Weeding to release space when faculty oppose any discard
A 60-year-old grant-in-aid college library occupies 6,500 sq ft and holds 78,000 volumes. The reading room has 120 chairs, but the library's gate register shows a peak of 46 users; students queue for the 12 power sockets and 8 computers. The librarian proposes weeding to release 1,500 sq ft for a digitisation corner and a 30-seat discussion room; the principal has ₹10 lakh for furniture only if space is released this financial year. The ILMS report shows 2,400 volumes not issued in fifteen years, 900 bound journal volumes covering 1965–1995, and 12 copies of a 1992 textbook. The library also holds an unbroken run of three Marathi periodicals from 1958 and a special collection on Maratha history that faculty call irreplaceable. Subject teachers have opposed any discard, arguing that 'not issued' does not mean 'not needed'. There is no written collection development or weeding policy.
1. Propose a weeding method and criteria that can withstand faculty objection.
Read the worked answer
Use a documented criteria set - MUSTIE or CREW - but do not let it collapse into 'old and unused'.
Criteria and evidence: currency of edition; physical condition; last circulation date over five years; in-house use counted by reshelving, not just issue records; presence on current syllabus or reading lists; availability elsewhere; uniqueness within the district or state; and relevance to programmes offered.
Decision rule: an item is a candidate only when it fails on two or more criteria. A single 'not issued in fifteen years' flag is insufficient - reference works, rare titles and standards may never circulate and are nonetheless essential.
Sequence the work: start with duplicates, superseded editions, items damaged beyond repair and ephemeral material. Nobody defends these, and the first phase builds credibility for the harder phases.
Make the process adversarial-proof: publish the criteria, publish the candidate list to every department, give a 21-day objection window, and seat a subject-expert panel to hear objections. That converts faculty from opponents into reviewers, and the library stops being the only party carrying the risk.
2. How should the Marathi periodical runs and the Maratha history collection be treated differently?
Read the worked answer
These are not weeding decisions; they are retention and preservation decisions. The test is irreplaceability, not demand.
- Establish last-copy status. Check holdings against WorldCat, the state central library and other Maharashtra libraries. If this library holds the only unbroken run, it is a de facto archive and carries a public responsibility that overrides the space calculation.
- Designate a special collection with closed access, a stable environment, item-level cataloguing, and a condition survey. Do not let these items enter the general weeding flow or the general shelves.
- Digitise for access, preserve the originals for permanence. Digitisation does not release space unless there is a preservation plan for the physical copies; do not let 'it is scanned' become a disposal justification.
- Raise cooperative retention at the state library association or consortium level so that last copies are formally held somewhere, with an agreement rather than an assumption.
This is also the strongest answer to faculty resistance: the librarian is not discarding heritage material, but is proposing to protect it properly while releasing space elsewhere. Say so before the objections are raised.
3. What governance, records and disposal procedure would you institute, and what would you do about the 12 duplicate copies?
Read the worked answer
Governance: adopt a written collection development and weeding policy approved by the library committee and the academic council. Until it exists, every discard is a personal decision by the librarian and is indefensible. The policy should delegate authority within defined limits and require committee approval above them.
Records: a weeding register per item - accession number, title, ISBN, criteria score, reason, date, disposal mode, authorising signature - and the ILMS status set to 'withdrawn' so the OPAC immediately stops offering copies that no longer exist. An inaccurate catalogue is worse than a smaller one.
Disposal: offer to other college libraries and the district library first; then donate; pulp only after a certificate. No sales to staff or dealers. Check donor deeds before disposing of gift material.
The 12 duplicate copies: retain two (one for the shelf, one for the reserve collection), withdraw ten through the register. That is the safest first transaction and demonstrates the procedure working.
Be honest about arithmetic: 2,400 monographs plus 900 bound journals will free far less than 1,500 sq ft of floor area. Present the calculation to the principal before the furniture order, and pair weeding with mobile shelving so space release and spending commitments stay aligned. A failed space target costs the library credibility it will need for the next request.