|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveMarch 14, 1988
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY COMMITTEE MINUTES 14 March 1988 PRESENT: Eugene Carson, Provost's Office Loke Kok, Agr. & Life Sci. Jack Duke, Faculty Senate Francis Ventre, Architecture Norman Dodl, Education Michael Vorster, Engineering Marion Ehrich, Vet Medicine David West, Arts & Sciences Paul Gherman, Library GUESTS: Bela Foltin, Library Arthur Snoke, Faculty Senate Phyllis Johnson, Library ABSENT: Julie Ozanne, Business Jane Wentworth, Human Res. Jeff Tibbetts, SGA James Wood, GSA Corrections to Minutes of Meeting February 1: (1) The college of Engineering is interested in standards of ASTM, not ANSI, under Old Business. (2) Under New Business, Library News, the Library is upgrading the computer in fiscal year 1987-88, not next year. It was moved and seconded that the revised minutes be approved. I. OLD BUSINESS: 1. LIBRARY LOAN PERIODS: Deferred until April II. NEW BUSINESS: 1. BUDGET DELIBERATIONS: The Chair read from letters that were received about the budget, budget development, and especially about the equity of the proposed across-the-board cuts for the journal cancellation project. (D. Farkas, Math; Members of the Executive Committee, English; College of Engineering Strategy Committee) P. Gherman (Library) stated that an amendment was introduced in the General Assembly asking for a $3.3 million increase for the book budget for state supported libraries, and an additional $957,000 for reconversion of records, and $220,000 for Telefax equipment. This passed the General Assembly Saturday night and is on the Governor's desk. The outcome is optimistic, although the specific amount that Va. Tech would receive is unknown at this time. Nevertheless, it seems the library will be able to avoid serials cancellations at this time. Also the AMIGOS contract has gone through for the upgrade of 200,000 short records in the system. Meanwhile, the review of serials that was done in anticipation of some cuts was useful, as some titles have been identified that could possibly be cancelled anyway to allow funds to be used to purchase more useful journals. Discussion followed addressing the issue of the equity of across-the-board cuts. P. Gherman stated that the arguments made in opposition to across-the-board cuts by the various disciplines all had merit, but in the face of the necessity to make a decision, the library had yet to find any other more equitable solution. D. West stated that he also saw no easy or different solution. M. Vorster said that in reviewing the lists, it was very difficult to say which journals were "ours" or "yours", since so many journals are cross-disciplinary. He suggested the library to find a way to count and record the number of reshelvings, to establish actual use of any given journal. Different methods of doing this were discussed. One was inventory barcoding, as done in supermarkets, although this would mean special equipment would have to be purchased. The consensus was that this is an extremely complex problem. If the library receives additional funding and journal cancellations are not undertaken at this time, identification of use is not as important as it may have been. However, the committee felt that the issue will arise again in the future, and at that time new studies should be made and the possibility of different solutions be sought. F. Ventre pointed out that faculty should be aware that the University Library Committee discusses these issues, and the Library Committee is kept informed, and is a conduit for bringing faculty concerns to the attention of the library administration. 2. COMMISSION ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS: Chairman M. Ehrich received a letter from University Council asking for comments from the Library committee by April 4 on the proposal to create a Commission on Information Systems, and enclosing the Faculty Senate Resolution and a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the University Council. Excerpts of the proposed amendment and Faculty Senate Resolution were read to the committee. Arthur Snoke (Geology), a member of the Faculty Senate, attended the meeting of the University Library Committee to help clarify and answer questions about these documents. In the discussion that followed, M. Ehrich (Vet Med) expressed concern that the proposed commission would replace the University Library Committee, or duplicate their work. A. Snoke explained that in the University's governance system all vice presidents and the provost have commissions that provide advise, with the exception of the Vice President for Information Systems. Policy is formulated by the commissions and passed on through the University Council to the President and then to the Board of Visitors. At present, the Library, the Computer Center, and the Communications Network do not interface with a commission, so policy issues are not handled in the usual manner. P. Gherman said that he was unclear how the commission would function, since the commission will be dealing with policy-making for three university organizations. M. Ehrich said she was concerned that there were no representatives from the faculty-based committees of Library, Computer Users, and Communication Networks, except for their Directors, who would be non- voting. M. Vorster (Engineering) said that technically this mechanism is a good idea for allowing the Library, the Computer Center, and CNS to interrelate. P. Gherman stated that the three bodies do now meet for technical interchange on an administrative level. A. Snoke explained that the formation of the commission would obligate these divisions of the University to formulate policy through the University Council. Although the Library does send its minutes to the University Council, this is not required. Minutes of the Commissions are, however, required to be sent and approved by the University Council. P. Gherman asked why minutes of the three committees could not be required, rather than creating another commission to sit over the three committees. The Library Committee noted that the complexity of activities of the Library, Computer, and Communication Network Committees may be difficult for one commission. A. Snoke replied that the only things the commission would have to deal with were those policy issues which needed to be brought before the University Council. J. Duke (Faculty Senate) said policy issues would be the responsibility of the commission and procedures the responsibility of the existing committees, which would function as standing sub- committees of the commission. N. Dodl (Education) stated concerns that the commission could not deal with all three of the agencies. F. Ventre (Architecture) asked if the impetus for this change was a perceived problem in the operations of these organizations. A. Snoke answered that there were issues, for instance last year's move of computer labs, when it was felt there had not been enough review or input from faculty because the move involved educational philosophy. G. Carson (Provost's Office) said that perhaps the commission will be a mechanism to provide an educational and administrative link, and raised the possibility of allying the three committees to existing commissions. The consensus of the Library Committee was that these three organizations cut across all areas, and would not fit well under the structure of the existing commissions. F. Ventre noted that the resolution states, "the Commission on Information Systems would oversee, and coordinate" the three existing committees, and would like the phrase "oversee and coordinate" clarified. The new structure may mean that policy recommendations would be reviewed by the commission, who would decide whether or not the recommendation was passed on to the University Council. The consensus was that more time for discussion was needed by the University Library Committee and that Chairman Ehrich should ask the University Council to postpone discussion for one month. I was noted that the University Library Committee has concern about the word "oversee" in the resolution; and the Committee would suggest that the chair of each of the faculty committees be on the commission if such were to be formed. It was suggested that ULC maintain its scope and activities, and remain the vehicle for faculty/library communication. 3. STRENGTH IN ACADEMIC DEPARTMENTAL ASSIGNMENTS : Discussion postponed. 4. OTHER NEW BUSINESS: A draft of the annual report will be prepared by May. J. Wentworth (Human Res.) will be unable to meet on Mondays this term, but will send a representative. The next meeting will be on the second Monday in April (April 11). 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/March+14++1988.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:51 EDT