The Malan years, 1962–1967
8.1. Administration and governance
Upon his appointment Malan set to work immediately on the task of updating and consolidating the organization and administration of the University Library as a unitary system. It would be useful at this point provide some background on the two new senior staff, Malan and Brown. The new Director of Library Services came to the University from Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education where he had been head of the Department of Library Science from 1956 to 1961. Prior to this he had spent nine years as University Librarian at the University of the Orange Free State. He is
remembered by some staff as “a quiet, clever man, very strict but fair”751 and by others as
“autocratic.”752 Very pro-Afrikaner,753 it has been suggested that he was a member of the
747 South African Library Association, Annual report, 1962-1963, p. 10.
748 Ibid., p. 11.
749 A. L. Dick, Science for ideology?, Mousaion, vol. 19, no. 1, 2001, p. 84.
750The National Library Advisory Council was established in 1967. It was superseded by the National Advisory Council for Libraries and Information in July 1982. – R. Musiker, Companion to South African libraries, Craighall: Ad Donker, 1986, p. 140.
751 S.G. Govender, Personal communication, 20th December 2007.
752 E.W.O. Pugsley, Personal communication, 2nd April 2008.
753 Ibid. An Afrikaner is defined as a white, Afrikaans-speaking South African. Members of the ruling National Party were predominantly Afrikaners.
sinister secret Afrikaner organisation, the Broederbond,754 as were several senior
members of the South African Library Association,755 although it has not been possible to find out if this is true or not. Malan was certainly very active in the affairs of the South African Library Association and assumed office as president in 1966.756
Brown, appointed to the newly upgraded post of Librarian in Pietermaritzburg, had been Deputy University Librarian at Rhodes University for nine years and prior to that a school teacher.757 He has been described as a “somewhat old-fashioned figure, the scholarly librarian who was interested in publishing and knew how to catalogue and classify his material.”758 Almost from the outset of their working relationship problems between Brown and Malan surfaced. Both were competent and dedicated professionals but Brown laboured under the impression that his position carried more autonomy than it actually did.759 In this he was supported by the Pietermaritzburg Library Committee which was also determined to retain a measure of independence, thus placing Malan in a difficult position. It may have appeared to the members of the Pietermaritzburg Library Committee that concerns unique to Pietermaritzburg were being swamped by concerns affecting the much larger Durban Library.
In consultation with the Principal, Dr E.G. Malherbe and some (not all, as was pointed out when Malan presented the document to the Joint Library Committee) members of the Joint Library Committee, he drew up a memorandum setting out the Library’s staff establishment as it stood in 1962, the responsibilities and duties of the Director, a proposed new organizational structure for the Library and the practical implications thereof. He presented it at a special meeting of the Joint Library Committee held on 23rd March, 1962. Under the heading “Internal organization” Malan listed the general
principles which would guide the organizational structure and functioning of the Library.
Three key points were:
754 M.L. Suttie, The formative years of the University of South Africa Library, 1946 to 1976, Mousaion, vol. 23, no. 1, 2005, p. 111.
755 A. Dick, Book burning and the complicity of South African librarians, Innovation, no. 28, June 2004, p. 37; see also: Appendix 1 Broederbond membership list, in: I. Wilkins & H. Strydom, The super-Afrikaners, Houghton: Ball, 1978.
756 Dr S.I. Malan, South African libraries, vol. 34, no. 4, April 1967, p. 127.
757 University of Natal Libraries, Annual report, 1962, p. 6.
758 C. Vietzen & C. Merrett, Ron Brown (1914-2002), Library bulletin, [Pietermaritzburg], no. 349, February 2003, p. 1.
759 University of Natal, Joint Library Committee, Minutes of the special meeting held on 23rd March 1962, p. 1.
• Uniformity throughout the system was considered essential for the sake of
economy in the building up of the organization and the administration of and use of the service;
• The Library Staff should, as far as possible, be relieved of administrative routines so that more time can be spent on direct service to the users of the Library;
• The centralization of certain administrative routines which were considered essential for the sake of economy, control and coordination.760
These principles were in line with the thinking of contemporary experts in the field of librarianship. For example, M. F. Tauber, library administrator of Columbia University, New York, from 1944 to 1980, believed strongly in the centralisation of activities
concerned with the purchasing and processing of library materials. He considered that:
Effective centralized processing should be prompt, be less expensive than if individual units did their own work, take advantage of skilled centralized personnel, concentrate expensive references sources and equipment ... relieve personnel in units so they can spend more time on the readers, eliminate deviations from standard practices, and limit personal idiosyncrasies.761
Unfortunately, it soon became apparent that a particularly contentious issue was the proposed centralisation of orders for books and periodicals. Malan provided his reason for this particular proposal, perfectly justifiable in the light of a Library struggling to maintain a service in two centres with barely enough staff to adequately service one main library:
The actual ordering of literature for a university library is an administrative routine best centralized and done through one channel. This is borne out by the best authorities on university library administration in South Africa as well as overseas. As a matter of interest, the S.A. Library Association is contemplating measures to realize co-operative and centralized purchasing for S.A. libraries on a regional and/or subject basis as already exists in some overseas countries.762
Some discussion on the issue of centralised ordering had already taken place in the Pietermaritzburg Library Committee meeting of 15th February, 1962 when it had been agreed that matters should be left “as formerly unless any change in procedure was agreed upon in the future.”763 No changes were to be made “without consultation with the Librarian and the Committee.”764 Further consultation, it seems, did not take place
760 S.I. Malan, University of Natal Library, 20th March 1962, unpublished, p. 2.
761 K.S. Maier, Maurice F. Tauber, in Leaders in American academic librarianship, 1925-1975, edited by W.A. Wiegand, Pittsburgh, Pa.: Beta Phi Mu, 1983, p.338.
762 Malan, University of Natal Library, 20th March 1962, p. 3.
763 University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg Library Committee, Minutes of a meeting held on Thursday, 15th February 1962, p. 1.
764 Ibid.
and thus the contents of the memorandum of 20th March were not well received by all committee members. The Joint Library Committee eventually agreed, after a prolonged discussion, that a sub-committee be set up to “consult on the centralization of orders.”765
Brown, the Pietermaritzburg Librarian, also voiced his dismay at the contents of the memorandum. He maintained that “the terms of his letter of appointment implied wider freedom of action than was now to be enjoyed by him.”766 Discussion appears to have become rather heated at this point. The official response to Brown was:
In answer he was reminded that whatever independence was granted to the Librarian at Pietermaritzburg must be subject to the co-ordination and ultimate control of the Director who was in charge of all libraries of the University.767
When the memorandum was presented to the Pietermaritzburg Library Committee meeting of 4th April the Committee stated firmly that it “could not concur in the proposed changes reflected in this memorandum.”768 Furthermore, probably in order to confirm that they were not going to be dictated to by the Joint Library Committee, it was minuted that “the entry in the University calendar was correct, namely that the Joint Library Committee is subordinate to the two local committees.”769 To add fuel to the fire, Brown expressed his “considerable unhappiness in his new post”770 in his report to the meeting.
He stated that:
He accepted the invitation to the post only after he had received assurance on the considerable misgivings he felt. Before he had had a chance of finding his feet and assessing the problems before him, he was confronted with a doctrinaire scheme from higher authority. Thus much of his time is being diverted from the work on hand in Pietermaritzburg.771
It should be mentioned here that the status of the Pietermaritzburg Librarian had previously been discussed by the Pietermaritzburg Library Committee at its meeting of 15th February, 1962. The minutes record that it was agreed that the Pietermaritzburg library was an “autonomous library in the sense that the Librarian is responsible for
765 Malan, University of Natal Library, 20th March 1962, p. 2.
766 University of Natal, Joint Library Committee, Minutes of a special meeting held on 23rd March 1962, p. 1.
767 Ibid.
768 University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg Library Committee, Minutes of a meeting held on 4th April 1962, p. 2.
769 Ibid.
770 University of Natal Library, Pietermaritzburg, Librarian’s report, no. 2, 4th April 1962, unpublished, p. 2.
771 Ibid.
internal organisation and administration,”772 albeit under the direction of the Director.
Under the proposed new organisational structure it must have appeared that Brown was to lose some of his autonomy, hence the sense of outrage. Not unnaturally, Malan replied that he “disapproved strongly”773 of Brown’s comments.
The Pietermaritzburg Committee resolved to draw up its own memorandum “detailing its attitude towards the problems raised by the Director’s memorandum.”774 The Principal, in his capacity as Chair of the Joint Library Committee, was to be invited to a discussion thereon. A counter-memorandum was apparently duly drawn up but, due to the illness of Professor Warren, Chair of the Pietermaritzburg Library Committee, discussion at the following meeting was postponed.775 A discussion between Warren, Malan and Brown, scheduled for 19th September,776 did not take place. Eventually, Warren and Malan met, without Brown, and the matter was apparently laid to rest.777
An outcome of the dissension was the recommendation that the Pietermaritzburg Librarian be made an ex officio member of the Joint Library Committee.778 The Acting Chair, Dr H. Meidner, undertook to discuss the matter with the Registrar and report back to Malan. Presumably as a result of this request, a report submitting an amended constitution and outlining the functions of both the Joint and local Library Committees was discussed at and subsequently adopted by Senate at its meeting of 12th September 1962. As a result, membership of the Joint Library Committee was extended to include both the Pietermaritzburg Librarian and the Deputy Librarian, Durban, as ex officio members. Furthermore, the Senate Executive affirmed that “the status of the Joint Library Committee was a co-ordinating [no longer a subordinate] committee to the two Library Committees”779 and agreed that the University Calendar was to be amended to
772 University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg Library Committee, Minutes of a meeting held on 15th February 1962, p. 1.
773 University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg Library Committee, Minutes of a meeting held on 4th April 1962, p. 2.
774 Ibid.
775 University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg Library Committee, Minutes of a meeting held on 16th May 1962, p. 2.
776 University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg Library Committee, Minutes of a meeting held on 13th September 1962, p. 1.
777 University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg Library Committee, Minutes of a meeting held on 15th November 1962, p. 1.
778 Ibid., p. 2.
779 University of Natal, Durban Library Committee, Minutes of a meeting held on 12th March 1963, p. 3.
reflect this changed status. In fact, the word “subordinate” was simply removed from the sentence describing the library committees in the University Calendar.780 It was also resolved that all three of the library committees would have “direct approach to Senex.”781
Brown’s first annual report to the Pietermaritzburg Library Committee also aroused Malan’s ire. Brown, in his opening paragraph stated that, as Maple’s successor, he had become “the holder of the reinstated post of Librarian.”782 He then went on to complain that too much time was being spent on “unnecessary work and unnecessary duplication of work,” and rather sarcastically noted that ‘Der Drang nach Durban’ [the pressure towards Durban] had been intensified and that “weekly ‘Voyages à Pietermaritzburg’ [a reference to Malan’s weekly visits to the Pietermaritzburg Library] are consuming of time and money. Co-ordination had been ignored in favour of control.”783
Malan drew up a memorandum for the Pietermaritzburg Library Committee meeting of 13th March, 1963, and responded to Brown’s attack. Under the heading,
“Misconceptions,” he noted that “The post of Librarian has not been “reinstated” but it has been regraded to Librarian (PMB) from Deputy Librarian.”784 He took issue with Brown’s complaint about co-ordination being ignored, stating firmly that, “This is not true as far as the other sections of the University Library is [sic] concerned,” but, he pointed out, “is true to a certain extent for the P.M.B. section as it has been rendered almost impossible by the total lack of co-operation from the Librarian (PMB).”785 He pointed out that his weekly visits to Pietermaritzburg were necessary in order to “co- ordinate and control the Pietermaritzburg section ... Insinuations such as those made in the report are very much out of place.”786 Lastly, he made a subtle counter-attack:
It is the specified duty of the Director of Library Services to report to Senate and Council annually on the University Libraries as a whole. Separate reports are unnecessarily time consuming and involves [sic] unnecessary duplication of work.”787
780 University of Natal, Calendar, 1963, [S.l.: The University], 1963, p. 114.
781 University of Natal, Durban Library Committee, Minutes of the meeting held on 12th March 1963, p. 3.
782 University of Natal Library, Pietermaritzburg, Librarian’s report, no. 2, 4th April 1962, p. 1.
783 Ibid.
784 S.I. Malan, [Memorandum prepared for the Pietermaritzburg Library Committee meeting of 13th March 1963], 11th March 1963, unpublished, p. 1.
785 Ibid.
786 Ibid.
787 Malan, [Memorandum …], 11th March 1963, p. 2.
The battle lines were drawn. Unfortunately, such exchanges became a feature of the relationship between the two men and did nothing to assist in unifying the library service in the two centres.
The sub-committee appointed by the Joint Library Committee on 23rd March 1962 to investigate the possibility of centralising book orders eventually met on 12th March 1963.
It recommended that “book orders for the Pietermaritzburg section of the University Library be dealt with locally.”788 The crisis passed but an uneasy truce prevailed.
Administrative problems continued to plague the Library. A request by the Director that he was to be copied on all correspondence sent out from the Library was not well-
received by the Pietermaritzburg Library Committee which was of the opinion that “the Library functioned as part of the University as a whole where, unlike the Civil Service, the practice of sending copies of correspondence does not exist.”789 In the 1964 Annual report Malan commented that:
After prolonged discussion on detailed considerations of the problems underlying the organization and administration of a dual-centred library, a modus operandi has been drawn up and accepted to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. The underlying principle of this system remains a unitary one. Accordingly the library, as in the case of the university as a whole including all academic departments which extend to both centres, operates as a unitary organization under one responsible head.790