February 24, 2000
Members Present: Beach, Armer, Horne, Rubert, Landis, Allen
Absent: Yu, Butcher, Hackel, Judd, Twohy
Review of Minutes - one change was noted to the Minutes of January 27, otherwise, the Minutes
were approved as written.
Library Support for New Academic Programs - Review of Category I curriculum proposals.
Bonnie Allen gave an overview of what was currently being reviewed by the Library, as well as some
history of past responses from the Library that she had gleaned from the files. Currently, she said the
M.S./Ph.D. in Bioengineering is in review process in the Library today.
The reason this was on the agenda was to ask what the Library has been saying in the past for Category
I's when we have noted our collection doesn't support it, and we have asked for additional funds. We have
already talked about the fact that there is no mechanism for funding to be transferred to the library. In the
case of the Masters in Applied Ethics, we have a collection that supports a bachelor's degree, and we have
replied that we would need additional funding to move our collection from a bachelor's level to a master's level.
In looking at our replies over the last few years since 1997, it's a little spotty. I have noted that the library
typically responds - "well, we are missing this and that, we only have this, but we can rely on interlibrary loan."
All we have is a service that will fill the gap - but we do not specify the dollar amount for additional funding.
Then we've had another period of time where we routinely asked for more money. During 1996-97, the head
of collections said, unless you have funding that can come to the library, we will not review your Category
I proposals. We have that in our history as well. So, the way the Library has responded to Category I's
has been on and off over the years.
Allen also stated that there was no indication that any funds ever changed hands for these Category I's.
Allen indicated we reviewed the BS degree for biological engineering in 1995, to give you an example of
how we would have responded. Because we have undergraduate level courses in other related areas of
the sciences, specifically biotechnology, and we have over 200 titles and 12 periodicals and holdings
under biochemical engineering, genetics and biochemistry - they thought that would be sufficient to support
a BS in biological engineering. It also goes on to say that we will use interlibrary loan and rely on OHSU
and no additional funds were requested.
We now are in the process of reviewing the MS and PhD in bioengineering, and based on what I'm reading
from the College of Engineering, they again are looking at Good Samaritan Hospital for space and resources,
and there really is no mention of library resources in their proposal. That's where it is at this moment.
Allen added that for accreditation, interlibrary loan is not a substitute for holding materials or having access
like electronic resources -- wherever the instruction takes place. Basically, we don't have adequate
resources to support a master's program.
Gary Beach indicated another proposal would be coming shortly for a PhD in Materials Science.
Landis stated he thought this committee's focus this year would be primarily on this Category I issue.
However, next month's meeting is devoted to the collection assessment. But again in April, he wanted
to return to Category I proposals. That should give Beach plenty of time to finish his review and write a draft
proposal for the committee to review.
The question was asked of Bonnie Allen as to how a review of holdings was done for these Category I
proposals. She replied that it's much the way the library does a collection assessment. We look at our
card catalogue, we compare our holdings against bibliographies, and we look at other resources of
electronic access we have that provide full text access. A certain amount of quantity that compares to
what is being published in that field. If we have just a very small percent of publications, then it would look
like we didn't have a wide range of materials. We can look at how the subject is broken down in our
classification schemes and see how much material we have in each classification.
ISI does publish an impact study that has a listing of journals and how often they are cited and what is
cited- we can use these impact studies to see how much a particular periodical is actively used within a
discipline. We have studies of those sorts that give us some idea. Looking at other schools and their
holdings that have established programs in the same area helps somewhat. Each discipline has its own
core reference material that has a periodical listing and we can compare our holdings against what is
commonly referred to, etc.
Allen stated that it's harder to determine in interdisciplinary programs, which is often the case in looking
at this list, because you would have some material or a portion of it. The problem would be whether it's
in a Masters level or BS or Ph.D. level. We end up looking in all of the disciplines to see what extent of
holdings address the curriculum and come up with some conclusions based on that. It's usually a pretty
complex process and time consuming.
Rubert stated he thought it might be pertinent for the committee to prepare a directive to the Faculty
Senate to help the library establish a policy and have something behind it. Larry Landis replied that he
knew that Henry Sayre is looking for something to come out of this committee to do that. Especially
because what we do is going to have an effect on the accreditation process as well.
Serials Cancellation Process Update - Allen
There was to be a letter sent out to the Deans, but since our E-mail went down on Tuesday, it hasn't
gone out. This will be going out across campus announcing our $300,000 cut in periodicals for the
2000-2001 fiscal year. Allen indicated she visited the U of Oregon who is also doing a cut this year of
the same amount and same time schedule. We are talking about a collaborative approach to our serials
cancellations, where each school agrees to hold onto a title and then the other school cancels. That
looks promising as a way of sharing resources and reducing duplication. For Elsevier titles, which are
primarily sciences, between the two schools alone we spend $500,000 on the same titles. That is a
target for us, so we would be choosing titles from that list as a way of sharing. Also, another part of this
collaboration would be providing services that support it which would mean loaning bound journals and
current issues so that faculty and students at each school would have the same kind of access. We are
also looking at electronic journals that are full text to take the place of these cuts.
We're negotiating with Elsevier now for another database that would give a comprehensive access to all
of the titles. What remains to be seen is the cost. It looks promising and looks like a way of reducing
the impact of the cuts and working more closely with a school that is nearby. What will be important is
that as we proceed with this, because of the accreditation issues, that we do have a formal agreement
for the lending and sharing of these materials. As long as we have that, accreditation matters for interlibrary
loan or use of ORBIS and the courier service will be okay.
Portland State also has a significant portion of Elsevier titles and some titles are held in common by all
three schools, but at the moment we're just talking with the U of O. PSU is not planning a cut this year.
Landis asked if there was any further progress on the consortial agreement with Big12+. Allen replied they
are planning to visit us later this spring.
The list of targeted titles to be cut should go out about the end of March with at least a four-week response
and review time from the campus community. Allen indicated the Library needed to finalize the list by the
end of spring term and the cancellations would take effect in January of 2001.
Study Room Data Ports - Landis
The issue here is whether the Library should charge for activating study room data ports, and how much.
Landis distributed some e-mail material regarding this issue, as well as a policy established about a year
ago for study rooms. He asked for input from members who were in academic departments, and a lengthy
discussion followed on the pros and cons of this issue.
A suggestion was made that we could write a TRF proposal to pay for these activation fees, as requested
by students when they sign up for a study carrel. It was decided that Bonnie Allen would gather some
more data on this, in preparation for writing a TRF proposal.
New member orientation packets were distributed to members, to see if they feel the material would be
useful for new members. New committee members will be given these packets next fall.
The next meeting will be held on Thursday, March 30 at 3:30 PM in the Library's Drinkward Conference
Room. This entire meeting will be devoted to the collection assessment for science and humanities.
Minutes recorded by Marcia Griffin