University Libraries Logo University Archives of Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes Archive

December 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.

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/1989/December+6++1989.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:51 EDT