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