|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveApril 11, 1988
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY COMMITTEE MINUTES 11 April 1988 PRESENT: Fred Baumgartner, Faculty Senate Loke Kok, Agr. & Life Sciences (for Jack Duke) L. D. Mitchell, Engineering Eugene Carson, Provost's Office (for Michael Vorster) Norman Dodl, Education Julie Ozanne, Business Marion Ehrich, Vet Medicine David West, Arts & Sciences Paul Gherman, Library GUESTS: Ann Cheney, Arts & Sciences Joanne Eustis, Library ABSENT: Jeff Tibbetts, SGA Jane Wentworth, Human Resources Francis Ventre, Architecture James Wood, GSA The minutes of the last meeting were accepted as read. I. OLD BUSINESS: 1. LIBRARY LOAN PERIODS FOR FACULTY: Question has been raised about the loan period to faculty (90 days with 3 renewals). Comments included the following: J. Ozanne (Business): The committee should study the data Bela Foltin has gathered before further discussion. L. D. Mitchell (Engineering): The loan period should be shortened to 60 days and 3 renewals. L. Kok (Agriculture): The loan period should be shortened to 90 days and 2 renewals. M. Ehrich (Vet Medicine): The members of the Veterinary Medicine Library Committee suggested a loan period of 30 days with 3 renewals. The consensus of the University Library Committee was that the loan period to faculty was overly generous and that the change to semesters may prompt revision of the loan periods anyway. The Library will develop a proposal to bring to the University Library Committee and input from University Library Committee members again sought in May. 2. SERIALS BUDGET: Problems with the increasing cost of purchasing serials will recur, and it has been suggested that the University Library Committee consider acceptable options for coping with this. D. West (Arts & Sciences) commented that targeting subscriptions at the library is not a feasible alternative, and some method other than across-the-board cuts would be preferred by his College. He suggested that the periodic review of serials subscriptions was very useful, and perhaps should be an ongoing endeavor. N. Dodl (Education) stated that his discussions with faculty indicated that most were in favor of having a periodic review in which they would be willing to participate, even on a yearly basis, but they do not like the idea of across- the-board cuts. M. Ehrich (Vet Medicine) suggested that review of journal subscriptions be done on a regular basis, perhaps every three to five years, so that the review is not done in a crisis atmosphere. L.D. Mitchell (Engineering) stated that the College of Engineering has created its own database which includes priority lists from all departments that can be used anytime the library needs to look at serials subscriptions. In addition, the Engineering Library Strategy Committee has suggested to P. Gherman that the project follow through with cancellation of titles identified by the colleges as worthy of cancellation regardless of funding considerations. L. Kok (Agriculture) agreed with the value of periodic review of journal subscriptions, as long as faculty input was significant. P. Gherman (Library) cited an article in which the editor called on libraries to identify what he called predatory publishers. The Association of Research Libraries has hired a firm to do a study on journal pricing and identify key offenders. Louisiana State University is considering simply canceling some excessively priced journals. Libraries can't continue to just pay any increases the publishers dictate. The faculty who contribute to these journals may also be able to help by not submitting to journals whose publishers practice predatory pricing, and academic societies can also bring pressure to bear. The committee noted that individuals or an individual University could not arbitrarily target publishers, but recommended that the Library have periodic review of journal subscriptions every three to five years, regardless of the funding situation existing at those times. II. NEW BUSINESS 1. NEWS FROM THE LIBRARY (P. Gherman): The State has approved the purchase of high-level Telefax machines for each of the senior institutions in Virginia. This equipment will enable the library to send or receive copies of articles from similarly equipped institutions within 24 hours or less. One effect of this service might have an impact on the issue of high priced journal subscriptions; if the senior institutions can exchange articles in a few hours, then each institution would not have to subscribe to every journal. The library should have the equipment by early summer. The budget supplement for our library will be $187,000 for each year of the biennium for retrospective conversion of all records not in VTLS; and $324,000 to be added to the base book budget for next year, which is enough to offset the increased cost in serials, but not enough to allow going back and adding to the monographic budget. The following year there will be $724,000 added to the budget, which will allow us to add back into the monograph budget and to cover serials. The university has gone on record as saying that they will try and find additional money to add to the library budget, and the library administration is optimistic that this will be done. The delivery of the 930 upgrade computer has been delayed and will not be paid for out of this year's budget. The $133,000 saving will be used to prepay some serials subscriptions for next year. We are running ahead on recoveries of money from the photocopiers and this money will also be used to prepay subscription costs for next year. 2. MINUTES ON GOVERN (M. Ehrich): The Administrative Information System has requested that University Library Committee minutes go on GOVERN, the administrative information system. Consensus of the Committee was that we will comply with this request. 3. MOVE OF THE FILM LIBRARY FROM LRC TO NEWMAN (J. Eustis): Committee members had copies of the report prepared by Joanne Eustis and Robert Loomis recommending that the film library now located in LRC be combined with the Listening Room in Newman Library. Guests for the discussion were J. Eustis (Newman Library) and Ann Cheney (English Department). F. Baumgartner (Faculty Senate) asked about the use of the word "when" rather than "if", in reference to the move, in the cover letter sent to the Library Committee along with the report. M. Ehrich had the same comment about the letter, and felt that as this issue had raised questions on campus the subject should be open to discussion by the faculty. The University Library Committee is advisory to the library administration, and its advice will be taken into consideration. F. Baumgartner (Faculty Senate) felt there was no problem with the existing system in the LRC Film Library, and, although superficially logical, the Library already has space and budget problems, there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to make the change, and there is concern about the equipment, the delivery of films, and the need for an air- conditioned room for the storage of the films. A. Cheney (guest, Arts & Sciences) commented that she was concerned about the status of the staff position now at the LRC film library, and also that she felt there was not enough faculty input on the issue. N. Dodl (Education) asked about the origin and impetus for considering this move. P. Gherman answered that it began with a discussion between himself and Dr. Heterick. Dr. Heterick envisions the library as the repository of university information and it has been a long standing desire to list the LRC film collection and the CNS video tape collection on VTLS. There is also a net space gain for the university in this move, as it will free the ground floor of Sandy Hall. J. Eustis (guest, Newman Library) noted that the report identified LRC and the Listening Room as two underfunded, underdeveloped units; by merging the staff, the equipment, and the acquisition budgets more could be done for media on campus. The staff position and the operating budget for the LRC unit would be transferred to the library, and there would not be a significant change in the responsibilities of the staff position. D. West (Arts & Sciences) asked about the delivery service now offered and whether it would be continued. J. Eustis answered that her recommendation was that nothing be done that would hamper the services as they now exist. The library would continue to support the use of film for classroom use, and would try to help get the projection equipment upgraded. The library would undertake the responsibility for delivery of the films; delivery of the equipment is from another unit on campus. P. Gherman stated that this move did not have to be accomplished to meet any deadline, although July 1 had been discussed, as it was a convenient time for budget transfers. D. West (Arts & Sciences) commented that if this move is made library funds should not be taken from traditional library purchases. P. Gherman answered that the budget for the unit would move with it, although an air-conditioned room would have to be created. M. Ehrich (Vet Med.) stated that she felt the Library Committee did not have enough information, without the university viewpoint expressed by Dr. Heterick, and without comments from the LRC or its users. The Library Committee should know about the costs involved and sources of funding. N. Dodl (Education) said he had circulated the Library proposal prepared by Eustis and Loomis to the library liaison people in his College and their only concern was that services not be diluted. Their view was that if service continues as it is, it hardly matters where the collection is actually housed. P. Gherman pointed out that the Library houses, collects, and circulates materials now, and doing so for films will not constitute a major new challenge. Also the library is open 104 hours versus 40 hours a week for the film library, which should also be of benefit to faculty and students wishing to preview films. More input will be solicited for the May meeting, and this item will again appear on the agenda. 4. COMMISSION ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS: M. Ehrich distributed copies of a rough draft of her letter to Lon Savage and the University Council responding to the Faculty Senate resolution for the formation of a Commission on Information Systems. D. West (Arts & Sciences): Does not want to see another layer of bureaucracy created, and his department concurs. F. Baumgartner (Faculty Senate): There is a superficial logic about having the Library under the Vice-President for Information Systems, but the Library is a very different organization from the other two units suggested to be included. However, if a commission is needed to provide more faculty control of the office of the Vice President for Information Systems, perhaps it is necessary to establish this commission as the policy making body. F. Baumgartner continued by stating that he was in favor of having the commission, but opposed to having the Library under the Vice President for Information Systems. N. Dodl (Education): Tends to agree with the last statement of F. Baumgartner. The library is a professional unit of the University, and just as much an academic unit as a college. The Library faculty are professional academics, not technicians, and that is incongruent with the organizational structure that has been suggested by the formation of a Commission. L. Kok (Agriculture): Agrees strongly with N. Dodl. Does not understand the Library being placed under the VP for Information Systems, rather than reporting directly to the Provost, and is opposed to the formation of the commission as this commission would be redundant. P. Gherman suggested the University Library Committee recommend that its minutes be submitted to the University Council for review, to reject or affirm, under the same guidelines that govern other committees. D. West (Arts & Sciences) stated that he felt there were problems which the University Library Committee could handle more effectively than a commission charged with much broader responsibilities. Eugene Carson (Provost's Office) stated that there is a precedent of several other presidentially- appointed committees which are reviewed directly by the University Council. M. Ehrich reiterated the points on which the Library Committee agreed, and will include them in a memo to University Council. 5. NEXT MEETING: It was agreed that the next meeting will be on the third Monday, May 16, and the remaining agenda items will be taken up at that time. The meeting was adjourned.
VT History | Digital Library and Archives | Special Collections | University Archives
Send questions or comments to:
Tamara Kennelly, University Archivist
University Libraries
Virginia Tech
P.O. Box 90001
Blacksburg, VA, 24062-9001URL: http://spec.lib.vt.edu/minutes/ulc/1988/April+11++1988.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:51 EDT