Search results

AT FIRST glance the leading article in NLW for June, entitled ‘Reform again’, suggested a stirring of the loins of that dormant beast local government reorganisation and not—as it turned out—the structure of the Library Association. Of the former some might exclaim, ‘Not that again!’ in the belief that the 1974 upheaval is too fresh and painful in the memory for objective consideration. But, for a number of reasons, a re‐appraisal of the situation is timely. First, although the polemics of victors may fashion a version of history for a few years, unsound principles do not remain dominant forever. Secondly, a number of district councils are renewing their efforts to reclaim some services, including libraries, lost to the English counties in 1974. And, even if they fail, it is probable that when there is a new government in a year or so (of whatever hue) the botched job emanating from the 1972 Local Government Act will be tidied up. Then, at the very least, the politicians will see to it that there is a major revision of boundaries, if only to recognise the existence of modern communications and living styles, both of which have a marked effect on that which politicians hold most dear— voting patterns. Therefore, in the profound hope that local government lunacy cannot continously triumph over commonsense, it can be assumed that at the next re‐organisation the nature of local government functions and their distribution will not be regarded as favours to be horse traded in the same way that some senior posts were allocated in 1974. (‘Our borough engineer for your librarian and public health inspector’…remember?)

TRY THIS for starters in 1982: ‘The concept of the electronic journal is one which involves using a computer to aid the normal procedures whereby an article is written, refereed, accepted and published. With the help of suitable software an author may enter a text into a system, and the editor, referees, and ultimately the users, as well as himself, can have access to the text at their computer terminals.’

‘PLR is not, and was never imagined to be, a cure for the economic anomalies of contemporary authorship’, wrote a supporter in The Author in the summer of 1981. But if there was to be a Bill for authors, that is precisely what it should have addressed itself to, and the defensive tone of the statement suggests the writer knew that was what the majority of authors sought—or, of those responsible for 40,000 titles a year, more would have registered.

AMIDST OTHER preoccupations, the Library Association is again considering its internal structure. A modified version of some of the proposals of the former Branch and Group Structure working party has been produced by an Ad Hoc Sub‐Committee chaired by Alex Howson. Your groans on hearing that ‘the structure’ is being trotted out for another airing are understandable.

Proposes to treat social law contracts by covering the two most important aspects of the contract of employment, and also the collective agreement. Covers the contract of employment in full with all the integral laws explained as required, including its characteristics, written particulars, sources or regulations, with regard to employers, are also covered. Lengthy coverage of the collective agreement is also included, showing legal as well as moral (!) requirements, also included are cases in law that are covered in depth.