ONE or two recent pronouncements in public on librarianship revive matters that some are inclined to think have been discussed enough. On another page reference is made to the not altogether novel suggestion, made lately at Hastings by Mr. E. A. Baker and now more forcibly perhaps at the Annual Meeting of the Greater London Division by Mr. Hoy, that the L.A. should be composed of a series of divisions each representing a type of library and librarians ; and that the Council should be of nominees from each of them and therefore more uniformly representative of modern library activity. A somewhat stale platitude, which we remember reading in an early volume of the LIBRARY WORLD, says “Branches are always foci of disunion” and it must be agreed that the purpose of sections is to advance their specialities, and justly. It follows that many non‐public librarians feel aggrieved at the dominance of Demos in the shape of public librarians and their assistants ; they should be confined within a section. It seems reasonable. It would however mean radical constitutional changes ; the L.A. was not primarily founded for the benefit of librarians, at least not openly, although its charter provides for the care of the training and conditions of librarians. It was to unite those who desired to advance the number and efficiency of libraries. And lay members were, and we believe still are, as entitled to membership as are library workers who are qualified, or desire to qualify as, librarians. There might, of course, be a non‐librarians section. Could there be a Local Authorities Section ? That would tidy up matters.
CitationDownload as .RIS
MCB UP Ltd
Copyright © 1955, MCB UP Limited