded as a great achievement of CAUL during the time I'd been there"
121Given that the devaluation of the Australian dollar affected all types of libraries, AACOBS also saw it as their role to address this issue. Under the auspices of AACOBS, Colin Steele himself was charged with the task of collecting data from Council members to illustrate the magnitude of this problem. Following Steele's survey, AACOBS issued a nationwide press release which "[drew] attention to the parlous state of the nation's information resources... [and] dramatically illustrated the decline in purchasing power [of libraries]" (AACOBS, 1988, p. 8).
290 (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996). Wainwright's view was that it was not until after 1988 that "CAUL started to become a more serious body in terms of what it was prepared to do".
CAUL's most enduring legacy in the period examined, and that which its members obtained the most fulfilment and benefit from at the time, remained not so much its tangible accomplishments, but what Denis Richardson terms the achievement of "more nebulous things like a sense of coherence and sense of community among a group of libraries" (Richardson, University of Melbourne, Interview, 1996). He added: "No I would find it difficult to say there is anything in that almost materialistic sense you could point to as a CAUL achievement". Richardson's remarks reflect the view of the majority of those university librarians interviewed for this study.
To many university librarians, CAUL's effectiveness lay simply in the spirit of fellowship it sustained, the sense of professional identity it fostered, of the opportunity it gave for mixing and communicating with one's peers, of meeting together on an informal basis, and exchanging ideas and information.
[It was] the development of a sense of the role and status of university librarians within universities, the collegiality that CAUL provided, the support from colleagues with various difficulties or problems with their own administrations, or with [university] library committees... the sharing of information on a collegial basis (Wilkinson, Macquarie University, Interview, 1996).
I think CAUL's main contribution has been to provide a collegiate body for the university librarians and to facilitate the exchange of information and views on professional matters and policy matters relating to the role of the library in its institution and in the wider community (Stockdale, Flinders University, Letter to author, 28/6/96).
I suppose it was an achievement that the organisation continued to exist in a friendly collegiate way which allowed a lot of information to flow around the university libraries, which was useful. That in itself I suppose was an achievement. It was not always achieved in other places (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
291 Even those who, like Neil Radford, were clearly frustrated at the groups refusal to participate in mainstream policy-making arenas, acknowledged how the group had afforded real benefit at a personal level:
I never thought CAUL in those days was a very effective body. But it was a very interesting body... I found it very interesting and very useful to be with the top librarians around. There was Derek Fielding and Denis Richardson, people like that who I really didn't know much. I had perhaps met some of them at conferences. I really didn't know them and it was very interesting to be in the same room with them as one of their peers. And to listen to them and see that some of them had feet of clay, but also to be listened to by people like that on the same basis. I thought that was very interesting... I think I certainly felt that there was a willingness among the older more experienced group of librarians to help those like myself who had come in new to the game... I certainly felt that I was accepted into the group quite easily. Although I felt almost recognisably a generation different from most of those in the room... it was an honour to be there, and you were hob-nobbing with the great and famous... (Radford, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
292 CHAPTER 22 OUT OF THE DARKNESS: CAUL 1988-1997
This study has demonstrated how external circumstances, events and relationships have had a pivotal influence on the nature and development of CAUL and ALCAE. Perhaps the one external factor that has been shown to have had the most profound influence on these groups was the extent to which governments and their higher education commissions have or have not made libraries a priority in terms of funding and in the recognition of their role in serving educational objectives as well as broader social, economic and political agendas. ALCAE flourished during its early years as a result of the special attention given to college libraries by the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education (CACAE). This key relationship between the Commission and ALCAE stimulated activity among the group of college librarians and helped to foster a sense of mission and spirit of cooperation that may not have otherwise developed had not such priority been given to libraries. Conversely, as the College Commission's interest in libraries waned from the mid seventies, so too did ALCAE's sense of purpose and its ability to influence the policy-making process.
In the absence of such early support from the Australian Universities Commission the group of university librarians, on the other hand, always lacked any real reason to develop CAUL beyond a medium for the exchange of information into - in the words of Brian Southwell - "a body which could change events" (Southwell, 1988, p. 166-167). Although some progress towards reform was made during the eighties with the drafting of the CAUL Constitution, the group remained a relatively limited forum for collective action. The lack of an external catalyst to unite the group meant that the university librarians tended to look inwards to their own institutions to satisfy their requirements and forward their interests rather than becoming more outward looking like the group of college librarians with their emphasis on lobbying and acting as an advocate for libraries.
This study concludes by showing how, in more recent times, external events have helped transform CAUL in the same way that they had with ALCAE decades earlier.
293 The Dawkins Reforms to Higher Education (1987-1988)
Following the re-election of the Australian Labor Party for an historic third term in 1987, the higher education sector once again became an integral part of the Government's reform agenda. As already mentioned, from the mid-eighties much of the Commonwealth's approach to policy was influenced by the unfavourable economic conditions that began in the mid-seventies with a drop in international commodity prices, which in turn produced a balance of payment problem and a series of falls in the value of the Australian dollar. By 1986 this situation was further exacerbated by a deterioration in terms of trade as exports dropped, a trend which severely affected Australian primary industries (McKinlay, 1988, p. 197-203).
As this environment worsened in the lead up to the 1987 Federal election, greater pressure was brought to bear on the Hawke administration to respond to this crisis, particularly from the so-called 'New Right'. This group of right-wing politicians and economists advocated the kind of 'free market' economic liberalism applied by Thatcher and Reagan as a way of solving the Labor Government's political malaise. According to Smart, the government was easily persuaded by this New Right ideology:
The economic liberalism emanating from the 'free market' think tanks and policy advisers was a pervasive influence in policy circles and on the terms of Hawke cabinet debate. It led to a strong general tendency towards cabinet endorsement of such principles as efficiency, competition, freedom of choice and user-pays. Thus the Hawke Government's growing tendency to seek 'privatisation' solutions was a product of the twin forces of economic pragmatism and of ideology (Smart, 1987, p. 13).
This assimilation of New Right ideology into the government's approach to policy-making became increasingly evident prior to the 1987 election:
In the eighteen months before the 1987 federal election, the Australian public had been traumatised by a constant media barrage about the seriously worsening international balance of trade figures. Both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, Paul Keating, had repeatedly lectured the Australian workforce and business community about the risk of Australia's becoming a 'banana republic' unless it lifted economic productivity and
294 focussed its efforts on enhancing export performance (Smart, 1990, p. 13).
In line with this approach the Labor Government set in motion a major review of portfolios immediately following its election win on 11 July 1987. In a media statement issued on 14 July, the Prime Minister announced his government's intention "to approve major changes to the structure of Commonwealth administration" (Hawke, 1987, p. 12). The overall aim of this initiative, as outlined by Hawke, was as follows:
The changes are aimed at achieving substantial enhancement of the decision-making process and... removing overlap and duplication of functions... [The new structure] will also ensure that all portfolio interests are represented in a Cabinet that is of manageable size; will provide the opportunity for improved budgetary and corporate management processes; will provide savings from economies of scale; and will introduce broader perspectives within portfolios without reducing the necessary impact of particular interests. Most importantly, the new structure reflects and is attuned to the national policy imperatives which must command our attention at the present time and in the longer term (Hawke, 1987, p. 12).
Hawke went on to justify this process of reform at a speech delivered the following year:
[In] today's circumstances, unless there is constant vigilance by an elected government alert to the demands of the international economy, and unless organisational and attitudinal change becomes a constant part of the government's management of the bureaucracy, the public service may succumb to the almost overwhelming temptation to look inwards; to become absorbed in its own process rather than its output; to grow inexorably; in short, to serve its own ends. If that were to happen, our overall economic performance would suffer and the community would be poorer (Hawke, 1989, p. 8).
The outcome of this review process was the creation of a series of 'mega- departments' which resulted from the consolidation of existing portfolios. For example Community Services was merged with Health, Foreign Affairs with Trade, and Transport with Aviation and Communications (Keating, 1993, p. 3).
295 As far as the restructure of the education portfolio was concerned, in the middle of 1987 the Department of Education was replaced by the Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET) headed by the former Minister for Trade, John Dawkins. The appointment of Dawkins and the title of the new Department, with its emphasis on employment, was a clear reflection of the government's intention to have education serve as an instrument of economic policy:
Dawkins, who had been personally responsible for the major review and restructuring of the public services between 1984 and 1987, declared that the placing of 'Employment' first in the mega-department's title was deliberately intended to convey that education's prime role henceforth was to be a re-orientation towards the promotion of employment and a more productive and dynamic export-orientated economy. Indeed, Dawkins was well placed to foster Education's export potential. For, as Minister for Trade, between 1985 and 1987, he had almost single-handedly created the legislative mechanisms necessary and cajoled Australia's mostly reluctant universities and colleges into developing their capacities to recruit full-fee paying overseas students - as a means of diversifying their institutional sources of income and of creating scope for tertiary expansion.
It was clearly no accident then, that Dawkins was appointed to Education having gained a reputation for tough, pragmatic decision-making in the important economic portfolio of Trade. Here was a clear signal that the Hawke Government had in mind a stronger linkage between education and the economy (Smart, 1990, p. 13-14).
In October 1987 Dawkins abolished both the Schools Commission and the CTEC and replaced them with a small statutory body, the National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET). The Board comprised four advisory councils: Schools Council, Higher Education Council, Employment and Skills Formation Council, and the Australian Research Council. NBEET was responsible for "formal independent advice on policy and resources allocation issues", while DEET has responsibility for "program delivery and management and for policy advice across the portfolio" (Dawkins, 1988, p. 74). The role of the Higher Education Council (HEC) was to "advise NBEET on a wide range of higher education matters, primarily those referred to it by the Minister or the Board" (Dawkins, 1988, p. 74). These matters included:
296 [The] general development of higher education in Australia; the establishment of priorities for meeting the needs of institutions providing higher education; the funding, planning and implementation of programs based on those priorities; the granting of financial assistance by the Commonwealth to institutions providing higher education; and the marketing overseas of higher education programs developed in Australia (Dawkins, 1988, p. 74).
A separate Australian Research Council (ARC) was created to "[advise] the Minister through NBEET on research policy and priorities and directly on the allocation of research grants and fellowships" (Dawkins, 1988, p. 75).
Dawkins' action to abolish the CTEC reflected a general move by the government to limit the power of statutory authorities, the first signs of which can be found in the Hawke administrations' imposition, after coming to office in 1983, of increasingly prescriptive Guidelines to the CTEC and the growing participation of Commonwealth Departments in the formulation of government higher education.122 As Karmel explained, in times of increasing economic difficulty - which the Hawke Government found itself in during the late eighties - the financial demands made by CTEC became more out of step with the Commonwealth's broader policy agenda: "[A factor which] put CTEC at risk was the irritation of the Treasury and the Department of Finance when statutory bodies argued publicly for additional finance at times when Treasury and Finance were trying to reduce the growth of enterprises" (Karmel, 1988, p. 7).
The government's broad policy aims were elaborated by Dawkins in a blueprint for higher education set out in his Green Paper (December 1987) followed by a White Paper (July 1988):
It is timely to reassess the performance of our higher education system against the background of existing and likely future pressures. Other countries are already undertaking such a process of review, including Japan and the USA, whose higher education systems are generally regarded as an important source of their economic strength and vitality... The thrust of this Policy Discussion Paper [Green Paper] is to promote
122See Chapter 13.
297 further growth in the higher education system in a manner consistent with our economic, social and cultural needs. The achievement of such growth in a climate of continuing financial restraint will require close attention to the efficient use of resources in higher education and to the institutional arrangements by which those resources are provided...
In Australia we find ourselves in a world in which the times have turned sharply against us. The problems associated with our traditional export base have been compounded over the past two years by the sharp fall in world prices for many of our traditional exports. This adverse shift in the terms of trade requires a change in the balance of the Australian economy away from traditional industries and towards the less familiar, such as advanced manufacturing and new service industries... [It is important that there] is the flexibility to capitalise on new opportunities as they arise and to accept the need for continuing change and adjustment, largely determined by international forces. A well-educated workforce is a key source of such flexibility. The more responsive the workforce, the greater the speed of adjustment to external shocks and the less the impact on Australia's standard of living (Dawkins, 1987, p. 1, 2).
In order to achieve these broader goals, Dawkins instituted a series of changes to the higher education sector, all of which were intended to make for a more efficient, effective and responsive system. The most significant change was the abolition of the binary system of higher education, consisting of a university sector and CAE sector, and its replacement with a Unified National System (UNS). The other major change was the imposition of a minimum student load quota per institution of 2000 EFTSU (Equivalent Full Time Student Units). The White Paper declared: "Institutions which do not currently conform to this requirement will be obliged to merge or establish a formal working relationship with a larger institution" (Dawkins, 1988, p. 29). As a result of the creation of the new Unified National System, former CAE's were typically absorbed by existing universities (e.g. Sydney College of the Arts and Cumberland College of Health Sciences with the University of Sydney), or upgraded to university status, either individually (e.g. Curtin University of Technology, formerly Western Australian Institute of Technology), or by amalgamating with other former colleges to form a single new university with multiple campuses (e.g. Australian Catholic University). The rationale behind such consolidations was that larger institutions could offer "access to a more comprehensive range of course and program options, greater scope for transferring between disciplines with maximum credit, and better academic and student facilities" (Dawkins, 1988, p. 42).
298 In terms of cost efficiencies, these mergers were also expected to result in "economies in administration and other overheads" (Dawkins, 1988, p. 42).
Under the new Unified National System, the allocation of funding was based on a process of 'Educational Profiles' whereby each institution defined its "broad mission and responsibilities" so that the Commonwealth could determine "the resources needed to fulfil the institution's mission and goals, [and to assess] its performance" (Dawkins, 1988, p. 29). This process also allowed the government to align more closely higher education with its broader policy goals by adding a proviso that the provision of funding under this profile arrangement "[carried] with it an obligation by the institution to give due regard to national priorities and to the objectives of improved efficiency and effectiveness" (Dawkins, 1988, p. 30). As an added incentive the Commonwealth created a special National Priority (Reserve) Fund, setting aside one per cent of total operating grants provided for higher education, to be distributed "each year on the basis of institutions' responses to specific Commonwealth initiatives or identified areas of national priority" (Dawkins, 1988, p. 81).
What emerged as a result of these reforms was a far more demanding higher education environment where institutions were forced to compete for funds based on performance and the degree to which their academic programmes were judged to serve broader national interests. There were now thirty seven universities making up the Unified National System as compared with the nineteen that existed pre-Dawkins, and the sixty eight CAEs, but because of the amalgamation process, the thirty seven universities were characterised by different histories, structures, academic cultures and traditions of governance.
The Impact of External Events on CAUL (1990-1997)
These system-wide reforms stimulated a series of transformations within CAUL during the 1990s which have made that body almost unrecognisable by comparison with the original group. These changes included a substantial increase in the size of CAUL as ex-CAE librarians joined the group from newly created universities. The growing
299 complexity and volume of issues being faced by the university librarians at the outset of the new regime was a major factor in forcing CAUL to levy funds from 1990 to provide for increased support for the chair and to allow the group to engage in more research activity. The decision to levy funds eventually led to the appointment, five years later, of a full-time CAUL Executive Officer. In a review of CAUL published in 1992, Radford noted the attitudinal changes that had started to come to the fore during this period and the factors which stimulated these developments:
Changes to the Australian higher education system have naturally brought changes to CAUL... CAUL's membership has grown from 18 in 1982 to 37 in 1992. CAUL has been transformed from a relatively small and reasonably homogeneous group meeting annually to exchange information on matters of mutual interest to a large and very heterogeneous body which desires to play a lobbying and influencing role on behalf of higher education libraries. The change in size is, of course, a result of the increased number of institutions called universities; the change in CAUL's stance from passive and introspective to active and outward looking arises from changes in the external environment and from changes in CAUL's own membership, as long-standing members retire and new, more activist librarians replace them (Radford, 1992, p. 22).
In addition to the impact of the abolition of the binary system, CAUL's post-1988 development was also influenced to significant degree by developments associated with policy initiatives undertaken by NBEET (Oakshott, 1992).
The Ross Report (1990). One initiative that had a pivotal influence on CAUL was the 1990 report on Library Provision in Higher Education Institutions, known as the Ross Report after the chair of the working party that produced the report. This NBEET sponsored exercise was undertaken to assess the state of Australian higher education libraries and to recommend strategies for their development within the context of the new Unified National System. In addition to Ian Ross, who was Pro Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, the Working Party on Library Provision in Higher Education Institutions, as it was called, included Alan Bundy123 (South Australian College
123Dr Alan Bundy was Chief Librarian at Footscray Institute of Technology, Melbourne from 1974 to 1983. From 1983 he served as College Librarian at the South Australian College of Advanced
300 of Advanced Education), Barrie Mitcheson (Librarian, Macquarie University), Margaret Trask (Executive Director, Australian Information Management Association124), and Eric Wainwright (Deputy-Director, National Library of Australia). The terms of reference of this study were wide-ranging, though based on those underlying principles of efficiency and effectiveness which the Commonwealth was so keen to foster across all areas of university operations.
The Working Party's terms of reference were to "examine and report on":
1. the quality [and] extent of provision of libraries in higher education institutions (excluding TAFE) within the unified national system of higher education to meet the needs of teaching and research within those institutions;
2. ways in which libraries could work more effectively together to achieve a more efficient higher education library system, having regard to - the current restructuring of higher education institutions, - the appropriateness of collections to the teaching and research profiles of institutions, and - a range of performance indicators in areas such as collection development and rationalisation, use of technology, technical services, and services to users;
3. options for storing both teaching and research library collections so that they can be assessed readily;
4. options for providing study space for increasing numbers of library users...;
5. the role of information technologies in the provision of library services and the relationship of libraries to other information based groups, eg computer centres, audiovisual services, archives;
6. strategies to maintain and develop academic libraries as an important part of national and international library services, taking into account trends and developments overseas which might be usefully applied here;
Education, which became the University of South Australian in 1991, until being appointed to the position of University Librarian in 1992.
124The Australian Information Management Association (AIMA) was set up by Trask in 1985 and offers courses, workshops and other services in the field of library management.
301 7. common guidelines and performance indicators which could be developed for higher education institutions for the resourcing of libraries;
8. the role of higher education libraries in providing services to industry, business and community and accessibility by researchers in higher education institutions to patent literature; and
9. the role of higher education libraries in preparing those training for the professions in information literacy... (Ross Report, 1990, p. vi).
The end result of the Working Party's deliberations was a substantial report which detailed existing library developments and presented a list of 46 recommendations directed at "the Commonwealth, the National Library of Australia, the Australian Vice- Chancellors' Committee, higher education institutions, and their libraries". Recommendations directed at these stakeholders covered such things as the commissioning of a study to "develop a standard methodology for measuring use of library seating" (directed at the AVCC)(Ross Report, 1990, p. xiv); further enhancement of the National Bibliographic Database (to the National Library of Australia)(Ross Report, 1990, p. xvi-xvii); the development of collection development and acquisitions policies for all libraries and the inclusion of the "chief librarian or nominee on the Academic Board, Faculty Board, and Board of Postgraduate Studies (or similar bodies with responsibility for academic decision-making), where this is currently not the case" (directed at higher education institutions and libraries)(Ross Report, 1990, p. xvii-xx).
Those more substantial and costly recommendations identified by the Working Party were directed at the Commonwealth Government. These recommendations included the provision of special funding for "joint projects and studies directed towards enhanced services and efficiency within the libraries of the higher education system, both nationally and regionally" (Ross Report, 1990, p. xiv). Among those projects listed for special funding were the entering of records into the National Bibliographic Database, the implementation of Conspectus,125 and the development of Asian studies collections (Ross
125Conspectus was devised by the Research Libraries Group (RLG) in the United States as a "standardised means of describing library collections and a database of such collection descriptions". The main benefits of Conspectus are that it aids the process of selection of resources and the assessment of library collections, and provides for greater accountability for the expenditure of funds. Conspectus has been applied in a number of countries including Canada, the United States, the United
302 Report, 1990, p. xxii-xiv). The Commonwealth Government responded to the Working Party's recommendations by allocating, during 1991-92, an initial sum of $1.5 million out of its National Priority (Reserve) Fund for the funding of these projects. This was followed by the granting of a further $5 million between 1994 and 1996 for the development of library infrastructure. This amount, which was distributed via the AVCC, was spent on projects covering three main areas; "System-wide access to databases" (e.g. electronic database trials), "Improved information infrastructure" (e.g. investigations into electronic document delivery options), and "Electronic publishing" (e.g. investigations into legal issues, technical standards, and projects to transfer hard-copy journals into electronic form)(AVCC, Reports on National Priority (Reserve) Fund Library Projects, 28/4/97).
Another important recommendation made by the Ross Working Party was that a Standing Committee on Libraries be established by the AVCC :
- to act as a channel for the provision of advice to the AVCC on matters affecting libraries;
- to enable the AVCC to refer library problems to a specialist group;
- to effect liaison between the AVCC and the Committee of Australian University Librarians (CAUL);
- to identify priorities for cooperative developments involving libraries; and
- to provide oversight of the investigations and projects funded by the Commonwealth and other bodies aimed at improving the higher education library system as a whole (Ross Report, 1990, p. xvi).
This Standing Committee was to comprise:
- a Vice-Chancellor as Chair;
Kingdom and France. Australian Conspectus was developed by the Australian Council of Libraries and Information Services (ACLIS) in 1989 (See Australian Council of Libraries and Information Services, 1989).
303 - a second Vice-Chancellor, initially from a university of a markedly different type to that of the Chair;
- two members appointed by the AVCC, being Deputy or Pro Vice- Chancellors or senior administrative officers with responsibilities for areas such as libraries, computing, finance and capital works; and
- the Chair of the Committee of Australian University Librarians and two other members nominated by CAUL (Ross Report, 1990, p. xvi).
The reason given by the Working Party for the establishment of this Committee was that there existed:
... no nationwide, official, linkage between higher education institutions, and their libraries [and] no easy mechanism through which problems identified by either can be effectively communicated to the other, or through which common ground can be identified...
We believe that the problems - and opportunities - of libraries in the changed higher education world would be better understood, and could be more effectively addressed, if there were a formal linkage between university chief and senior executives and chief librarians. There is a need too for a channel of communication between the National Board of Employment, Education and Training and the universities in relation to library issues. We see the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee as the appropriate place for this (Ross Report, 1990, p. 92, 27).
In an article written following the publication of the Ross Report, Radford reported that despite CAUL having indicated to the AVCC that it supported the setting up of a Standing Committee on Libraries, the AVCC believed that such a Committee "would have too narrow a focus, and preferred to consider library matters in the broader context of information technology" (Radford, 1992, p. 23). The AVCC instead made a decision to set up a Standing Committee on Information Resources which, despite its broader designation, still included members of CAUL as well as representatives from "university computing services, academic staff, and university administrators" (Radford, 1992, p. 23).
In many respects the Ross Report provided a stimulus for the university librarians
304 in the same way the early reports of the College of Advanced Education commissions (1966-1972) had done for the college librarians. Like the CAE commission reports, the publication of the Ross Report provided an important affirmation of the centrality of the library in higher education. It may also be suggested that it raised the profile of university librarians, and by implication that of CAUL, in much the same way that the CAE commission reports had done for ALCAE, by virtue of the influential nature of the body which sponsored the report.
The Ross Report also facilitated a breaking down of the nexus between CAUL and the AVCC, vis-a-vis the prohibition on communicating directly with funding authorities. The AVCC decision to set up a special Standing Committee on Information Resources with CAUL representation was a major breakthrough for the university librarians. This combination of an increased profile and a diminished concern by the AVCC at the idea of CAUL playing a more active role in the policy-making process was regarded as marking an important turning point in the history of CAUL. Radford commented that, prior to the Ross Report, the university librarians remained "largely invisible" because of their fear of the repercussions in the AVCC that would result from any dealings with outside bodies. This previous impasse resulted in a situation where, said Radford, "its views were not sought":
I think CAUL was pretty invisible outside of the university library community. I don't think it ever occurred to [funding authorities] to ask for CAUL's advice. Whereas now it does. DEET, since about 1990, are very good about asking CAUL's advice for input and to nominate a member to a committee and so on. But I think in the [earlier] period CAUL was pretty much invisible to the Government and outside bodies. We never popped our head up from the trench. How would they know we were there!...
I think the sensitivity about the AVCC was gradually being watered down by the change in membership of the organisation, but I don't think it was finally dispelled until 1990 when the Ross Committee specifically approached CAUL and asked CAUL for a submission and for representatives of CAUL to appear before it. That was what gave CAUL the idea that "gee, the sky didn't fall in! We've put in a submission without permission, and we went to their hearings and we were interviewed, and no Vice-Chancellor smacked us". And I think that was the beginning of a
305 really activist period for CAUL (Radford, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
This freeing up of relations with the AVCC was made possible, Radford believed, as a consequence of the appearance of more progressively minded Vice-Chancellors and "the waning influence [of university librarians] who were under the AVCC's thumb", a trend that was becoming increasingly evident during the eighties as the proportion of new CAUL members grew:
[Over time] the older librarians who were afraid of AVCC left or retired and were replaced by younger librarians who didn't have that fear or that apprehension and who were a bit more activist and who wanted things done. And also there have been changes in the AVCC itself. Most of the Vice-Chancellors determined to keep a leash on the librarians have similarly departed...
So gradually by the effluxion of time and the changing of personalities of membership, CAUL gradually evolved into a more active group... It is only in the last half decade or even less that CAUL has taken the initiative in such matters as submissions to the Ross Working Party and the issuing of press releases. This, too, reflects the changes in its membership (Radford, University of Sydney, Interview, 1996).
Meetings with DEET continued after the publication of the Ross Report and are now considered normal practice. For example in 1992 the CAUL Executive met with George Zuber (Principal Advisor, Higher Education Division, DEET) to discuss a number of matters concerning libraries. Zuber even remarked that the AVCC did not have exclusive authority over 'filtering' projects flowing from the Ross Report, and that DEET wanted to "create channels of advice" on such matters by seeking input from CAUL as well as the Vice-Chancellors (CAUL, Minutes of Executive Meeting, 24/7/92). It appears that the AVCC were by this stage reasonably accepting of the fact that such direct contact between DEET and inter-university groups should occur. Hambly stated in an interview with the author that:
Relations with CAUL in recent years have been very very amiable. CAUL has behaved very responsibly, but I think its partly because the Vice-
306 Chancellors haven't really addressed library issues in any meaningful way and they really left it to CAUL to make the running...
The other thing that's happened to groups like CAUL is the relationship they enjoy with DEET... DEET has actually encouraged a lot of these groups to meet and have often supported them financially. Maybe not CAUL. I don't know whether DEET has actually sought advice from CAUL on a number of issues, but they probably have - I wouldn't necessarily be aware of that. I think if the Vice-Chancellors were aware of that they would probably be a little bit miffed. I know it goes on with all sort of groups and I'd be surprised if it didn't happen with CAUL as well (Hambly, Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, Interview, 1996).
Other parallels exist between ALCAE's partnership with the CAE Commission and CAUL's relationship with DEET/NBEET through the Ross Report. CAUL had hitherto lacked the kind of distinct reason for being that the CAE Commission had given to ALCAE, which had not only encouraged the college librarians to undertake special investigations on the Commissions' behalf, but the Commission had also provided ALCAE with the added incentive of special library grants. And now, as a result of the recommendation of the Ross Report, CAUL was also afforded a similar inducement in the form of special purpose funding from the Commonwealth with the allocation of $1.5 million out of its National Priority (Reserve) Fund for 1991-92, followed by a further $5 million distributed between 1994 and 1996.
These developments gave CAUL the opportunity to participate formally in the decision-making process at the national level. For example, CAUL's advice was actively sought in the process of drafting the final report of the Ross Working Party.126 With respect to the initial $1.5 million Commonwealth grant, Radford stated that decisions on how this amount should be distributed were made by DEET "only after close consultation" with CAUL and other groups (Radford, 1993, p. 247). CAUL also took an active role in advising on the distribution of the $5 million. Each of the three main areas where this money was to be spent, as mentioned above (i.e. "System-wide access to databases", "Improved information infrastructure", and "Electronic publishing"), was co-
126The Working Party held a meeting with CAUL in Canberra on 18/4/90 (Ross Report, 1990, p. 27).
307 ordinated by separate working groups on which CAUL was well represented. For example, four of the five members of the System-wide access to databases Working Group were members of CAUL, including the Group's Convenor, John Shipp127 (University of Wollongong) who was the then Chair of CAUL. The fifth member of this group, Greg Naimo (University of Wollongong), was a representative of the Committee of Australian University Directors of Information Technology. The inclusion of this last representative was perhaps a reflection of the AVCC's desire to see library and information services within a broad perspective and also the beginnings of a process of integration between library and computer-based information services that has in more recent years gathered considerable momentum. These projects provided the catalyst for CAUL to engage in greater levels of cooperative activity:
CAUL, I believe, became much more active, not only because the time was right anyway, but because with Ross there was money on the table to be grabbed and they had to become active to grab it. Both that initial 1.5 million and the 5 million that followed were essentially Ross recommendations... [This money] has been the focus of more activity for CAUL because they have to decide as best they could to make sure that the money is spent in the best way... (Wainwright, University of Adelaide, Interview, 1996).
The following statement made by Radford in the wake of the Ross Report's publication is reminiscent of the kinds of statements made by the college librarians in response to the CACAE reports decades earlier. Just as ALCAE had derived its central mission from ensuring that the commitment made by the College Commission as stated in these early reports were carried through, so too had CAUL finally found cause to accept a similar responsibility vis-a-vis the Ross developments:
National influence has received a significant boost with the publication of the Ross Report. Copies were distributed and discussed widely, including by the AVCC and the federal education bureaucracy. People who would not normally bother to think much about libraries had their consciousness raised by that document. The recommended AVCC Standing Committee
127John Shipp was University Librarian at the Wollongong from 1986 to 1997. In August 1997 Shipp became University Librarian at the University of Sydney.
308 on Libraries is not to be, but in its place has appeared a Standing Committee on Information Resources which includes libraries (however marginally) in its brief, and a specialist working group on libraries. That is at least a step forward. CAUL and academic librarians generally must work hard to ensure that it is the first of many steps forward, and that progress is not hindered by any steps back (Radford, 1992, p. 26).
Post-Ross Report developments. The issues and activities that the Ross Report inspired, in combination with the multifarious demands and opportunities of university librarianship in the nineties (e.g. applying new technologies, and searching for ways of dealing with the ubiquitous funding restrictions through engaging in resource sharing arrangements and the like), all have contributed to a more formal and dynamic body that was the case at the earlier period. In 1993 Radford wrote:
Before the appointment of the Working Party on Library Provision in Higher Education Institutions, Australian university libraries, and CAUL, were eclipsed in darkness so far as their influence in Canberra was concerned. The likelihood of CAUL ever being seriously accepted as a lobby group to government on behalf of university libraries was dim... The appointment of the Ross working party represented a light at the end of the tunnel. The resulting report brought university libraries out of that tunnel and squarely into the light (Radford, 1993, p. 251).
Although the advent of the Unified National System in general, and the Ross Report in particular, provided the catalyst for the structural and attitudinal changes that subsequently took place within CAUL, one can also view such changes as being a natural outcome of internal and external pressures that were building up prior to 1988 as described in the preceding chapters.
Significant progress was made with the 1986 decision to have an elected chair and an increase in the number of meetings. However prior to 1990 there was still considerable resistance to any further formalisation of the group, especially to the notion of committing regular funds to provide for more adequate administrative and secretarial support. This issue had been the subject of much debate at the time when the CAUL Constitution was being drafted. This resistance was finally overcome in 1990 when it was recognised that the previous arrangement whereby the Chair - with perhaps some
309 secretarial assistance from his or her own staff - took most of the responsibility for co- ordinating activity, was no longer practical given CAUL's expanding agenda. At the November 1990 there occurred a "general discussion of (1) the role of a CAUL Executive in relation to the AVCC Standing Committee, (2) the need for CAUL position papers, and (3) the appointment of an Executive Officer" (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 13/11/90). Following this discussion it was agreed that:
1. An Executive of CAUL be elected and that it consist of four members (The Chairman, the Deputy Chairman, and two other) to assist the Chairman carry out the duties of the position.
2. Secretarial assistance be provided to the office of the Chairman as required, to a maximum of $4,000 per annum.
3. a) CAUL form Working Groups from time to time as required. b) Working parties will normally be provided with a budget to carry out their tasks. c) Approval of the budget may be by a simple majority of a postal vote of CAUL.
4. A half-time Executive Officer be seconded to the office of the Chairman, this to be reviewed annually (CAUL, Minutes of Meeting, 13/11/90).
The steadily increasing work-load of the group, primarily the result of issues and projects flowing from the Ross Report soon necessitated a further review of CAUL's goals and methods of operation. A special Working Party on the Future of CAUL was set up following the November 1993 meeting where members had agreed that "the time was appropriate for CAUL to have a more formal existence and in particular that it should consider establishing an office and engaging a paid time staff" (CAUL, Report of Working Party on the Future of CAUL, 1994). The Working Party, which reported back to members in 1994, justified a re-assessment of CAUL's structure and functions based on the following factors:
The higher education system in Australia has grown rapidly over the past twenty years. There are consequently more university libraries. Whilst the gross funding of these libraries is considerable it may not be adequate to provide first class service in most libraries but it is still large enough to
310 arouse the interest of both DEET and the AVCC.
The continuing changes in scholarly communication across the globe not only present a challenge for university libraries but also bring university libraries into alliances or into competition for resources and political support with a range of other organisations both within the universities and without.
Developments in communications technology are changing information access and delivery by libraries and will impact on the delivery of materials to users. CAUL must be in a position to make timely and informed comment on public policy in this area either on it's own behalf or by advice to the AVCC. The effectiveness of such advice will depend on a wider range of government contacts than DEET (CAUL, Report of Working Party on the Future of CAUL, 1994).
The Report of the Working Party went on to state that CAUL would be unable to respond to this changing environment unless it "makes the change from it's present arrangements, which depend entirely on the dedication and work of individuals with other commitments, to the appointment of full-time staff" (CAUL, Report of Working Party on the Future of CAUL, 1994). The Working Party's two main recommendations were the appointment of an "Executive Director" and that CAUL be incorporated.
In response to these recommendation in 1994 Diane Costello was appointed on a full-time basis to the position of CAUL Executive Officer with responsibility for, among other things, the maintenance of "effective public relations and liaison programs", co- ordinating CAUL projects, and developing and managing "administrative policies and procedures" (CAUL Executive Officer, Advertisement, 1994).
The other main recommendation of the Working Party - that CAUL become a legal entity through incorporation - ran into trouble. The advantages of such a move were that CAUL could directly employ its own staff, lease property, and widen its activities by having greater financial autonomy. CAUL members investigated various options, but the idea was eventually abandoned because of opposition from the AVCC. Even though the relationship between the AVCC and CAUL had become a close and profitable one, the Vice-Chancellors were still reluctant to see the university librarians become too independent. In 1995 John Shipp (University of Wollongong) reported at a meeting of
311 the CAUL executive that "he had been advised by John Mullarvey [Deputy Executive Director, AVCC] that incorporation of CAUL would be unlikely to be supported by the AVCC" because "an incorporated body could take a position contrary to the AVCC" (CAUL, Minutes of Executive Meeting, 29/6/95).128
A final outcome of the changes that were taking place within CAUL in the period under review was an increased emphasis on lobbying and self-promotion, two activities which represented a distinct departure from the group's previous desire to maintain a relatively low profile. In its Strategic Plan for 1993, itself an indication of the nature of the changes that were taking place internally, members made a commitment to "promote CAUL and its activities to the wider library and higher education communities" on an ongoing basis (CAUL, Strategic Plan 1993). This aspect of CAUL's activity has been progressively developed over more recent years to become one of the groups main strategic objectives. The adoption of a more proactive approach is also reflected in a revised CAUL Constitution (1995) which included the following new set of objectives:
1. to advance the progress and activities of Australian University Libraries in support of teaching, learning and research at their institutions;
2. to plan, implement and monitor cooperative activities between Australian University Libraries, including assuming responsibility for the coordination or operation of such activities as agreed by the members;
3. to provide an effective forum for information exchange between Australian University Libraries;
4. to encourage participation in Australian and international debate on relevant developments in higher education and libraries and information services;
5. to foster communication with the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee and other relevant national committees and organisations; and
128In an interview with the author, Frank Hambly (Secretary, AVCC) remarked: "I think it is fair to say that there was always very close liaison [between CAUL and the AVCC] but the Vice- Chancellors always stopped short of giving them some sort of formal acknowledgment by setting up an office in the AVCC or letting them incorporate". However Hambly noted that other "bolshie" groups, like the Equity and Access Officers, had gone ahead and incorporated against the wishes of the Vice- Chancellors (Hambly, Interview, 1996).
312 6. to establish and pursue an Action Plan and to do such other things as are conducive to the achievement of these objectives.129
The kind of activities listed below, which are taken from CAUL's 1996 Strategic Plan, are reminiscent of the unofficial and largely unacknowledged efforts that had been made by Steele and others over a decade earlier:
Promote university libraries to the community by
- identifying important issues for reporting to AARL,130 The Australia Higher Education Supplement, Campus Review and appropriate professional publications,
- identifying issues arising from CAUL meetings and assign publication responsibility,
- maintaining a register of representatives with particular expertise to speak on behalf of Australian university libraries.
Promote CAUL and its activities to the wider library and higher education communities, by
- having CAUL represented on appropriate professional bodies, collaborating with the Committee of Australian University Directors of Information Technology (CAUDIT), the AVCC and the Academies,
- supporting appropriate professional conferences/seminars,
- publishing an annual report of CAUL activities.
Ensure effective communication with key organisations relevant to Australian university libraries eg. AVCC... HEC131,... ACLIS132, UNISON133, CAVAL..., by
129It is interesting to compare these revised objectives with those included in the original 1986 CAUL Constitution outlined in the previous chapter.
130Australian Academic and Research Libraries.
131Higher Education Council.
132Australian Council of Libraries and Information Services.
133University Libraries in the State of New South Wales.
313 - having CAUL represented on relevant bodies,
- meeting with the NLA to address issues of mutual concern,
- establishing close links with relevant officers in DEETYA,134
- meeting with DEETYA on matters of importance to CAUL,
- keeping DEETYA and other funding bodies informed of CAUL's collaborative work and its benefits.
Seek to influence public policy relating to university libraries, by identifying appropriate CAUL members to write papers/submissions or to represent CAUL... (CAUL, Strategic Plan 1996, 12/4/96).
In a sense this statement completes the CAUL story being told here, for in it we see a realisation of what past reformers - from Osborn, Lodewycks and Richardson in the sixties and seventies through to Radford, Wainwright and Steele in the eighties - had strived for over such a long period, namely to create a group that would commit itself to seeking actively to represent the interests of Australian university librarianship where major resourcing and policy decisions are made. External events which had for so long constrained CAUL now provided the opportunity for the group to exercise collective influence and play a more active part in the broader policy-making arena.
Those present at the first "Conference of Representative of Australian University Libraries" in 1928 used the following extract from the UK's Report of the University Grants Committee, published just seven years earlier, to draw to the attention of "governing bodies of Australian universities" of the need to given due recognition to the key role of the library in an academic institution:
The character and efficiency of a University may be gauged by its treatment of its central organ - the Library. We regard the fullest provision for Library maintenance as the primary and most vital need in the equipment of a University. An adequate library is not only the basis of all teaching and study; it is the central condition of research without which additions cannot be made to the sum of human knowledge (Conference of
134DEET changed its name to DEETYA (Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs) in 1996.
314 Representative of Australian University Libraries, Minutes of Meeting, 22- 23/8/28, CAUL files).
It is interesting to compare this early declaration, made by the first national gathering of those in charge of university libraries, with CAUL's 1996 Strategic plan. It has taken 70 years for the group of university librarians to assert themselves as an organisation that was prepared to lobby formally for the maintenance and advancement of the central tenets that Australian university librarians had first embraced collectively in 1928.
315 APPENDIX 1
ABBREVIATIONS
AACOBS Australian Advisory Council on Bibliographical Services
ABN Australian Bibliographic Network
ACAE Australian Commission on Advanced Education (superseded the CACAE in 1971)
ACLIS Australian Council of Libraries and Information Services
ACDP Australian Committee of Directors and Principals in Advanced Education
ALBIS Australian Library-Based Information System
ALCAE Association of Librarians in Colleges of Advanced Education
ALIC Australian Libraries and Information Council
AUC Australian Universities Commission
316 AUS Australian Union of Students
AVCC Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee
CACAE Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education The CACAE underwent two successive name changes. In 1971 it was renamed the Australian Commission on Advanced Education (ACAE), which in turn became known as the Commission on Advanced Education (CAE) in 1975.
CAUL Committee of Australian University Librarians
CAVAL Cooperative Action by Victorian Academic Libraries
CLANN College Libraries Activities Network, New South Wales
CTEC Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Previously known as the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC)
DEET
Department of Employment, Education and Training
317 DEETYA
Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Previously known as DEET
DOCIT Directors of Central Institutes of Technology
FAUSA Federation of Australian University Staff Association
LAA Library Association of Australia
NBEET National Board of Employment, Education and Training
NSWAEC New South Wales Advanced Education Conference
SIGNAL Special Interest Group on Libraries, New South Wales Advanced Education Conference (NSWAEC)
STISEC (Scientific and Technological Information Services Enquiry Committee)
TEC Tertiary Education Commission (Renamed CTEC in 1981)
UNISON University Libraries in the State of New South Wales
318 APPENDIX 2
INTERVIEWEES
All interviews were conducted during 1996.
ALCAE
Victor Crittenden Canberra CAE, Chief Librarian: 1968-1988
Katherine Cummings135 Sydney College of the Arts, Head, Information Resources Centre: 1977-1988
Jessie Harley Swinburne College of Technology, Chief Librarian: 1963-1981
Bill Hitchins Ballarat CAE, Chief Librarian from 1978. In 1994 Ballarat CAE became the University of Ballarat, at which time Hitchins became University Librarian.
Lois Jennings Macarthur Institute of Higher Education, Head, Information Resources Centre: 1984- 1986. From 1987 Jennings was Head Librarian at the Canberra College of Advanced Education (CCAE). In 1990 the CCAE became the University of Canberra at which point she became Manager, Information Services Division and Librarian.
Paul McNally Darling Downs Institute Advanced Education, Head, Resource Material Centre: 1973-
135Formally John Cummings. See footnote on page 171.
319 1978, 1981. Between 1978 and 1981 he served as Acting Dean of the School of Arts and between 1980 and 1989 was Deputy Director of the Institute. In 1989 the Institute became the University College of Southern Queensland and in 1991 the University of Southern Queensland. From 1989 until his retirement in 1994 McNally was Deputy Vice- Chancellor of the University. Between 1994 and 1997 he was Visiting Fellow at the School of Information, Library and Archive Studies at the University of New South Wales.
Margaret Macpherson Mitchell CAE, Manager, Information Resources Centre from 1974. In 1989 Mitchell CAE became part of Charles Sturt University and in 1992 Macpherson was appointed University Librarian.
James O'Brien Kuring-gai CAE, Head, Resources Centre: 1977-1989 University of Western Sydney, Macarthur, Head Librarian: 1991-
Dorothy Peake New South Wales Institute of Technology, Head, Information Resources Services: 1972- 1987
Chris Sheargold Institute of Catholic Education, Mercy Campus, Campus Librarian: 1980-1991. After the Institute became part of the Australian Catholic University in 1991 Sheargold became Divisional Librarian for the Victorian Division of the University. In 1996 he became Director, Libraries.
Jack Ward Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Chief Librarian: 1955-1981
320 John Yocklunn Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education, Chief Librarian from 1983. After the Institute became the Gippsland Campus of Monash University in 1990, Yocklunn assumed the position of Associate University Librarian.
CAUL
Dietrich Borchardt University of Tasmania, University Librarian: 1953-1965 La Trobe University, Chief Librarian: 1965-1981
Harrison Bryan University of Queensland, James Forsyth Librarian: 1950-1963 University of Sydney, University Librarian: 1963-1980
Ted Flowers University of Newcastle, University Librarian: 1961-1988
Allan Horton University of New South Wales, University Librarian: 1966-1988
Neil Radford University of Sydney, University Librarian: 1980-1996
Denis Richardson University of Melbourne, University Librarian: 1974-91
Colin Steele Australian National University, University Librarian: 1980-
321 Noel Stockdale Flinders University, University Librarian: 1963-1987
Eric Wainwright University of Adelaide, University Librarian: 1981-1988 Deputy-Director of the National Library of Australia: 1988-1997
Eoin Wilkinson Macquarie University, University Librarian: 1971-1987
AUSTRALIAN COMMITTEE OF DIRECTORS AND PRINCIPALS
John Scutt Secretary: 1976-1990
AUSTRALIAN VICE-CHANCELLORS COMMITTEE
Frank Hambly Executive Director & Secretary: 1966-1996
COMMISSIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION ETC.
Peter Karmel Commonwealth Government Committee on the Future of Tertiary Education in Australia (Martin Committee): 1961-1965 Flinders University, Vice-Chancellor: 1966-1971 Australian Universities Commission, Chair: 1971-1977, Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, Chair: 1977-1982 Australian National University, Vice-Chancellor: 1982-1987
322 APPENDIX 3
ALCAE (NATIONAL) CHAIRS
1969-1971 Victor Crittenden (Canberra College of Advanced Education)
1972-73 Geoff Allen (Western Australian Institute of Technology)
1974 Paul McNally (Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education)
1975-7 Dorothy Peake (New South Wales Institute of Technology)
1978-79 Victor Crittenden (Canberra College of Advanced Education)
1979-82 Christopher Awcock (State College of Victoria)
1982-1984 Judith Edwards (Capricornia Institute of Advanced Education)
1984-1986 John Cummings (Sydney College of the Arts)
1986-1988 Aileen Stevenson (Hawkesbury Agricultural College)
323 APPENDIX 4
CAUL CHAIRS
1965-1967 Harrison Bryan (University of Sydney)
1967-1969 Axel Lodewycks (University of Melbourne)
1969-1971 Dan Sprod (University of Tasmania)
1971-1973 Ira Raymond (University of Adelaide)
1973-1975 Derek Fielding (University of Queensland)
1975-1977 Leonard Jolley (University of Western Australia)/Derek Fielding Acting Chairman (Jolley was elected chairman at the August 1975 meeting in absentia. Jolley was on study leave for the remainder of his term of office. As a result Fielding agreed to fill the office of Acting Chairman).
1977-1979 Milton Simms (Australian National University)
1979-1981 Allan Horton (University of New South Wales)
324 1981-1983 Smith Richardson (University of New England)
1983-1985 Brian Southwell (Monash University)
1986-1989 Denis Richardson (University of Melbourne) (re-elected for a second term at CAUL Meeting 13/11/87)
1990-1991 Neil Radford (University of Sydney)
1992 Derek Fielding (University of Queensland)(Fielding left CAUL during the first year of his term of office, taking up the position of Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Academic Services, University of Queensland).
1992- John Shipp (University of Wollongong)
325 BIBLIOGRAPHY (A separate list of Government Reports is included at the end)
ACDP Working Party on Library Resources (1986), Managing College Libraries for Value: Final Report, ACDP Working Party No. 10, (R.J. Napier, Convenor), Canberra, Australian Committee of Directors and Principals in Advanced Education Limited.
Allen, Geoffrey & Brockman, John (1983), "The Funding of College Libraries in Australia", Australasian College Libraries, 3, 3, November, 109-129.
Auchmuty, J.J. (1970), "Jubilee Account of the Australian Vice-chancellors' Committee", The Australian University, 8, 3, December, 238-283.
Australian Advisory Council on Bibliographical Services (1965), The Development of National Book Resources: Resolutions of the Australian Advisory Council on Bibliographical Services Following on the Report of the National Book Resources Development Committee, Canberra: AACOBS.
___ (1971), Library Services for Australia: the Work of AACOBS 1956-70, Canberra: National Library of Australia.
___ (1974), Library Services for Australia: the Work of AACOBS 1974, Canberra: National Library of Australia.
___ (1977), Library Services for Australia: the Work of AACOBS 1977, Canberra: National Library of Australia.
___ (1979), Library Services for Australia: the Work of AACOBS 1979, Canberra: National Library of Australia.
___ (1982), Library Services for Australia: the Work of AACOBS 1980, Canberra: National Library of Australia.
Australian Council of Libraries and Information Services (1989), the Australian Conspectus: National Task Force on Conspectus, Final Report, Canberra: ACLIS.
Australian Library and Information Association (1996), Constitution of the Australian Library and Information Association, Canberra, ALIA.
Australian Union of Students (1971), Submission to the C.A.C.A.E. Concerning the Triennium 1973-75, Melbourne: [Australian Union of Students].
___ (1972), the Plight of Libraries in Colleges of Advanced Education: A Case for Action, Melbourne: Andrew Bain [Vice-President, Australian Union of Students].
326 Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee (1995), University Facts 1995, Canberra: AVCC.
Beilharz, Peter (1994), Transforming Labor: Labor Tradition and the Labor Decade in Australia, Melbourne: Cambridge University Pr.
Beswick, D. G. And Harman, G. S. (1983), Educational Policy in Australia, Research Working Paper No. 83.7, Parkville, Vic.: Centre for the Study of Higher Education.
Birch, Ian K.F. (1987), "The Courts as Education Policy-makers in Australia", in Boyd, William Lowe & Smart, Don (Eds.), Educational Policy in Australia and America, New York: Falmer Pr., 77-99.
Birch, I.K.F. & Smart, D. (eds.) (1977), The Commonwealth Government and Education 1964-1976: Political Initiatives and Development, Richmond, Vic.: Drummond.
Borchardt, D. H. (1956), "The Academic Status of the University Librarian" in Library Association of Australia, Proceedings: 8th Conference Held At Brisbane 24th and 25th August 1955, with Selected Papers and Annual Reports, 1951-1953, Sydney: Library Association of Australia, 117-124.
___ (ed.)(1960), News Sheet, University Libraries Section, Library Association of Australia, 1, 1, 1.
___ (ed.)(1962), News Sheet, University Libraries Section, Library Association of Australia, III, 2, [1].
___ (1988), Australian Academic and Research Libraries (AARL), in ALIAS: Australia's Library Information and Archives Services - An Encyclopedia of Practice and Practitioners, Sydney: LAA, 1, 64.
Borchardt, D.H. & Bryan, H. (1979), "Leonard Jolley: the Colleague", Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 10, 4, December, 206-210.
Bryan, H. (1971), "A Decade of Change: the Library Association of Australia and Education for Librarianship 1961-71", Australian Library Journal, February, 14-20.
___ (1976), "The Perpetuation of Inadequacy: A Comment on the Atkinson Report, Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 7, 1, December, 213-221.
___ (1977), "The Development of Academic and Research Libraries in Australia" in Bryan, H. & Greenwood, G. (Eds.), Design for Diversity, St.Lucia: University of Queensland Pr., 1-46.
___ (1979), "How Brave A New World, Indeed How New?: A Comment on the
327 Report of the Committee of Inquiry Into Education and Training", Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 10, 2, 87-91.
___ (1984), "ALIC - Genesis and Early Development", Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 15, 2, June, 81-86.
___ (1988, 1989, 1991), ALIAS: Australia's Library, Information and Archives Services - An Encyclopedia of Practice and Practitioners, 3 vols., Sydney: Library Association of Australia.
___ (1988), "Australian Commission on Advanced Education (ACAE)" in ALIAS: Australia's Library Information and Archives Services - An Encyclopedia of Practice and Practitioners, Sydney: LAA, 1, 64.
___ (1989), "Lodewycks, Karel Axel (1910-)" in ALIAS: Australia's Library Information and Archives Services - An Encyclopedia of Practice and Practitioners, Sydney: LAA, 2, 100-101.
___ (1989), "Osborn, Andrew Delbridge (1902-)" in ALIAS: Australia's Library Information and Archives Services - An Encyclopedia of Practice and Practitioners, Sydney: LAA, 2, 171-172.
___ (1991), "Ward, John Livingstone (Jack) (1920-)" in ALIAS: Australia's Library Information and Archives Services - An Encyclopedia of Practice and Practitioners, Sydney: LAA, 3, 142-143.
___ (1994), No Gray Profession: Reminiscences of a Career in Australian Libraries, Adelaide: Auslib Pr.
Bryan, Harrison & Greenwood, Gordon (1977), Design for Diversity: Library Services for Higher Education and Research in Australia, St.Lucia: University of Queensland Pr.
Bryan, Harrison & Hean, Lorna Evelyn (1970), The Function of the Library in a College of Advanced Education: Report of A Research Project Conducted for the Commonwealth Department of Education and Science on the Recommendation of the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education, Sydney: Commonwealth Department of Education and Science.
Byers, Peter C. & Wallis, Leslie B. (1979), "University Funding and Administration 1975-1980", Vestes, 22, 34-43.
CAVAL (1978), Annual Report 1978, [Melbourne]: CAVAL.
CLANN Limited [1980], Annual Report 1979-80, Sydney: CLANN.
CLANN Limited [1982], Annual Report 1981-82, Sydney: CLANN.
328 Cohen, Jack [and Associates Pty. Ltd](1976), Cooperative Action by Victorian Academic Libraries: I. Cataloguing, Melbourne: Victorian Universities and College Committee.
Connell, W. F (1993), Reshaping Australian Education 1960-1985, Hawthorn, Victoria: The Australian Council for Educational Research.
[Crittenden, Victor](1985), "Profile: Victor Crittenden", Australian College Libraries, 3, 4, December, 177-178.
Crittenden, V. (1984), "The Second Revolution: CAE Libraries since the Martin Committee", in Bryan, H. & Horacek, J. (eds.), Australian Academic Libraries in the Seventies: Essays in Honour of Dietrich Borchardt, St.Lucia: University of Queensland Pr, 182-203.
Cummings, Katherine (1992), Katherine's Diary: the Story of a Transsexual, Victoria: William Heinemann Australia.
Davies, Suzan L. (1989), The Martin Committee and the Binary Policy of Higher Education, Melbourne: Ashwood House.
Einhorn, Joanne (ed.)(1985), Directory of Australian Associations: Fourth Edition 1985-86, Melbourne: Information Australia Group.
Exon, F.C.A. (1986), A Preliminary Survey of Australian Inter-library Lending: A Report to the Australian Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, Perth: The library, Western Australian Institute of Technology.
Fielding, Derek (1979), "CAUL and AACOBS", Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 10, 1, 15-28.
___ (1988), "Australian Advisory Council on Bibliographical Services (AACOBS)", in ALIAS: Australia's Library Information and Archives Services - An Encyclopedia of Practice and Practitioners, Sydney: LAA, 1, 50-52.
___ (1991), "University libraries", in ALIAS: Australia's Library Information and Archives Services - An Encyclopedia of Practice and Practitioners, Sydney: LAA, 3, 116-119.
Gallagher, A. P. (1982a), Coordinating Australian University Development: A Study of the Australian Universities Commission 1959-1970, St. Lucia: Univ. of Queensland Pr.
___ (1982b), "One in All In: FAUSA and the Origins of the Academic Salaries Tribunal", Vestes, 25, 2, 35-41.
Greenwood, Gordon (1977), "Policy Formation and Library Experimentation in Australia
329 and Other Western Societies", in Bryan, H. & Greenwood, G. (Eds.), Design for Diversity, St.Lucia: University of Queensland Pr., 537-650.
Groenewegen, Hans W. (1981), "CAVAL Limited: Progress in Co-operative Action", in Sharing: Proceedings of the First Combined Conference of the Library Association of Australian and the New Zealand Library Association, Sydney: LAA, 126-130.
Harman, Grant (1982), "The Razor Gang Moves, the 1981 Guidelines and the Uncertain Future", in Harman & Smart, D., Federal Intervention in Australian Education, Middle Park, Vic.: Georgian House, 163-180.
___ (1984), Australian Experience with Co-ordinating Agencies for Tertiary Education, Research Working Paper No. 84.2, Parkville, Vic.: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne.
___ (1986), "Restructuring Higher Education Systems Through Institutional Mergers: Australian Experience, 1981-1983", Higher Education, 15, 567-586.
Harman, Grant et.al (eds.) (1980), Academia Becalmed: Australian Tertiary Education in the Aftermath of Expansion, Canberra: Australian National University Pr.
Harrold, Ross (1987), "The Context and Practice of Higher Education Policy and Planning in Australia", Planning for Higher Education, 15, 3, 5-11
Hazell, J. (1973), "Establishments and Salaries of Australian University Libraries 1973", Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 4, 1, December, 164-171.
Henderson, Gerard (1994), Menzies' Child: the Liberal Party of Australia 1944-1994, Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Horton, A.R. (1981), "Copyright and the Users of Libraries", Australian Library Journal, 30, 117-23.
Hudson, Hugh (1985), "Economic and Political Change: its Implications for Tertiary Education", Journal of Tertiary Educational Administration, 7, 2, 109-117.
Hunt, C.J. (1980), "Post-Atkinson Developments in Britain", in McKinlay, John (Ed.), Storage Options for Australian University Libraries: Papers From the Committee of Australian University Librarians (Caul) Seminar Held in Canberra on 25 August 1979, La Trobe University Library, Publications on Library, Administration and Technology, no. 2, Bundoora: La Trobe University Library, 1-3.
Jones, David J. (1982, 1983, 1985)(Comp. & ed.), The Australian Librarian's Manual, 3 vols., Sydney: Library Association of Australia.
Karmel, Peter (1988), "The Role of Central Government in Higher Education", Higher
330 Education Quarterly, 42, 2, Spring, 119-133.
Keane, M.V. (1982), "The Development of Education for Librarianship in Australia Between 1896 and 1976, with Special Emphasis Upon the Role of the Library Association of Australia", Australian Library Journal, May, 12-23.
Keating, Michael (1993), "Mega-departments: the Theory, Objectives and Outcomes of the 1987 Reforms", in Weller, Patrick et al. (Eds.), Reforming the Public Service: Lessons From Recent Experience, Melbourne: Macmillan Education.
Kosa, Geza A (1990), Bibliographical Dictionary of Australian Librarians, Fourth ed., Melb.: Academia Pr.
Lim, Edward, H.T. [1992], From Monash Index to CICOP, Unpublished Paper.
Lindsay, Alan (1982), "National Policy-Making for Higher Education", Vestes, 25, 1, 34- 41.
Lodewycks, K. A. (1982), The Funding of Wisdom, Melbourne: Spectrum.
Mackinolty, Judy and Radi, Heather (eds.)(1979), In Pursuit of Justice: Australian Women and the Law 1788-1979, Sydney: Hale & Iremonger.
McKinlay, Brian (1988), A Century of Struggle: the A.L.P., A Centenary History, Melbourne: Collins Dove.
McKinlay, John (ed.) (1980), Storage Options for Australian University Libraries: Papers from the Committee of Australian University Librarians (Caul) Seminar Held in Canberra on 25 August 1979, La Trobe University Library, Publications on Library, Administration and Technology, no. 2, Bundoora: La Trobe University Library.
Maguire, Carmel and Peake, Dorothy G. (1976), Report on Investigation of the Cataloguing Requirements of New South Wales College of Advanced Education Libraries..., Sydney: New South Wales Higher Education Board.
Marshall, Neil (1988), "Bureaucratic Politics and the Demise of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission", Australian Journal of Public Administration, 47, 1, 19-34.
Mitchell, P.J. (1990), "An Australian Serials Cost Index", Australian & New Zealand Journal of Serials Librarianship, 1, 2, 11-20.
[Mitchell, P.J.](1991), "The Monash Index, 1990", Australian & New Zealand Journal of Serials Librarianship, 2, 3, 27-29.
Munn, R. & Pitt, E.R. (1935), Australian Libraries: A Survey of Conditions and
331 Suggestions for Their Improvement, Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
New South Wales Advanced Education Conference (1985), Special Interest Group: Administrators of Libraries and Information Resources Centres, Draft Proposal, Sydney: New South Wales Advanced Education Conference.
New South Wales Vice-Chancellors' Conference [1990], Report of the Library, Information Systems and Data Services Task Force, [Canberra]: AVCC.
Oakshott, Stephen (1992), "Commonwealth Government Policy and Reports on Higher Education: An Overview for Libraries", in Rayward, W. Boyd (ed.), Confronting the Future: University Libraries in the Next Decade, Proceedings of A Conference At the University of New South Wales, Friday 12th June, 1992, Canberra: Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 9-34.
Parr, Ed (1980), "Library Services and Their Relevance to Educational Objectives", Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 11, 3, 200-207.
Peake, Dorothy G. (1981), "CLANN Limited: History of the Company and the Network", in Sharing: Proceedings of the First Combined Conference of the Library Association of Australian and the New Zealand Library Association, Sydney: LAA, 119- 125.
Radford, Neil A. (1992), "Libraries and Their Place in the Higher Education Process", in Steele, Colin (Ed.), Australian Tertiary Libraries: Issues for the 1990's, Library Challenges Series Number 3, Adelaide: Auslib Pr., 20-26.
___ (1993), "Out of the Tunnel and Into the Light: University Libraries After the Ross Report", Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 24, 4, December, 245-252.
Roberts, Enid (1989), "Office of Library Cooperation", in ALIAS: Australia's Library Information and Archives Services - An Encyclopedia of Practice and Practitioners, Sydney: LAA, 2, 170-171.
Scientific and Technological Information Services Enquiry Committee (1973, 1975), the STISEC Report: Report of the Scientific and Technological Information Services Enquiry Committee, 2 vols., Canberra: National Library of Australia.
Scrivener, J (1984), "The Librarian in Academe", in Bryan, Harrison & Horacek, John (eds.), Australian Academic Libraries in the Seventies: Essays in Honour of Dietrich Borchardt, St.Lucia: University of Queensland Pr., 204-242.
Smart, Don (1977), "The Accelerating Commonwealth Participation, 1964-1975" in Birch, I.K.F. & Smart, D. (eds.), The Commonwealth Government and Education 1964- 1976, 24-47.
332 ___ (1982), "The Pattern of Post-war Federal Intervention in Education", in Harman, G & Smart, D., Federal Intervention in Australian Education, Middle Park, Vic.: Georgian House, 15-33.
___ (1990), "The Dawkins 'Reconstruction' of Higher Education in Australia", Education Research and Perspectives, 17, 2, December, 11-22.
Southwell, B. (1988), "Committee of Australian University Librarians (CAUL)", in ALIAS: Australia's Library Information and Archives Services - An Encyclopedia of Practice and Practitioners, Sydney: LAA, 1, 165-167.
St.John, Edward P. (1981), The Policy Process in Higher Education: A Strategic Approach, Armidale: Institute for Higher Education.
Stayner, Richard A. & Richardson, Valerie, E. (1983), The Cost-effectiveness of Alternative Library Storage Programs [Study Funded by An Evaluative Studies Grant From the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission], Clayton, Victoria: Graduate School of Librarianship, Monash University.
Steele, Colin (1981), "The TEC Report for the 1982-84 Triennium", Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 12, 4, December, 227-234.
___ (1984), "The CTEC Report for the 1985-87 Triennium", Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 15, 1, 185-194.
STISEC Report. See Scientific and Technological Information Services Enquiry Committee (1973, 1975).
Tauber, Maurice F. (1963), Resources of Australian Libraries: Summary Report of A Survey Conducted in 1961 for the Australian Advisory Council on Bibliographical Services, Canberra: Australian Advisory Council on Bibliographical Services.
Wainwright, E. J. & Dean, J. E. (1976), Measures of Adequacy for Library Collections in Australian Colleges of Advanced Education: A Report of a Research Project Conducted on Behalf of the Commission on Advanced Education, 2 vols. Perth: Western Australian Institute of Technology.
Ward, J.L (1968), The Present Extent of Cooperation Between CAE Libraries in Victoria, Paper Presented At the Fourth Meeting of the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education, Library Sub-Committee, 7 June, Sydney.
___ (1975), "College Libraries in the Next Triennium?: Hints From the Pre-print Fourth Report of the Commission on Advanced Education", Australian Academic and Research Libraries, September, 6, 3, September, 117-120.
Ward, J.L. & Brown, A.J. (1969), "The Second Report of the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education - June, 1969: Two Experts Look At Laymen", News
333 Sheet, University & College Libraries Section, LAA, X, 4, 71-74.
___ (1977), "Libraries in Colleges of Advanced Education", in Bryan, H. & Greenwood, G. (eds.), Design for Diversity, St.Lucia: University of Queensland Pr. 115- 146.
Watson, Elizabeth L (1986), To Belong Or Not Belong: the Case of the Central Institutes of Technology, MA thesis, University of New England.
Whyte, Jean (1989), "Library Association of Australia (LAA)", in ALIAS: Australia's Library Information and Archives Services - An Encyclopedia of Practice and Practitioners, Sydney: LAA, 2, 80-83.
Wilkinson, E.H. (1987), Deficiencies in the operation of CTEC's Non-Salary Cost Index for library materials, Sydney: Macquarie University.
Wilkinson, E.H & Cameron, M. (1984), "The End of Isolation? Some Thoughts on Library Cooperation", in Bryan H. & Horacek, J. (eds.) Australian Academic Libraries in the Seventies: Essays in Honour of Dietrich Borchardt, St. Lucia, University of Queensland Pr., 113-131.
Williams, Bruce (1977), "Universities and the Australian Universities Commission", in Birch, I.K.F. & Smart, D. (eds), The Commonwealth Government and Education 1964- 1976, 122-152.
Yocklunn, John (1986), "The Funding Crisis in College Libraries: Origins, Effects and Solutions", Australian College Libraries, 4, 2, June, 107-112.
Government Reports and Documents
Atkinson Report. See University Grants Committee (1976).
Australia, Parliament (1964), Report of the Inquiry Into Academic Salaries, (R.M. Eggleston, Chair), Canberra: Government Printer.
Australian Commission on Advanced Education (1972), Third Report on Advanced Education, Canberra: AGPS.
Australian Commission on Advanced Education (1973), Teacher Education 1973-1975: Report of the Special Committee on Teacher Education (S.W. Cohen, Chair), Canberra: AGPS.
Australian Universities Commission (1960)[First Report], Report on Australian Universities, 1958-63, Canberra: Government Printer.
334 Australian Universities Commission (1966), Third Report of the Australian Universities Commission: Australian universities 1964-1969, Canberra: Government Printer.
Australian Universities Commission (1972), Fifth Report of the Australian Universities Commission, Canberra: AGPS.
[Australian] Universities Commission (1975), Sixth Report of the [Australian] Universities Commission, Canberra: AGPS.
Cohen Report. See Australian Commission on Advanced Education (1973).
Commission on Advanced Education (1975), Fourth Report on Advanced Education, Canberra: AGPS.
Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training (1979), Education, Training and Employment: Report of the Committee of Inquiry Into Education and Training, (B.R. Williams, Chair), 4 vols., Canberra: AGPS.
Committee on Australian Universities (1957), Report, (K.A.H. Murray, Chair), Canberra: Government Printer.
Committee on the Future of Tertiary Education in Australia (1964-65), Tertiary Education in Australia: Report, (L. H. Martin, Chair), 3 vols, Canberra: Government Printer.
Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education (1966), First Report: Colleges of Advanced Education 1967-1969, Canberra, Government Printer.
Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education (1969), Second Report, Canberra: Government Printer.
Commonwealth Government Committee on Needs of Universities (1950), Interim Report, (R.C. Mills, Chair), Canberra: .n.p.
Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (1986), Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education: Report of the Committee of Enquiry, (H.R. Hudson, Chair), Canberra: AGPS.
Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (1987), Report for the 1988-90 Triennium, 3 pts., Canberra: AGPS.
Dawkins, J.S. (1987)[Green Paper], Higher Education: A Policy Discussion Paper, Canberra: AGPS.
Dawkins, J.S. (1988)[White Paper], Higher Education: A Policy Statement, Canberra: AGPS.
335 Eggleston Report. See Australia, Parliament (1964).
Fife, Wal (1980)[Minister for Education], Appointments to Tertiary Education Commission and Councils: Press Release, 24 June, 1980.
Fraser, Malcolm (1979), "Williams Report: the Prime Minister's Tabling Statement 22 March 1979", Education News, 16, 9, 52-53.
Fraser, Malcolm (1981), Prime Minister's Statement to the Parliament Thursday, 30 April 1981: Review of Commonwealth Functions, Canberra: AGPS.
Hawke, R.J. (1987), "New Machinery of Government: the Prime Minister's Media Statement Tuesday 14 July 1987", Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration, 52, 12- 15.
___ (1989), "Challenges in Public Administration" [paper presented at the 1988 Garran Oration, at the National Conference of the Royal Australian Institute of Public Administration, Melbourne, October 1988], Australian Journal of Public Administration, 48, 1, March, 7-16.
Hudson Report. See Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (1986).
Martin Report. See Committee on the Future of Tertiary Education in Australia (1964- 65).
Mills Report. See Commonwealth Government Committee on Needs of Universities (1950)
Murray Report. See Committee on Australian Universities (1957)
National Board of Employment, Education and Training (1990), Library Provision in Higher Education Institutions, Commissioned Report No.7, (I.G. Ross, Chair), Canberra: AGPS.
Ross Report. See National Board of Employment, Education and Training (1990).
Tertiary Education Commission (1981), Report for 1982-84 triennium, 5 pts., Canberra: AGPS. See also Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission which superseded Tertiary Education Commission in 1982.
University Grants Committee (1976), Capital Provision for University Libraries: Report of A Working Party (R. Atkinson, Chair), London: HMSO.
Whitlam, E.G. (1972), Labor Party Policy Speech 1972 [Blacktown Civic Centre, 13th November], Canberra, [Australian Labor Party].
Williams Report. See Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training (1979).
336 337 338