chat is offline


University Library Committee 1995-1996


Minutes for November 8, 1995


Summary

The Library Committee voted to recommend using an inflation based model to implement the $500,000 serials budget cut. This is "Option 1" of the table given at the end of these minutes. The items to be cut will be identified at the beginning of the process, but the cuts will be implemented in 3 phases to avoid "spikes" in the "discretionary" budget. The committee will again meet November 29 to further discuss the procedure used to implement Model 1. .

Detailed Minutes

PRESENT: Bart Alexander, Frances Cogan, John Gage, Peter Gilkey, William Orr, Theodore Palmer, Leland Roth, George Shipman, Bill Washburn, Ray Weldon.

ABSENT: Lucy Lynch, Joseph St. Sauver.

GUESTS: Andrew Bonamici, Assistant University Librarian for Administrative and Media Services; Faye Chadwell, Head, Collection Development; John Moseley, Provost.

The meeting was brought to order by Peter Gilkey, chair, at 4:00 pm. The two students in attendance, Alexander and Washburn, have not yet been officially appointed to the committee, although the Presidents Office has informed Shipman that their appointment letters are in the process of being mailed. Gilkey asked if were any objections to allowing the students to participate as appointed members at this meeting; there were none.

The October 25 minutes were approved with no changes or amendments.

Gilkey welcomed Provost Moseley, who was attending in order to learn more about the serials cancellation issues being discussed by the ULC.

ARL Statistics

 Gilkey introduced Andrew Bonamici, Assistant University Librarian for Administrative and Media Services. Bonamici distributed a revised version of the ARL statistics, which was discussed at the October 25 meeting. He indicated the changes from the original version are in italics. Page three shows the breakdown of the categories misc. library materials and other operating expenditures. Bonamici pointed out that on page 4, you will see that this years expenditures are higher than last years expenditures because of two major programs which the library administers: Orbis union catalog and Information Technology Centers.

Serials Cancellation

Gilkey distributed a spreadsheet illustrating the different models of serials cuts and reviewed what the columns represent. He asked that Model 4 (columns 11 & 12) not be considered as its information is irrelevant. The first model (columns 5&6) bases the cuts on an average inflation rate for an individual fund line. Columns 7&8, Model 2, assumes that all funds contribute evenly to the overall inflation rate and therefore each fund would be cut by 20% - across the board. Columns 9&10, Model 3, represents funds that are grouped by broad disciplines, then cut based on an average inflation rate within that discipline. Faye Chadwell, Head, Collection Development, stated that the inflation rate is calculated on a 4-year average taken from information gathered from Library Journal. Palmer stated he would like to see the 1990/91 expenditures for all these departments and find out what our own internal inflation rate is, taking into account the last cut which came during that period. There are departments at the University of Oregon that are not similar to the national average, and so it may be that the local inflationary rate if higher or lower than the national figure.

Gilkey stated that there are two issues to address during this meeting:

  • 1. How to allocate the cut? 2. What model would the committee like to suggest be used to implement the cut?

  • Gilkey asked how the committee would like to proceed with these two issues. Shipman suggested that the ULC reach a consensus on which of the three models seem to be most preferable. Beyond that, the Library has suggested that the university departmental representatives and library subject specialists work together to identify which titles to cut, and then determine which titles would be cut in the first phase, second phase, and third phase.

    Gilkey stated that we should consider library holdings on a system-wide basis before decisions are made to cut various titles. Chadwell has documentation on holdings within the OSSHE-system. The UO Library works with the other libraries to make sure there is at least one copy of a title within the system.

    Gilkey stated that Joe St. Sauver had proposed another model at the last meeting. As Joe is not in attendance to further discuss his proposal, the committee decided to proceed with discussing the three models listed on the handout. It was decided to let each committee member indicate which model they prefer. Palmer favors Model 1. He believes Model 1 would be easier to explain to the departments and would stabilize the amount their allocations have grown. Cogan did not make a recommendation. Alexander would like to see the actual inflation rates for this university used with Model 1 and also put a cap on the percent to be cut. This suggestion is basically what Model 4 represented - putting a cap of 25% on the cut and a floor of 15%. That model basically only affected Chemistry, which is why it was decided to not consider it. Model 4 is essentially Model 1, with a ceiling placed upon the percent. Washburn believes that Model 1 penalizes the departments when in fact it is the publishers who are responsible for the high serial costs. He indicated he prefers Model 4 with the 25% cap. Shipman responded that he understands Washburns concerns, but that maybe it is time for scholars to stop submitting to publishers whose journals are outrageously priced. Moseley added that this topic was discussed at the NASULGC Council of Academic Affairs summer meeting. He believes we need to take back the intellectual property generated by university faculty. Publishers currently take universities intellectual property and then sell it back at increasing rates. He believes we need to encourage faculty to publish in journals that are the most cost effective and Model 1 may encourage faculty to begin thinking that way.

    Orr stated that he prefers Model 1. Weldon also favors Model 1, but added that he is more interested in the mechanics of implementing the process. He would like to see these figures as targets rather than concrete figures.

    Gage agrees with Moseleys thoughts on intellectual property, but does not see how Model 1 would encourage faculty members to publish in more cost effective journals. Model 1 is relative to the inflation rate by discipline and not by journal. If departments are given information on actual costs of subscriptions and inflation rates, there is no guarantee that the most expensive journals will be the titles chosen to cut.

    Gilkey believes that Model 2 is unfair to disciplines such as the humanities. He consulted several faculty on campus regarding Model 3. The only argument given for support of that model is that is takes care of interdisciplinary problems rather than having to assign each one to each other. He favors Model 1.

    Roth asked if this library is aware of what titles may be cut by the other OSSHE libraries. He suggests that at least one of the OSSHE libraries retain a title which could be obtained via interlibrary loan. Shipman responded that the libraries within the system are aware of each others holdings. Shipman added that the next phase of Orbis is direct borrowing by students and faculty from the member libraries - the idea is that the requester would have the item at their home library within 24 hours. A grant proposal for this phase is in the process and if approved, this component should be available by fall 1996. Roth concluded that he too favors Model 1.

    T. Palmer moved that we use Model 1 as the basis for the cut , with the assumption that there may be some adaptations involved. That motion was seconded with no further discussion. All voted in favor of this motion.

    Gilkey announced that he and Shipman have been asked to attend a meeting of the Graduate Council November 15. Shipman stated that there apparently is a perception that the library is moving towards technological offerings at the expense of books. Shipman will address those concerns with the council.

    Moseley thanked the committee for permitting him to attend this meeting and suggested that we may need to look at longer term solutions rather than cutting periodicals. Shipman suggested having a joint discussion between the Interinstitutional Library Council and the Academic Council on what OSSHE could do in terms of high cost publishers. Moseley stated that he would mention this topic at the next Academic Council meeting.

    Roth stated that it appears that the disciplines which have the highest rate of inflation are also areas that could have close ties to business and that it may be that some of these high cost journals are published specifically in a format designed for the business community. He wonders if perhaps there might be a way of getting some assistance from these disciplines that have direct ties to industry.

    Shipman responded that the library is trying to raise money for two endowments - one for acquisitions and one for information technology. Each endowment is $4 million. We are targeting businesses as well as individuals and foundations. Also, the University of Oregon, as a public university, has three fundamental missions-instruction, research, and service. The library is conducting outreach to business and professional groups to make sure they are aware that the library is a significant resource available to them.

    Gilkey stated that it has been suggested that we might consult with OSU on how they proceed with their purchase of technology and acquisitions. The committee does not feel it is necessary at this point.

    Weldon asked if the mechanics on how making the cuts can be discussed. Shipman responded that Deborah Carver, Assistant University Librarian for Public Services and Collections, and Chadwell are putting together a package on how to processed with the cuts. That package consists of a letter being sent to department heads and departmental representatives outlining the rationale behind the decision to cut titles, the timetable that we need to work with, and the dollar amount for their discipline. It is hoped to have that letter sent before the end of this term. The final cut list must to be completed by April. The committee will meet Wednesday, November 29 at 4pm to review the contents of this package. Weldon stated he is interested in seeing whether it is feasible to develop a feedback mechanism that would make it possible in the 2nd or 3rd years to not have to follow through with the cuts. Gilkey asked that this material be sent to the ULC by November 22 in order for them to prepare for the Nov. 29 meeting.

    Gilkey suggested that the members email Shipman or himself suggestions of other items they would like to have specifically addressed in the package that Chadwell will put together.

    Faculty Studies

    Shipman would like the committee members to begin thinking about the use of faculty studies. We would like to inform faculty that the studies are again available and that we want to target assistant professors who are working towards tenure. Should we continue with this current user policy, or look at other options? Gilkey stated that we will make every effort to address this issue at the next meeting.

    The meeting was adjourned at 5:01 pm.

    Submitted by Sheila Gray November 14, 1995

    Proposed Budget Cut Options

    • Option 1=inflation based per unit.
    • Option 2=20% across all units
    • Option 3=inflation based per broad grouping 
      Fund	Budget	Infl	Budget	 OPTION I 	   OPTION 2	 OPTION 3	
Name    94-95    Rate   95-96      CUT     %       CUT   %        CUT      %

 AAA	 38375	10.5	 42388	  6814	16.1	  8478	20	  6814	16.1
 BUS	 91769	17.2	107591	 26868	25.0	 21518	20	 26868	25.0
 EDU	 34829	11.9	 38976	  7043	18.1	  7795	20	  7043	18.1
JOUR	  8239	10.1	  9069	  1410	15.5	  1814	20	  1410	15.5

ANTH	 19372	13.7	 22026	  4507	20.5	  4405	20	  4075	18.5
ECON	 34585	17.2	 40548 	 10126	25.0	  8110	20	  7501	18.5
GEOG	 23807	 4.9	 24977	  1987	 8.0	  4995	20	  4621	18.5
LISC	 11129	13.0	 12580	  2463	19.6	  2516	20	  2327	18.5
POLI	 18519	 8.2	 20038	  2580	12.9	  4008	20	  3707	18.5
PPPM	 12590	 8.2	 13623	  1754	12.9	  2725	20	  2520	18.5
PSYC	 54979	13.4 	 62330	 12482	20.0	 12468	20	 11531	18.5
SOCI     17 191  13.7    19546    4000  20.5      3909  20        3616  18.5

CLAS	 12223	10.1	 13455	  2092	15.5	  2691	20	  2328	17.3
COLI	  1414	10.1	  1557	   242	15.5	   311	20	   269	17.3
DANC	  1150	11.3	  1280	   221	17.3	   256	20	   221	17.3
EAST	  6259	10.1	  6890	  1071	15.5	  1378	20	  1192	17.3
ENGL     21193	10.1 	 23329	  3627	15.5	  4666	20	  4036	17.3
GERM	 14298	 9.9	 15709	  2396	15.2	  3142	20	  2718	17.3
HIST	 49546	12.8	 55871	 10740	19.2	 11174	20	  9666	17.3
LING	  8381	10.1	  9226	  1434	15.5	  1845	20	  1596	17.3
MUSI	 16307	 9.1	 17795	  2527	14.2	  3559	20	  3079	17.3
PHIL	  8449	10.7      9356	  1540	16.5	  1871	20	  1619	17.3
RELI	 16488	10.7	 18257	  3004	16.5	  3651	20	  3159	17.3
ROMA	 21033	14.3	 24048	  5120	21.3	  4810	20	  4160	17.3
RUSS	  3532	13.4	  4006     805	20.1       801	20  	   693	17.3
THEA	  1748	10.1	  1924	   299	15.5	   385	20	   333	17.3

BIOL    286257	13.6    325076	  65920	20.3	 65015	20 	 74117	22.8
CHEM    319371	21.8    388878   118032	30.4	 77776	20 	 88664	22.8
CSCI	 45754	11.1	 50822	   8606	16.9	 10164	20 	 11587	22.8
EXMS	  9046	11.3	 10070	   1739	17.3	  2014	20	  2296	22.8
GEOL	 74563	 8.8     81138	  11166	13.8	 16228	20 	 18500	22.8
MATH    144358	11.1    160348	  27152	16.9	 32070	20 	 36559	22.8
NEUR	 73340	13.4 	 83146 	  16651	20.0	 16629	20	 18957	22.8
OIMB	  7865	13.6	  8932	   1811	20.3      1786	20	  2036	22.8
PHYS	277233	15.8    320968    74267	23.1	 64194	20       73181	22.8

These tables have been manually retyped from spread sheet to be presented to the
University Library Committee so typing errors are possible. When totals are
included from Area Studies and Library General, the cuts in "serials" come to
approximately $500,000.

 

 

 

 

Maintained by: Sheila Gray, skgray@uoregon.edu
Last Modified: 08/18/2006