|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveDecember 6, 1989
These minutes were approved as submitted at the ULC meeting on January 10, 1990. UNIVERSITY LIBRARY COMMITTEE MINUTES December 6, 1989 PRESENT: Sharon Brusic, GSA Michael Kainer, SGA Donald Cordes, (for J. Bowen) Arthur Keown, Business Norman Dodl, Education Jane Wentworth, Human Resources J. C. Duke, Faculty Senate David West, Arts & Sciences Paul Gherman, Library Roderick Young, Agr. & Life Science GUESTS: Bela Foltin, Library Linda Richardson, Library Shirley Glazener, Library ABSENT: John Bowen, Veterinary Medicine Provost's Representative J. Scott Poole, Architecture Michael C. Vorster MEETING SUMMARY: The meeting was called to order at 4:05 p.m. Minutes of the November 1, 1989, meeting were approved as submitted, with one correction. In D. West's statement in paragraph four of the Appendix "...international newspapers under this criteria..." should read "...under this criterion..." There was no old business for the committee to consider. The chair asked for the Director's reports to precede discussion of new business. New business consisted of an initial discussion on the issue of access to vs ownership of library resources. No action was taken. REPORTS I. DIRECTOR (P. Gherman): A. MEETING WITH SECRETARY FINLEY Several of the state's university librarians met with Secretary of Education Finley on September 22. The meeting was one of several he has held with various university groups to gather information. The meeting was somewhat disappointing; however, Gordon Davies of SCHEV was there, and it was productive for him to hear the various library reports. The most positive aspect of the meeting was that Mr. Davies understands the need for libraries to move from the traditional model to that of access versus ownership and to incorporate new technologies. He implied that SCHEV would be receptive to proposals that would move libraries in that direction, and felt that the General Assembly would consider allocating funds for endeavors that moved libraries into the new model and showed cooperation and resource sharing. Mr. Davies challenged the libraries to submit proposals that SCHEV could take to the Assembly in the new biennium. As a result, George Mason, William & Mary, Virginia Commonwealth, University of Virginia, and Virginia Tech have developed a proposal to mount three commercial databases on their computers and make them available to all the participants over the Virginia Research Network. P. Gherman thinks the proposal has a very good chance of being funded. B. UPDATE ON SCHEV TASK FORCE ON LIBRARY SUPPORT FOR DISTANCE LEARNING Several of the state's universities have students taking courses via telecommunications from scattered locations around the state, and these students have had only haphazard library access to support their course work. A task force of library directors has proposed to formalize an agreement whereby distance learners enrolled in state institutions can go to any state supported library to receive library support for their course work, and the parent institution will pay the host library a dollar amount (yet to be determined) per semester of enrollment to support that student. The proposal has been sent to SCHEV and also to the Provosts and Presidents groups for review. P. Gherman has not heard anything further at this time. C. TASK FORCE ON SERIALS PRICES A task force was appointed by Secretary Finley to study serials pricing, and a report has just been submitted to SCHEV and the Presidents. The report contains several suggestions for dealing with the crisis in serial prices. A copy will be given to committee members as soon as it is available. D. LIBRARY ANNOUNCEMENTS Dr. Carlisle talked to the library faculty and made several commitments to the library. He has added an additional $250,000 to the library budget this year for equipment. The library will use $125,000 of this money for the book budget, and the other $125,000 will be used for equipment. He promised to support our joining the Center for Research Libraries this year. Next year he hopes to find an additional $500,000 for the library. E. INTERNATIONAL NEWSPAPERS (B. Foltin) B. Foltin met with the President of the international students group. It was a very positive meeting and he made some suggestions which are being studied. The change which was suggested by the ULC at the last meeting has been made in the library newspaper policy, and the library is preparing a list of newspapers to be cancelled in order to bring the subscription list into conformity with the stated policy, and some new subscriptions will be added. A report on what has been done will be prepared to send to those groups which have petitioned for additional newspapers. F. TASK FORCE ON UNIVERSITY COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES AND UNIVERSITY COUNCIL COMPOSITION (B. Foltin) At the last University Council meeting the task force progress report indicated that it would probably be recommended that the University Library Committee be a free standing committee reporting to the University Council, with actions being routed to various commissions as appropriate. The Task Force will also probably recommend representation for the library faculty on appropriate commissions. The library would also be represented in the make-up of the Council itself. The final recommendations may still differ from this progress report, but it now appears that many of the University Library Committee's suggestions to the task force will be included in the final report. G. EXTENDED HOURS P. Gherman has talked with Dr. Goodale about the extended hours during exam periods when the library has been staying open 24 hours per day. There have been problems with food and drink, and also after about 2:00 a.m. there are usually only 20 to 30 students in the building, and many of them are sleeping. Dr. Goodale has agreed that beginning with this exam period the library will close at 2:00 a.m., and at that time Owens Dining Hall will open and remain open for the rest of the night as a study hall, with coffee and doughnuts available. NEW BUSINESS I. INITIAL DISCUSSION ON ISSUE OF ACCESS VS. OWNERSHIP At the November meeting the committee choose this topic for study and discussion. The Chair asked P. Gherman to explain the issues involved so that the committee will understand the implications both for the short and the long term. P. Gherman made the following points. The cost of maintaining the traditional library is becoming prohibitive; either there will be substantial amounts of money needed annually just to stay even, or there will need to be drastic cuts, which will mean access to less of the world's production of information from which patrons may choose. This library currently buys a very small percentage of the world's production of information, yet we spend 70% of our budget ($3.3 M) for serials each year, and can't even assess how often the information in those serials is used; in a perfect system a library would have the ability to access 100% of the world's information for its patrons, yet actually access only that information that is really needed. The economic theory that runs libraries is that the library invests capital in a book, and those books bought each year are for everybody to use equally, with equal access; it is never consumed, it's always there, and a massive capital of information is built. That is the ownership model. The access model says we will consume information, with nothing left at the end of the year for anyone else. However, what has been used will be only what was needed and it will have been used effectively. Technology is moving rapidly toward that condition. Electronic databases will be available on networks and journals will be published electronically and also made available on the internets. The way this may work is for the individual to access a database, find the document or report needed and have it sent to his/her personal computer and the cost charged to the library. The question for the future will be whether the library should spend $3.3 million for journals each year (which may or may not be used), or should that money be made available to finance the purchase of access to information that is actually wanted. The end result would be that the individual would have the information and would be responsible for storing and keeping it; the library at that point wouldn't have it and wouldn't know that the individual had it. There are many philosophical questions as to how library resources would be divided among the faculty or the student body. But theoretically the individual would now have access to all the world's 108,000 journals, not just the 20,000 the library currently buys. Some very heavily used journals still would be bought in paper, or by a site license which would allow unlimited electronic use. Another question is whether publishers will want to buy into this electronic world. Some universities faculties are beginning to expound the view that whether publishers want this or not, it is time for scholarly publishing to return to the control of the universities, since they are both the principal producers and users of that information. There was further discussion and questions about many technical problems involved. The committee will continue to discuss this issue, and probably invite others to talk to the committee about electronic publishing. The committee decided to meet on January 10, and at that meeting to decide on any adjustment to the meeting schedule for the next semester. The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
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/1989/December+6++1989.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:51 EDT