> Kent State, along with every other library, is dealing with increasing
> serial costs in times of zero budget growth.  I am preparing to
> present a committee with options that other libraries are pursuing to
> deal with this problem.

> So far, I've come up with two:
> 1.  Cancel subscriptions
> 2.  Pay-per article plans

This is a truly ludicrous choice as we approach the 50th anniversary of
the so-called "Information Age." In fact, it is a choice that deals only
with symptoms of a problem that is rooted in the organization of higher
education and science policy. A better choice, that would deal with the
source of this disease, is to challenge the administrative bloat in the
budget.

The Digest of Education Statistics tables on how universities spend their
money report a tremendous growth in administrative spending (as a
percentage of the total) balanced by decreases in libraries and
instruction. Other sources indicate that the typical research university
cut its library from about 6 percent to 3 percent of total expenditures
since 1968.  If you have ever doubted Max Weber's notion that
administrative bureaucracies promote themselves without regard for the
consequences, you will find compelling proof in the arguments of
presidents, chancellors, and provosts supporting their own initiatives
rather than libraries and the quality that they contribute to the quality
of education and research. Administrative innovations may directly
interfere with the quality of education or research (compromising academic
freedom with university ownership of faculty copyrights or the moral
bankruptcy of price-fixing of student financial assistance, for instance).
But, we have been told how important they are.

The Stanford scandal is a good example of administrative bloat and
bungling. About 5 years ago, when the last downward adjustment of the
value of the US dollar wreaked havoc with library budgets, most
universities were forced to cancel many subscriptions because, they were
told, "there was no money." Soon thereafter, Federal auditors found that
millions of "indirect overhead" dollars had been mis-posted to
non-research accounts. These accounts involved decorating administration
buildings, real-estate speculation, parties, and a yacht. Instead of
turning these funds to support research-related subscriptions to science
publications that "had to be canceled," they decided that the money should
be refunded to Uncle Sam.  Although Stanford University was singled out by
the press, auditors felt that the problem was widespread.

Although this example appears to be a "science" issue, we should all know
that every area of education and research that uses the library is
affected when budgets don't provide sufficiently. Every administrative
expenditure should be challenged and justified in terms of its
contribution to the quality of teaching and research. Chances are that
many positions (marketing, lobbying) that were unknown 50 years ago will
be found non-essential to the mission of higher education. Most research
and teaching faculty recognize their vested interest in maintaining
information resources on-campus -- an asset that improves their
performance and enhances their reputations.

Al Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY
INTERNET:70244.1532@compuserve.com