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

Faculty Senate

Faculty Senate » March 2, 2004

Library Committee

March 2, 2004

Members: Melodie Putnam, Dianne Erickson, Gary Beach, Ken Winograd (chair), Bob Rost and Mark Edwards;
Karyle Butcher (ex-officio) and Bonnie Allen (guest)

  1. Review and evaluate Category I procedure.
  2. Information on how the Library evaluates Category I proposals for program financial responsibility.
  3. Information on meeting with Executive Committee (Beach and Winograd), and the next steps.

  1. Review and evaluate Category I procedure (Beach)
    • Require units to articulate where source of funds would be - has been in place since 1998.
    • Source of funds included with Category 1 proposal.
    • Next step is not in place-transfer of funds to library.
    • Right now, steps 1-5 are in place (see handout); 6-8 still need to be done.
    • Beach talked with Bob Burton of the Curriculum Council (CC): if the Library approves the plan, then it will go to the CC. Once in place, Gil Brown will implement the plan.
    • This is the first time it's been written down.
    • Once academic programs are notified, funds will be transferred.
    • There will be a two-year follow-up review for all new programs.
    • Approval process can take more than a year; therefore payment from department is not always taken when expected.
    • Winograd: Do programs put up money before generating an income?
      • Most new programs have been a consolidation of existing courses into degree programs.
    • Funds transfer will be shortly after program approval, because the Library needs the money up front to get supporting materials.
    • Departments feel they shouldn't have to fund library materials.
    • Lack of money to library, plus lack of administrative reserve that could handle it.
    • Butcher: University shouldn't keep courses that the Library can't support.
      • Departments don't look at the whole picture. Money has to come from somewhere, can't have new courses without it.
      • Example: Rubin Landau was dedicated to his new comp. physics and took on more work himself. Now he's retired, and how will his new program be sustained?
    • There is the assumption that after four years the Library will pick up the costs.
    • Brown would build recurring money into library accounts after four years.
      • Winograd: That ought to be written into the document.
    • Edwards: Is there a negotiation process for departments to build slowly?
      • Butcher: Category I proposal is bad - because there's no money, it doesn't solve collections problem and creates petty fights with departments.
      • Not a sustainable model.
    • Once provost signs off, money comes from administration, not academic units.
    • Bonnie: Raises awareness about cost to have new program.
    • Noone has money. If colleges did, then they wouldn't care.
    • Melodie: Departments need to know you can't do something with nothing.
    • Karyle: Someone has to pay the money, and if we do it, then someone else loses money.
    • Ken: What is the process of determining financial responsibility?
    • Mark: Process isn't long-term, but might nudge people in the right direction.
    • Karyle: Might add money for library into mindsets of departments.
    • Dianne: The university adds programs, but never takes any away.
      • Gary: There's a 10:1 ratio of new programs to those eliminated.
      • The university averages 5-6 new programs a year.
      • April 27-8 will be the accreditation visit.
      • Mark: Need admin. to say get rid of programs to help getting new ones.
    • The plan goes to academic programs then to CC then to Financial Planning then to EC.
      • (Bill said there will be no grandfathering, but it will start with this fiscal year.)
    • Allen: Should there be a step 9 if the department budget falls through?
      • Butcher: No, then there is a fall back plan.
      • Butcher: Should be some type of agreement that the Library will get the money from somewhere?
        • Erickson: Departments make a deal with the provost, etc. Why is library involved?
        • It'll take a couple of years to make departments understand paying is a reality.
    • Winograd: Is it too harsh to put a 7a in the process that says without library money the program isn't implemented?
      • Butcher: Provost can overrule everyone.
    • Vote on process: unanimously accepted.

  2. Information on how library evaluates Category I proposals for program financial responsibility (Allen).
    • Allen distributed a handout outlining the evaluation process.
    • Conspectus protocols used for collection assessment.
      • Use qualitative and quantitative data.
      • Look at external biblios and compare collections.
      • Compare library collections with others.
      • Look at the average age of the collection.
    • Gap
      • Distance community adds costs - shipping, etc.
      • Use cost assessment from ARL.
      • Ways to deliver and acquire materials.
    • ILIAD tracks ILL work - have records for past 15 months. Use this data to create averages over one year.
    • ILL use goes up 25-30% every year.
    • Butcher: Library has always done these assessments.
      • Started putting costs with assessments with Mel George.
      • Required by State Board of Higher Education.
      • Librarians work well with faculty and have awareness of where the holes in the collection are.
    • Winograd: We'll talk more next meeting on how to handle politics of having these conversations with departments.

  3. Information on meeting with Executive Committee (EC) (Beach and Winograd), and the next steps.
    • A study was done 6-7 years ago; need to look at the 4% figure again now.
    • Library funding question should be brought to the Faculty Senate.
    • Assuming EC reaffirms evaluation and supports increase of revenue to library (go from 2.5% to 4%).
    • What will come of this money? New librarians, new services, new collections?
    • The EC wants more info on how this money will be spent.
    • Between now and the next meeting, Beach will have a new list of how we compare (budget).
    • Give figures for Tier 1?
    • Butcher: 4% may not still be right. The current funding model does not work for libraries, and most people on campus agree.
    • We ran figures for the accreditation.
      • If talking about faculty and student productivity, the facility should be user-friendly. But...
      • Students and faculty just want to get the stuff, they don't want to wait for books and other materials.
    • We need to be very careful about what we produce to the Faculty Senate.
    • Whoever generates funds through increases in student enrollment wants the money spent on them, but that's not how the Library does it.
    • Butcher: How do we advocate library budget so students and faculty see how they will benefit?
    • Erickson: Determine comparators to where we are (peers) to where we want to be (2007 plan).
    • Allen: What does it cost to provide the services needed-not just percent, but actual numbers?
    • Butcher: It's a good figure to have, but we don't want to be tied to it.
    • Edwards: For universities with more or less of the pie going to the library, what is the difference? Where is that difference going?
    • Beach could have new figures before next meeting, looking at total budget and E&G budget.
    • Winograd: Need to wait to go to Faculty Senate until there is a clear message.

Notes by: Kevin Bokay