University Libraries Logo University Archives of Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes Archive

April 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.

 

 

Current Virginia Tech Governance Minutes Archive

Return to Virginia Tech Governance Minutes Archive


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, 24062-9001

URL: http://spec.lib.vt.edu/minutes/ulc/1988/April+11++1988.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:51 EDT