back

 

FACULTY SENATE LIBRARY COMMITTEE

SUMMARY  MINUTES;   October 24, 2006

 

Present:   Steve Emory, (Chair), Béla Foltin (ex-officio), Larry Gilbert (ex-officio), Donna Packer,

                  Sara Singleton, Eiledon McClellan, Nicholas Wonder, Kathleen Tomlonovic

Absent:     Kyle Crowder, Andrea Peterson        

 

I.                    Minutes:  Minutes of May 30, 2006 were approved by unanimous vote.

           

II.            Announcements:  None

 

III.                Reports 

a)      LibQual+ Presentation: Rick Osen presented the first round of results of the LibQual+ Survey, which compared answers given by the faculty, graduate students, and a random sample of undergraduate students.  Although the Library received good ratings generally, Information Control received the lowest marks. Osen said this was anticipated, and the Library had already taken some steps to improve this by replacing the Library’s old PCs with 90 new ones over the summer quarter (this was primarily funded by the Student Tech Fee).  He also pointed out that the low ratings received for availability of print and/or electronic journals, are not specific only to our university; ratings received in this area by our peer institutions were very similar. 

b)     Action Points:  Members reviewed a list of action points brought forward from the previous meeting.

V.                  Discussion

a)      Letter to SLC from Professor C. Boxberger, Anthropology:  Members discussed letters received from Professor Boxberger, of Anthropology and from Professor Martin of Physical Education, Health & Recreation. Both letters expressed concern with how increasing costs and the rapid growth in their respective departments were causing a crisis with their library acquisition budgets. They asked to be considered for a larger allocation in the coming year and also expressed concern that there seemed no clear-cut process for allocating the acquisitions budget.

b)     Allocation of Acquisitions Budget:  B. Foltin proposed freezing all acquisition allocations where they currently stand as “Phase One” in updating the allocation process; then as new money is received, it could be allocated to departments according to new weighted data, written in consideration of certain ‘guiding principles’.  “Phase Two” could be implemented later to include all acquisition money being allocated according to the new weighted data. After discussion, members agreed with this proposal.  S. Emory suggested looking for quantitative data on how other colleges and universities are handling their acquisition allocation issues. B. Foltin and D. Packer will find out if this information is available.

D. Packer presented a spreadsheet comparing department allocation numbers using the original allocation plan of 1986/87, the 1994 SLC Plan, and the current allocation as a percentage and also in dollars. Packer also handed out a list of possible quantitative data elements to consider for acquisition allocations. The committee discussed:

Ø           Allocation process needs to be more transparent and understandable;

Ø           High inflation costs of journals; publishing companies selling electronic journals in ‘packages’; we can’t choose which titles are packaged together.  We must take some journals we don’t want in order to get ones we do want; however, costs & benefits are carefully weighed before deciding to subscribe.

Ø           Better communication / connections needed between the library and departments; B. Foltin and D. Packer will work with Librarians to contact each department on campus in an effort to create better connections.

Ø           More collaboration needed on acquisitions between departments because their disciplines are often intertwined.

Ø           Departments must start reviewing their journal lists on a yearly basis. 

Ø           D. Packer will change the journal lists to show not only which journals each department pays for but also which journals they have access to (relevant to their discipline) which are paid for by other departments.

 

 

A motion was made by E. McClellan that S. Emory write a letter to all Department Heads and Library Liaisons (both departmental and librarian), asking them to set up a yearly review of their journal lists.  S. Singleton seconded the motion.  Motion was passed by unanimous vote.  S. Emory will write a draft letter and send it out to members for review prior to the next SLC meeting.  Also, D. Packer will send out a ‘sample’ of the ‘revised’ journal list (re last bullet point) for review which can be included with this letter.

b)          Meeting Schedule, 2006/07:  Members briefly reviewed a list of suggested dates for future SLC meetings.  S. Singleton will not be able to attend any SLC meetings during winter quarter due to duties as Legislative Liaison for the university.  She will try to find a substitute to attend meetings on her behalf during this time. 

 

VIII.      Adjournment:   The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.       

                                       Next meeting:  November 21, 2006

 

Minutes taken by:  Connie Mallison