University Libraries Logo University Archives of Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes Archive

February 1, 1988




                       1 February 1988



  Eugene Carson, Provost's Office    Loke Kok, Agr. & Life Sci.

  Bill Cox, Engr. (for M.Vorster)    Julie Ozanne, Business

  Jack Duke, Faculty Senate          Francis Ventre, Architecture

  Norman Dodl, Education             David West, Arts & Sciences

  Marion Ehrich, Vet Medicine        James Wood, GSA

  Paul Gherman, Library



  Bela Foltin, Library               Frances Painter, Library

  Phyllis Johnson, Library



  Jeff Tibbetts, SGA                 Jane Wentworth, Human Res.


  The minutes of the preceding meeting were approved as read.






       B. Cox said that the immediate concerns of Engineering

       had been satisfied with the subscription to ANSI.


       B. Foltin reported that the estimated purchase price of

       titles on the standards list would be about $30,000 in

       microform format.





       Arts & Sciences (D. West): Noted that one can browse at

       Cheds and that the letter was internally contradictory.


       Agr. & Life Sci. (L. Kok): The points in the letter

       itemize various concerns expressed by different members

       of the Agriculture Library Committee at their meeting.

       They are not necessarily consistent one with another.

       Options for solving these problems were also discussed.

       The Agriculture Committee also feels that a

       disproportionate number of materials in their

       discipline have been sent to Cheds in the past, and

       asks that the library consider this when making future

       selections for long term storage.


       Library (P. Gherman): In response to some issues

       raised in the letter, a) The letter questions the

       efficiency in having branches.  The existence of the

       three branch libraries is tied to accreditation in the

       colleges they serve.  This library is at the extreme

       low end of the scale in number of branch libraries

       maintained compared to other research libraries.

       b) The library would probably be much better served by

       having storage closer to the main library, perhaps in a

       addition built for that purpose, with compact shelving

       to which there was limited access. c) The library is

       in the second year of a three year contract on the

       Savin copiers. At the end of this contract the library

       will be looking at all alternative copier services.

       M. Ehrich asked L. Kok to  convey back  to the

       Agriculture Library Committee the discussion of the

       points raised in the letter, and the fact that most of

       these problems are being addressed.




     1.  LIBRARY NEWS (P. Gherman):


       a) Discussions are underway with the Learning Resource

       Center (LRC) to move the film collection to the

       library, possibly about July 1. The move would include

       collections, equipment, personnel, and some budget to

       purchase films. The collections would be housed in the

       Listening Room, under the supervision of Joanne Eustis.

       The library would not offer a delivery service, and

       details are only now beginning to be discussed.  This

       item will be on the April agenda when more details of

       operation are known.  Before then there will be an

       effort made to get statistics from LRC on how many

       faculty pick up films or ask for delivery, and what

       features and services are most called for. P. Gherman

       will ask J. Eustis to attend the April meeting.

       Library  Committee  members expressed concern that

       delivery services be maintained.


       b)  Charts and graphs on the library budget were

       presented to describe library expenditures from 1982

       through last year.  Expenditures for materials varied

       from year to year.  Due to university cash flow

       management, serial subscriptions paid at year end are

       sometimes paid in the current year and sometimes

       forwarded for payment to the next budget year.  These

       funds are then deducted from the library's budget the

       next year. Funds for General Operations increased in

       1983/84 and 1984/85 when the library upgraded the

       computer. This will happen again next year when the

       library buys the model 950 computer.  There is no

       additional special funding provided  when computer

       hardware needs to be upgraded and the funds must come

       from the total budget.  The new hardware will mean

       greater access to library materials, as the new system

       will have more power, speed and memory than the current

       system.  Computer hardware systems have a lifetime of

       three to five years before they must again be upgraded.

       In the discussion that followed, D. West (Arts &

       Sciences) commented on the perception of some faculty

       members that access isn't a serious problem. Many are

       more concerned about diversion of money they think

       should be spent on books and journals. F. Ventre

       (Architecture) agreed  that this  perception is a

       problem, and that the reliance on computers is seen as

       an attempt to wean the scholar away from the printed

       word. E. Carson (Provost's Office) said he believes

       when the faculty has the ability to access from their

       office or home, and sees the functionality of the

       increased power of the new system, the new computer

       will be well received.  P. Johnson (Library) reminded

       committee members that all library holdings cannot be

       put on VTLS until the new system is operational. J.

       Duke (Faculty Senate) commented  that no  one is

       objecting to trying to achieve universal access, but

       to do so money must be spent, and that means there is

       less money for those things which need to be purchased

       here and now. More money needs to come from somewhere.

       D. West asked how the library might go about seeking

       additional funds.  P. Gherman responded that the

       library has already made the university administration

       aware of all these  needs, and  has submitted a

       supplementary budget request of 3.3 million to the





       This budget is 95% obligated.  Most serials are now

       paid.  A major vendor predicts the same rate of

       increase in journal prices next year as this past year

       (between 20 and 30%).


       N. Dodl (Education) asked that consideration be made

       when selections for possible cancellation of some

       serials for  the lower costs of journals in the

       humanities and social sciences. He stated that the 1/6

       possible cut seemed to fall more heavily on journals of

       lower cost. B. Foltin responded that this had been

       considered, but had no alternative to achieve the



     3.  DONATION OF JOURNALS (members of the Committee):


       The library ran an article in Spectrum asking for

       faculty to donate journals for missing and lost issues.

       The next step could be to ask faculty to donate an

       entire subscription to a journal.  It would be,

       however, necessary for them to sign a contract, or make

       some firm arrangement, since the library couldn't

       cancel a subscription on the basis of a casual offer to

       donate.  Donations can be very helpful, but there are

       some cautions. The library would have to make sure

       that the publisher of a journal allows donations,

       because some publishers will charge the donating

       subscriber the library rate if it is known that the

       library has cancelled a subscription because of a

       promised donation.

       The library will be working to define the donation

       policy further. The library is very pleased to receive

       copies to replace cancelled duplicates, and lost and

       missing issues, but as a cancellation policy, relying

       on donations is worrisome.


     4.  LIBRARY LOAN PERIODS (Committee members):


       Chairman M. Ehrich received requests to discuss the

       privacy of recalls and the length of the check out

       period to faculty (90 days x 3).


       Provost Office (E. Carson):  The length of the loan

       period to faculty seems overly generous. Privacy,

       however, must be protected at all costs.


       Vet Med (M. Ehrich):  Comments received noted that

       often a book needing recall was just an office away and

       time was lost going through the Library recall process.


       Library (B. Foltin):  Privacy must be protected. The

       FBI has visited some libraries trying to learn what

       materials individuals  have checked  out.  We do

       sometimes handle the recall problem by calling the

       person who has the book, and asking them to contact the

       person needing the book, if they wish.


       E. Carson: The university protects student records in

       the same way, and will not release any information

       without written consent of the student.


       Faculty Senate (J. Duke):  The privacy issue didn't

       seem to be of overriding concern to members of the

       Faculty Senate, but there was concern about faculty

       having books overdue, and without penalty. They were

       most opposed to the double standard of faculty not

       having to pay fines.


       B. Foltin was not able to give committee the promised

       data on overdue books since the systems office will

       have to write a program to recover this data. It will

       be available by the March meeting. A handout with some

       preliminary finding shows the current number of lost

       items as 4%. The memo also shows that 3% of library

       patrons can no longer check out materials, but the

       reasons for the restriction are not available. Once,

       however, a patron returns an overdue item, the record

       is erased. Another handout was provided that outlines

       the  processes  resulting  in loss of circulation



     The next meeting will be on March 7.  Agenda items to be

     discussed at that time include overdue books, discussion on

     the Faculty Senate Resolution for the  Creation of a

     Commission on Information Systems, budget deliberations, and

     strength in academic department assignments as library

     liaisons. The meeting was adjourned.


     ADDED IN PROOF:  The meeting time has been postponed until

     March 14, as at least two members of the committee cannot

     attend at the earlier time.



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

Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:51 EDT