Since the reports were made out only about half a dozen assistants have requested to be shown their records. Some others were allowed to see them before they were handed in. Such excitement as there was regarding the matter has now abated, and the matter has been relegated to its proper plane in the scheme of library things. This is due, probably, very largely to the plan of conducting the whole matter on a free and open basis, in consultation with the staff at every point, and also to the length of time that was allowed to elapse between steps. Publicity and deliberation are the two necessary things in a procedure of this kind, and both are commended to librarians wishing to adopt this kind of record. There is no doubt in my mind that some efficiency record is necessary and valuable, and that a full record, including the usual high percentage of good things with the possible proportion of bad ones, is preferable to a mere blacklist, on which only the bad is recorded. The blank, as finally adopted, is reproduced herewith. ST. LOUIS PUBLIC LIBRARY RECORD OF EFFICIENCY Name (Inverted, in full) Branch or Department. Length of service in dept. or branch. Present grade of assistant. Entered the library. A. Personal qualities. 1. Physically strong enough for the work? How much time lost while in department and why? 2. Knowledge of books. Improving in this? 3. All around information? 4. Appreciation for real literature. 5. Resourceful? Systematic? 6. Self-possessed in a rush or emergency? 7. Executive ability? Decision? 8. Accurate? Quick? Adaptable? 9. Industrious? Careless? 10. Obliging to fellow-workers? 11. Punctual? Times tardy? Excusable? 12. Forgetful? Inclined to gossip? 13. Neat and appropriate in dress? B. Relations with the public. 1. Uniformly courteous? Dignified? 2. Inclined to entertain personal visitors? 3. Effective in work with adults? 4. Effective in work with children? C. Grade as excellent, good, fair, or poor. 1. Library hand. 2. Printing. 3. Typewriting. 4. Shorthand. D. Did the assistant improve while with you? In what way? In what did she fall short? E. If the assistant had weak points, did you call her attention to them? F. What did you especially like about the assistant? G. Do you consider the assistant fitted or unfitted by personality, education and practical efficiency to work in any one of the following departments? Grade her work as excellent, good, fair or poor, stating also length of service at each kind of work. 1. An all-around branch assistant in this library? 2. A children’s librarian? 3. A reference department assistant? 4. A catalog department assistant? 5. A desk assistant? 6. A clerical assistant? 7. An assistant in other lines? (specify) If you do not consider the assistant so fitted, give particular reasons.