|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveMay 1, 1991
These minutes were approved as submitted at the ULC meeting on September 11, 1991. UNIVERSITY LIBRARY COMMITTEE MINUTES May 1, 1991 PRESENT: John Bowen, Vet Med Arthur Keown, Business Norm Dodl, Education Ken McCleary, Human Resources Holly Ferguson, CSAC Michael Vorster, Engineering Edward Fox, Arts & Sciences Karen Watson, GSA Paul Gherman, Library Rod Young, Ag. & Life Sciences Len Hatfield (for J.D.Stahl) GUESTS: Paul Metz, Library John Straw, Library Frances Painter, Library ABSENT: Carol Burch-Brown, Provost's OfficeJ. Scott Poole, Architecture Kara Goldberg, SGA J. D. Stahl, Faculty Senate MEETING SUMMARY: The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. Minutes of the April meeting were approved as submitted. No formal actions were taken at the meeting, which is the last meeting for this academic year. The next meeting will be in September. REPORTS LIBRARY ANNOUNCEMENTS (P. Gherman): Capital Outlay Projects: There is nothing to report at this time. W. Winstead still has not heard anything from Richmond. Language Lab: In a meeting with the Provost, Dean Doswald, and C. Eustis, Head of the Foreign Language Department, it was decided to move the language lab to the library. The move will free space and personnel in Foreign Languages, and allow increased utilization of library equipment without significant impact on the work load of Media Center personnel. The equipment trust fund, which can only be used for instructional purposes, may provide some money for any additional equipment the library could use for the program. Scholarly Communications Project: P. Gherman, R. Heterick, E. Blythe, and L. Savage are holding ongoing discussions about moving the Scholarly Communications Project, currently under the auspices of the Print Plant, to the library. The project is beginning a publishing effort on campus. Currently, they publish and hold the copyright to the International Journal of Analytical and Experimental Modal Analysis (a paper journal), and have also begun an electronic journal, The Journal of the International Academy of Hospitality Research. Although no final decision has been made, it seems increasingly likely that the project will be moved to the library. The paper journal is paid for by subscription, with a circulation of about 450. The project is currently losing about $20,000 a year on the paper journal, but L. Savage believes improvements can be made within a year or so. The library would not be responsible for past deficits, but would be responsible for any deficits in the future. One method of dealing with the serials pricing problem is for libraries to support the development of the electronic journal, even if this is at a loss in the beginning. The assumption is that, if all universities sponsor electronic journals, ultimately we would be receiving electronic journals from other institutions in a free sharing of information. The current project losses represent 2/100 of 1% of the current library budget; the library should be risk takers for the future for at least that much. The library also plans to apply for grant funding to help support the project. By fall the library will develop a policy statement, which includes some parameters and projections for the future of the project. P. Gherman briefly informed committee members about an experimental program sponsored by Elsevier Publishers. For a period of three years, fifteen libraries will receive scanned images of the journals published by Elsevier in the field of materials science. It would amount to about 50,000 pages over the three years. There are many problems to be resolved before the library will reach a decision about participating in the program. However, if the library does participate, some of the technology used in this program will be useful in developing the electronic journal. NEW BUSINESS DRAFT REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE TO CONSIDER A SEPARATE SCIENCE REFERENCE DESK (F. Painter): A task force was formed to consider the advantages and disadvantages of establishing a separate science reference department. The separate department structure would be for supervision of public services; science librarians' collection development responsibilities would continue to be supervised by P. Metz. The task force found that the major advantage of a separate department centers around having a visible head for science reference within the library, and would be largely invisible outside the library. The disadvantages centered on loss of the benefits of a centralized group of support staff and on the duplication of some basic reference services, such as bibliographic instruction and electronic reference. The task force concentrated on administrative and budgetary concerns. In a time of budget constraints there would be two departments competing within the library for the same money. F. Painter asked committee members for feedback from the patrons point of view. The decision needs to be made rather quickly, as the library has lost two science librarians, and by fall must recruit for either an entry level librarian or for a department head. Committee members expressed very little strong opinion one way or another. F. Painter also informed the committee that the shelfload was near capacity on the third floor. The library will consider options for reducing third floor shelfload by either shifting some current periodicals or splitting the literature collection. One option is to move the science periodicals to the fourth floor. The committee felt this impending materials shift more directly affected patrons, and asked that the library develop a method for outlining the options and asking for feedback from faculty. OLD BUSINESS INFORMATION SYSTEMS ISSUES AND GOALS FOR 1991-96 (N. Dodl): N. Dodl asked committee members if they could report any feedback on the document from their colleagues. Some comments the members reported were: the document should refer to undergraduate and graduate students, it is difficult to consider the statement without considering costs, it should be more clearly defined as a vision statement, not a directive or policy statement. There was general agreement among ULC members that the greatest concern about the document was in the portion dealing with future methods of instruction. The document seems to de-emphasize personal contact between student and professor to a degree which many faculty found objectionable. In the fall, representatives from ULC, the Computer Committee, and the Communications Committee plan to rewrite the report as a statement which will be presented to the faculty senate. Before adjournment, N. Dodl, ULC Chair, thanked the members for their attendance and participation, especially those at the end of their three-year term on the committee. The next meeting will be in September and the meeting time will be announced early in the month.
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/1991/May+1++1991.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:52 EDT