Viewing page 89 of 267

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

-79-

House, In.; and chaired by André Schiffrin, Pantheon Books, Smithsonian Council. We agreed with some of their ideas and disagreed with others. Following is a summation of their recommendations and our reactions to them.

The Office of Public Service which has administrative responsibility for Smithsonian Exposition Books and Smithsonian Institution Press is in agreement with and is implementing the following suggestions: the Smithsonian Institution should continue to publish books for general and special interest readers; we should unify our current diverse book publishing efforts, (organizational reassessment now under way; operational realignment already taking palce); there should be a single controlling entity to oversee the entire book publishing program; the Smithsonian Institution Press should continue to operate on the university press model; the Smithsonian Exposition Books should add to its direct-mail marketing approach books purchases, licensed, or co-published with trade publishers; and, the Institution should continue to cooperate actively with commercial publishers.

There are, on the other hand, three recommendations with which we do not agree. First, we do not think the Smithsonian Publishing Council should become an administrative body, directing the entire book-publishing program. Rather, it should continue its function as an editorial board determining and exercising book-publishing policy. Second, we disagree that the Smithsonian Exposition Books' share of profits should be plowed back into the Smithsonian Institution Press as an operating subsidy. These profits are presently being applied to our unrestricted trust funds and used to support a variety of activities, including book publishing. We see no reason to change this arrangement at this time. Third, we also disagree with the timing of the suggestion that the [[underlined]] Smithsonian [[/underlined]] magazine provide a book service. While it is a good idea in itself, we would prefer to hold it for a future, more opportune time.