16-20 July 2007 in Charlottesville

1) How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: I had read most of the assigned reading before but found it useful to become reacquainted with the material, especially Alice Schreyer’s Elective Affinities and the articles on library friends groups and getting agreements on paper. 2: Extremely helpful. Virtually 100 percent was pertinent to the course, and new information for me. 3: Great, general overview of topic, with a few specifically to “hook” you. 4: Somewhat helpful – WB’s Tax memorandum handed out during class was the best. Some materials were difficult to find. 5: Very – my only wish would have been to have the revised Memorandum prior to class. 6: Very useful, and I’m glad I read them ahead of time. 7: The articles were of varying usefulness. As a whole, the readings seemed to introduce the subject and prompted me on the issues that would be covered. 8: Very – gave a good background for what was discussed. 9: Many were very useful, others interesting but perhaps less essential. It was hard for me to get hold of many of the readings, and I’d have appreciated knowing which ones were “must read” and which ones were less important. 10: Most useful. 11: Somewhat. The challenge is that there is so little literature on the subject. Maybe more should be drawn from professional library literature (American Archivist, etc.)

2) Were the course syllabus and other materials distributed in class appropriate and useful (or will they be so in the future, after you return home)?

1: The syllabus was clear and very well-organized. I found the materials distributed in class interesting and will save most everything for reference. The examples of deeds of gift were of particular note, as they led to considerable discussion, not only of the variations among the deeds, but also towards other issues considered in the class. 2: The handouts were extremely helpful and will be consulted many times in the future. 3: Most definitely; I will be preparing several proposals for my library. 4: Yes; would have preferred the course syllabus available online prior to registration/attending. 5: Yes – WB’s Memorandum, for instance, will require rereading to absorb more thoroughly. 6: All of the materials that we received were very helpful, and I plan to make a binder with the materials as a reference resource. 7: They helped the in-class discussions focus on key issues related to institutions and donors. 8: Yes. 9: Yes; full of interesting and useful information. 10: All appropriate. I will keep them all. 11: Yes, good handouts, liked the tactic of discussing current issues from newspapers.

3) What aspects of the course content were of the greatest interest or relevance for your purposes? Was the intellectual level of the course appropriate?

1: For me, the primary benefit of the course was not the conceptual framework of why people give to libraries and how libraries acquire, but the practical aspects which were emphasized: the procedures, paperwork, tax implications, negotiating techniques. Much of what I learned I shall attempt to use when working with donors and to influence my institution to improve what we do and do what we do in a correct manner. This is in addition to specific items especially relevant to what will happen with my personal collection. 2: Leadership by faculty; handouts; comments; discussion in class. The intellectual level was very appropriate. 3: The synergy that developed was electric. The mix of personalities/professionals was a basis for the intellectual discussions that occurred. 4: Gaining a perspective from collectors and librarians – tax issues. 5: Everything worked together extremely well. Early discussions built to later discussions – issues and questions were considered from different aspects which was useful. 6: Yes. 7: I was interested in the general outlook institutions have toward donors and benefactors. As a collector, I need greater understanding of how an institution would regard a possible gift of some or all of my collection. 8: Tax issues; deed of gift language. Yes. 9: It was all useful. If I had to, I’d single out the negotiating and the tax discussion as the most helpful. The intellectual level was appropriate. 10: The segments on tax; presentations by Christian Dupont and Hoke Perkins concerning Friends organizations. 11: Tax information very helpful; really, it was! The dynamics of a group of people with varied roles, interests, and opinions: dealers, collectors, donors, development people.

4) If your course left its classroom to visit Special Collections (SC) or to make other field trips away from your classroom, was the time devoted to this purpose well spent?

1: Our “field trip” in which treasures from UVa special collections were brought to class was more than a treat. Considering these books and manuscripts in a donor-library context made our theoretical discussions come to life as we hear of the ways these materials came to the library from collectors with different motives and varying circumstances. Christian Dupont and George Riser were great interpreters. Next time, please have this in Harrison/Small; a classroom in Clemons is perhaps not the appropriate place to look at the copy of Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia inscribed to Lafayette or the manuscript of Leaves of Grass, and it would be good to see gifts of buildings as well as books. 2: Yes – very impressed with Harrison-Small library: space, facilities, equipment; I’m envious! 3: Yes, but not long enough with the “stuff”. 4: Yes. 5: SC came to us – and a fine presentation of how donors contribute to and enhance collections. 6: Yes. 7: The field trip was not particularly relevant (a show and tell of items), but was enjoyable nevertheless. 8: Yes, but I would have liked a better idea of how collections were either built or obtained. 9: Yes, highly enjoyable. 10: Very well spent. 11: Yes.

5) What did you like best about the course?

1: The fact that the instructors and the class members turned what could be a potentially “boring” subject into a really pleasurable experience. Serious and complex subjects were brought alive, in large part through anecdotes, recollections, and role-playing. 2: Taking it; many new ideas acquired, other perspectives heard, experiences (good and bad) of others appreciated. 3: I could not single out one item; all parts marched together in wonderful harmony. 4: Hearing from classmates; stories of relevance. 5: The thoughtful organization of the material – enlightened by specific examples. The newspaper articles proved interesting and illuminating. 6: The real life examples and explanations. I also enjoyed the exercises which will prepare me to talk on various projects at my institution. 7: The moments of sometimes heated and candid discussion between participants from different side of the institution/donor divide. 8: The background stories told by all the people in the class: we all come from such different backgrounds; and support materials (articles) handed out in class. 9: A good mix of librarians, collectors, fund-raisers, and booksellers meant we saw al sides of the question; lively discussions and everyone contributed; SA and WB were a great partnership, and were unfailingly courteous and encouraging. 10: The class was taught as a discussion. A number of my classmates were very much worth listening to, and made interesting points, and contributed greatly to my understanding. 11: See question three – the mix of people which is just very hard to reconstruct, the kind of frank discussions we had; I especially liked hearing the viewpoints of donors/collectors, and development people.

6) How could the course have been improved?

1: The instructors were superb, the organization first-rate (clearly honed from previous iterations of the course), the materials relevant and informative (and kept up to date), and the participants (from a variety of background) fully engaged. My only suggestion for improvement relates to the project in which we researched potential donors and institutions. This interesting and relevant exercise could have use a bit more guidance – giving the class a more structured indication of what we were looking for. 2: Would be worthwhile to circulate the handouts in advance of the course so thinking about them could occur before coming to class? 3: More time. 4: Less focus on personality types, [Library] Friends groups, and negotiating. 5: Some of us (including me) perhaps talked at too great a length – the structure of the course was fine, but some peregrinations not always on point; how to stem these tactfully I could not say. 6: More time! 7: It was weighted in the direction of institutions rather than collectors, who at times had to confront the librarians. 8: Teachers could control the long-winded stories of students. 9: Perhaps more about how to develop the relationship with a potential donor once he/she has been identified. Perhaps some of us (including myself), could have had our discussions curtailed to advantage! 11: Can’t think of anything – maybe a more pleasant classroom? The room was pretty dismal.

8) If you attended the Sunday and/or other evening lectures, were they worth attending?

1: Yes. 2: Sunday introduction – good beginning; Monday – James Green: yes; Tuesday – Aeon demonstration: yes; Wednesday – Rotunda [Ian Willison]: hard to hear/understand, would like to have a hard copy of the talk. 3: They were not to be missed. 4: Yes – mostly for the social aspect. 5: Yes! 6: Yes. 7: They are an integral part of the RBS week. 8: Very – unfortunately, I could not hear Ian Willison’s talk; the microphone did not pick up his voice. 10: The Wednesday night lecture was very worth attending. I also found the Aeon presentation informative. I regret having to skip the videos – I needed time to read. 11: Yes, thought Sunday and Monday quite good; Wednesday perhaps a bit too vague.

9) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final or summary thoughts, or advice for other persons considering taking this course in a future year?

1: The whirlwind week at RBS was one of the best in my “professional” life. Great course, but beyond that, a lot of social interaction and the chance to meet new people. Having attended lectures and other events at RBS, I had an idea of what to expect, but the experience was (to use phrases in RBS’s own literature) even more “intense”, “worthwhile”, and “enjoyable” than expected. For those who might consider taking Donors & Libraries, two things: First, do not be put off by the “its about taxes” aspect. Hard as it is to believe, WB and SA actually brought this serious topic to life – we actually laughed at times – and the mathematical ability needed was even within my limited capabilities. Second, not only are the instructors extremely knowledgeable and a joy to work with, you will have terrific, interesting, and engaged classmates – this year a mix of librarians and archivists, dealers, development people, and collectors. 2: Yes. A very worthwhile course: good mix of librarians, collectors, and dealers – would easily recommend to anyone. 3: My institution got more than its money’s worth. [My institution] should be very pleased with the information I bring home. I will definitely consider paying my own way if accepted again to RBS. 4: Maybe – I am not sure of the value for a fund-raiser – the amount I learned on tax and collectors’ issues could have been condensed into two days. 5: I am grateful and pleased I had a chance to participate in the class – My Thanks! 6: This was well worth my (or rather my institution’s) money. Even if the tuition were higher, I would pay to take the course. 7: I always have felt that RBS courses are more than worth the tuition. This course would be better if it could be numerically balanced between collectors and librarians, as it is with the instructors. 8: Wonderful course for anyone interested in the topic or assigned to fund-raise. It was unfortunate that one person continually felt so self-important. It distracted from the wonderful flow that the teachers had set. 9: Yes. I would recommend the course. It answers its “brief” very well; would be good if the initial orientation literature mentioned Newcomb Hall dining facilities. 10: I enjoyed the course and got a lot out of it – no regrets about not getting my money’s worth. 11: Yes, wonderful information to take back to my home institution, which is just becoming serious about its donor/development program.

Number of respondents: 11

Percentages

Leave Tuition Housing Travel

Institution Institution Institution Institution

gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel

63% 54% 36% 27%

I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own

tion time tion myself own housing travel

0% 18% 45% 63%

N/A: self- N/A: Self- N/A: stayed N/A: lived

employed, re- employed, with friends nearby

tired, or had retired, or or lived at

summers off scholarship home

36% 27% 18% 9%

There were 3 book collectors (27%); 2 antiquarian booksellers (18%); 2 librarians with some rare book duties (18%); 2 archivist/manuscript librarians (18%) and 2 library fund-raisers (18%).