University Libraries Logo University Archives of Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes Archive

May 16, 1988

 

                          UNIVERSITY LIBRARY COMMITTEE

                                   MINUTES

                                 16 May 1988

 

      PRESENT:

      Norman Dodl, Education            Julie Ozanne, Business

      Jack Duke, Faculty Senate         Francis Ventre, Architecture

      Marion Ehrich, Vet Medicine       Michael Vorster, Engineering

      Paul Gherman, Library             David West, Arts & Sciences

      Loke Kok, Agr. & Life Sciences

 

      GUESTS:

      Joanne Eustis, Library            Anita Malebranche, Library

      Bela Foltin, Library              Paul Metz, Library

      Shirley Glazener, Library         Bill Murphy, Extension

      Phyllis Johnson, Library

 

      ABSENT:

      Gene Carson, Provost's Office     Jeff Tibbetts, SGA

      Jane Wentworth, Human Resources

 

      The minutes  of the  last meeting were approved with the addition

      of the missing page from the minutes.

 

       I. OLD BUSINESS

 

          1.   LIBRARY LOAN PERIODS: Committee members reported on the

               response of their constituencies on the issue of the

               faculty loan period, which is currently 90 days with 4

               renewals.

 

               Agriculture (L. Kok) recommended a checkout of 4 1/2

               months (or the length of a semester), with 1 renewal.

               Arts & Sciences (D. West) only commented that checkout

               policies for Cheds material should be the same as that

               for Newman Library. Education (N. Dodl) had only one

               response, which was to keep the checkout time as long as

               possible with no objection to having to renew. N. Dodl

               commented that checkout for a semester with 1 renewal

               would probably be acceptable. Engineering (M. Vorster)

               had two schools of thought: one that the policy should

               be tighter; the other, that things were fine as they

               were. The checkout for a semester with one renewal

               would be an acceptable middle ground, but Engineering

               did not want fines imposed on faculty without further

               study.  Business (J. Ozanne) is in favor of leaving the

               policy as is, but J. Ozanne stated her support for a 1

               semester checkout with 1 renewal.  Architecture (F.

               Ventre) had no college library committee report, but F.

               Ventre was of the opinion that a shorter loan period

               would better serve the university community by having

               more books available on the shelves. Vet Medicine (M.

               Ehrich) felt the present policy was much too generous.

               In other comment, D. West stressed the difficulty of

               receiving a timely response from faculty on an issue

               like this.  He felt the best strategy was for the

               library to formulate a definite proposal and solicit

               response from faculty to the proposal.  B. Foltin

               (Library) reported that library staff concur that the

               University Library Committee should explore changes in

               the loan period, when they reconvene in the fall. He

               stated that in the meantime the computer program that

               searches for long overdue items could be run once a

               semester, rather than once a year, and the threshold to

               trigger a "long overdue" could be made 90 days, rather

               than 180. The University Library Committee was

               supportive of this effort proposed by the Library, and

               committee members were asked to continue to bring this

               before their college committees and solicit feedback.

 

          2.   THE LIBRARY AND LRC FILMS: Faculty input on the proposed

               move of films from LRC to the Library had been sought

               after the April meeting.

 

               J. Wentworth (Human Resources) had transmitted

               information to Chairman M. Ehrich about concerns on the

               part of faculty in Extension because the LRC Film

               Library currently provides same-day, postage paid

               services for county extension agents, which they rely

               on, and they don't want this service lost. No other

               communication on LRC films had been received by Chairman

               M. Ehrich. P. Gherman (Library) received three letters,

               two of which were in opposition to the move. D. West

               (Arts & Sciences) received one letter supporting the

               move, two phone calls concerned about future service,

               and one personal contact who felt it was the obvious

               thing to do. He does not yet have the response to the

               mail ballot he sent out. Bill Murphy (Extension), guest

               at the Library Committee meeting, stated that Extension

               has about 500 professionals, faculty and staff, around

               the state in 110 locations, and they account for about

               35% of the business of the LRC Film Library. The staff

               of the Film Library has been very responsive to the

               needs of Extension, with same day mailing of materials.

               The overriding concern is the ability of the Library to

               maintain the current level of service. Other Library

               Committee members noted several other areas of concern

               (library budget, library space, commitment to service).

               J. Eustis (Library) reiterated that there are no plans

               to make any changes in service. She stated that a

               change in cost sharing of rentals had been contemplated

               but dropped. The films would be housed in the Library's

               Listening Room. LRC budget, personnel, and equipment

               will move to the Library along with the collection. The

               Library suggests that a merger of two smaller units will

               enhance media services for the University. B. Murphy

               (Extension) asked how the Library would handle material

               that was placed in the Library, even though it was owned

               by faculty or a department. J. Eustis (Library) noted

               that Horticulture slide sets are made available to

               students through the Library. In addition, faculty

               place on reserve books, videos, etc. which are

               personally owned. J. Eustis stated that the Library has

               no plans to abandon 16mm film, which are preferred to

               videos for classroom use. P. Gherman said he had spoken

               by phone with Dr. Johnson of Extension, who was not so

               much concerned with location of the films as he was with

               service. B. Murphy (Extension) then stated that his

               questions had been answered in such a way as to reassure

               him that the Library's intention was to maintain

               service, and endeavor to improve it. There was no

               further comment or discussion. M. Ehrich asked for a

               motion. J. Duke moved that the LRC Film collection be

               moved to Newman Library, with no decrease in services.

               L. Kok seconded. The motion passed by unanimous vote.

 

      II. NEW BUSINESS

 

          1.   NEWS FROM THE LIBRARY (P. Gherman):

 

               a. The Library mailed to Branch Library users the same

                  evaluation form used in the earlier Newman Library

                  survey. A report of the results will be made to

                  the University Library Committee in the fall.

 

               b. Cowgill Hall will be closed for the summer for

                  environmental clean-up, so the Art and Architecture

                  Library will also be closed. Art and Architecture

                  Library staff, reserve books, slides, and key

                  reference book sets will move to Newman, and new

                  journals will be received and shelved at Newman for

                  the summer. Books cannot be moved, but will be

                  retrieved on a daily basis, as requested, and be

                  circulated from and returned to Newman Library.

 

          2.   REPORT ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES (to meet the criteria for

               library operation developed by the 1986-87 University

               Library Committee) (P. Metz):

 

               Paul Metz suggested that the user evaluation form

               measures 60 to 70% of what is needed to be known about

               Library services. He and his committee had assumed that

               other libraries were far ahead of us in developing

               performance measures, but this did not seem to be the

               case. He noted that there are a number of important

               parameters which cannot be measured by attitude surveys,

               but that these will be handled by performance criteria

               currently being developed by the Association of College

               and Research Libraries (ACRL). As the ACRL manual will

               be available in about a year, the Metz Committee felt it

               would be inefficient for Virginia Tech to develop their

               own measures. J. Duke (Faculty Senate) commented that

               the ACRL measures would be better used for comparisons

               with other libraries than any of our own. P. Gherman

               said it was not a good investment of staff time to

               pursue this on our own since the ACRL is already working

               in this area. F. Ventre (Architecture) wanted to know

               if points in the Metz report could be brought to the

               attention of the ACRL committee doing that study. P.

               Metz felt it would be a good idea to send a copy of the

               report to the Chair of the ACRL committee because it

               would allow them to see which items one library had

               identified as being important. The University Library

               Committee recommended that a copy of the Criteria for

               Library Operations developed by the 1986-87 University

               Library Committee also be sent.

 

          3.   DEPARTMENTAL LIAISONS TO THE LIBRARY This item was

               placed on the agenda because certain faculty had

               expressed concerns that there is unevenness in the work

               done by the different departmental library

               representatives, who are individuals expected to be

               advocates for their department as they work with

               librarians on collection development.

 

               L. Kok (Agriculture) reminded the University Library

               Committee that the department heads choose the library

               representative or else that individual is selected by

               his colleagues, and therefore, it is no concern of this

               committee, nor is there anything this committee should

               do to influence this process. D. West (Arts & Sciences)

               agreed and noted that the departments will get the kind

               of representation they choose. He also felt that there

               was some unevenness within the Library as well, with

               some librarians working harder than others to develop

               rapport with the departmental representatives. P.

               Gherman said B. Foltin monitors the work of the

               librarians closely. B. Foltin added that he had not had

               a single complaint coming from outside about any of the

               librarians. M. Vorster (Engineering) said it was not

               within the purview of this committee to do anything

               about the departmental representatives.  It was,

               however, proper for the committee to recommend that the

               library prepare a guide for department heads, which

               would detail what the Library expects a library

               representative to do, and that this guide would be

               extremely helpful in making the selection of a

               representative.  It would also allow a potential

               representative to have a better idea of what he/she was

               expected to do. The University Library Committee

               recommended that a guide be drawn up by the Library

               staff, describing the duties of a library

               representative, and this guide should be furnished to

               the department heads. As the Library is planning to

               approach the department heads early this summer about

               departmental representatives, B. Foltin will provide

               this guide by that time. The Library also encourages

               every college to have a Library Committee, so that major

               issues facing the Library are brought before them. N.

               Dodl (Education) said the committee in his college would

               include the departmental representatives as members. D.

               West (Arts & Sciences) and F. Ventre (Architecture)

               noted that in colleges with infrequent faculty or

               college library committee meetings it was difficult to

               get information disseminated for discussion.

 

          4.   ANNUAL REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY COMMITTEE

 

               The report, prepared by M. Ehrich after comments from

               the University Library Committee at the last meeting,

               was submitted for further discussion. D. West (Arts &

               Sciences) felt the first paragraphs were an accurate

               reflection of the committee's work this year. J. Duke

               (Faculty Senate) suggested adding a statement about the

               LRC Film Library. L. Kok (Agriculture) moved that the

               draft be accepted with the suggested changes. The

               motion was seconded and approved.

 

          5.   OTHER NEW BUSINESS

 

               CD ROM equipment. M. Ehrich received letters from L.

               Mitchell of the College of Engineering's Library

               Strategy Committee noting the inadvisability of

               purchasing CD ROM equipment at this time. P. Gherman

               had already responded, noting that the Library has only

               one CD ROM player and only recently decided to purchase

               a second CD ROM database. P. Gherman reported that the

               funds are not available for any more CD ROM purchases at

               this time. He noted that Virginia Tech is far behind

               some other libraries in acquiring this type of

               technology.

 

      The meeting, the last for Chairman M. Ehrich, who has served 6

      years on  the Committee and 2 years as its Chair, was adjourned.

      The University Library Committee will reconvene in September.

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/May+16++1988.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:51 EDT