University Library Committee Wednesday, April 22, 1998 Minutes Present: Stephen Donohue, Agriculture & Life Sciences, Chair Eileen Hitchingham, Library Stephen Baehr, Arts and Sciences Bert Fox, GSA George Graham, Teaching and Learning Richard Helm, Forestry and Wildlife Karen Inzana, Veterinary Medicine Humberto Rodriguez-Camilloni, Art and Architecture Deborah Mayo, Faculty Senate Milko Maykowskyj, Staff Senate Raymond Plaut, Engineering ABSENT: Thomas Gatewood, Education Lance Matheson, Business Guests: Paul Metz, Library Donald Kenney, Library 1. Serial cancellation process E. Hitchingham noted that faculty have been asked to review a list of materials for possible cancellation before the end of May. She explained that this timetable is needed because we do not know what the budget will be next year and the subscription centers will need to be notified by September if the cancellations prove necessary. There is concurrently a recommendation by the Library Serials Committee for adding more than a million dollars to the library base budget to support serials, equipment and a digital library initiative. E. Hitchingham noted that many faculty members have expressed concern about this latest round of cancellations and have asked what they can do. She indicated that communications to administration would be helpful, especially if specific impacts on research or teaching are noted. Paul Metz, head of collection development and principal bibliographer, was present to answer questions about the cancellation process. He noted that two major factors are behind the continued dilemma: serials inflation running 10 1/2% a year along with an essentially flat budget. S. Baehr commented on his observation that this latest round of nominees for cancellation included first rate, major journals. P. Metz agreed that these were very serious potential cuts. D. Mayo asked if the recent purchases of large databases had contributed to the need for this latest cancellation. P. Metz explained that the purchase of Web of Science involved a one-time cost of $100,000 and a net recurring cost of $20,000 after Current Contents IS are cancelled, (it subsumes the features of Current Contents IS). Most of our other electronic databases at this point are paid for by VIVA. S. Baehr suggested that the University Library Committee, as representatives of faculty, write a letter to President Torgersen and to Provost Meszaros requesting that they strongly consider the necessity of increasing the library budget. The committee agreed on this motion, and S. Donohue offered to help S. Baehr develop the letter. 2. Library Book Renewal Survey S. Donohue distributed a table showing the results of faculty voting from seven colleges. Results from the library faculty, Staff Association, Graduate Student Association and College of Architecture were shared orally. Of the persons who voted from each college or group, choice A had the majority of votes. Choice A was to keep the new (current) policy, a 90 day loan with one 90-day renewal by phone before physically taking books to a library for return or renewal. The vote count in Arts and Sciences was 48 for A, 24 for B and 56 for C, indicating that the majority in that college wished for some extension of the policy. S. Donohue summarized the overall vote count that roughly 75% of the people like the current policy but 25% want something longer. (See Table appended to minutes) Committee members proceeded to share the general nature of the comments that accompanied the survey votes. Most comments in all groups or colleges were in support of option A. Some of the comments from Arts and Sciences in favor of extended renewal were shared and discussed. S. Baehr made the observation that in the Arts and Sciences, the number of professors who commented in favor of extending the renewal periods were greater (25) than those commenting in favor of A (5), a phenomenon possibly related to amount of research responsibility. B. Fox commented that from the perspective of the graduate students who favor the current policy, it is difficult to get materials back in time when you have to recall them. If an item is not in the library, a student can't look at it or check it out. If it takes two weeks to get a book back through recall and you have two weeks to get a paper done, there's not much point in recall. ULC members took a vote on how they would make their recommendation to the Dean on the renewal policy. Seven members (one as absentee ballot) voted to keep the policy the same (A), four voted to extend it (B). A second motion was proposed to vote on choosing option B as a compromise between those who want to keep the policy and those who want extension. Five members voted in favor of selecting B, five members were opposed. Following discussion, a third vote was proposed to select a final recommendation. The final vote was 7 members for A (keeping current policy) and 4 for B (extending to two 90-day renewals by phone). E. Hitchingham indicated that she would maintain the current renewal policy for the next five year period. She thanked the committee for their input and for their cooperative efforts in soliciting information from the university community. S. Donohue thanked the committee for their participation this past year, and the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. ________________________ Table Library Book Renewal Survey April 22, 1998 A B C College Engineering 37 (78%) 6 (13%) 4 (9%) Arts & Sci. 48 (38%) 24 (19%) 56 (43%) Agric. 43 (78%) 7 (13%) 5 (9%) Human Res. & Ed. 32 (76%) 8 (19%) 2 (5%) For. & Wildlife 13 (93%) 1 (7%) 0 Vet. Med. 35 (74%) 8 (17%) 4 (9%) Business 23 (72%) 6 (19%) 3 (9%) Arch. 11 (55%) 6 (30%) 3 (15%) Staff 29 (91%) 2 (6%) 1 (3%) Library 5 (46%) 3 (27%) 3 (27%) Grad. Students 64 (60%) 27 (25%) 16 (15%)