Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory. Vol. 16, pp. 411429, 1992 Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.

0364~6408192 SS.00 + .OO Copyright 0 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd.

ALA MID WINTER CONFERENCE 1992

ALCTS Acquisitions Administrators Discussion Group.

In an interesting departure from the typical meeting arrangement of two or three speaker8 ad- dressing a particular topic, Discussion Group Chair Christian Boissonnas, Cornell University, organized instead a lively “open forum” on the issue of ethics in acquisitions. Moderator for this discussion was Michael Gorman, Library Director at California State University at Fresno. Gorman began the program by noting that little has appeared in the literature on ethics in li- brarianship that pertains specifically to acquisitions, which seems odd since acquisitions work involves “people with no money interacting with people trying to make money.”

The first ethical question that Gorman posed to the group involved selling low-use back is- sues to a vendor in exchange for credits that the library could use for something other than more library materials, such as equipment or software, which might be difficult to obtain oth- erwise. Was it actually a waste of tax dollars to adhere strictly to the institution’s rules for dis- posing of surplus property rather than barter in this fashion? Was it more unethical to place these materials in storage where they would seldom or never be used than to trade them for something that was needed?

Christian Boissonnas responded that it depends on what is received in return. Using cred- its to buy needed books, journal runs, or missing issues would be fine, but buying equipment was another matter. Barry Fast, Academic Book Center, stated that the key question was what was motivating the transaction; if both parties benefitted, then what was unethical? Vicki Reich, Stanford University, asked what the difference was between using a vendor to obtain materials and using a vendor to then get rid of surplus? Joe Barker, UC-Berkeley, however, related an incident wherein his library sold a set of back issues to a vendor who then sold them to another library. Barker found out the identity of the other library and would have preferred to sell directly to them, but could not break the agreement with the vendor. Finally, Joyce Og- burn, Yale University, noted that the acquisitions librarian had an obligation to the library community to see that the material was made available (rather than tossed), even if the trans- action was brokered by a vendor.

The second question posed by Gorman dealt with librarians working as vendors. Was it eth- ical, he asked, for a librarian to go to work for a vendor and then move back to the library side later? The discussion that ensued, however, tended to deal more with the broader issue of librarians working as vendors.

Marcia Romanansky, Blackwell North America, responded with an articulate description of her experience as a librarian/vendor, noting that she never lost sight of the fact that she was a librarian, and had always felt she was doing something of value to librarianship. She saw no conflict between making a profit and serving libraries. Richard Jasper, Emory Uni- versity, did not see the issue as a “big problem,” and did not think his library would change

417

418 ALA Midwinter Conference 1992

vendors if he decided to go to work for one with which they were not doing business. He also noted that librarians tended to go to work for vendors for a very good reason: to help ven- dors develop better products and services for libraries. Christian Boissonnas added that he had begun using a vendor after a librarian colleague went to work for them, and said he would do it again if he felt the company was good. Vicky Reich agreed that “you get better service from people you know,” while Sandy Gurshman, ReadMore, asked, “Would you want to work with a vendor that has no one with a library background?”

Michael Gorman’s third question to the group was, “Who bought you dinner last night?” This issue did not create much discussion, however, perhaps because, as Christian noted, “We spend a lot of time on this ‘ethical issue’ because we are comfortable with it and because we know the outcome.”

Gorman then opened up the floor to other issues that the group wanted to discuss. Some- one asked whether it was unethical for a vendor to bypass the acquisitions librarian and go, instead, straight to the director. Richard Jasper responded by saying that, if the vendor has a problem with the acquisitions librarian, then the vendor has a right to go to the director; otherwise, they should deal with acquisitions. Joe Barker noted that it was part of his job as an acquisitions librarian to educate the director on what he does and to then be accountable for his decisions. This discussion led to the question of vendors seeking to change or influ- ence the library’s decision-making process, which then prompted Michael Gorman to ask whether it was ethical for the library director to intervene directly in a vendor decision.

Vicki Reich then posed the following question: “If you know ahead of time that you are going to change vendors, don’t you have an obligation to let the current vendor know?” Mi- chael Gorman noted that you should always communicate to a vendor the reasons for your unhappiness with their performance. Marcia Romanansky responded that, if the reasons for the change are not performance based, the librarian should let the vendor know early enough to preclude any financial loss to the vendor from orders already placed.

Another question raised was the issue of vendors’ asking acquisitions librarians what other vendors the library used and how much of the library’s business each vendor got. Joe Barker responded that it was very important to him to communicate to each of his vendors what he liked and did not like about each of them.

The last question of the session was posed by the moderator, Michael Gorman. Should ALCTS, he asked, develop a “real” code of ethics for acquisitions librarians and vendors? Or, as an alternative, asked Richard Jasper, should ALCTS develop guide~es for “engaging” and “disengaging?” No consensus was reached on either of these questions in the brief discussion that followed, but a remark by Marsha Clark, New York University, seemed a fitting ending to a stimulating and thought-provoking meeting. Clark stated that she had been taught the ethics of the business, as a new acquisitions librarian, by vendors who were honest and who knew the rules of engagement. It was her hope that there would always be people Iike that, vendors and acq~sitions librarians alike, who could pass those rules on to those entering the profession.

Adrian W. Alexander Region Manager

The Faxon pompano IS Southwest Park

Westwood, MA 02090