Faculty Senate Library Committee
SUMMARY MINUTES – May 24, 2007
Present: Steven Emory (Chair), Béla Foltin (ex-officio), Eiledon McClellan, Craig Moyer, Andrea Peterson, Kathleen Tomlonovic, Nicholas Wonder, Kyle Crowder, Donna Packer, Sara Singleton
Absent: None Guest: Jerry Boles Minutes taken by: C. Mallison
I. Minutes: Minutes for April 19, 3007 were approved by unanimous vote.
II. Announcements: None
Consultants’ Library Organizational Assessment Report: J. Boles provided a brief explanation of the Consultants’ Library Assessment Report. The report is considered a current ‘snapshot’ of where the library is now, without including the perspective of its past history. The report assessed the library’s strengths and weakness and gave recommendations on how to improve both. Members were asked for feedback, actions and/or recommendations on the report.
Library Department Heads are reviewing the report to come up with an ‘action plan’. All recommendations will be considered but not all will be implemented. Some recommendations suggest more widespread changes and will have to be considered later when the Library has a new University Librarian. However, some areas have been identified where actions/recommendations for improvement could be considered and implemented right away. These areas are communications, library relations, and services to students and the campus. Task groups will be set up to review each of these areas and then come up with action plans for implementing changes.
a) B. Foltin’s Retirement: The Provost’s office has begun the process of finding a new University Librarian to replace B. Foltin who will retire next year. The position will be advertised in June and a search committee will begin reviewing applications at the beginning of Fall Quarter. Final interviews of candidates will probably take place in sometime October and it’s hoped that a new person will start sometime in early 2008.
b) Acquisitions Formula: S. Emory received data from D. Packer and used this in a ‘test run’ of the formula, which produced results similar to current allocations. He noted that the more factors used in the formula, the more it changed the outcome. Other points made in the discussion were:
Ø Need to determine divisions, or disciplines, before trying to allocate funds
Ø Need to decide how to weight the registration numbers, the students in various courses (and grad courses), and the impact of research; transparency in what data is used in the formula is needed.
Ø If department allocations only are considered, this does not give a full picture; for example, the benefits received from inter-disciplinary journal subscriptions are missing. Dividing the costs of journal subscription bundles between departments is a complicated problem. It would help if this percentage figure could be determined, so faculty could be informed of these extra benefits.
Ø A good explanation of ‘off the top’ expenses and how they benefit some disciplines is needed. D. Packer will make a list of database and journal subscription bundles, their costs, and what areas they benefit, for the next SLC meeting.
c) Other agenda items: S. Emory tabled other agenda items to the next meeting.
B. Foltin said the Academic Library Fee Proposal had made it through the Fee Committee and was being reviewed by the President’s Budget Committee. If it does not pass, the next option would be to go through the student government but this is a much slower process.
Also, Foltin said the Provost has presented his budget to the President and he has asked for money to ‘maintain library inflation costs’. However, this may not be approved. If not, more cuts in core journal subscriptions will have to be made.