COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Barry Newton, Chair

Barbara Thompson

Lorin Maletsky

Charles Marsh

Robert Hanzlik

George Marakas

Woochan Shim

Bob Timm

David Holmes

Leslie Tuttle

Jim Hall

Walt Racker [Fall only]

D Holmes

M Nesbitt-Daly

M Wine

Ex-officio

Stella Bentley

Joyce McCray Pearson

Mary Ann Baker

Judith Emde

Lea Currie

CHARGES

1. Keep informed of the budgetary needs and priorities of the KU libraries

2. Monitor the functioning of the Library Appeals Board

3. Monitor and advise on the use of revenues generated by the library services fee

4. Interact as necessary with the Academic Computing & Telecommunications Committee

5. Examine the progress on archival storage and preservation of digital materials

6. Submit to SenEx: a] the approved minutes of each meeting,b] recommendations for action as they are approved by the committee, and c] a final report by April 1,2006.

7. Monitor the construction of the Library Annex and the selection of material for storage. Assure that the decisions are based on appropriate criteria that include scholarly browsing and that the website that is cited in the2005 committee report is activated.

8. Consider the repositioning and staffing policies for public service desks in Watson and Anschutz.

9. Examine the integration of KU Info into the library structure

10. Explore ways that the libraries can attract more faculty, staff and students to its core mission of information provision through both direct building visits and remote electronic connections

PREAMBLE

It has been a busy and interesting year for the University of Kansas Library and as a consequence for the University Library Committee [ULC]. The ULC met three times each semester for about an hour each time, although on a couple of occasions we stretched it to an hour and a half, and actually started some useful discussions!! Because of scheduling difficulties there was rarely more than six to eight members present. Some members of the committee also attended several of the public meetings that took place throughout the year and four members [Custer, Hanzlik, Marsh and Newton] were on the Dean of Libraries Search Committee.

We examined and took reports on all charges except numbers four and five. The minutes and various reports from the Library staff have already been forwarded to SenEx following each of our meetings. When faced with questions and issues raised by faculty and the committee the Library administration and staff has been thorough and prompt in their responses.

This report will consider items raised by the University Community separately or through the committee, report on the results of these discussions and make suggestions for the charges for the academic year 2006 to 2007, and open the discussion about the role of this committee in the near future. This is particularly important in that the new Dean seems to be to be willing to begin an era of more openness about the Libraries long term goals and working methods.

REPORT

Major issues were raised by the memo from the English department [Dated Oct 21^st 2006] which was widely distributed and publicized. This combined with the resignation of Dean Bentley set the agenda for our committee. The concerns can be broadly divided into three topics.

COMMUNICATIONS

Some Faculty, mainly, but not exclusively in the Humanities, feel disconnected from the library and critical of the decision making processes of the Library administration. This concern is well illustrated by the concerns with the Remote Storage Facility on West Campus that has recently opened. Although some faculty still oppose the idea of this facility most of the concerns relate to how materials will be selected .The library administration feel that they have devised an adequate system for selection, and that it has been properly explained by the use of the Library web site. These issues led to two heated public meetings and to a meeting between the chair of the ULC and faculty in the CLAS and some members of the library administration. The outcome, apart from some rude and insulting behavior, has led to a few improvements in the selection processes, and a higher level of general knowledge about the intentions and methods of this issue. It’s doubtful if this issue could have been entirely free of disagreement, but it could have been smoother if the levels and range of two-way communication were improved. This issue also exposed a vital recognition of different methods of use between, to simplify, faculty who browse and those who have material delivered by using indices. Further this then raises a very complex issue best exemplified during our discussions throughout the year, that one size doesn’t’ fit all .We anticipate that this issue also underpins the next major issue we discussed.

SERIALS CUTBACKS

The reductions in the serials budget has caused varied problems, with some schools and subject areas working well, albeit reluctantly, with the subject bibliographers to identify material for cuts. Some complications have arisen with the methods proposed for two main reasons. Firstly, there is an increase in interdisciplinary studies, so that the initial subject base method can cause upsets at the second tier of university wide review on the website. Secondly, the disproportionate costs of periodicals in some subject areas, and the varied use of electronic journals, has led to a considerable skewing of the budget over the past few years. The suggestion to institute a tiered system of cuts is only a short-term solution to this problem .The committee and the library staff that instituted the tiered proposal should be congratulated on their rapid response to these difficulties.

LIBRARY SERVICES AND SPACE UTILIZATION

The Library has made major changes in two areas of service during the past few years. The adaptation of the facilities in Watson and Anshutz has led to more variety of spaces for student use and study. Many welcome this, but some, mainly a few faculty think that this has lead to a trivialization of the main purposes of the institution. The second, the use of more student help on the reference desks has lead to serious complaints from a wider variety of users. They have identified problems of knowledge, training and demeanor. The Library administration began a review of this issue at the end of the fall semester and is working to improve the situation. The tension between users is not new, and their needs to be an open discussion of the future of these services so that some problems are dealt with before resentments become problematic

ROLE OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON LIBRARIES

The UCL has tried to cope with a variety of issues during the past year. Some dealing with detailed issues of collection use and library policies as they affect particular faculty would seem to be best dealt with at department or subject levels. If these connections are not in place or are broken they need to be instituted or repaired. It would seem for example that the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences is too big and complex in its varying needs for the structures that exist at the moment.

During the past few years the UCL seems mainly to have listened to reports from the Library administration, and with few poorly attended meetings each semester, failed to grasp the major issues of library policy or practices and only rarely been able to respond to users concerns .The members of the committee rarely report back to the constituents that they represent, nor are they able to convey much useful information to the library staff as meetings have only occasionally been long enough to begin a fruitful discussion.

With the appointment of a new Dean it is to be hoped that the UCL will be a better conduit for ideas on both policy and detail. Maybe the UCL needs to meet more frequently and for longer sessions.

There is great passion for the Library. Most of the users are very satisfied with the services. The dilemmas of the library as a central institution on the campus have been highlighted by the public discussions of the past year. The community needs to work harder at communicating, sharing and harnessing this commitment and goodwill that exist within the library and its dedicated staff and within the faculty and students.

PROPOSED CHARGES FOR 2006/2007

1.Work with the new Dean to improve two-way communication with faculty and Library administration

2.Assist in formulating long-range statement of intent for Library changes, so that everyone knows where we are proposing to go and why we are going there

3.Begin review of changing needs between disciplines in library use, and their financial and physical implications

Barry Newton, Chair University Committee on Libraries