A 20 Per Cent Cut and a Digital Library Demand

Start with data, not with the principal's wish list.

• Protect: core textbooks and prescribed reference titles; the college's N-LIST or consortium e-resource membership if cost per use is lower than the trial; binding and security of high-use volumes; minimum staffing at the counter.
• Reduce: the 40 periodicals to 28 by cancelling low-use titles; use COUNTER or gate-count data, not title prestige. Keep a balanced subject spread. Reduce photocopying subsidy, especially for non-members.
• Defer: the maker space. It is capital-intensive and has no clear curriculum owner. The 10-computer digital library should be phased: start with 4 computers and a stable network, then add after a use survey.
• Fund: a small user-education programme and a written collection development and weeding policy; these cost little and improve circulation.

Justify the 18 per cent circulation fall: check whether it is due to the e-resource withdrawal, noise, missing books, or opening hours. A digital library will not fix missing books. Present a one-page table of cost, usage, and decision to the principal. The annual report should state the cuts transparently, with the criteria used.

The conflict is a job-design problem. Handle it in writing and in sequence.

1. Job analysis: list every task actually performed, with time estimates. The photocopying for a coaching class is a service to non-members; decide whether it is allowed and at what charge.
2. Written duties: revise duty lists with the librarian, principal, and staff. Cataloguing is a professional task, but the assistant may do data entry, spine labels, and record checking under supervision. If the assistant lacks training, provide it; do not simply order compliance.
3. Separate the issues: the refusal to catalogue may be about workload, not the job description. The photocopying burden may be consuming attendant time. Reassign photocopying to fixed hours and a charge sheet.
4. Performance indicators: set measurable duties such as 20 records checked per week, shelving accuracy, and user complaints logged. Review after one month.
5. Escalation: if the assistant still refuses a lawful duty, refer to the principal with the written duty list. Do not humiliate staff at the counter.

The aim is a workable allocation, not a winner. Student complaints about noise and missing books will only fall if staff are present in the reading area, which means the photocopying work must be controlled.

The decline may be a collection problem, an access problem, or both. Do not weed by age alone.

• Collect data: circulation by subject, last-copy status, lost-book register, user complaints, and a short student survey. Identify whether the 18 per cent fall is concentrated in particular subjects.
• Write a policy: state selection criteria, duplicating rules, donation policy, and weeding criteria. Include replacement of lost high-demand titles.
• Weed selectively: use MUSTIE-type criteria - misleading, ugly, superseded, trivial, irrelevant, or available elsewhere. Keep local history and college archival material even if low-use. Withdraw copies only after checking the shelf list and last copy.
• Replace and promote: use savings to replace worn textbooks and add a small display of high-demand titles. A 'missing books' amnesty can recover stock and rebuild trust.
• Measure: report circulation before and after, not just titles withdrawn. If noise and photocopying are the real causes, weeding will not raise circulation.

The test is whether the collection matches the curriculum and the users' reading level. A smaller, current, well-displayed collection can circulate more than a larger, stale one.