Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26

SENATE 

To............................................................................................................. 

LOAN 

LIBRARY L 

?

POLICY, S.71-86 

Subiect

..................

.... .....

.............................................................

.............

A. H. LACHL 

From

.................................................................................................

CHAIRMAN, SENATE LIBRARY COMMITTEE 

JULY 13, 1971 

Date.................................................................................................. 

MOTION: 

"That Senate approve the implementation of 

the Library New Loan Policy and New Penalty 

Policy, as outlined in Paper S.71-86, for a 

trialpe.riod to begin as soon as possible 

and to end at the end of the Spring Semester, 

1972." 

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MEMORANDUM

.......................................Chairman.1...Senate...L.ib.r.a.r.y.C.ommitte

Subject....................... .

.Date........... ................. . ...

...... ..........

The Senate Library Committee has deliberated on Library

loan policy and wishes new policies to be implemented. I am,

- therefore, putting to Senate the following:

MOTION: That Senate approve the implementation of the

end of the Spring Semester, 1972.

Supporting materials attached are:

New Loan Policy ?

P. 2

New Penalty Policy ?

Discussion of New Policies

Appendix A. Schedule of Current Loan

9 ?

Periods

Appendix B. Loan Policy Questionnaire

Appendix C. Results of Questionnaire

Appendix D. History of Library Rules and

20 ?

Regulations

The policies proposed here were agreed by the Senate

Library Committee in its meetings of May 13, June 10, and

The Library loan period for materials in the General

Collection is to be one semester for all classes of borrowers.

(The precise meaning of this statement is made clear in 3

below.)

The loan periods for other materials are to remain

unchanged. (A schedule of current loan periods forms Appendix

A.)

In each semester all materials borrowed from the

General Collection become due on the last day of the Exam-

ination period and should be returned to the Library on or

before that day, except that any material borrowed within

the two week period prior to the last day of Examinations will

not be due until the end of the Examination period of the

following semester.

Any borrower may recall material from the General

Collection which is already out on loan. The holder of the

material is required to return it either by the fifth day from

the day of recall, or by the fourteenth day of his tenure of the

material, whichever is later. If more than two recalls are

placed on an item, it will be put on restricted loan status

until demand drops or other copies are obtained. (Restricted

loan status is at the discretion of the librarians, but will

normally mean reserve loan.)

Borrowers are responsible for all materials and

equipment taken out on their cards.

....3

-3-

NEW PENALTY POLICY

For the purposes of penalties, there are three categories

of loan:

(i)

General Collection, Interlibrary Loans, and

Audio Visual Equipment

If a person is suspended from borrowing it will be only

with respect to the particular loan category of the infringe-

ment. A person suspended from borrowing will not be allowed

to borrow materials affected until his suspension is lifted. Fines

will be levied separately with respect to the three categories.

-i

-4-

Schedule of Penalties

1. Recall (concerns General Collection only)

Failure to respond to recall within the allotted time

will result in suspension from borrowing and a fine of $5 per

item. The suspension will be lifted as soon as the recall is

met and the fine paid. Borrowers will be notified of the po-

tential penalty at the time of recall.

Z. Semester End (concerns General Collection only)

General Collection material becomes due on the last

day of Examinations. After that day borrowers with outstanding

materials will be suspended from borrowing in category (i)

until all materials are returned. Borrowers who have failed

to return all materials by the last day of the semester (April 30,

August 30, or December 31 according to the semester) will be

fined $5 irrespective of the number of items. A notice of the

fine and list of overdue materials will be mailed to the borrower.

After two weeks the fine will be increased by $5 per week to a

maximum of $25 per borrower. After the last day of Exam-

inations the Library will, if contacted, identify material not

yet returned.

Fines incurred under 1 and 2 will be concurrent.

Reserve Loans

Fines will be levied at the flat rate of $5 per item, but

only upon items that are an hour or more overdue and have

Holds placed on them. Borrowers who have incurred a fine,

or who have not returned materials in time, will be suspended

from borrowing until the fine (if any) is paid and the materials

returned.

Audio Visual Equipment

S ?

-5-

•

Overdue items will incur fines at a rate of $1 a day

per item, plus suspension from borrowing until the fine is

paid and the equipment returned.

Special Loans

Failure to return materials on Special Loan within

five days after the due date will result in a flat fine of $5 and

suspension until the fine is paid and material returned. An

overdue notice will be sent.

Borrowers will be charged for lost or damaged materials

and equipment. Failure to pay such charges within a reasonable

time, this to be at the discretion of the Library, will result in

suspension from borrowing until payment is made. After

materials or equipment have been reported lost, no further fines

will accrue in respect of the said materials or equipment. Over-

due materials or equipment not returned within a reasonable

time, again to be at the discretion of the Library, will be deemed

lost and the cost of replacement charged to the borrower.

....6

-6-

DISCUSSION OF THE NEW LOAN AND PENALTY POLICIES

The following remarks are intended to give Senate some

of the ideas and information brought to the Senate Library

Committee when it formulated the new policies.

In April, 1971, Loan Policy questionnaires were mailed

to 6,500 library users and 807 questionnaires were returned:

139 from faculty, 480 from students, 188 from others. A

copy of the questionnaire is included as Appendix B and the

results of the questionnaire as Appendix C. As a cursory

reading of the questionnaire will show the views of the Senate

Library Committee have changed radically since the ques-

tionnaire was devised.

In formulating the new loan policy, the Committee first

5 ?

decided to maintain the principle of parity for all borrowers,

because no convincing arguments against parity had been

advanced. This is one point on which the results of the

questionnaire support the Committee's view.

The most difficult question the Committee had to decide

was what loan period to recommend for the General Collection.

The advantages of the semester loan are:

(i)

Many faculty members (represented by the

60 who answered "no" to question 3a who

feel themselves seriously hampered by the

two week loan period will be better served.

(ii)

A considerable saving is expected in that

renewals will no longer be necessary. This

saving we expect to be significantly more than

the cost of the recall system

The expected disadvantages of the semester loan are:

(i)

There will be less material in the Library

for browsers.

(ii)

The prospective borrower of a particular

item will have less chance of finding it

immediately available.

The Committee was not wholly convinced that the advant-

ages of the semester loan outweigh the disadvantages. For this

reason the Recommendations only apply for a trial period. The

Committee is conscious of the fact that a majority of the res -

pondents to the questionnaire, over 90% in the case of under-

graduates, feel that the present loan period, i.e. two weeks,

is appropriate. Despite this expression of opinion, the Com-

mittee believes that an experiment with the semester loan

system is justified.

Under a Recall system, borrowers will tend to take out

more material then they return, therefore, it is necessary to

have all library materials returned at the end of the semester.

both a reasonable and practical time and the last day of exam-

ations seemed appropriate. Any material borrowed within

the two week period prior to that date will not be due (unless

recalled by another borrower) until the end of the following

semester.

Given a semester loan period, the system of Recall outlined

in Recommendation 4 seemed the obvious one and no alternative

was discussed by the Committee.

? The new penalty system is designed to be fair to Library

users and yet to be very simple to operate. The current penalty

system occupies 40% of the Library's on-line storage to no

good purpose, the new system will require no on-line storage.

-8-

• ?

As may be inferred from the questionnaire, in April, the Com-

mittee was thinking in terms of eliminating fines and instituting

a demerit system. After further reflection and discussion it

was generally felt that the recall system would not work unless

fines were levied. Having set the penalities for failure to

respond to recall, the Committee quickly agreed on the rest of

the penalty system.

The proposed policies can be implemented on fairly short

notice, once the recall procedures have been finalized, and the

community properly informed. On the night prior to the imple-

mentation date, a list of all the then suspended borrowers (those

owing $25 or more) would be prepared by the Computing Centre;

all other fine records would be cleared from the files.

Current loan periods.

General Collection

Two weeks.

Reserve Loans

There are four Reserve Loan periods: 2 hour; 4 hour;

24 hours and 3 day. The Loan Period is on each book

card. Same titles may have different periods. It is

the borrower's responsibility to check these cards

carefully.

2-hour loan: Due two hours from the time taken out.

Overnight: From 8:00 P.M. to 10:00 A.M. the fol-

lowing day. Weekends: From 4:00 P.M. Saturday

to 10:00 A.M. Monday.

4-hour loan: Due four hours from the time taken out.

Overnight: Monday through Thursday from 4:00 P.M.

to 10:00 A.M. the following day. Weekends: From

3:00 P.M. Monday.

24-hour and 3-da y

loans: Due after a full 24 hours

and a full 3 days. Weekends: Friday to Monday counts

as 1 day.

Audio Visual Equipment

The loan period is 3 days for all authorized borrowers

and can be extended if there are no Holds. T.A.'s

must get faculty authorization once to cover the whole

semester. Graduate and undergraduate students

require authorization each time. Staff are not allowed

to borrow for personal use. The borrowerin each

case is responsible for the equipment.

10 -

•

4. Special Loans

The loan period is specified by the Loan Division for

each case individually.

• 11

•

?

APPENDIX B. 

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 

?

DATE: March 

?

/71

LOAN POLICY 

• ? 

QUESTIONNAIRE 

1.

Indicate one or more. 

Faculty  

?

Undergraduate student 

T. A. 

?

Staff 

Graduate 

Student  ? 

Other 

Dept. in which you are teaching, working, majoring etc., - 

2.

Do you think that all Library patrons should be subject to 

the same Loan Policy regulations? 

Yes

?

No

3.

LOAN PERIODS: 

NOTE ? 

This question on Loan Periods is divided into 4 sections 

with space for comments at the end of each section. 

If you answered "NO" to Question 2, please use 

these spaces to indicate the loan periods you would 

like for all classes of borrowers. 

A. Regular Loans 

NOTE ? 

The effective loan period for this material is 17 days 

(14 days 

.

plus 3 days grace). Each book may be RENEWED 

indefinitely provided there are no HOLDS placed on it or 

it has not been RECALLED. It may be renewed by phone or 

in person without-the-book, but the book itself must be 

brought into the Library for every 4th renewal. At present, 

most patrons return their books before the 17 days has 

elapsed. 

Do

you

you

think the loan period, grace period and renewal 

pattern for Regular Loan books are appropriate? 

Yes

?

No

Comments: 

B. Reserve Loans 

NOTE ? 

There are 4 Reserve Loan periods: 2 hour; 4 hour; 24 hour; 

and 3 day. The Loan Period is on each book card. Same 

titles may have different periods. It is the borrower's 

responsibility to check these cards carefully. 

2-hour loan: Due two hours from the time taken out. 

Overnight From 8:00 PM to 10:00 AM the following day. 

Weekends: From 4:00 PM Saturday to 10:00 AN Monday. 

4-hour loan: Due four hours from the time taken out. 

Overnight: Monday through Thursday from 4:00 PM to 10:00 

AM the following day. 

Weekends: From 3:00 PM Friday until 10:00 AM Monday. 

24-hour and 3-day loans: Due after a full 24 hours and a 

full 3 days. 

Weekends: Friday to Monday counts as 1 day. 

Do you think the loan period for Reserve material is 

appropriate? 

Yes  ? 

No

Comments: 

-13- 

• ? 

C. Audio-Tape Loans 

The Loan period is on an overnight basis from Monday to 

Thursday. Friday the loan period is extended to Monday. 

Tapes may be renewed in person or by telephoning the Tape 

Loan clerk. Fines for overdue tapes are assessed at 25 

per day per tape. 

NOTE ? 

The tape study facility and its tapes have been moved to 

the 2nd floor of the Library (tapes are still self-help). 

We are also planning to move the popular tapes (music, poetry, 

drama, etc.) to the Reserves area on the 3rd floor. These 

tapes will then be loaned on the same basis as Reserve 

material. 

Do you approve of the locations and loan and fine regulations 

for both study and popular tapes? 

Yes  ? 

No

Comments: 

Do you have access to a reel to reel tape recorder (7" reel; 

¼ track; 3 3/4, 71, speeds)? 

Yes  ? 

No

Do you have access to a cassette player? 

Yes  ? 

No

D. A. V. equipment 

• ? 

The loan period is 3 days for all authorized borrowers and 

can be extended if there are no Holds. T.'A.'s must get 

faculty authorization once to cover the whole semester. 

Grads and students require authorization each time. Staff 

S ?

-14- 

•

are not allowed to borrow for personal use. The borrower 

• ? 

in each case is responsible for the equipment. Fines for over- 

due equipment are assessed at $1.00 per day per piece of 

equipment. 

Do you think these loan and fine regulations are appropriate? 

Yes  ? 

No

Comments: 

4. PENALTIES FOR OVERDUE BOOKS etc.: 

NOTE ? 

At present, the Library has cut off the borrowing privileges 

of 100 patrons (most of them faculty) because they owe fines 

over $25. Added to that list at the end of this Semester, 

and at the end of each succeeding Semester until the Loan 

Policy question is settled, will be all borrowers whose 

fines exceed $25. Borrowing privileges will be reinstated 

when fines are paid. The Library will not request that 

student grades or transcripts be withheld unless the student 

in question has books overdue. Clearance concerning Overdue 

books must be obtained from the Library Loan Division before 

the Registrar will release grades or transcripts. 

(a) The library is planning to institute a demerit system. 

It is a sliding scale of penalty-points, similar in many 

respects to the B. C. driver's licence points system. The 

concept is that patrons incur penalty points for overdue books 

and that when a certain level of penalty points is reached, 

- 15 - 

his loan privileges are suspended -- after a warning -- for a 

given period. Since the weeks prior to the end of the semester 

are when the circulation of books is the greatest and user's 

needs for these hooks the most urgent, we envisage heavier 

penalties for misuse during this period. Also, the longer 

a book remains overdue, the heavier the penalties become. 

Penalty points awarded: 

Normal semester time 

?

Exam-time 

First 4 days  

¼

point 

per day  

First 4 days  

¼

point 

per day 

Next 4 days  

½

point per day  

Next 4 days  

1 point per day 

Next 4 days  

1 point per day  

Next 4 days  

2 points 

per day 

After this   

2

points per day 

After this   

4

points per day 

Warning notice -- sent out after 20 points are reached. 

Suspension of privileges -- after 45 points are reached. 

Suspension periods 

45 to 60 points ? 

2 weeks 

over 60 points ? 

4 weeks 

At exam-time the suspension periods would be increased by two 

weeks. Points are erased from the record either at the end of 

each semester or, if a suspension has been incurred, at the end 

of the suspension period. THE CONDITIONS OF THIS SYSTEM MY HAVE 

TO BE CHANGED AS A RESULT OF EXPERIENCE. 

Do you approve of the proposed demerit system? 

Yes

?

No

Comments: 

(b) The present fine system could be changed to a fee system: 

all patrons would agree in writing (when applying for a 

library card) to pay a fee for keeping books overdue. This 

would allow the University to deduct Library fees from the 

- 16 - 

paycheques of all employees. Presumably withholding grades 

and degrees would be reinstituted as a means of collecting 

fees from students. 

Would you approve of such a fee system? 

Yes ? 

No

Comments: 

5. MISCELLANEOUS 

A.

Recall of Library Materials 

NOTE ? 

We have a Recall system now which allows you to recall a 

• ? 

book then keep it for a negotiated period; the person who 

has returned it can have first Hold on it when it returns. 

Also faculty may Recall books so they can be placed on 

Reserve. Under the demerit system we would impose demerit 

points for failure to respond to a reasonable Recall. 

Do you think this system is appropriate? 

.Yes 

?

No

Comments: 

B.

Warning Notices 

It costs the Library $15,500 a year to send out the warning 

notice. Would you be willing to keep the Grace Period but 

dispense with the Warning Notice? 

Yes _____ ? 

No

- 17 - 

. ?

Comments: 

6.

?

This is the place to make suggestions and comments not 

invited by the previous parts of the questionnaire. 

Please feel free to use the blank backs of all pages. 

Please return this to the Loan Division in the Library by April 9th/71. 

TCD/sqv 

March 22, 1971. 

Questionnaire approved by Senate Library Committee March 17, 1971. 

.-C

1

C).

l

c:>

I

c) I 

4_i

1

0-1

1

-(r, 

l

Il

I

•-4

-.I-

- 4

1-4

ID)

Cl)

I

I

ID)

1

I

I

c:)

I

Cl)

4)0

4.i)0

1

"^'

-4

C'4-I-

'0rJ) C

C

1

4

C14

-.j

('I

o ?

o,-4

u.4

0r..0

1

C.-.

('-4

ELI

('4

('J

I

I

bID

V

.-t- 

ZE-4

lo

lo

•

C).

I-

I

N

1"D

I LI )

1

l

ExO

'.0

"I'l 

r-l

U - )

i

cli r 

U) ?

.-4(N

4_i

Cl) ?

CNN.

cu

.,I-

N.0N

Cl)

0 ?

(...40

rj,

c-1

N. N-

'-0

Cl)

.d (N

ICD1

1,-4

C')

-.j-

'.0

Z H

I-i

•-4

.()

.-4

Lf)..

'I.)

4.1 ?

(44

.-1

U)U)

C)(3)

..j

.13

"-4

•.-)

•,-4

(C ?

C')

(CC

'.0

Cfl

't')

-.J

CD.

I'n

.-)

&J-')

(t4U)

C.) 0

:3 ?

LI'.

mISTOXY OF LLAY WLS AD EGULATIOS

$IW01

F1AE.

U1IEUITY

SEPTEMBER 1965

When the University opened for classes the only general

regulations in force were the loan regulations which stipulated

All borrowers - 4 hours, 24 hours, 72 hours.

These regulations were "normal" at many Canadian universities

and were agreed to by members of the Committee of Heads and

the President. A policy of minimum regulations without fines

was endorsed.

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER .1965

Delegations of students met with the University Librarian with

complaints of excessive overdue loans by some borrowers and

consequently their inability to borrow certain books for their

course assignments. The number of overdue notices for November

and December were 1600 and 1000, respectively.

The Librarian recommended to the President that fines should be

introduced and he reluctantly concurred. In January 1966 fines

became effective on reserve books; in March fines were extended

to general loan books. Overdue notices dropped to 713 in March.

* * *

DECEMBER 29, 1965

At the meeting of Faculty Council of this date Library regulations

were discussed and it was considered that the body most directly

concerned with this area, i. e. Senate Library Committee, should

prepare them, and give copies to Faculty Council.

Faculty Council Minutes, December 29, 1965

- 21 -

MARCH 7,

1966

The University Senate meeting of this date resolved to Establish

a Senate Library Committee. At the same meeting the terms of

reference were approved by Senate.

Senate Minutes, March 7,

At the first meeting of the Senate Library Committee the second item

on the agenda reads "Current rules and regulations in the Library

established by the University Librarian on behalf of the Senate Library

Committee". The Senate Library Committee accepted the regulations,

which included fines, but not for faculty members.

Senate Library Committee Minutes, April 13,

1966

Paper in Faculty Council Book as at March

At the meeting of Faculty Council of this date the question arose as

to whether it was necessary for Senate to ratify fines. The Registrar

agreed to place the matter before Senate.

Faculty Council Minutes, May

18, 1966

* * *

JUNE 6, 1966

At the meeting of Senate a question from Faculty Council on

clarification of Section

of the Universities Act was discussed.

The question of fines was specifically debated and the following

resolution was approved by Senate:

"THAT ANY GENERAL RULE OR REGULATION WHICH

AFFECTED A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE REQUIRED

THE APPROVAL OF SENATE".

At the meeting of Senate the Library regulations accepted by the

Senate Library Committee at their first meeting of April 13,

It is noted that item 2(d) "Permission to withhold marks until books

are returned" accepted by the Senate Library Committee on April 13,

1966

was not directly included in the statement of Library regulations,

as submitted to Senate. No reason for non-inclusion has been found.

- 22 -

. ?

Note a memorandum of February 2,

1966

with the Faculty Council

Minutes of March

from the meeting. However, the practice of withholding marks and

denying registration privileges was introduced for non-payment of

library fines, and was later expanded to include non-payment of

traffic fines (see next item dated November 30,

1967 -

Faculty Council).

Senate Minutes, July 4,

1966,

and Supporting Papers 3d, 3d-1, and

Registrar's Memo 3c.

Faculty Council Agenda, March

9, 1966,

and Minutes, March

9, 1966

and Librarian's Memo, February 2,

At the meeting of Faculty Council as of this date it was agreed that

the same rules should apply to traffic fines as to Library fines, i.e.

that marks and registration privileges of undergraduates should be

withheld pending payment of such fines.

It was also agreed that graduate students would follow a similar

procedure.

• ?

-'Explanatory Note:

As has been pointed out the action of withholding marks and denying

registration privileges for non-payment of fines was not submitted

to Senate for reasons not known at this time.

Faculty Council Minutes, November 30,

At the Senate meeting of September

9, 1968,

the Chairman

requested that an item dealing with library fines be added to the

agenda. This was done, but the item was not discussed in open

session and was, therefore, transferred to closed session but

was not discussed. There are no support papers on the item for

Senate.

On September 23,

1968,

the Chairman of Senate indicated that the items

of concern had been referred to the Senate Library Committee.

September

17,1968 -

The Librarian provided a report on Library

fines to the Chairman of the Senate Library Committee, with

recommendations.

The Librarian's report was discussed jit the Senate Library

Committee on September 20,

1968.

5. ?

Further considerations were undertaken at the Senate Library

Committee on October 31,

1968.

- 23 -

Explanatory Note:

In July 1968 and again later the President of the Student Society

of a discontinuance of fines.. The Senate Library Committee considered

holding a student referendum, or a questionnaire to seek student

opinion. Some consideration was given the suggestion of equal treatment

for all members of the University community related to the matters of

the loan of library books. Decision was made to issue a questionnaire

to students and faculty.

Senate Minutes, September

1968 (open and closed),

Senate Minutes, September 23, 1968,

Librarian's Memo, September 17, 1968,

Senate Library Committee Minutes, September 20, 1968,

Senate Library Committee Minutes, October 31, 1968, and

Librarian's Memo, October 30, 1968

* * *

FEBRUARY 14, 1969 - SENATE LIBRARY COMMITTEE

The results of the questionnaire to students and faculty on loans,

Committee on February 14, 1969.

. ?

Attention is drawn to the tabulations (Page 6) which indicates that

undergraduates, graduates and faculty each supported fines for both

general and reserve loan books and that faculty and students should

be fined. The faculty, on the question of fining of faculty, voted

136 in favour, 65 against and 6 without answer.

The responses on commonality of loan periods were not as consistent

but, if a common loan period were to be applied, each group chose

two weeks as first choice.

The Senate Library Committee resolved that general loan books have

a common loan period for all borrowers commencing with the summer

semester 69-2,

and that the principle of equivalent sanctions should

apply to all members of the University community who misuse borrow-

ing privileges, with procedures to be developed.

Senate Library Committee Minutes, February 14, 1968,

and Questionnaire and Results of Questionnaire.

* **

MARCH 3, 1969 - SENATE

The Senate Library Committee reported to Senate through Paper

S206 and the report was accepted by Senate.

The report included the resolutions introducing a common loan period

of two weeks for general loan books for all borrowers to commence

with the summer semester 69-2, and the principle of equivalent

sanctions for all members of the University community who misuse

their Library borrowing privileges, with procedures to be developed.

......S

- 24 -

Senate Minutes, March

On this date the Senate Library Committee considered the matter

of applying equivalent sanctions to all members of the University

community who misuse their borrowing privileges. The Committee

reaffirmed its decision to introduce the two-week common loan period

for general loan books as of May 1,

1969

and approved that the fines

system be extended to include faculty commencing in September

1969,

with withdrawal of the library privileges of recalcitrant faculty to take

effect for the first time at the end of the fall semester

69-3.

Senate Library Committee Minutes, April 3,

1969

and

Librarian's Memo, April 2,

1969

JUNE 2,

1969 - SENATE

A report of the Senate Library Committee covering meetings of that

body in the spring semester

69-1

was placed on the agenda and

distributed to senators as Paper S237.

For reasons not identified, it was not discussed at the meeting of

Senate, and did not come forward directly at any future meeting, but

much of the information therein was included later in the annual report

discussed at Senate November 10,

1969.

This report included statements on the introduction of the common

loan period for general loan books as from May

1969;

the approval

of the principle of equivalent sanctions; the decisions of the Senate

Library Committee to introduce a fines system for faculty commencing

September

1969,

with the withdrawal of library privileges to take place

at the end of a semester for non-payment of fines or non-return of

books; the application of these principles to apply to all with the

exception of undergraduates.

Explanatory Note

All members of the University community would be assessed fines;

and would have library borrowing privileges withdrawn at the end of a

semester for non-payment or non-return of books - with the exception

of undergraduates for whom the policy was to withhold grades and deny

registration privileges. The comment "other than undergraduates" was

included without identifying the practice in respect of undergraduates

which had existed since

1966.

Paper S 237, placed on the agenda at Senate for June 2,

1969

and distributed, but not discussed

- 25 -

NOVEMBER 10, 1969

The Senate Library Committee submitted an annual report to Senate

through Paper S278 and this was received for information.

The report included the principle that all members of the University

community have equivalent sanctions for misuse of library privileges;

that a common loan period of two weeks for general loan books apply

to all members of the University community as from May 1969; that

a fine system be extended to faculty beginning in September 1969; and

that library privileges be withheld from faculty members and all other

borrowers except undergraduates at the end of a semester if they did

not pay fines or return books.

Explanatory Note

(In practice, the fine system was introduced for faculty as from

September 1969 but the withholding of borrowing privileges was not

introduced. The withholding of statements of grades and denial of

registration for undergraduate students was continued).

Senate Minutes, November 10, 1969 and Paper S278

DECEMBER

1970 - ADMINISTRATION MEETING

.-JANUARY 19, 171

SENATE LIBRARY COMMITTEE

Decision was made by the University administrators to provide for an

amnesty on library fines over

$25

if paid by January 29, 1971 and

those who owed such fines were notified.

On January 19, 1971, the Senate Library Committee invoked procedures

to cancel borrowing privileges of any of the patrons above who owed

$25 or more to the Library as of January 29, 1971.

It was further resolved that students who owe fines will not be refused

grades nor denied registration privileges providing they return over-

due books, but that any patron who owes fines of $25 or more at the

end of the semester 71-1 or later will have borrowing privileges cancelled

until fines are paid.

Senate Library Committee Minutes, January 19, 1971 and

Letter to those owing Fines in excess of $25

MARCH 1

1971 - SENATE ?

* *

Question was raised at Senate concerning the withdrawal of borrowing

privileges and motion made to temporarily suspend the applying of such

withdrawals, but the motion was defeated.

Notice of motion was given to require the Senate Library Committee to

. ?

report to Senate on the history of Library loan policies and practices

at the earliest possible time.

H. M. Evans, Secretary of Senate

April 1, 1971

D. A. Baird, University Librarian