Faculty Senate Library Committee
November 05, 2008
Present: Ron Helms (Chair), Chris Cox (ex-officio), Nicholas Wonder, Margaret Fast, Craig Moyer, Shawn Knabb, Donna Packer
Absent: Frank Roberts (ex-Officio), Kathleen Tomlonovic Minutes taken by: C. Mallison
I. Call to order: The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair, R. Helms at 4:15 p.m.
II. Minutes: Minutes for October 15, 2008 were approved with no corrections or amendments.
a) Comments from Dean of Libraries: C. Cox gave an update on the libraries’ strategic planning process. Copies were given out of a brief survey that will be sent electronically to campus faculty on Nov 7th and should be completed by Nov 18th. The results of this survey will be an important part of the libraries’ SWOT analysis which will be used to complete the libraries’ strategic plan. C. Cox asked members to encourage their department faculty to participate in this assessment.
b) Update on Special Collections Project: C. Cox presented copies of updated architect’s drawings for the Special Collection 6th floor project and explained that due to the recent budget cuts, the scope of the project has had to be reduced. There was a short discussion of several possible changes.
c) Update on Learning Commons Project: C. Cox explained that this project was originally budgeted for $5 million but has now been reduced to $1.9, and this amount has been approved. This means the full Learning Commons cannot be built as planned but the library may be able to create some ‘combined service points’ and accommodation for ATUS will also be provided. Details for this have not yet been worked out.
a) Subcommittee Report: R. Helms presented a draft summary report on the subcommittee’s work on the library acquisition allocations budget. In the report, the 2009 allocations were presented in two separate formats: one as per the current allocation process (which does not follow a clear formula), and the second as per a specific formula created by the committee over the past year. This second format provides the transparency to the formula and process that many have requested over the years; however, it was pointed out that no matter what formula was followed or how it was weighted, some departments gained and some lost.
A few discrepancies were pointed out to the subcommittee and D. Packer said she would make these corrections and re-send the report. It was also decided that more detail needed to be added to the summary text. C. Cox asked members to send in any suggestions to D. Packer, R. Helms, or him. Members discussed concerns about the report and how/when it should be presented to the departments. A motion was made and seconded to present this report in full to the Faculty Senate, after the corrections and additions are made, and ask the Senate to give its recommendation to the library which format they would recommend be used. The motion passed unanimously.
a) Library Materials & Requests for new Courses & Programs / Library Resource Adequacy: Members discussed the problems involved with new courses and programs being approved without having adequate library resources to back them up. C. Cox handed out copies of several forms which are used when departments make requests for new courses/programs. These were discussed and the following comments made:
Ø It’s ‘understood’ that without the ‘Yes’ box marked on the form (re does the library have the necessary resources to support the course), the request for the new course will not be approved. Therefore, the ‘Yes’ box often gets marked automatically, whether the resources are there or not.
Ø The library liaisons are not included in discussions about new courses so the library isn’t informed on what’s needed.
Ø The library isn’t seeing these requests for new courses/programs.
Ø Could a separate way be provided to inform the library of these new requests?
Ø There should be a ‘campus-wide’ discussion about the library’s mission to first provide resources for undergraduate research vs the growing need to provide resources for faculty & graduate research. There isn’t enough money to adequately fund both.
Ø To provide more funding, the library could be included in university’s overhead allowances as is the case with other universities. Members agreed that the university could use a percentage of this to fund library research materials. However, current information on how the university’s overhead funds are allocated is not accessible. Since this issue is related to budget transparency, members agreed this should be an agenda item at the next meeting and should be further investigated as a possible source of funding.
VII. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.