January 17, 2011
Mark Edwards, Bob Rost, Heidi Brayman Hackel, Karyle Butcher, Larry Landis,
on our letter to Redesign Committee 12-10-01 (Heidi)
on budget cuts (Karyle)
of collaboration with University of Oregon Libraries
Update on our letter to Redesign Committee
a) No formal response yet.
b) Should members of this committee attend meeting with President
Risser to discuss redesign and rally for library to be on the academic
side? Several slots are available at each of the remaining meetings,
though not enough for the entire committee to go at once.
i) Need lots of voices at many meetings.
Send copy of letter to Bruce Sorte.
ii) Attend as individuals, not as a committee (Risser needs to hear
support for the library from many sources, not only from one group
which represents the library).
iii) Should we develop a set of useful questions to ask at these
meetings? No, more beneficial to discuss possible questions and
let individuals take it from there.
d) Big redesign issues are overwhelming and leaves people in limbo;
this committee might tackle some local issues (e.g. noise, food and
drink, library policies, etc) for the time being.
on budget cuts
a) No actual info on next year's budget.
b) Rather than cut collections, we will use gift money to buy subscriptions.
c) Archives treated as "administration" (6.5%); Library
Admin will be cut 6.5% as well; Mark McCambridge is not changing reduction
figures this year, but will next year.
d) Approach '03 as though this year's budget is what we have to get
under next year.
e) Waiting for results is OUS audit -> May?
Discussion of collaboration with University of Oregon Libraries
a) Had a meeting with UO.
i) Developed principles/objectives.
Big picture: leverage collections money between the two libraries
to get the best collections possible.
ii) UO has task force already, has had conversations about process.
iii) We still need to have the conversations.
c) Review of 4 objectives (see letter).
i) Will campus support this concept? Answer will have to come from
input from this committee.
Conclusion: Yes, take agreement to UO that we will start a task force
ii) Will bound volumes be available to students and faculty? The
University Librarians are leaning towards yes, but need further
input (idea: 3-day loan to students).
iii) Will items go through ORBIS or ILL? ILL processing can be very
slow-orders not put in in a timely fashion, then wrong item ordered.
iv) JSTOR is a couple years behind, but if neither library owns
the items, then patrons will have to wait a couple years for access
to the materials ->perhaps buy titles and keep unbound in stacks
for a couple years, but then never bind them.
v) Problem with only bound journals being available (hard for faculty
to stay current) -> let unbound issues circulate too, maybe only
available in libraries.
(1) What about getting scans of TOC's, articles, etc.
(2) Having journals on shelf is much more conducive to faculty
staying current in their field than having to go through ORBIS/ILL.
Access vs. Ownership.
i) Begin working out process.
ii) Task force meets with Faculty Senate Library Committee.
iii) Joint UO/OSU Faculty Senate Library Committee meeting?
a) Natural Resources digital library.
i) Working with College of Forestry (Hal Salwasser).
Gray Family Endowment -> Meetings to discuss best access for finding
the information you need.
ii) Applying for grants to develop digital collections in natural
resources - new electronic info as well as digitizing older info.
c) Archives grant -> consortium of NW archives/special collections,
looking to create a new standard of archival description.
d) ORBIS concerns: 5-day period too short; have email announcement
day before item is to be returned? Karyle will look into it.
e) Noise and food complaints.
i) Quiet floors are available: 4th and 5th floor Rotundas, entire
ii) Food remains an issue, though it's better than in past years.
by Karen Russ)