October 28, 2004
GUESTS: Emily McElroy (Collection Development Librarian), Mark Watson (Associate University Librarian for Collections and Access).
CHAIR SELECTION
Because there were several committee members not in attendance, it was decided to have Deb send an email to the committee asking if anyone would like to volunteer to serve as this year’s committee chair. Sheila will contact the President’s Office regarding student representation on the committee.
A handout was distributed discussing the 2005/06 serials review. If serials inflation continues to average 8-10% and no augments are made to the materials budget (as has been the case for a number of years now), the library will be required to decrease serials expenditures by $300,000/year during the next 3-5 years. To manage this process, the library will engage in a continuous review of its journal collection rather than conducting yearly serials cancellations. The goals of this process will be to:
A
handout outlining use of pay-per-view for some low-use Elsevier and Wiley titles was distributed. Discussions about pay-per-view have been taking place with departments since last June. A question was asked what constitutes a “view.” Emily replied that one click is a view. There was some concern expressed about a class being assigned to read a journal that can only be accessed through the pay-per-view method, creating numerous “views.” Emily responded that a pay-per-view article can be placed on reserve for students to access and can also be posted to Blackboard. It will be important to inform the teaching faculty about this process, so that all their students are not accessing pay-per-view individually. Another concern was how to access Elsevier’s archival copies if the library no longer subscribes to the journal. Emily responded that the library has access to any Elsevier title as long as the library retains ScienceDirect. If the library no longer subscribes to ScienceDirect, the library will pay a maintenance fee to retain access to the back issues. Will pay-per-view be confidential? Emily replied that accessing journals via pay-per-view will remain confidential. However, if there appears to be an unusually high-use of pay-per-view, then it may become necessary for the library to review requests. Elsevier will monitor our use and will inform the library if there are excessive downloads.
Emily provided some background on the vendor Wiley. The UO Library is a member of the Greater Western Library Alliance (GWLA). Through this consortium, the library subscribes to all of John Wiley titles. GWLA has ended negotiations with Wiley due to Wiley refusing to meet the terms of the consortium. The library is faced with two options for Wiley subscriptions: 1) maintain all our current subscriptions (105) on an electronic-only basis, but lose access to 18 unsubscribed, high-use journals, or 2) subscribe to titles that are high-use/cost-effective and move other titles with less usage to pay-per-view. Library staff prefer the second option for its cost savings benefits and no content loss.
The UO Library is one of the few libraries implementing this pay-per-view process of managing journal subscriptions. ARL libraries support the concept, but many are going to wait to see how successful this plan will be. Staff will monitor pay-per-view very closely the first year to see if it is necessary to move some titles back to subscriptions, and to also track the cost effectiveness of pay-per-view.
SENATE CONCERNS
Deb stated that Andrew Marcus, Senate President, has informed her that he would like the Senate to address library issues this year, and has asked the ULC to provide him with some direction on how to move forward. All agreed that the acquisition budget cannot continue to remain flat, given the continuing serials inflation. If the Governor’s budget does not address the excessive serials inflation that libraries face every year, the ULC should come up with its own proposal to address these budget concerns with the Senate and University Administration. There was some concern of asking the Senate to focus on the library when other units on campus are facing similar financial predicaments. However, the library does face the same cuts as other departments, but its costs are increasing at a higher rate, which impacts the library worse than the other departments. A possible approach might be to address faculty support/intellectual climate on campus, which the library plays a major role in. The library’s resources and services play a key role in recruiting faculty and students.
A first step could be to protect the library’s capital budget from decrements. The library’s materials expenditures are considered capital budget, not operating budget. For example, a 2% cut would be applied only to the library’s operating budget, which might be more in line with what happens in the schools and colleges.
It was suggested to invite Senate President Andrew Marcus to the next meeting to continue this discussion.
CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES
Deb reported that the library has merged several services (FITT, Blackboard, Interactive Media Group) into the Center for Educational Technologies. The Center will offer a broad range of ed tech support to faculty. Suggestions from faculty on what they would like to have offered are welcome. A question was raised about slide scanning. There is a growing demand for this service and the CET hopes to offer it soon. There are also plans to allow faculty to make appointments to have student trainers come to their offices. Faculty will still be able to come to the Center on a drop-in basis.
COMMUNICATION WITH FACULTY
This agenda item will be discussed at the Dec. 2 meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.
Submitted by
Sheila Gray
http://libweb.uoregon.edu/ulc/dir04/041028.html