|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveFebruary 1, 1988
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY COMMITTEE MINUTES 1 February 1988 PRESENT: 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 GUESTS: Bela Foltin, Library Frances Painter, Library Phyllis Johnson, Library ABSENT: Jeff Tibbetts, SGA Jane Wentworth, Human Res. The minutes of the preceding meeting were approved as read. I. OLD BUSINESS: 1. ENGINEERING STANDARDS: 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. 2. COMMENTS ON LETTER FROM LIBRARY COMMITTEE, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE: 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. II. NEW BUSINESS: 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 legislature. 2. SERIALS BUDGET (B. FOLTIN): 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 objective. 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 privileges. 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.
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/February+1++1988.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:51 EDT