Faculty Senate Library Committee
SUMMARY MINUTES - November 21, 2006
Present: Béla Foltin (ex-officio), Donna Packer, Andrea Peterson, Kyle Crowder,
Sara Singleton, Kathleen Tomlonovic, Eiledon McClellan, Nicholas Wonder
Absent: Steven Emory, Larry Gilbert (ex-officio) Minutes taken by: Connie Mallison
I. Call to order: The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m.
Minutes: Minutes for Oct 24, 2006 were previously approved by members through email vote.
II. Announcements / Reports: None
Continued Discussion – Allocation of the Acquisitions Budgets:
The full meeting was used to discuss further the next steps in dealing with acquisition budget allocation issues. B. Foltin would like the Senate Library Committee to help him come up with an ‘action report’ which would recommend forward steps for dealing with allocation of the acquisition budget. The following are highlights and points made during that discussion:
Ø We should look into how other colleges and universities handle their acquisition budgets.
Ø The main ‘drivers’ for allocating the acquisitions budget are (1) journal costs and (2) how often the Library is used by the department.
Ø Two or three factors, that can be quantified, should be chosen to use in an allocation formula. Members want to consider: (1) Faculty use of the Library (by dept or discipline); (2) Student use of the Library (by dept or discipline); (3) Cost of journals by discipline, and (4) Faculty FTE (both Tenure & Tenure-track) by dept or discipline.
Ø Members agreed that the SLC should send a survey to all departments asking for data on who uses the library and how often within their area, as well as for a list of course titles and estimate of student enrollment. ILL usage for both students and faculty will also be looked at.
Ø The usage variable between disciplines – not within disciplines – is what matters
Ø Although WWU is primarily considered an undergraduate facility, the continuing pressure on the Library to provide more research materials shows that it is turning into a stronger graduate / research facility. The Library needs to provide more than just the minimum faculty/ student requirements.
Ø The ‘pros and cons’ of using student numbers as a ‘weighting factor’ were discussed (e.g. a department may have a large amount of students enrolled, but most of those students may not use the library; as opposed to a department with a small number of upper division students who do a lot of research in the Library).
Ø The Library has lost the ‘research edge’ it had in materials twenty years ago and has now become more curriculum-driven due to lack of adequate funding.
Ø It was suggested to try and keep the allocation formula simple by only using three basic factors such as, (1) the number of faculty, (2) the number of majors, and (3) the average cost of journals. However, no matter how the formula is changed, there will always be some areas affected negatively by any change.
Ø B. Foltin suggested that ‘use’ could be used as a ‘checking factor’ to the allocation formula after running it. He also emphasized that members need to look at factors other than just ‘money’. Members asked D. Packer to run a ‘test’ formula with current data, using the suggested factors. Results will be discussed at the next meeting.
VIII. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
The next meeting – TBA