Guidelines
for the Security of Rare Book, Manuscript,
and
Other Special Collections
ABSTRACT
In a climate where theft
of special collections materials is an everyday possibility, security must
be a major concern of the entire library and special collections communities,
with special collections administrators addressing it to the best of their
abilities within their institutional context.
The ACRL/RBMS Security
Committee's Guidelines for the Security of Rare Book, Manuscript, and Other
Special Collections, published here, is the principal ACRL document dealing
with the security of library materials. These guidelines identify important
topics that collection administrators should address in developing adequate
collection security. While directed primarily toward rare books, special collections,
and manuscripts, the topics are also applicable to general collections. The
RBMS Security Committee strongly urges implementation of these guidelines,
including the unique identification marking of materials and the appointment
of a Library Security Officer (LSO).
I. INTRODUCTION
These guidelines identify
important topics that collection administrators should address in developing
adequate collection security. While directed towards special collections,
the topics are also applicable to general collections.
Administrators of rare
book, manuscript, and special collection materials must insure that their
collections remain intact and secure from theft and damage. The security of
collections is now especially important since administrators' efforts to increase
the use and knowledge of collections in their care can result in a greater
public awareness of their value, and may increase the risk of theft. Security
arrangements vary from one institution to another and are dependent on staffing,
physical setting, and use.
Rare book and manuscript
dealers also must concern themselves with collection security, since thieves
may offer stolen materials to them for sale. Librarians should make every
effort to familiarize such dealers with the ways institutions attempt to secure
and identify their materials and help them use this knowledge to lessen anyone's
chances of profiting from theft.
The appointment of a
Library Security Officer and the development of a security policy can help
insure that staff are aware of their legal and procedural responsibilities
in applying security measures.
II. THE LIBRARY SECURITY
OFFICER
Each institution concerned
with the security of rare books, manuscripts or other special collections
materials should appoint an LSO. The LSO should be appointed by the library
director, should have primary authority and responsibility to carry out the
security program, and should have a thorough knowledge of all repository security
needs, particularly those of special collections. The LSO should not necessarily
be conceived of as the library’s general security officer, although he or
she may also hold that role. The identity of the LSO should be widely known,
especially among other administrative officers of the repository. The LSO's
principal responsibility should be to plan and administer a security program,
which should include a survey of the collections, reviews of the physical
layout of the institution, and training of the institution's staff. He or
she should develop active working relationships with colleagues and seek the
advice and the assistance of appropriate personnel, such as institutional
administrators, corporate counsel, life safety officers, the LSO mail lists,
and/or outside consultants from law enforcement agencies and insurance companies.
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
1.In
some repositories, the LSO and the special collections librarian may be the
same person.
2.Special
collections administrators in institutions without another official for whom
the role of LSO would be appropriate are encouraged to take on this role and
advocate that the institution recognize the importance of this responsibility
within the institutional structure.
III. THE SECURITY POLICY
The Library Security
Officer (LSO) should develop written policy on the security of the collections.
In developing the policy, the LSO should consult with administrators and staff,
legal authorities, and other knowledgeable persons. The policy should include
a standard operating procedure on dealing with a theft or other security problems.
The ACRL/RBMS Security Committee's document, Guidelines Regarding Thefts in
Libraries, provides steps to pursue in establishing adequate policies for
dealing with thefts. The security policy should be kept up-to-date with current
names and telephone numbers of institutional and law enforcement contacts.
The institution should also review the policy periodically to insure that
institutional needs continue to be adequately addressed. The LSO should cooperate
with and be involved with development and implementation of general library
security measures, as these may affect the security of special collections
materials. The LSO should also be involved with any library emergency and
disaster planning.
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
1.In
larger institutions it may be necessary to assemble a Security Planning Group
to assist the LSO in identifying problem areas and to recommend solutions.
2.Institutions
that lack appropriate staff resources may wish to bring in a security consultant
to assist in developing a policy and in determining any major threats to the
collection. When engaging a security consultant, the institution or LSO should
use caution in evaluating the consultant's competence or ability to perform
the work. The institution should investigate the security consultant's background
and references thoroughly.
IV. THE SPECIAL COLLECTIONS
BUILDING OR AREA
The special collections
building or area should have as few access points as possible, with a single
entry and exit point for both researchers and staff. Fire and emergency exits,
which should be strictly controlled and provided with alarm coverage, should
not be used for regular access. Within the facility itself, the public should
have access only to public areas, not to work areas or stack space. Researchers
should be received in a separate reception area where a coat room and lockers
should be provided for researchers' personal belongings and outer wear. A
secure reading room where researchers can be continuously monitored at all
times by staff trained in surveillance should be identified as the only area
in which material may be used. A security guard should check researchers'
research materials prior to their entering the secure area as well as when
they depart.
Keys and their equivalents,
such as keycards, are especially vulnerable items; therefore, a controlled
check-out system for all keys should be maintained. Keys to secure areas should
be issued to staff only on an as-needed basis, and master keys should be secured
against unauthorized access. Combinations to vaults also should have limited
distribution and should be changed each time there is a staff change involving
a position with access to the vault. Strong consideration should be given
to installing proprietary keyways in locks in the special collections area.
(See Ronald L. Libengood and Bryan J. Perun, "The Key to Good Security:
Proprietary Keyways and Electronic Locks," Focus on Security,
2 [April 1995]: 6-16.)
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
1.In
institutions where it is not possible to hire an extra security guard, a staff
member could perform this function. Consideration should also be given to
installing a video surveillance system.
2.As
a precautionary policy keys and locks to secure areas should be changed on
a regular basis.
3.When
an institution plans to remodel or renovate space or to build a new facility
in which special collections materials are to be housed, the LSO and the special
collections administrator should ensure that all security needs are addressed
in the design and planning.
V. THE STAFF
An atmosphere of trust
and concern for the collections is probably the best guarantee against theft
by staff. Nevertheless, close and equitable supervision is essential. The
staff, including students and volunteers, should be chosen carefully, using
any and all avenues available in making the decision for hiring. Careful personnel
management is an ongoing necessity. A weak point in maintaining a security
system is disgruntled staff who may seek retribution through theft, destruction,
or willful mishandling of collections. Consideration should be given to bonding
employees who work in special collections.
Training the staff in
security measures should be a high priority of the LSO. Such training should
ensure that staff be aware of their legal and procedural responsibilities
in relation to security as well as their own and the researchers' legal rights
when handling possible problems. (See also the ACRL/RBMS Standards for
Ethical Conduct of Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special Collections Libraries
and Librarians, with Guidelines for Institutional Practice in Support of the
Standards.)
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
1.The
LSO and special collections administrator should ensure that all staff are
familiar with these guidelines and the security policies in their institutions
and how they may apply specifically to their institution.
2.When
appropriate or consistent with institutional policies, background checks and
bonding of staff members should be considered.
3.The
LSO or special collections administrator should be familiar with the institution's
personnel policies, and advocate security concerns with the institution's
human resources staff.
VI. THE RESEARCHERS
The special collections
administrator must carefully balance the responsibility of making materials
available to researchers against the responsibility for ensuring the security
of the materials. Staff must be able to identify who has used which material
by keeping adequate, signed check-out records, which should be retained indefinitely.
Registration for each
researcher who uses special collections materials should be required, recording
the name, address, signature, institutional affiliation (if any), and photo
identification or some other form of positive identification to establish
physical identity. These registration records should be retained permanently.
Researchers should be
required to present a reasonable explanation of their need to use the materials.
Each researcher should be given an orientation to the collections requested
and to the rules governing the use of the collections. Researchers should
not be permitted to take extraneous personal materials into the reading areas.
This includes such items as notebooks, briefcases, outer wear, books and voluminous
papers. Personal computers should be removed from the case before use in the
reading room is permitted. Lockers or some kind of secure space should be
provided for any items not permitted in the reading room.
Staff should observe
researchers at all times and not allow them to work unobserved behind bookcases,
book trucks, stacks of books or any other obstacles that restrict staff view.
Researchers should be limited at any one time to having access only to those
books, manuscripts or other items which are needed to perform the research
at hand. Staff should check the condition, content and completeness of each
item prior to giving it to the researcher and also when it is returned after
use. This checking of materials that are returned is especially important
for the use of archival and manuscript collections, which often consist of
many loose, unique pieces. Researchers should be required to return all library
materials prior to leaving the reading room, even if they plan to return at
a later time to continue their research. Researchers should not be allowed
to exchange materials or to have access to materials brought into the room
for use by another researcher.
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
1.The
LSO or special collections administrator should seek the advice of the institution's
legal counsel or other appropriate legal authority when developing researcher
policies, to ensure adequate legal recourse if researchers violate the use
agreement.
2.The
institution should require that all researchers read and sign an agreement
to abide by institutional policies. This agreement should be renewed annually.
VII. THE COLLECTIONS
Administrators of special
collections must be able to identify positively the materials in their collections
to establish loss and to substantiate claims to recovered stolen property.
This includes keeping adequate accession records; maintaining detailed cataloguing
records and lists in finding aids; recording copy-specific information; and
keeping condition reports and records. Lists developed to fulfill the requirements
of insurance policies should also be kept current. In addition, the materials
themselves should be made identifiable. This can be accomplished by marking
them following the RBMS Guidelines for Marking (see Appendix I), by applying
other unique marks, and by keeping photographic or microform copies of valuable
items.
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
1.More valuable items
should be segregated from the collections into higher security areas, with
more restricted conditions for staff access and researcher use.
2.If appropriate security
controls are applied, unprocessed materials may be made available to researchers
for short term use.
VIII. TRANSFERS FROM
THE GENERAL COLLECTION
Many institutions house
materials in open stack areas accessible to all users. These open stack areas
may contain rare materials which remain unidentified and unprotected. Materials
in open stack areas are most vulnerable to breaches in security. Many thieves
search open stacks areas for materials considered rare, rather than attempt
to infiltrate special collections areas or outwit the security measures implemented
in monitored reading areas. Institutions should establish procedures for the
routine areas, using the ACRL/RBMS Guidelines on the Selection of General
Collection Materials for Transfer to Special Collections to assist in
identifying rare materials on the open shelves in need of protection.
IX. LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL
RESPONSIBILITIES
The administrators of
special collections and the LSO must know the laws for dealing with library
theft that are applicable in their state and must convey this information
to staff. Staff members must be aware of their legal rights in stopping thefts
and not infringing on the rights of the individual suspected of theft.
The administrator of
special collections and the LSO must report thefts of rare materials to appropriate
law enforcement agencies and must take responsibility for requesting action
from legal authorities. The theft of materials, whenever the theft is discovered,
must be reported in a timely manner to help prevent the unknowing transfer
of the items and to facilitate their return. Appropriate agencies to which
to report include local, institutional, and state law enforcement agencies
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Consult Appendix II for reporting
details. For legal and procedural responsibilities, see Guidelines Regarding
Thefts in Libraries (listed in Appendix III).
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
1.
Library Security Officers and/or special collections administrators should
take an active role in raising the awareness of other institutional officials,
e.g., institutional legal officers, public safety officers, the library director,
etc., regarding the serious nature of materials theft, and urge the institution
to actively seek the resolution of security threats and breaches and to seek
the strictest punishment possible for those convicted of theft or other security
violations.
X. CONCLUSION
The guidelines presented
here are necessarily brief since further information is available through
professional literature, professional organizations and consultants within
the rare book, manuscript, and special collections community, and in the law
enforcement and insurance professions. The effort of the entire staff, with
final responsibility vested in one senior staff member, working in cooperation
with law enforcement, will result in more secure collections wherein materials
are preserved and made available for all who wish to use them.
APPENDIX I
GUIDELINES FOR MARKING
BOOKS, MANUSCRIPTS AND OTHER SPECIAL COLLECTIONS MATERIALS
I. INTRODUCTION
There has been much
thoughtful discussion regarding the appropriateness of permanently marking
book, manuscripts, and other special collections materials. Failure to mark
compromises security. Cases of theft show that clear identification of stolen
material is vital if material, once recovered, is to be returned to its rightful
owner. The following guidelines are intended to aid libraries and other institutions
in marking their materials and to provide as consistent and uniform a practice
as possible.
Even the most conservative
marking program results in permanent alteration of materials. Choices concerning
marking are likely to depend heavily on one’s aesthetic judgment balanced
against the need to secure materials from theft and to assist in their identification
and recovery. Each repository will have to balance those competing needs.
The ACRL/RBMS Security Committee recommends that libraries and other institutions
use marking as part of their overall security procedures and that they attempt
to strike a balance between the implications for deterrence (visibility, permanence)
and the integrity of the documents (both physical and aesthetic).
II. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
General recommendations
are:
A). That markings be
of two types:
1) Readily visible to
the casual observer
2) Hidden and difficult
to detect
B) That readily visible
marks be made in an approved form of permanent ink
C) That marks which
are hidden or difficult to detect never be the only or primary types of marking
D) That visible marks
be placed so that they will cause significant damage to the aesthetic and
commercial value of the item if they are removed
E) That marks be placed
directly on the material itself and not on an associated part from which the
material may be separated
F) That all marks unequivocally
and clearly identify the repository
III. DISCUSSION
A) Readily visible marks
are intended to deter potential thieves; hidden marks are intended to assist
in the recovery of stolen materials. If only one type of mark is to be used,
it should be of the readily visible type. The size should be kept to a minimum
(ca. 5 point type size for lettering).
B) Visible marks should
be all but impossible to remove and should never consist of just a bookplate.
Although not the only form of a visible mark, ink is perhaps the best medium
for this purpose, so long as the ink meets current standards for permanence
and conservation. There is still controversy surrounding which inks are best
suited for this purpose, so a recommendation cannot go beyond urging those
in charge of marking programs to be current on the latest developments in
this field.
C) Hidden marks should
never be used as the only form of marking, because they are worthless in alerting
others, such as booksellers, that material has been stolen. Hidden marks are
intended only as supplements to visible marks.
D) Much controversy
has surrounded the placement of visible marks. Given the varying nature of
special collections materials and the varying nature of beliefs and sentiments
concerning what is proper placement for a visible mark, it is probably futile
to overly prescribe placement of marks. It is recommended, however, that no
position for a mark be rejected outright. Some repositories might, for example,
be comfortable stamping the verso of a title page or the image area of a map;
others might reject those options. But no matter where the visible mark is
placed, it should not be in a position that it can be removed without leaving
quite obvious evidence of its former presence.
Some items do present
unusual decisions on placement of visible marks. The following are specific
recommendations for the formats listed.
1) Medieval and Renaissance
Manuscripts, Incunabula, and Early Printed Books. On the verso of the first
leaf of principal text, on the lower inner margin, approximate to the last
line of text. Additional markings may be needed when the item is a composite
manuscript or otherwise has a substantial text that may be broken away without
noticeable injury to the volume. The location of each subsequent marking would
be the same; i.e., lower inner margin approximate to the last line of text.
When the item is too
tightly bound to mark in the inner margin, alternate locations may be made
in any blank area of the verso, as close to the lower portion of text as possible.
The mark should be so placed that it may not be excised without extreme cropping.
(In items of double columns, the mark might be located in the blank area between
the columns.)
2) Leaf Books, Single
Leaves from Manuscripts. On either verso or recto, at the lower portion of
the text or image of each leaf. The choice may be determined by the document
itself if one of the sides has more importance (owing to an illustration,
manuscript notation, etc.) The ownership mark should then be placed on the
reverse side.
E) Marks of whatever
type must be placed directly on the material itself. Marks placed only on
a front pastedown in a book, on a portfolio that holds prints, or on some
type of backing material are rendered useless if that element is separated
from the item. Especially in the case of flat items, such as maps and broadsides,
it is important that the marks be applied before any backing procedure is
done.
F) Marks should not
be generic (e.g., "Rare Book Room," "Special Collections,"
"University Library," etc.) but should rather make plain the repository
to which they refer. It is recommended that visible marking consist of the
repository’s Library of Congress symbol. If a repository lacks such a symbol,
the Library of Congress will supply one upon request. If the Library of Congress
symbol is not used, then the name of the repository should be used, being
careful that no confusion arises among repositories with similar or identical
names.
IV. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A) Hidden marks do not
have to be marks at all. They merely have to provide some positive ownership
indication that is extremely difficult if not impossible to detect. Microembossers,
for example, provide an extremely cheap and difficult to detect type of nearly
invisible mark. Modern technology also provides non-invasive marking techniques
such as micro-photography that does not leave any mark on the item itself
yet serves as positive identification. Other technologies, such as micro-taggants,
may also be appropriate for this purpose. It is vital if such marks are used,
however, that the repository keep extremely accurate records of such marks
so that they can be readily found for identification purposes if the need
arises to do so. Generic secret marking systems, such as underlining a word
on p. 13 of every book, should be avoided as the sole means of such marks.
B) Repositories should
never attempt to cancel marks, even in the event that the material is deaccessioned.
No system has yet been devised for canceling marks that cannot be imitated
with relative ease by thieves, and there seems to be no alternative but to
assume permanent responsibility for one’s mark on a book, manuscript, or other
document. Permanent records should be kept of deaccessioned materials, whether
marked or unmarked, and the material itself when released should be accompanied
by a document conveying ownership. It is advisable to place stamps or notes
in items indicating that they have been deaccessioned, but no attempt should
be made to cancel or remove previous ownership marks.
C) Marks should be applied
to all items when they come into the repository. It is dangerous to send unmarked
items into storage or a cataloguing backlog, where they may remain for years
with no indication that the repository owns them. Despite the fact that some
items may present extremely difficult and complicated decisions about marking,
the process should never be deferred. It is strongly recommended that programs
also be instituted to mark retrospectively materials already in the collections.
D) Care must be taken
to ensure that all discrete or removable parts are marked. It is recommended
that each separate plate, map, chart, or other such item in a printed volume
be marked individually. Volumes of bound manuscripts and collections of individual
manuscripts present a similar problem and each discrete item in such collections
should also be marked.
E) Because marking should
be part of an overall security program, the role of cataloguing in identifying
materials should not be overlooked. Accurate and detailed physical descriptions
that note anomalies, defects, provenance, and unusual physical characteristics
are essential adjuncts to ownership markings.
APPENDIX II
ADDRESSES FOR REPORTING
THEFTS
AB Bookman’s Weekly. Missing Books Section. PO Box AB, Clifton, NJ 07015.
201-772-0020; (fax) 201-772-9281.
Antiquarian Booksellers
Association of America, 20 West 44th St., 4th floor, New York, NY 10035-6604.
212-944-8291; (fax) 212-944-8293; email: ABAA@PANIX.COM. Home page for theft
reporting: http://www.abaa-booknet.com/stolen.htm
ACRL/RBMS Security Committee.
C/O American Library Association, 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611. 800-545-2433,
ext. 2516; (fax) 312-440-9374. Email: ALA@ALA.ORG. ALA Home page: http://www.ala.org; RBMS Home page: http://www.princeton.edu/~ferguson/rbms.html
Society of American
Archivists. 527 S. Wells, Chicago, IL 60607. 312-922-0140 (fax) 312-347-1452;
email: sfox@archivists.org. Home page: http://www.archivists.org.
Security List (moderated and open to SAA members only): SAASECURITYRT-L@CORNELL.EDU
Professional Autograph
Dealers Association. C/O Catherine Barnes, PO Box 30117, Philadelphia, PA
19103. 215-854-0175; (fax) 215-854-0831; email: CBARNES2@IX.NETCOM.COM
; Home page: http://www.padaweb.org.
Toll free: 888-338-4338 (US only)
Library Security Officer
Electronic List. Susan Allen, Head, Department of Special Collections, URL--Room
A1713, Box 951575, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1575. 310-825-2422; (fax) 310-206-1864;
send reports to: SALLEN@LIBRARY.UCLA.EDU
ExLibris Electronic
Discussion List. EXLIBRIS@LIBRARY.BERKELEY.EDU (unmoderated
but must be a member to post)
Interloc. http://www.interloc.com/lost/index.htm
. Reporting address: INTERLOC@INTERLOC.COM
Museum Security Network.
http://www.museum-security.org. Reporting address:
SECURMA@POP.XS4ALL.NL
Archives & Archivists
Electronic Discussion List: ARCHIVES@LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU
DeRicci Project: DERICCI@AOL.COM (for pre-1600 manuscripts only)
APPENDIX III
RELATED GUIDELINES
Association of College
& Research Libraries. Guidelines
Regarding Thefts in Libraries. 1994.
Association of College
& Research Libraries. Selection
of General Collection Materials for Transfer to Special Collections.
2nd ed. 1994.
Association of College
& Research Libraries. Standards
for Ethical Conduct of Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special Collections Libraries
and Librarians, with Guidelines for Institutional Practice in Support of the
Standards. 2nd ed. 1992.
Society of American
Archivists. Libraries and Archives: An Overview of Risk and Loss Prevention.
(1994).
Society of American
Archivists. Protecting Your Collections: A Manual of Archival Security.
(1995).
Posted 15 September
1999