Educational interests are certainly as vital a part of a municipality's responsibility as the more material interests. If the chief value and strength of the commission plan consists in directness and simplicity and the concentration of responsibility and authority on a few responsible men, it would seem that the separate and independent organization of the school system in a commission governed city is scarcely any more defensible than that of a public library system; while the scope of the school system and the funds involved in the school management are much larger, the principle is the same. It is found, however, that in very few instances, have the schools been placed under the commission plan; the most notable instance, however, seems to be that of the city of Houston, Texas, where a school board of seven members is appointed by the city commission in a manner similar to the library board. The success of such centralization seems evident as set forth in an interesting article by the superintendent of the Houston schools in the Educational Review, April, 1909. If we believe that the various means of popular education, outside the school room, should be strengthened and dignified in the municipality, there should be a serious ef fort made to bring to the attention of those who are interested in commission plan legislation the most advanced and enlightened views regarding it. Can a comprehensive scheme of education such as is now being developed in the commonwealth of New York be applied to a municipality? If so, could a commissioner of education, as one of the city council or commission, wisely direct all of the educational interests of the city, i. e., the schools, libraries, museums, etc? Or, is the present tendency of the plan to provide a small board of 3 or 5 members appointed under the commission, to have charge of the library, and another similar board to have charge of the schools, the better method? The election of a commissioner of education ex officio chairman of these two boards would strengthen the latter plan greatly. It is of vital interest to librarians, in view of the popularity of the commission plan and the likelihood of its more extended adoption, that we give consideration, in a constructive way, to the securing of a more comprehensive recognition and classification of the public library as an educational factor in this new scheme of city government. There seems to have been no serious consideration given to this in the past and laws are taken over from other states without investigation. Whatever recognition there has been given the library in the plan seems to have been more by chance than by careful forethought. While the plan may be an experiment, it is one that continues to be tried. It is essential that active efforts be made to strengthen the weaknesses in the existing laws and safeguard those laws that are likely to be enacted in other states. The CHAIRMAN: Miss Tyler has presented a subject entirely new to our program and, I think, to the thoughts of most of the members of the Association. It is a subject, as she says, which is now of vital importance to a large number of libraries and is evidently going to be of vital importance to a still greater number. We in the East and center of the country look rather to the western states for pioneer work, and I should like to have some amplification of some of the details and perhaps criticism, or some tentative answer to Miss Tyler's last question, and I hope some of our western friends will speak. I understand Miss Harriet Ann Wood, of Portland, Oregon, has made some study of this subject, and I will ask her to say a few words. Miss WOOD: I was librarian of the Cedar Rapids library when the city adopted the commission plan. All of the trustees of the library were very progressive, forming an ideal board in every respect. They were all ardent advocates of the commission plan of government and worked very hard for its adoption in the city. One of the features of the commission plan of government is that no man who has any connection with a corporation which holds a city franchise is eligible to membership on the library board. One of the strongest members of the library board, one who had been a member from the first, who knew the whole history of the library and who knew more about the conditions which prevailed than anyone in the city, was thereby made ineligible to membership. The city attorney was very much interested in the library, but he decided that three was the right number for the library board. A board thus constituted works very well, except in a crisis when it becomes virtually a one-man board. After the plan had been working for about two years, the new set of city officials came in and a new city attorney, who decided that the library should operate under the regular state library law and that the proper number for the library board was nine, and that the old board should have been serving all the time. Therefore, he advised the council to this effect, and they reinstated the old board. At the end of two years more there may be a new city attorney and under the law there is no way of telling whether the library will go back to the three-men board or not. At Library affairs have progressed very smoothly. The library board has endeavored to keep in touch with the commissioners and has inspired so much confidence that the internal affairs of the library have not been interfered with. one time, however, the council, without consulting the trustees, passed a resolution that the binding of the books which belonged to the city, should not be done outside of the United States. Of course, this was a matter which was very easily complied with, but it indicated the power that rested in the hands of the officials if they chose to exercise it. The appropriation was increased. It was evident that the new commissioners were anxious to make their city library what it should be and they worked with the trustees in perfect harmony to promote the interests of the library. The trustees of the library tried to promote the things that were of interest to the commissioners. The commissioners had Charles Mulford Robinson make a plan for the beautification of the city, and this the library trustees circulated very freely and generously. This I simply mention as a method of keeping in close touch with the council and of advancing all the interests of the city. We certainly feel that the commission plan, so far as the city of Cedar Rapids is concerned, is a success, provided the law can be properly amended. The CHAIRMAN: Miss Tyler has stated that there are eleven towns and cities in California who have the commission form of government and she has given us a general expression of the average opinion, but I thought perhaps we might receive from some representatives of those towns and cities further details of the question under discussion here. Is there anybody who represents a commission town or city who would tell us a little more in detail how it has worked out? Mr. J. L. GILLIS: The city of Sacramento has not adopted the commission form of government, but the citizens there expect to do so. I am not very familiar with the changes in the law in regard to libraries in those cities where the commission form of government has been adopted, but from what I do know, there has been very little change. The libraries are either to be operated under the state law as formerly, or the changes are very slight. I do not believe it makes any particular difference in the government of libraries in this state. In Sacramento, it is proposed to place the library under the charge of one commissioner, the object being to get direct communication with the governing powers so that interest in the library may be taken by one who has the power to raise the money and to dispense it. Later perhaps we can tell you how it works out. The CHAIRMAN: While the question of the commission plan of government as it affects libraries is the particular phase which we are personally and most vitally interested in here, there is, of course, the wider aspect of the question, whether the educational interests of the city are sufficiently distinct to be treated differently from the other interests of the city and whether the library is sufficiently distinct from the school to be treated differently from that interest. Mr. John Judson Hamilton, author of the book, "The dethrone ment of the city boss," is with us this morning and perhaps will speak to us on that broader aspect of the question. Mr. HAMILTON: Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen: I should hesitate very much to put my own theoretical ideas on this question against either those of Miss Tyler, or against your personal experiences of the commission form of government, as some of you have had it in your capacity as librarians. I could not add very much, if anything, to what Miss Tyler has said on the general question. I don't believe that even Governor Woodrow Wilson himself could have given a more statesmanlike summary of this question than Miss Tyler has given and I will ask her to remember that I don't offer this as an argument for women's suffrage. I am willing that you draw your own conclusions. As to the question of including the educational side of the community's work with the political, under the commission form of government, I agree with those in Des Moines who think that ought to be done. I heard a very interesting address by Governor Wilson at Los Angeles a few evenings ago, in which he discussed the question of communities putting all their eggs in one basket, and then watching that basket, and I believe in doing that very thing. I think the educational and library work ought to be put in the full blaze of publicity along with the city's government, in cities having the commission form of government. I think there is no better information that your Association could get along this line than the individual experience of librarians in commission governed cities. You certainly have that which is of more value than I could offer. The CHAIRMAN: The question of "The relation between the library and the municipality" is really the main topic of the morning, and we shall revert to the question suggested by the latter part of Miss Tyler's paper, the question of the administration of civil service, later, but now is the time to take up, according to the printed program, the question of branch library problems and I have the pleasure of introducing to you Mr. CHARLES H. BROWN, assistant librarian of the Brooklyn public library, who will speak on LIMITATIONS OF THE BRANCH LIBRA- As good American citizens we have from our earliest days been thoroughly imbued with the spirit of Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty, or give me death." We as librarians have sometimes applied this motto to our professional work, holding up before ourselves as our ideal, independent positions. We dislike to be limited in our work in any way, and it is possible we may at times spend many minutes in thinking how much more successful our libraries would be if we were not hampered by what we may at times consider necessary evils, such as boards of trustees, chief librarians and and in our larger libraries superintendents of departments. It cannot be denied that there are many advantages in allowing heads of libraries, whether they be branch librarians or librarians of independent city libraries freedom of action. Why should not branch librarians be given the same privilege of initiative which the chief librarians expect in dealing with their boards? Those directly in charge of branches know the immediate needs of their own communities better than those at the head of large systems of libraries, many of which have to deal with different types and races of people. An over-centralized system may involve the loss of originality and what is worse the loss of enthusiasm and interest among the assistants. Even in these days of mechanical progress a machine will not do as a reference librarian or a loan desk attendant. If the decision of the small every-day problems which are continually arising must wait until some administrative officer, usually several miles away, can be consulted, we shall have continual trouble and vexation of spirit not only on the part of the assistants immediately concerned, but also of the public. On the other hand, it is obvious that there are many reasons why it is inexpedient for a branch to be entirely independent of its neighbors, as if it were in another city. The economic loss in doing the work of ordering, accessioning and cat`aloging the same title 25 or 30 times instead of once, the confusion to the public through different rules in different branches and the unnecessary duplication of books are a few of the many arguments against a decentralized system which will at once occur to us. How far, then, can we retain the advantages of decentralization and independent administration without injury to the service? To what extent must the initiative of the branch librarian be limited? Is it feasible to increase or decrease the limitation of freedom of action and what are the corresponding gains and losses? It may be of interest to compare in a few points the administration of a branch library with that of an independent city library. How much of the authority that is usually given to the head of a city library can be given to a branch librarian? What are the agreements and what are the differences in the underlying conditions? How much actual and absolute independence of action can be given to the one and not to the other? Let us take as a basis of comparison branches and independent libraries of about the same circulation. At the head of the independent city library is the board of trustees with its various committees on administration, books, buildings, etc., to which the recommendations of the librarian are submitted. The branch librarian on the other hand has as her superior officers the chief librarian and the heads of departments to whom her recommendations may be submitted. The chief librarian is an expert in library economy; the trustees usually are not. The assistants are appointed and removed in the one case by the board or a committee of the board after recommendation by the librarian; in the second case the branch librarian may or may not make recommendations as to the appointment or transfer of the assistants employed in a branch. The rules and regulations for the public are in the case of the independent library fixed by the board upon the recommendation of the librarian; the assistant in charge of a branch may or may not make recommendations to her superior officers as to changes of rules. In rela. tion to other libraries and institutions there is a marked difference. The independent library does not usually have to consider the limitation of scope due to other libraries in the same city doing the same general work; the branch library must bear this continually in mind. The main difference, however, is in the amount of money available for library purposes. The circulation of the larger branches in New York and Brooklyn, such as Seward Park, Brownsville and Bushwick, compares not unfavorably in number with such cities as Worcester, Denver, Providence, Springfield, Grand Rapids and New Haven. The population of the districts reached by those branches varies from 50,000 to 150,000, as does the population of the cities mentioned, with the exception of Denver, which is larger. But the amount of money available for the support of these branches is, roughly speaking, in each case about one-half the library appropriation of the cities, even if the cost of the administration of the central office is distributed proportionally among the branches. This means in the case of the branches smaller buildings, fewer assistants and lower salaries. As the circulation is the same and requires the services of the same number of assistants in both cases, there will obviously be in the case of the branch library a smaller force available for other routine work. Now to what an extent do these differences limit the comparative freedom of action of the branch librarian, and how far do the agreements permit it. Let us take it as granted that it is desirable to give the branch librarian as much initiative as is consistent with economical administration and satisfactory service to the public. Bearing these facts in mind, it is not difficult to come to some general conclusions with regard to the administration of a large system of branches. In the first place, the fact that the money available for a branch is much less than that for an independent city library with the same circulation, must involve certain economies of coöperative administration. The saving in cataloging and accessioning at the general office is considerable and cannot be ignored. In the ordering of books and supplies there is even a greater economy in having the work done at one place for the entire system, for by this means larger discounts may be obtained through the purchase of large quantities at one time. However, this routine work is not such as affects the initiative of the branch librarian to any great extent, provided certain essentials of this work are left largely to her discretion. These essentials are first, recommendation as to the selection of books and supplies, second, the addition in cataloging of certain subject headings such as may be in her opinion needed in her special branch. In the selection of books the branch librarian may not have the knowledge possessed by the head of an independent library. The former receives less salary and has a narrower experience. But, knowing her own community with its various factories and industries, she should be given the initiative as to what books should go into her special branch. Her recommendations may well be examined at the central office, as the recommendations of the independent librarian are examined by his book committee. This is the more essential in the case of the branch library, as the chief librarian, while he may not know the 40 or 50 different communities of his city, does have a better knowledge of the value of various books and editions. The same argument applies to additional subject headings. In a general book on technology a bibliography of steel works management may be worth a subject heading in a library near the steel mills. The addition of such subject headings and the analysis of special articles or chapters may well be left to the branch librarian, if the headings selected by her are approved by the head of the cataloging department. It follows, therefore, that although a certain part of the routine work must for purposes of econ. omy be done in the central office, yet this centralization does not necessarily lessen the branch librarian's initiative. In regard to the personnel, it has been found necessary in the larger libraries to conduct training classes for embryo librarians. It is not possible, even if it were desirable, for each individual branch with its small force to conduct its own school, but the apprentices may be given experience in various branches, and the branch librarian allowed an opportunity to report and recommend as to their appointment. In the case of an undesirable assistant, the branch librarian may have even more opportunity for initiative than the independent librarian, for it is far easier for the former to transfer an assistant from one branch to another than it is for the latter to make an absolute dismissal. The branch librarian should know the efficiency of her various assistants and should be encouraged to report upon them to the chief librarian. If this be done, her initiative as to the personnel of her force does not compare so unfavorably with other librarians and is superior to the privileges many librarians enjoy under city civil service rules. The reference work is another department which calls for decentralization. Each branch should have its own reference collection. Although it must of necessity be smaller than that of the independent library with its larger building and greater income, yet it should be sufficient to answer most of the questions that are asked. The remaining inquiries call for coöperation. If the information sought cannot be given at the branch, the reader should be referred to the central building or the question should be forwarded to the chief reference librarian for investigation and report. This, however, is not so much a case of centralization as of coöperation, and would be found to a less extent perhaps in our larger libraries. The rules and regulations for the public must involve some degree of centralization, although even here the initiative of the branch librarian may not be necessarily limited. It is clearly desirable to allow the public to use different branches |