skip page navigationOregon State University
OSU Home.|Calendar.|Find Someone.|Maps.|Site Index.

Faculty Senate

Library Committee

Annual Report 2000-01

    During the 2000/01 academic year, the Faculty Senate Library Committee continued to fulfill its responsibilities in three areas outlined in its standing rules: (1) meeting the learning, instruction and research needs of students, faculty and staff; (2) formulating library policies in relation to circulation, budgets, services, and development of resources for instruction and research; and (3) interpreting the needs and policies of the Library to the University. The committee members discussed and acted upon several issues over the course of the year, including revising the Library's research study room policy; Library support for new programs (Category I curriculum proposals); other Library budget issues (returned overhead funds, Technology Resource Fees, serials costs increases and remedial actions, the 1999 Faculty Senate resolution to boost the Library budget to 4% of the university's budget); and new library printing services and prices. The Library staff shared numerous informational items with the committee, and the committee met with the accreditation team member reviewing Standard 5 - libraries and information resources.

Research Study Room Policy Revision
The Library Committee met during July to complete proposed changes to the policy in time for it to be implemented during spring term. The committee discussed the results of a May 2000 survey taken of 70 current and prospective study room users. The committee recommended that 10 of the study rooms be set aside for long-term use, with assignment based upon a formal application. Three representatives from the Faculty Senate Library Committee and the Library would review the applications. The remaining 32 rooms would be assigned for 90 days on a first-come first-served basis. During the fall term, three people requested research study rooms on a long-term basis.

Suggestion for 2001/02: review the policy during the year (with input from the Library's Access Services staff) and make adjustments as necessary.

Library Support for New Programs (Category I Curriculum Proposals)
This was another issue that continued from 1999/2000. The piece that needed work was the implementation of a mechanism for transferring funds to the Library when Category I proposals indicate need for additional library resources to support a new program. As a part of this discussion Curriculum Council chair Leonard Friedman and member Gary Beach attended the committee's November meeting. They stated that this was a procedural issue and should not go to the Faculty Senate. In a subsequent meeting between Friedman and me, Friedman said that the Curriculum Handbook needed revising to reflect the library assessment and the source of funds for library materials. Friedman felt that the Curriculum Council should take the lead and get revisions made in time for the 2001/02 academic year. Beach indicated that he was still in the process of devising a mechanism for transferring funds.

During the year, colleges and departments proposing new programs were made aware that the Library component in their proposal was to be funded. Some agreed to come up with the funds; others objected. This is a change in culture from the Library component being overlooked or ignored previously.

Suggestion for 2001/02: determine what changes the Curriculum Council has made to the curriculum handbook regarding library funding and Category I proposals.

Other Library Budget Issues
Karyle Butcher indicated that the Library's annual share of indirect cost funds had been static for several years - around $400,000 (approx. $422,000 for FY 2000/01) -- and wanted to see if this could be increased, since the university's research funding had increased during the same period. The Library Committee chair formed a subcommittee to look into the issue. The subcommittee met in January with Rich Holdren, interim vice-provost for research, to discuss how the university allocates indirect cost funds. According to Rich, the Library's share is 3% of the funds (approx. $17 million for FY 2000/01). Based on this formula, the amount received by the library should have been approx. $510,000 -- $88,000 more than the amount actually received. In checking with some of OSU's peer institutions' libraries, I determined that very few receive a set percentage annually.

Suggestion for 2001/02: follow up with the Budget Office on any discrepancy between what the Library receives in indirect cost funds in FY 2001/02 and what the Library's share should be based upon the Research Office formula (3% of the total amount allocated). Discuss distribution of indirect cost funds with candidates for the vice-provost for research position.

At several meetings Karyle Butcher discussed her activities with SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition), an international alliance of more than 200 college and research libraries that encourages competition in the scholarly publications market. SPARC encourages editors of scholarly journals to consider alternatives to the for-profit publishers, many of which increase journal subscription prices by 10-12% annually. Karyle suggested that the FSLC could prompt OSU faculty who were editors or editorial board members of scholarly journals to consider approaches to keeping journal costs down through negotiating lower subscription prices, using a non-commercial publisher, etc. The committee supported this approach but took no formal action on it during the year.

Bonnie Allen shared with the committee her three-year projections of the collections budget to illustrate the impact of inflation (especially serials costs) on a stagnant budget.

On the issue of the Faculty Senate's 1999 resolution to increase the library's budget to 4% of the university's general and education budget, I compiled a list showing how the libraries at OSU's peer institutions fared under this formula. OSU was at 2.4% in the comparison. The mean was 2.9%, the high was 4% (Purdue), and the low was 1.9% (Michigan State). The latter still had a library budget almost twice that of OSU.
I compiled and shared with the committee a list comparing the U.S. News and World Report's top 26 engineering schools for 2001 with their libraries' 1999 (most recent available) Association of Research Libraries (ARL) rank. More than half of the universities' libraries were in the ARL's top 25; nearly 70% of the universities' libraries were in the ARL's top 50. This information was shared with the Library Committee and Steve Hiller, the accreditation team member reviewing the Library.

Library Printing Services and Prices
Due to the significant costs in providing free laser prints to users of the Library (800,000 copies at $70,000 for AY 1999/2000), the Library administration made a decision to charge for printing at the beginning of the 2000/2001 academic year. After discussion, the Library Committee supported this course of action.

The committee met with Steve Hiller, the accreditation review team member responsible for Standard 5, on April 18. Several of the issues that the committee discussed with Steve pertained to funding. The Library's inability to keep up with the escalating costs of journals and the ensuing cuts were a major concern. The committee felt that there needed to be a better definition of "top tier" than that used by U.S. News & World Report. The university is adding or expanding programs but not providing enough funding enhancement to adequately support them, particularly for library resources. As an example, OSU has committed to make its College of Engineering a top 25 school, but it has not addressed library resources needed to achieve this goal. The committee also discussed the Faculty Senate's resolution to increase the Library's portion of the university budget to 4% within 6 years and the unlikelihood that this would be achieved.

Other issues discussed with Steve Hiller included disparities among academic departments (i.e., funding); and the university's process for student and faculty/staff involvement in major decisions.

Other Issues and Informational Items
Among the other issues discussed by the committee and presented by the Library staff were ARL status (the Library Committee continues to support the Library gaining ARL membership); the purchase of various databases and other electronic resources, such as Jstor, NetLibrary and the Web of Science; move of library materials to remote storage; a University of Maryland Libraries exhibit on library costs; OSU's participation in ARL's LibQual survey; OSU's digital library initiative; the impact of OSU's branch campus in
Bend on library services; and the public relations campaign to heighten awareness of the Library's food and drink policy.

Lawrence A. Landis, chair
16 July 2001

2000-2001 Library Committee Membership
Lawrence Landis '03Chair
Mark Larson (v. Leahy) '01Crop & Soil Science
Dianne Erickson (v. Rubert) '01Science & Math Education
Mina Ossiander (v. Yu) '01Mathematics
David Horne '02Chemistry>
Darlene Judd '02Entomology
Cynthia Twohy '02Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences
Heidi Brayman Hackel '03English
Ajoy Velayudhan '03Bioresource Engineering
Ex-Officio: University Librarian(Karyle Butcher)
Student Members - Christine Armer (Graduate Student)
 Cynthia Ross