University Governance

KU Libraries Issues and Concerns 

A Report on Conversations with KU Libraries Faculty and Staff 
 Submitted by Charles MarshChair,
University Libraries Committee
November 4, 2009

Introduction

This report responds to the following 2009-10 charge to the University Libraries Committee:  

Convene an open meeting with KU Library faculty and staff in the Fall semester, 2009 (especially with the Library liaisons), to foster communication between the members of the Library Committee and the constituencies it represents.  Report   issues and concerns to SenEx by 11/03/09.
Because of scheduling challenges, rather than holding an open meeting, the Libraries Committee chair scheduled a day to hold two drop-in open meeting with Libraries faculty and staff (Wednesday, Oct. 28, 2009: 9 a.m.-noon in 502B Watson; 1-4 p.m. in 327 Spencer).

The committee chair hosted the meetings; other committee members attended when possible. Approximately 25 faculty and staff members within the Libraries attended and spoke to committee members.

This report represents only the chair’s summary of those meetings. This report is not presented as being representative of overall opinions within the Libraries; it does, however, attempt to accurately summarize the comments at the two meetings.

Committee members did not introduce or suggest topics. Instead, in keeping with the original charge, they asked those attending what Libraries-related issues and concerns they wished to discuss.

Executive Summary

Many issues and concerns surfaced, but the conversations had a sustained theme: Speakers uniformly believed that the Libraries’ relationship with Information Services is significantly counterproductive for the Libraries. The repeated frustrations did not deal with personalities or personnel; no individuals were blamed for the state of affairs. Rather, speakers directed frustrations at the structure and workings of the relationship with Information Services.In the sections below, the various issues and concerns that surfaced are given headlines. Individual comments then are paraphrased below each headline. Although as accurate as possible, none are direct quotes unless quotation marks are used. All false modesty aside, any factual inaccuracies are no doubt attributable to the report’s author.A conclusion with tentative recommendations follows the summaries.

I. Relationship with Information Services

  • Our peer libraries have almost 12 FTE systems administrators. The Libraries have almost none.

  • We need systems administrators who know libraries and systems. IS personnel know only systems.

  • There’s an opening right now for a systems librarian, but there’s no consensus with IS on how to fund the position.

  • Our relationship with IS is not a model found among our peers.

  • The IS corporate model and mentality don’t work well for academic libraries. IS has a project-by-project mentality. Libraries must get in line for service. IS sees projects as having a beginning, middle and end -- not as ongoing. This approach interferes with the goals of the 21st-century library.

  • The Libraries’ ability to assist Open Access consultation and filing may be hamstrung by having to work through the slow IS project process.

  • One recent Libraries project lost its IT partners before the project was completed; they departed for a different non-Libraries project. It was theproject-termination mentality. Libraries have ongoing projects such as updating of the catalog.

  • The Stanford model of cooperation between Libraries and IS could be a good model to follow.

  • “We’re just another poor stepchild instead of a partner” with IS.

  • Lack of IT support is negatively affecting cataloging and ScholarWorks.

  • Even for major Libraries projects, “I have to approach IS, get a ticket and get in line behind someone who’s computer has crashed.”

  • The Libraries don’t operate on a project-based platform; it’s not a beginning,  middle, end system.

  • We need an advocate from outside the Libraries to help us solve the  counterproductive IS relationship.

  • What assistance is received from IS seems to favor ScholarWorks. We’re behind on digitizing collections and other essential online functions.

  • The relationship with IS is not working. We’re not seen as a partner. We’re seen only as a customer/client that must get in line with everyone else on campus.

  • The IS relationship complicates our relationship with individuals and institutions   that want to donate materials. We have to get into the long projects line at IS to  see if we can process the donation.

  • The relationship with IS could work if there were more money and more people  -- but that isn’t going to happen. The current relationship is not working.

  • We’re losing good people because of the relationship with IS. Without adequate IT support, they can’t do the jobs they were hired to do and want to do. We’re going to continue to lose good staff because of this relationship.

  • The Libraries need their own IT department.

  • A separation from IS would, initially, create more work for the Libraries -- but it   would be great.

Note from the chair: Of the approximately 20 individuals who addressed the Libraries-IS relationship, none spoke in favor of it. Two individuals who initially supported the relationship now oppose it. Again, no rancor was directed at any specific individuals; rather, the dissatisfaction addressed the nature of the relationship and the perceived incompatibility of processes and procedures

II. Dean Haricombe and the Associate Deans  

  •  Dean Haricombe’s leadership on the development of a vision statement and strategic plan has been excellent.he has led very helpful discussions on core values and mission.

  • We’re very glad she’s decided to stay at KU.

  • We’re lucky she’s here.

  • She has brought cohesiveness and camaraderie to the staff -- much better than before she arrived.

  • Communications within the Libraries are good.

  • She is a remarkable dean. She needs fewer constraints, especially those created    by the relationship with IS. Elevate her to the reporting status of the other deans and you’ll see a revitalized, re-energized staff.

  • Dean Haricombe is the only dean with faculty that doesn’t report directly to the provost.

  • The associate deans are great.

  • “I would jump in front of a bus for Jennifer Church-Duran.”

 

III. Building and Space

  • We’re losing needed space in the interests of promoting open spaces, the Learning Commons, and other functions.

  • Open spaces have come at the expense of office space.

  • We need to improve wireless access throughout the Libraries.

  • Some of the student seating (stools, chairs) in Anschutz is disgraceful.

  • Offices for Libraries faculty and staff are rabbit warrens; there’s no privacy.

  • In faculty/staff offices, “We’re like cellmates.”

  • Spencer is largely an inflexible space with a temporary roof.

  • Spencer’s heating and cooling system is on borrowed time.

  • Spencer lacks attractive, inviting outside entrances. This can be damaging because Spencer serves so many constituencies within and beyond the university.

  • Spencer has many non-KU users.

IV. Liaison Relationships

  • Almost all the liaisons would like to develop better relationships with their academic units.

  • The quality of relationships between liaisons and their academic units is uneven:  Some are excellent, with the liaisons serving as full partners in the academic   units. Others exist only as distant relationships.

  • How might the Libraries Committee function to improve the productivity of   relationships between liaisons and their academic units?

  • Improved relationships between liaisons and their academic units would strengthen the libraries as well as the units’ academic missions.

  • Liaisons can help their academic units recruit and retain top faculty.

  • KU faculty need to understand that liaisons exist to improve productivity and save time.

  • Too few academic units are realizing the advantages created by a good relationship with a Libraries liaison.

  • An ideal relationship would be for librarians, though remaining librarians, to be embedded as much as possible within the academic units they serve.

V. Budget and Staffing

  • With rising costs of books, journals and other materials, even a flat budget is, essentially, a budget cut.

  • Acquiring materials for new programs adds additional strains to a flat   budget.

  • We’re managing the fiscal crisis fairly well. Our leadership saw it coming and   prepared with wise purchases and allocations of resources. Our financial situation  still hurts, but wise leadership has prevented it from hurting worse.

  • New initiatives such as the Learning Commons are great -- but not when we   can’t even staff and fund existing core functions.

  • Given current rates of inflation, any cuts to the collections budget right now would be catastrophic.

  • Staff shrinkage at Spencer has exacerbated the backlog in cataloging. Under the circumstances, progress is good, but a daunting backlog remains.

  • Spencer lacks a photo archivist though it has amassed more than 2 million images.

VI.   Relationship with the Libraries Committee

  • Could the charges be expanded to include having the committee be an advocate for the Libraries?

  • Could the committee please lobby IS for increased support to libraries? “We need an advocate to help make IS understand. So much of our work here is IT,   but we can’t hire IT people.”

  • An advocate from outside the libraries is needed to address the relationship with IS.

  • Could the committee help professors and units understand this reality: In serials acquisitions, libraries are caught between publishers interested in increasing    profits and professors with pressing research needs?

  • Could the committee be a partner in negotiations with publishers?

  • Many librarians are not sure what the purpose of the committee is.

VII.   New Academic Programs

  • The Libraries need representation in all meetings involving the planning and   launching of new academic programs.

  • New academic programs affect staffing duties (collections management, liaison relationships, instruction, etc.), collections and collections budgets.      Librarians must be members of the planning processes for new academic programs.

VIII.   Academic Unit Grant Proposals

  • Grant proposals often involve librarians and requests for collection development -- but almost none of the acquired grant funding flows to the libraries.

 

Tentative Conclusions

If, upon reflection, Libraries faculty and staff find these comments to be reflective of widespread opinions and beliefs within the Libraries, the following actions may be worthy of consideration.

1. Appropriate units within the university should explore the advantages and disadvantages of separating the Libraries system from Information Services and placing it on equal footing with academic units such as the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.

2. Libraries liaisons should develop a list of recommended best practices that  academic units might adopt to increase the effectiveness of their relationships with the Libraries.

     a.  The Libraries Committee could then send those recommendations  to all academic unit heads and unit liaisons with, ideally, the  committee’s endorsement.

3. SenEx should consider the following charges to the Libraries Committee: 

      a. Serve as an advocate for the Libraries. (This conceivably, however,  could conflict with oversight/monitoring charges.)

     b. Develop relationships with Libraries committees at peer   institutions and/or within Greater Western Library Alliance in   hopes of forming a broad faculty-student organization to help in negotiations with publishers.

-end-