April 18, 2001
Bonnie Allen, Larry Landis, David Horne, Kevin Bokay, Christine Armer, Darlene Judd, Ajoy Velayudan, Cynthia Twohy, Heidi Brayman Hackle, Mina Ossiander
The first part of the meeting was with Steve Hiller, University of Washington, the accreditation team member assigned to Standard 5, Libraries. Some of the concerns and topics of discussion were:
More money for journals. When serials are cut, there is a campus outcry. The problem is that academic publications costs are rising much faster than library budgets. Initiatives such as SPARC are slowing catching on, must wait and see. Also digital journals are helping to lower costs.
Role clarification. What is the role of the Faculty Senate Library Committee in the accreditation process? Role is to give as clear a view as possible of problems in the library in order for the team to address them. Accreditation process is based on whether the University is living up to the goals it sets for itself, not between institutions. Peer comparisons are inherently unfair, except for possibly PhD programs. Accreditation team can point out that the libraries do not adequately support certain programs, but not recommend dollar amounts. The team can recommend that the library play a more active role in the establishment of category I programs.
What does it mean to be "Top Tier?" We need a better definition than the News and World Report's survey. Here on campus there's lots of enlargement of programs, but not enough enhancement of existing programs. The university needs to define a strategy to reach top tier. Right now we're supporting programs at the expense of faculty research. Eighteen of the top 50 university's libraries are in ARL. That is one goal that is clear to us.
The academic departments have great disparity between themselves. Even the treatment by the central administration is disparate. More money goes to Athletics than many other departments.
Does the university have a process that involves student/staff in decisions made by central administration?
On paper, yes, but not in practice. Nor do administrators even have the tools (information) to become a part of the decision-making process.
Regular meeting agenda:
JSTOR update 169 journal titles dating back to 1850. This database is getting lots of use, and use satisfaction is high.
LibQual Survey-ARL has initiative for measuring user satisfaction for library services. OSU is participating. The goal is to find a standard research instrument to set library standards for service. Our services are good, the comments on the staff were positive, and the collection could be better. Overall, the survey got a positive response because the library has good support.
Big 12 Plus has a new name: the Greater Western Library Alliance.
SPARC continues to meet with faculty about changing publishing paradigm.
Web of Science license is stuck in Department of Justice Contracts Office.
Category I proposals: Gary Beach hopes that after accreditation he can work on putting a better process in place. The Curriculum Council has it presently.
Indirect costs: we pointed out to Rich Holdren that we're not getting our 3%. He passed the word to Mark McCambridge.
No news on TRF.
Look for Bend funding to come from OUS money. It has not yet been allocated by the legislature. We anticipate that the legislature will give $7.2 mil to Bend operation.