Faculty Senate Library Committee
November 15, 2005
Present: Sara Singleton (Chair), Béla Foltin (ex-officio), Kathleen Tomlonovic, Donna Packer,
Kyle Crowder, Danny Rowe, Larry Gilbert (ex-officio) , Andrea Peterson
Absent: Steven Emory Minutes taken by: Connie Mallison
Minutes of Oct 4, 2005 were approved.
a) B. Foltin introduced Cathy Herbold as the new Library Development Officer. This position is now a permanent position; Cathy will work for the Library two and half days per week and will work closely with B. Foltin on various fund raising projects for the Library.
b) C. Herbold gave a short update on the Library Advisory Board being formed by B. Foltin and C. Herbold. So far, invitees include: Paul and Mary Ann Ford, Chuck and Dee Robinson (owners of Village Book store in Fairhaven), Marian Alexander, Diane Parker, Larry Hoffer, Bob Monahan, George Mariz, and Ray McInnis.
a) B. Foltin has now met with all VPs, Provost and President, as well as student officers and Student Senate, to discuss the Library’s proposed Minor Capital Project which would move Special Collections up to the 6th floor and possibly change the old Special Collections area to a 24 hour study center for students. All spoke favorably regarding this proposal and the Student Senate agreed to make a resolution supporting this project and forward it to President Morse.
b) In preparation for the university’s upcoming accreditation process, the Library will be conducting some various assessment projects. The first project will be to conduct the LibQUAL assessment survey during spring quarter. LibQUAL will measure various services and teaching provided by the Library and will compare our results against the survey results of other peer institutions across the nation.
A recent survey conducted has shown that students don’t feel confident in using the online research resources available and members wondered how this problem could be addressed. B. Foltin and A. Peterson explained that the Library had formed a Usability Group which was tasked with finding ways to help resolve this problem. Also, student are being encouraged to take Library Instruction classes which would teach them how to use the resources to their best advantage. A. Peterson also explained the changes to the Library’s website which are being implemented to make it much more user-friendly for students.
D. Packer said the Library’s databases are provided by many different publishers using different interfaces. Some are very sophisticated and using the full search capabilities can be very difficult for students. Although there area online tutorials, helpdesks and classes available, the problem was how to get the students to use these. Members held a short discussion on this issue.
a) Members held a preliminary discussion on the issues surrounding the Library’s acquisition budget allocations. The following points/issues were discussed:
Ø There are always more needs than money available; committee members don’t really understand all the intricacies involved in trying to resolve this dilemma. The committee should ask the Librarians to come up with a list of parameters, then the committee could work with this list to select options it wants to pursue.
Ø If this committee could come up with some guidance for the yearly review of department journal lists, B. Foltin could write a letter to the Librarians asking them to implement this review. This could bring some uniformity to yearly reviews between Librarians and their departments. Departments should be made to ‘visit’ their journal lists every year to determine what they really need. They should determine ‘What is Core and what could be borrowed, as well as what could be deleted’; some department are doing this regularly already – but a lot don’t.
Ø We can now look at the current journal holdings in a broader context than we could even a year ago; we now have better tools built into the databases which will allow us to review what is in the general databases that’s available to departments, but not showing up on their lists. Also, we need to look at what the Library spends on a whole, and for each area (getting more specific).
Ø This library has handled the ‘journal issues’ better than other libraries by dealing with the problems as soon as they arose; compared to others who ignored the growing cost of journals and then had to make deep cuts all at once. We have been able to make smaller adjustments over time.
Ø The Provost has already partially dealt with the issue of rising costs of journals by proposing that the journal inflation costs be included into the overall budget; this has not yet been approved though. He also helped get extra funding added to the basic acquisitions budget to help offset rising inflation costs.
Ø It might be useful to show in a report what has changed over the years and how the Library is handling those changes and what options we’ve explored; this report could then be sent to the Senate. Sample list of allocation issues: Flexibility – ability to adapt to new curriculum; Faculty Demand; Student Demand; Balance between books and journals within each department. We need to look at the minutes from last year; the committee did agree on some principles and these were incorporated into the report given to the Senate in February 05.
Ø We could also supply the Senate with an annual report explaining what the SLC and Library have done with regard to the principles laid out in the charter and in dealing with the allocation issues. Because acquisitions allocations is such a fluid problem, an annual report would help the Senate better understand the issues and would help keep them informed.
V. Members Concerns:
The meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
The next meeting will be held – To Be Determined – no Winter Quarter meeting will be held.