The Malan years, 1962–1967
8.2. Finances
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
undertaking “than a university library with ordinary branches.”793 Of necessity many books had to be duplicated in Pietermaritzburg and Durban, “resulting in a duplication of expenditure for such items.”794 Of interest is his comparison of expenditure on library materials per student across seven South African university libraries which showed that Natal’s expenditure per student was third highest on the list (see Table 8.1. below).
However, the duplication of books795 meant that the benefit derived from this expenditure was lower than that of other universities with only one main library and
“where the necessity for duplication does not exist.”796
University Subsidy
students Budget 1962 Expenditure per student Orange Free State 1450 R46316 R31.94
Rhodes 1490 R40950 R27.48
Potchefstroom 1779 R77900 R43.70
Natal 3252 R89929 R27.64
Stellenbosch 4140 R100530 R24.28 Witwatersrand 5150 R98050 R19.03
Pretoria 7132 R117459 R16.46
Table. 8.1. Comparison of expenditure on library materials per student across seven South African universities797
To be fair, the University never allowed total expenditure on the Library, including staff salaries, library materials and operating expenses, to drop below 4.8% of the total
University expenditure, and in 1967 it reached a record 8%. This comparison is shown in the following table:
793 University of Natal Libraries, Annual report, 1962, p. 2
794 Ibid.
795 Kennedy, in his investigation into the book stock of South African libraries suggested that there was not enough duplication. – R.F. Kennedy, Books for study and research, Potchefstroom:
Potchefstroom University for C.H.E., 1962, p. 61. Kennedy’s study is discussed in more detail in section 8.3.
796 University of Natal Libraries, Annual report, 1962, p. 3.
797 Ibid., p. 2.
Year Library expenditure Total University expenditure %
1962 R83,256 R1,572,463 5
1963 R93.454 R1,685,126 5.5
1964 R110,770 R2,310,154 4.8
1965 R125,301 R2,511,190 5
1966 R144,935 R1,839,431 7.8
1967 R153,500 R1,925,190 8
Table 8.2 University of Natal: comparison of library vs. university expenditure, 1962–
1967798
The real problem was, of course, the necessity of maintaining what amounted to two main libraries which meant that the percentage of the Library budget spent on staff salaries and operating expenses tended to be high, with a concomitantly lower
percentage spent on books and periodicals. Expenditure on books and journals varied between 31% and 35% of the Library’s total expenditure every year which worked out to be a paltry 1.5% to 2% of total University expenditure. Malan considered that this was
“according to accepted standards ... too low a percentage for books and journals”799 although, as Musiker reveals, inadequately funded university libraries were not a phenomenon peculiar to South Africa. In a biennial report on South African university libraries, Musiker noted that:
In 1963/64 the amount spent by British universities on libraries was less than 4 per cent of their budget, and less than 1 ½ per cent of the total budget was for books and periodicals.800
Malan also contended that the quinquennial revisions of the subsidy formula for
universities were unrealistic since they were based solely on student numbers and failed to take into account rising book and journal subscription prices.801 His remarks echo the conclusions pertaining to the financing of university libraries drawn by Kennedy, retired Johannesburg City Librarian, in his investigation into the strengths and weaknesses of the national book stock.802 Kennedy rightly pointed out that:
798 Collated and adapted from: University of Natal, Expenditure and revenue account and balance sheet, 1964 – 1974, unpublished.
799 University of Natal Libraries, Annual report, 1964, p. 5.
800 R. Musiker, University library progress in South Africa, January 1965 – December 1966, South African libraries, vol. 35, no. 4, April 1968, p. 124.
801 University of Natal Libraries, Annual report, 1966, p. 4.
802 This investigation is discussed in more detail in section 8.3. below.
[A] peculiarity of university libraries is that in many of them the financial allocation for books and journals is based on the number of students in each department. The basic stock for any given subject will cost the same whether it is to be used by 20 or 200 students... the present method ensures that the smaller university must be inferior to the bigger so far as the literature of research is concerned. 803
Kennedy’s recommendations for improving the book stock of the University of Natal Libraries included increasing the annual book vote to at least R45, 000 (in 1961 only R30, 106 had been expended on books and periodicals) as well as an ad hoc grant of R250, 000 to be spent over ten years, to “make good deficiencies”804 and to bring the collections up to the “required minimum.”805 This did not happen. In 1962 library expenditure on books and journals actually fell by 3% to R29,232. Even in 1967, expenditure on books and journals had not quite reached the R45,000 target recommended by Kennedy. At R42,883 it constituted just 2% of overall University expenditure, although total library expenditure constituted nearly 8% of the total (see Table 8.2 above). Needless to say, no ad hoc grant was forthcoming, either.