|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveMay 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.
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/May+16++1988.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:51 EDT