back

Faculty Senate Library Committee

March 30, 2011

MINUTES  

 

 

Present:  Rae Lynn Schwartz-DuPre (Chair), Nicholas Wonder, Ron Helms, Stan Goto, Rick Osen, Margaret Fast, Cristina de Almeida, Kathryn Anderson, Rob Galbraith (for Frank Roberts)

Absent:    Chris Cox (ex-officio)Frank Roberts (ex-officio), Jeanne Freeman, Brian Bingham, Doug Clark,             Andrew Merklinghaus

Guest:      Rob Lopresti  

Minutes:  Connie Mallison

 

I.              Call to order:  The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m.

II.            Minutes: Minutes for March 2, 2011 were approved as written with two abstentions.

III.         Announcements / Constituents Concerns:  None

IV.        Action Items:  See Discussion Item below.

 

V.            Reports:

a)     Reduction in Government Documents – Guest, Rob Lopresti

Rob Lopresti explained that he has been asked to reduce the amount of government documents by a significant amount, and felt it was important to get input from the SLC regarding these possible cuts prior to making them.  The Libraries has been a regional Federal Depository for government docs for many years, and while it’s important to keep these available, most are now available on line so we need to reduce the amount of print copies and microfiche we hold.  This will help open up much needed space for other Library priorities.

Rob provided a paper giving a brief summary of the Federal Depository acquisitions and explanation of proposed reductions. It also included a sample list of ‘items’ being considered for discard. Currently the Libraries select about 6,000 ‘items’ per year; however, Rob explained, that an ‘item’ is actually a ‘series’ and could be anything from 80 journals, to a set of four, or just one.

There are approximately 1400 ‘items’ and 269 microfiche files proposed for discard; the full list has been made available on the Libraries Intranet. If everything is removed, this would reduce the paper items by as much as 50% and the total reduction would be about 25%.  Library liaisons have been told that all will be cancelled at the end of April unless someone requests that a particular series be saved. SLC members asked Rob to please send the list to them as well so they could share it with their colleges.  Rob agreed to email the list to Connie Mallison and she will forward it to members. It was also agreed to bring responses back to the next meeting on April 13th regarding what their faculty would like to see saved from this list.

b)    Dean’s Update – by Rick Osen on behalf of Dean Cox

Rick Osen explained that up until now, the Libraries has protected the acquisitions budget during earlier rounds of budget cuts; however, they won’t be able to do this anymore.  The Libraries is expecting a 7% cut this time which is a reduction of $456,000 from the base budget, and we are expecting to cut over $300,000 from the acquisitions budget as part of this reduction. When added to the $86,000 already cut, this represents a total cut of 19% of the acquisitions budget. However, if the proposed changes in the way acquisitions funds will be distributed and items will be purchased are implemented, there may not be much of a noticeable difference to their access, even with this large reduction.

A question was raised about how firm orders would be handled.  Rick explained that the Libraries will need to decide what percentage of the acquisitions budget will be set aside for firm orders and then decide how this will be distributed – to colleges? to Departments? This may be quite restricted in the short term but could be backfilled later.  He also mentioned the new Orbis Cascade pilot project, Threshold, which will lead to more ‘cooperative’ collection development among member institutions and increased access to materials for faculty and students. 

 

 

VI.          Discussion:

a)   Development of Acquisitions Position Paper – Proposal for Change: 

      Jeff Purdue presented a draft document showing how firm order funding could be divided up by colleges, with additional funding set aside for Library reference materials, BRAIN and AMSEC.  He researched what each area spent on books over the past four years and the percentages shown represent the average amount each college & area spent.  Members discussed this information in relation to other data in the draft position paper. 

                  Rae Lynn Schwartz-DuPre handed out a copy of an email she received from Dean Cox and asked members to consider the suggestions he made regarding the position paper.  Members agreed that it needs to be shortened up, made more concise.  It also needs an executive summary to lead off and then the rest of the paper should ‘follow’ as per the summary in order to build a cohesive case.

                  It was suggested that specific language be added to say that firm orders will be based on recent historical data and will be reviewed every 2 years (or sooner).  It was noted that a review process will need to be created for this by the SLC so Rae Lynn requested this be put on the next agenda.

                  Members agreed that an updated version will be sent out by email to SLC members by next Wednesday, April 6th and the final draft should be ready for review at the next meeting on April 13th.

 

 

Adjournment:   The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.