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

Faculty Senate

Faculty Senate » October 4, 2004 Minutes

Library Committee

October 4, 2004

Present: Gary Beach, Molly Engle, Deborah Rubel, Michael Witbeck, Evan Gottlieb, Mo Healy
Student: Avinash Beeram
Other: Bonnie Allen
Not Present: Karyle Butcher (ex-officio), Robert Wheatcroft, Melody Putman

  1. The group introduced themselves to each other and talked about why they chose to serve on the Library Committee

  2. Student Members. There is always a need to add more student members to Faculty Senate committees. The Library Committee allows for three student members, including at least one undergraduate and one graduate student. If you know of any students wanting to serve on this committee, please submit their names to Gary.
  3. Reviewed Standing Rules
            These were last changed in March, 2002. The group can bring up any changes they think should be made throughout the year. Changes will be discussed, agreed upon, and submitted to the Faculty Senate to be changed.

  4. Faculty Senate Task Force on Scholarly Communication (Gary)
    Last year the committee spent a lot of time discussing this issue while Ken Winograd was the committee chair. Many ways were discussed to educate faculty, such as using alternative publishing venues and retaining the copyright to the work they produce. The task force has four charges:
    1. Determine current practices that impede an open and sustainable system of scholarly communication, citing data where necessary to substantiate the findings.
    2. Determine actions that OSU faculty members, who are dependent on scholarly communication for professional advancement, can take to contribute to an open and sustainable system of scholarly communication.
    3. Determine a few of these actions that are likely to have the greatest positive impact towards creation of an open and sustainable system of scholarly communication.
    4. Propose a framework for communicating these findings to the OSU faculty.

      The Task Force will present its report to the open session of the faculty senate at the end of the year. Gary Beach and Bonnie Allen will be among those serving on the Task Force. This group has not met yet, but Gary and Bonnie will keep the committee updated.

  5. Long–Term Research Study Rooms for Faculty and Doctoral Students (Gary).         Gary will meet with Lorraine Borchers, head of Access Services, and go through the applications for reservations of the six study rooms in the Valley Library. These rooms are available to some doctoral candidates and faculty.

  6. Library Cost Analysis Study: FY 2005 (Gary and Bonnie)

    The Business Affairs Office is conducting a cost analysis study of library operations during the 2004-05 fiscal year. Data collected will determine how library facilities, materials, and services are being used.

    The study consists of three major components: (a) cost analysis of the FY 05 library expenses that map to distinct cost centers; (b) a library user survey, conducted for two hours each month at the Valley Library, and eight hours each month at the Guin Library; and (c) a web-based user survey that will pop up when electronic resources are accessed during a two-hour survey period each month.

    The data will be used to calculate our share of the overhead return for federal grants.

  7. Library Events (Gary)
            The library faculty association sponsors a series of seminars generally held once a month on the second Friday of each month. Members of the Library Committee are invited to these seminars. Kevin will send out more information on them, including information on readings in the library and displays.

  8. Library Strategic Plan Handout (Bonnie)

    Library Strategic Plan Committee members should review in October and have comments and/or observations for the November meeting.

    The strategic plan was developed through a series of meetings with many faculty and student constituencies, they are represented on the last page of the plan. Through these discussions, the committee succinctly drafted three goals, and then developed strategies and outcomes. The library is now working on the implementation plan.

    Although the library is still interested in achieving Association of Research Libraries (ARL) membership, with the five criteria that they now require, we’re far from that goal. ARL now looks at volumes, volumes added, serials, total library expenditures, and staff. Until these criteria are updated, we’ll not be attaining membership. (See table on page 5 of strategic plan).

            Question: What are virtual college libraries? These are websites that bring resources, including a search engine, related to that college located in one place.

  9. Library Budget: FY 2005 Handout: Library Budget and Comparison with OSU’s Peer Institutions (Bonnie) Our budget this year is around $9.2 million. This represents some additional funds given to us through the university budget to offset indirect costs from grants and ecampus. This money has all been consumed by increased benefits and maintaining salaries. We’re now developing our Technology Resource Fee (TRF) proposal that should yield about $500k.

            Question: Is the added money from ecampus and overhead justified? Probably not. Last year, our budget was actually cut by the Budget Allocation Model (BAM). They made a correction this year and this is where they determined the amount. We have received assurance that a cut will not happen again.

    Some years back this committee submitted a proposal to the Faculty Senate to raise library support to 4% of the E&G budget in line with our peer institutions. This was agreed upon, but lost in the shuffle of recent budget cuts. Karyle is doing some research of the support our peer libraries get from their administration, and she will submit that to this group for discussion.

            Question: How is the list of peers formulated? There are two lists; this one (in the Strategic Plan) was formulated by the deans as their “aspirational” list. They are all land grant, public, and doctoral degree granting. We have another list of peers that we generally use for comparative purposes on the web. The University of Oregon is often used for a comparator because of its vicinity and familiarity, and it puts our budget in a little more context.

  10. Library Funding Transfer Policy Handout: Category I Process: Allocation of Funding to the Valley Library (Gary and Bonnie)

    The OUS Board of Higher Education requires all new degree-granting programs (Category 1) to be approved through the board after a campus approval process that goes through the college, provost, and Curriculum Council. The process requires that the library sign-off, after a thorough evaluation of the collection, stating whether or not it can support the program. The present process requires the college to offer four years of support, until the library can work it into their budget. This has not been the case in practice. It puts the library in an uncomfortable position, reminding the college that they did pledge support for the program.

            Suggestion: Revise the policy. Recommend the establishment of a university level “Library Contingency Fund,” that can be used to fund the need for monographs, serials, and other library materials for up to four years following the approval of new academic degree programs. This would come from the university’s contingency fund that they are presently building as a response to the last budget crisis. An amount of $50k was discussed, but that could change. Gary will draft a proposal to review at the November or December meeting. He will distribute the proposal a week or so before the discussion.

Meeting adjourned.

Minutes by Kevin Bokay