University Libraries Logo University Archives of Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes Archive

March 6, 1991

   These minutes were approved as submitted at the April 3, 1991 ULC meeting.



                              March 6, 1991



  John Bowen, Vet Med                 Paul Gherman, Library

  Carol Burch-Brown, Provost's OfficeKara Goldberg, SGA

  Walter Butke, (for Architecture)    J. D. Stahl

  Norman Dodl, Education              Michael Vorster, Engineering

  Holly Ferguson, CSAC                Karen Watson, GSA

  Edward Fox, Arts & Sciences         Rod Young, Ag. & Life Sciences



  Paul Metz, Library                  John Straw, Library

  Frances Painter, Library            Wayland     Winstead,      Univ.




  Arthur Keown, Business              J. Scott Poole, Architecture

  Ken McCleary, Human Resources




  The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. The minutes of the

  February meeting were approved as submitted. The committee heard a

  report on the library facilities planning process from W. Winstead.

  The tabled motion to create a new task force to study library

  computer capability and access was returned to the floor. The

  committee asked that a statement outlining what a new task force

  would attempt to accomplish be prepared for next meeting.  A vote

  on the motion will be on next month's agenda.


  In response to a question the chair explained that the minutes of

  previous ULC meetings are available on Profs, under GOVERN on

  UNIVERSITY INFO. They are not posted electronically until

  approved; therefore, minutes are posted after the succeeding meeting.






       The library's Annual Report 89/90 and a multi-year compilation

       of ARL standings were distributed. The ARL information is

       based on the latest ARL statistics and demonstrates that the

       library's ranking in almost all categories has declined in the

       last decade as compared with other member libraries in the

       Association of Research Libraries. Staff are working on a

       compilation of statistics to compare our library with other

       libraries in our peer group.


       P. Gherman was asked whether an academic department can use

       funds saved by periodicals cancellations and apply them to book

       purchases. P. Metz responded that money for subscriptions is

       never allocated by department. The funds recovered from

       cancellations will remain in the library's budget and may be

       used by the library to buy books, but not on a departmental

       basis.  For example, a subscription canceled from an

       architecture fund code will not necessarily buy a like dollar

       amount of books for the architecture collection. However, all

       departments gain by making funds available for use where

       needed. It was emphasized that not all titles on any of these

       lists will be cut.


       In response to a question about our microform holdings that was

       prompted by the ARL statistics, P. Gherman answered that we are

       near the top in the ARL rankings because, in the past, the

       library often used year-end money to buy large microform sets.

       Our microform holdings are particularly strong in science.






            The chair introduced Wayland Winstead, Director of

            Planning, who was invited to the meeting to explain the

            process used by the Office of University Planning in

            arriving at the recommendations in the document "Providing

            Adequate Library Facilities at Virginia Tech."


            W. Winstead explained that the recommendations of the

            subcommittee on Capital Outlay began to be implemented

            last May. At that time each vice president and dean was

            asked to submit an ordered list of capital outlay

            priorities for his/her college or division, and planning

            was developed on the basis of this consultation.


            In the University's list of projects a High Density

            Library Storage Facility (HDLSF) was placed second on the

            list of new projects, just after the Major Williams

            conversion. The request is for a HDLSF because the state

            has decreed a virtual moratorium on the construction of

            traditional open-stack library space. To demonstrate the

            reason for the state's position, W. Winstead explained

            that with traditional library construction it would

            require new construction equal in space to two Burruss

            Halls to make up the library space deficit. The HDLSF

            also might be used by the University's Records Management

            Office, or as a regional library storage facility shared

            with Radford University. Plans for use of the present

            bookstore building are tentative and are dependent upon

            yet to be finalized commitments to construct a new

            University Bookstore.


            Richmond requested that the capital outlay plans be

            presented on February 1, rather than March 1. There was

            no opportunity for further discussion. The university

            will receive the state's decision on capital outlay

            projects on March 15. Project requests will either be

            turned down or the university will receive authority to

            proceed with pre-planning. Actual funding decisions will

            be made at the long session of the legislature in January

            1992; the pre-planning process would lead to a detailed

            budget submission by August 1992. A request to the state

            for funds for conversion of the bookstore building would

            not be submitted until the 94-96 biennium.


            A committee member asked whether the HDLSF would solve the

            library's storage needs for the foreseeable future.  P.

            Gherman responded that the combination of a HDLSF and the

            bookstore building would give the library adequate (not

            ideal) space for about 10 years. The committee asked that

            the document be amended in the last line to read "address

            the library's MINIMUM need for the next 10 years" (instead

            of "for the foreseeable future").


            If the requests are approved in Richmond the university

            will constitute a pre-planning Building Committee.  The

            ULC should assume an active role in advising this

            committee. One question is how the 10-year storage needs

            of the library are affected if the HDLSF is also used by

            Records Management or by Radford. The building would be a

            warehouse, and UVa already has building plans based on the

            Harvard model, which the state has said might serve as a

            plan for all such state facilities. The committee's

            advise will be most valuable in considering questions

            concerning what is stored in the building, or which type

            of shelving would be most appropriate and space-efficient

            for our needs. Planning for the bookstore conversion

            would only begin in 94-96, and is therefore not an urgent

            priority at this time.




            Addenda to the VTLS Evaluation Task Force's interim report

            were distributed to the committee. It was moved that the

            tabled motion to create a new task force be returned to

            the floor. The ensuing discussion centered on whether the

            ULC wishes to stay with the existing task force's focus on

            VTLS vs other systems, or wishes to create a new task

            force whose charge might include a look at the adequacy of

            VTLS but would focus more directly on computer capability

            and more broadly on access problems. A more productive

            direction might be to ask what VTLS is not doing that we

            think we would like to be able to do. Where are there

            unsatisfied needs and are there other routes through which

            to meet these needs? A new task force might look at what

            peer institutions are doing beyond their OPACs (Online

            Public Access Catalog). Some are using commercial

            databases running on mainframe computers; tables of

            contents access; full-text storage and retrieval of

            electronic journals; full-text reserve book reading.

            Should we consider a duplicate of VTLS on the mainframe,

            but with a different search algorithm; access to other

            OPACs on internet; network CD ROMs? The task force might

            consider alternatives that parallel VTLS and increase our



            The committee agreed that P. Gherman, E. Fox, and N. Dodl

            should draft a clear statement of what a new task force

            would attempt to accomplish for consideration at the next

            meeting. This statement will be used as the basis for a

            vote on the question of whether to create a new task

            force, and will be on the agenda for the next meeting.


  The meeting was adjourned at  5:10 pm.  The next meeting  will be on

  April 3, 1991.

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

Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:52 EDT