University Library Committee February 11, 1998 Minutes PRESENT: Stephen Donohue, Agriculture & Life Sciences, Chair Eileen Hitchingham, Library Stephen Baehr, Arts and Sciences Bert Fox, GSA Humberto Rodriguez-Camilloni, Art and Architecture Lance Matheson, Business Deborah Mayo, Faculty Senate Milko Maykowskyj, Staff Senate Raymond Plaut, Engineering ABSENT: Tara Berescik, SGA Thomas Gatewood, Education George Graham, Teaching and Learning Karen Inzana, Veterinary Medicine GUESTS: Debbie Averhart, Library Mark Robertson, Library 1. Renewal Policy S. Donohue brought the meeting to order and introduced the first agenda item, review of the renewal (circulation) policy as it pertained to faculty and graduate students. He noted that it has been one year since the new policy was instituted, and that E. Hitchingham would present some statistics reflecting circulation activity during that time period. E. Hitchingham distributed several graphs and briefly reviewed that the old policy was a 90 day loan period with 4 possible renewals (or effectively 470 days before physical return necessary) and the new policy was a 90 day loan period with one possible renewal (or effectively 180 days before physical return). One graph compared the number of renewals during the July-January of 96/97 (reflecting old policy) and the number of renewals during the July-January of 97/98 (reflecting the new policy in effect). Predictably there was a drop in renewals with the new policy in effect (by about almost 40%). The other graph compared the two time frames in terms of circulation rates. Circulation rates for faculty in 97/98 indicated a slight increase over those in 96/97 with a slight decrease in graduate student rates. E. Hitchingham noted that a lack of rise in new checkouts by faculty might indicate that items returned were not wanted enough to recharge them out again, by either a great number of faculty or graduate students. Such items might previously under the old policy been held out over the 470 days due to the inertia of multiple renewals. Undergraduate circulation had increased by about 18%. One ULC member commented that the increase in circulation by undergraduates may be related to the decrease in renewals. During discussion several ULC members indicated that these figures were not persuasive to them in terms of the benefits or liabilities of the new policy, and that they would like to see more input, especially from faculty. S. Baehr noted that in response to a recent question he posed to faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences regarding the new circulation policy, the majority of responding humanities, social science, and pure science faculty seem to be in agreement that the new policy is too restrictive. D. Averhart gave a demonstration of the library PIN, whereby one can get a listing of books personally checked out and their due dates. Once connected to VTLS, either from home, office or one of the machines in the library, the use of one's social security number and PIN (personal identification number obtained at Circulation) bring up the list. L. Matheson commented on the past process involved in the original decision to change the renewal policy. Committee members went back to their colleges, polled faculty and brought back the responses. The vast majority indicated that there was good cause to change the policy and the committee made its recommendations from that. D. Mayo and S. Baehr commented that they had not been contacted by their representative from the College of Arts and Sciences during the original polling process and heard about the policy after it had been enacted. D. Mayo noted that the Faculty Senate has been opposed to the policy. E. Hitchingham distributed statistics gathered from the libraries of Virginia Tech's "peer" institutions showing the number of days before physical return of books is necessary. She noted that the change in the renewal policy started as a resource issue, to make resources more accessible to other people. She also pointed out that Virginia Tech has fewer books than many of the peer institutions with more liberal loan periods. Following discussion, it was proposed that a new question be posed to faculty to determine the desirability of a middle position between the old and new policy. S. Donohue will work with E. Hitchingham to draft the question. This will be distributed to ULC members for comment before proceeding with the college polls. The process for polling will be determined after the question is formulated. 2. Copiers M. Robertson, Manager of the Auxiliary Services in the library, briefed ULC members on his attempts to improve the service and quality of the copiers in the library. This summer phones were installed next to the copiers so users could call his office directly for assistance with a problem. Most of the problems can be cleared with in a few minutes and the phones have helped to keep the up-time of the machines to around 97%. However, this fall Mark noticed a real decline in the quality of copies from all the copiers. He has been in communication with the OCE representatives (the manufacturers) and has been promised improved maintenance and quality within 45 days of their letter of January 23, 1998. 3. Comments H. Rodriguez-Camilloni expressed concern about the Art and Architecture library budget for book purchases. He noted that the library had depleted its budget as of November 1997 for the whole fiscal year. E. Hitchingham related this to the fact that no new money has been allotted the University Libraries for four years. She noted that books will continue to come in on the approval plan, but the more flexible dollars were spent and encumbered quicker. She added that Virginia Tech is the only library that now has operating funding that is 8% less than it was four years ago. S. Donohue adjourned the meeting at 5:10 p.m. The next meeting will be Wednesday, March 25, 1998, 4:00 p.m. in the library boardroom.