Meeting started with a welcome and introductions.
The group reviewed committee's work of last year.
a. Faculty Senate passed a resolution in 1999 to increase the library's
budget to 4% of general and education budget. Currently it's about
2.4%. This issue was discussed with Steve Hiller from the accreditation
b. Committee's support of the implementation of pay-as-you-go printing in the information commons.
c. Accreditation team visit. Library's role in OSU's attainment of top-tier engineering school goal was not addressed by the university administration. University needs a better definition of "top-tier."
a. Budget: we don't know how this will play out, but we need to keep
our eye on the goal, i.e., where we want to be in the future - regardless
of budgetary conditions.
b. We need to move into a more electronic environment. In the sciences, there's lots of stuff available, but we need to strike a balance with the social sciences and humanities. We are in the process of creating digital libraries - Natural Resources and Tsunami Research. Some libraries are digitizing volumes from the shelves, we'll not be doing that.
c. ARL membership is something we've wanted for some time now. We've recently applied, our numbers are looking more like what their criteria asks for. They've added a new, less tangible criterion for services provided. At the same time, they're changing their criteria. This is an important step for us, and will help us to secure more funding through grants.
d. Our strengths are the sciences, and special collections - especially the Pauling collection.
e. Our volume count is being added to all the time as we are in the process of adding the VetMed collection to our count. Not control, but to our count. Also, the Herbavarium has a collection that we can add.
f. How are decisions made in the library? This committee is a good example. One purpose of the committee is to advise the library administration on matters that are important to the university committee at large. We get lots of advice from various sources before important decisions are made.
a. There's been progress in collections, mostly due to gifts.
b. Last year we licensed Web of Science with another NW school.
c. We also licensed JSTOR. This is a full-text journal database that accesses some journals from 1819.
d. Everything we've done this year that's out of the ordinary has been due to gift funds. We have several endowments that provide funds for specific subjects and some that provide funds for books at our discretion. We are able to enhance our collection of both journals and monographs with gift funds.
e. Only two years ago we had to cut several serials due to the skyrocketing costs of these scholarly publications.
f. Our strategy is to stabilize the collections and periodicals budget in the next two years.
g. Technical Resource Funds (TRF). Every year the library, and other campus electronic resource providers, submit proposals to get a portion of these funds. This year the library asked for a multi-year allotment so we could forego the proposal process next year. They did not allow that to take place, but we did get almost $400k.
h. We also completed the ALA LibQual survey last year with 40 other universities. We found out that our customers want to see more electronic databases and journals, and at the same time, more in print.
i. Bend OSU Cascades-Campus. We are in the process of building a collection there to support the branch campus. We are hiring a full-time, tenure-track librarian and a .5 FTE Library Technician to manage our operations there. We have a separate budget for Bend.
a. Heidi Brayman Hackel (committee chair) will continue the funding
for category I proposal tracking in the curriculum committee.
b. Larry Landis, Ajoy Velayudhan, and David Horne will continue with the indirect cost issues through the Research Office.
c. Work towards a recommendation for large-scale university funding for the Library, considering the 1999 Senate resolution in our discussions.