|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveApril 4, 1990
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY COMMITTEE MINUTES April 4, 1990 PRESENT: Eugene Carson, Provost Rep. Michael Vorster, Engineering Norman Dodl, Education Jane Wentworth, Human Resources J. D. Duke, Faculty Senate David West, Arts and Science Paul Gherman, Library Roderick Young, Agr. & Life Science GUESTS: Bela Foltin, Library Linda Richardson, Library ABSENT: Sharon Brusic, GSA Arthur Keown, Business Michael Kainer, SGA J. Scott Poole, Architecture MEETING SUMMARY: The meeting was called to order at 4:07 p.m. Minutes of the March 7, 1990, meeting were approved as submitted. It was voted that the committee would draft a new Branch Library Policy which would be submitted to University Council in the next academic year, and the GSA resolution was tabled without a specific time for it to be recalled for a vote. REPORTS I. LIBRARY ANNOUNCEMENTS (P.Gherman): A. Budget An additional 1.2 million has been added to the book budget over the biennium. An additional $404,000 in the first year and $800,000 in the second year. This means the library will not be forced into serials cancellations. Dr. Carlisle, in last Friday's budget meeting with Deans and Department Heads, explained his desire to add $250,000 to the library operating budget. This is an unfunded expectation at present, but they are hoping to find funds. It was also announced that by April 15 the administration should be ready to announce the percentage of reversion asked from each unit. B. Center for Research Libraries Dr. Carlisle has signed the application for membership in CRL, effective July 1, 1990. This will increase access to about 4 million volumes. Handouts were distributed and explained which showed: the aggregate average monograph and serials costs in ARL libraries; the total library expenditures vs. total university expenditures and total university sponsored research expenditures at Virginia Tech and its peers; and a chart of Virginia Tech and its peers showing a comparison of ARL and university statistical parameters. OLD BUSINESS I. BRANCH LIBRARY POLICY CLARIFICATION P. Gherman distributed an excerpt (5.) from the University Council Minutes of March 5, 1990; the second reading of University Library Committee Resolution 1989-90 A, that concerned the creation of new branch libraries. The excerpt detailed the University Council discussion and the motion that the resolution be referred back to the Library Committee for further consideration. N. Dodl: ULC discussions over the last year have confirmed the central library concept, but the University Council appears to feel that the wording of the resolution casts doubt on whether that is still our position. P. Gherman: That's correct. Dr. Carlisle is not sure whether the committee is saying that if funds were available new branches would be considered, or whether the resolution is saying that no additional branch libraries would be wanted even if there were resources for them. D. West: As I recall the discussions, the committee was concerned that the university might decide a branch was needed, for instance at the new Roanoke Graduate Center, without first coming to the University Library Committee. We made it an issue of money so that the university wouldn't establish a center with a library and then expect the library to pay for it out of the existing budget. N. Dodl: I don't recall a major part of the discussion centering on any attempt to change the policy of having a centralized library. J. Duke: The implications of the policy are that the Board of Visitors can say "Put a branch library there," and it's done. What we were saying is that we might not have any input into such a decision, but we want to emphasize that such a decision could not be taken without negatively impacting the central facility's resources, and that new funds would need to be provided. History suggests that branch library formation sometimes comes about without any direct input from library. P. Gherman: If in fact the wording of the resolution is mainly aimed at financing rather than at the principle of no additional branch libraries, then University Council's concern is that it has never before passed a motion that deals with funding for individual units. If the ULC resolution is financial, the Council would rather it were not submitted to them. D. West: The University Library Committee did want to put up a flag, however, and say don't create a library somewhere and then ask the library to drain its resources into it. To whom should that concern be addressed? P. Gherman: If questions of finance are the intent of the resolution the committee could probably send a letter to that effect to Dr. Carlisle. If the resolution is about a policy of no additional branch libraries then that can go to the University Council. J. Duke: Maybe the problem is with the branch library policy, which seems to imply that a decision to create a branch library could be reached external to the library administration. D. West: This happened in the case of the College of Veterinary Medicine. In order for the college to be created there was a requirement that it have a library. B. Foltin: Dr. West is right that the resolution is intended as a flag, so that the university community is aware of all the implications of starting a branch library. N. Dodl: The ULC document, "Branch Library Policy Statement," had a section on the history of branch library policy which preceded the resolution statement. This section did not, however, reach University Council members. In a letter dated in 1970, but reiterating a statement made in 1955, President T. Marshall Hahn wrote, in part, "This action [i.e., consolidation of about 24 collections when Newman was completed] followed the decision by the Administrative Council, the forerunner of the present University Council, and the Board of Visitors to discontinue Branch and departmental libraries and place priority on developing one central Library of the highest possible quality. The only exception to this policy was the Architectural Library." That appears to be the only policy statement that exists. In 1971, the University Library Committee wrote definitions of a Branch Library and of Departmental Collections, but that had no effect on the policy of a central library. Then we developed our resolution intending that it be in the context of maintaining a strong central library as the original policy stated. There have obviously been breaches to that policy since there are now other branch libraries besides Architecture. Should that happen again the resolution is intended to make sure there are budgetary adjustments to accommodate it. University Council was correct to return the resolution to us, because we did not send them a new policy recommendation. We sent a resolution pertaining to funding relative to the existing policy. Our discussion needs to center on whether we reiterate, restate or just acknowledge the existing policy. How we explain the exceptions is not clear. B. Foltin: The library at the Telestar Graduate Center is a branch library for all practical purposes, but is still referred to publicly as a Reserve Room. J. Duke: Can't we request that University Council reaffirm the policy? N. Dodl: How do we ask them to reaffirm a policy knowing there have been three major exceptions to it within the last two decades? D. West: The exceptions we have are extremely useful, and we wouldn't want them taken away. Can we send a letter to Dr. Carlisle saying that the committee frowns on having branch libraries created without proper funding. P. Gherman: At the moment, there is not a move to create a new branch library anywhere, or any indication that Dr. Carlisle would not be responsive to the funding issue if there were. Since we're not faced with a critical issue, should we send a letter to Dr.Carlisle, or even return it to University Council at this time? N. Dodl: What is bothersome about doing anything, is that there is a policy in place which has been violated and/or excepted at least 3 times. We need to be sure that a strategy of asking for reaffirmation is not a strategy that will lead somebody to try and get the policy changed. J. Bowen: We should be thinking about the future when a new Graduate Center might be created. An initiative for a new branch library should be subject to this committee's review. We need to be have input, the opportunity to discuss it and to see what its impact is going to be. We're not going to be able to stop the Board of Governors if that is what they want to do. There was further discussion which centered primarily on the issue of whether the library administration would first be consulted and have a part in planning for any new branch library, or whether they would only later be charged with the maintenance and staffing of such a facility. J. Bowen proposed that the committee reconsider and draft a new branch library policy. There is not time for a new policy to be drafted and submitted to University Council in this academic year. It was moved and seconded that a new policy be developed. The motion carried and the Chair will appoint a subcommittee to work on a first draft, which will be on the agenda in the fall. II. TABLED ULC MOTION TO ENDORSE GSA RESOLUTION P. Gherman: Library administration has been working with the parking authority to try to have the parking space moved to the curb at the end of the plaza nearer to the library door, but we haven't yet heard from them. The bus drivers are telling people who park in the designated place to move, as the buses can't pull out when the space is occupied. We have also talked to the parking authority about having a manned drop-off site at the new visitor's center on Southgate Drive. The building is not open yet, and they don't know what the hours will be, so obviously there is no final answer for that suggestion. B. Sismour: Other suggestions from GSA were a drop site at the Information Desk in the gym, and a drop box in the shuttle buses, with the buses dropping the books at the library. B. Foltin: There are always potential problems with using any intermediary, as, for instance, the shuttle drivers. N. Dodl: It appears that an attempt to find a resolution to both the parking issue and the drop-off site is underway. How should the committee respond to this resolution. J. Duke: In terms of the resolution, the committee has essentially decided that we will not support a book drop in the commuter lot or one near the curb, but we have suggested alternatives. The third issue (3-4 parking spaces) is one we support, but implementation is up to the parking authority. N. Dodl: Because of the way the resolution is worded, it might be better for the committee to table, rather than endorse or fail to endorse. A progress report taken back to GSA by S. Brusic and/or B. Sismour will allow GSA to determine whether the measures underway resolve the dilemma. If the motion to endorse were brought to a vote now, it would probably fail because of the wording. B. Sismour: GSA meets in two weeks and they will be interested to hear what is acceptable to the committee. J. Bowen: Why use an intermediary at the Visitor's Center, when the Vet Med building is open longer hours, is in almost the same location, and has a branch library? It was moved, seconded, and passed that the resolution be tabled without a specific date for returning the resolution to the floor. Current efforts to reach satisfactory solutions to the various requests will continue. The library circulation policy agenda item will be placed on next month's agenda. 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/1990/April+4++1990.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:52 EDT