KU: University Governance

2010-2011 Libraries Committee Report

To: SenEx
From: Isidro J. Rivera, committee chair
Date: June 16, 2011

Overview

The Libraries Committee met twice during the Fall 2010 semester and twice during the Spring 2011 semester. Topics at the meetings varied, but each meeting included an update from Dean Lorraine Haricombe, information on the IT decoupling, and the status of the university’s Open Access policy.

Responses to Standing Charges

1. Monitor the Libraries’ long-range planning and allocation of resources—staff, physical space, equipment, collections, digitally-based information, etc.—in light of the needs of different academic disciplines. Assess the adequacy of these plans and resource allocations to support teaching (including both undergraduate and graduate) and research. Report issues and recommendations for action to SenEx. (ongoing)

The committee met this charge primarily through the dean’s reports at committee meetings, with subsequent questions from committee; through review of the dean’s “State of the Libraries” speech in Fall 2010; and through the open meetings with library faculty and staff conducted in November 2010 (Specific Charge #2). The Committee focused on these topics:

Budget issues: The committee received information concerning the budgets constraint affecting the libraries and expressed appreciation for the ongoing protection of the Libraries budget. But the members expressed concerns about the consequence of a flat budget during a period when costs for library materials and equipment are rising.
Support for IT: The committee reviewed and discussed the ongoing restructuring of IT. The Committee commends the Dean for her leadership in this transition period and for her vision. Her office has implemented changes to maintain user services while the University restructures various IT units on campus. Currently, the Libraries are seeking a Director of Integrated Technologies and have remodeled space on the fourth floor to support this position. The Dean also announced that she has invited consultants to review the following: a) Transitioning from a collections-based "product" model to an effective collaboration/service model; b) Expanding collaboration with existing and potential campus partners; c) Building a vital workforce; d) Understanding the future of higher education and the roles we need to embrace to be relevant to that future. Her oversight during restructuring of IT service has maintained a high level of service and support even during budgetary constraints. The Committee did express concerns about the funding and ongoing support of Library initiatives and the possible consequences of these budget constraints.
Initiatives for Digital Humanities: The Libraries are to be commended for innovative, student- and scholar-centered development of the Center for Digital Scholarship. The Center has become a national and international focal point of scholar activities and has promoted opportunities to develop digitally-based research opportunities. The Center has partnered with the Hall Center to institute significant programs that reach out to faculty and offer new research opportunities and mechanisms for scholarly dissemination.
Liaison: In the Fall 2010 open meeting with Libraries faculty and staff the committee received a report on Library Liaisons, “Connecting to KU Teaching & Research Departments” with information on ways to strengthen and rethink those areas of support. The Committee did not act on this matter, but believed that this area might need a follow up in the future to assess the direction for the Liaison program.
Partnership with KUMC Libraries Committee: The Chair of the Committee participated in a three exploratory meetings between the Library/Information Resources Committee at KUMC and the Dean of Libraries and Staff. The discussion centered on issues related to budgeting for resources and support, creating new ties between the respective Libraries of each campus, identifying ways to collect and disseminate research activities of faculties across disciplines, and developing strategies to promote scholarly communications and open access during a period of flat budgets. The Chair reported to the Committee and led discussion about the opportunities to extend these links and find ways to collaborate with KUMC on Library issues. The Committee recommends continued discussion of this topic, including finding ways to enhance the links between the two units.
Library Value and Return on Investment: The Committee used information presented by the Chair and Assistant Dean Ludwig to discuss how libraries create value, and how can libraries measure the return on institutional investment derived from their collections and services. The discussion resulted in an interest to continue exploring this area. Assistant Dean Ludwig would like to convene a group consisting of librarians and committee members to discuss what kind of a values study would most benefit the KU scholarly communities. The Committee hoped that the work during the summer will form the basis for continued discussion and further assessment in the Fall.

2. Monitor the effectiveness of communication between the Libraries and students, faculty, and staff, about including library-based instruction in classes and academic programs in support of university-wide learner outcomes. Report issues and recommendations for action to SenEx. (ongoing)

Outreach to key constituencies has been one of the strength of the Libraries this academic year. Highpoints have included the dean’s “State of the Libraries” address; the formation of an advisory board for Open Access issues; the distribution of an annual report; Information and updates visible on the Libraries website; and distribution of “Annotation: KU Libraries Notes”, and other communications distributed by the Libraries.

3. Obtain a report from the Libraries about the implementation of the open-access policy. Report issues and recommendations for action to SenEx by 11/1/10.

The committee heard reports on Open-Access policy implementation during its meetings on 23 November and 28 February. No reports were filed on 11/1/10 after consultation s with the President of SenEx given the timing and other calendric oddities.

In November Ada Emmett reported to the committee the following:

Since the February 11, 2010, endorsement and subsequent implementation, the following activities occurred:

Meetings held: over 50 open access related meetings, consultations, presentations since February 2010. These include meeting with KU departments, department liaisons, individual faculty, and presentations to faculty groups beyond departments. Topics included general open access issues, implementation plans, copyright & publication agreements, and submitting works to the repository. Additionally KU addressed queries from other universities about the OA process (e.g., to Hawaii, Utah, Emory, U Mass, Illinois, N. Texas, Minnesota, to name a few institutions).
Open Access Liaisons program developed: As an extension of the Open Access early adopter program last year, departments/centers identified faculty liaisons to work on OA issues. Twelve have been identified with three additional departments pending. Ten meetings have occurred with those liaisons, in some cases, those liaisons presented at their own faculty meetings.
Open Access Steering Committee: Planning for an Open Access Advisory Board was begun with implementation in Spring 2011.
Open Access Week, October 2010: OA Steering Committee planned and held six events for International Open Access Week: five open meetings on topics ranging from open access journals to significance of publication agreements for open sharing of published work. Over 130 people were in attendance total. Several of the events were recorded and made available via video through KU ScholarWorks. KU was one of nearly 900 institutions world-wide in over 50 countries that held events.
Graduate Students: During OA week, the Steering Committee held an RSVP graduate student lunch with 60 students in attendance at the luncheon in which the attendees heard discussion and presentations.
Next steps: Creation of Advisory Board; building up of OA liaison and early adopter program; upgrading of DSpace; considering joining OA Compact; reviewing Budapest OA Initiative; other issues as identified by OA Advisory Board.

In February, the Committee Chair updated the Committee on the progress of Open Access:

Isidro Rivera reported to the Committee about the establishment of an Open Access Advisory Board. Membership includes a cross section of the university faculty and administrators to advise on matters of Open Access, various technologies, protocols, and procedures. Isidro Rivera, chair of the Library Committee, is a member of this Board.
There has been significant interest on the part of faculty, since implementation. More than 260 faculty members have inquired about Open Access. KU Center for Digital Scholarship has initiated a consulting service to support faculty seeking to deposit their publications in ScholarWorks. In addition, the staff at the Center for Digital Scholarship will review faculty CVs and lists of publications and will assist in securing rights for uploading research publications and materials based on the policies in place by publishers. KU ScholarWorks provides this level of service to make sure the Library can provide the broadest possible distribution of scholarship at KU. Ada Emmett is more than happy to come to department meetings and explain how this works to members of your department that may not know about Open Access.
In addition, the Libraries co-sponsored a lecture by Tetiana Yaroshenko, a visiting scholar from the Ukraine, on the Open Access movement in the Ukraine.

The committee commends Ada Emmett and the Steering Committee for their diligent efforts to implement the policies, reach out to the University communities, and develop informational programs in support of Open Access. The Committee also applauds the formation of an Advisory Board for Open Access issues and the effort to formalize the process within the University. The committee’s primary recommendation is that SenEx developing an on-going request for yearly updates from Open Access advisory board concerning implementation, activities, and long-range planning for Open Access at KU.

4. Seek information from the KU faculty, staff, and students about their concerns by, for example, monitoring audience participation at the Dean of the Libraries “State of the Libraries” presentation. Report issues and recommendations for action to SenEx. (ongoing)

The Committee commends the Dean and staff for organizing information sessions and providing opportunities for sharing information with the University Community during the “State of the Libraries” presentation. The information was well received and no urgent issues were presented. The Committee recommends continued monitoring of these presentations and other informational sessions and updates.

5. Convene an open meeting with Libraries faculty and staff, including liaisons to academic departments, in the fall semester. Report issues and recommendations for action to SenEx by 12/1/10.

The Committee hosted two meetings on November 4, and November 9: one in Anschutz Library, room 305, and one in Watson Library, room 455. A report detailing issues and concerns was delivered to SenEx on November 30, 2010. The Committee believes this open meeting should be yearly activity and will provide a mechanism for assessing Libraries faculty and staff concerns.

Responses to Specific Charges

1. Obtain separate reports from (a) the Libraries and (b) Information Technology, and consult users of the Libraries, concerning the effect of the Libraries’ separation from IT as a result of the dissolution of Information Services. Report issues and recommendations for action to SenEx by 12/1/10.

The committee discussed and monitored the effects of the Libraries’ decoupling from IT in almost its sessions this year. The Committee did not file a report because of the unavailability of the Huron Report until mid-Fall semester. In consultation with the President of SenEx, it was decided to postpone report.

With reference to the decoupling and restructuring of IT and its effects on the Libraries, the Dean gave several detailed and informative updates that addressed the various facets of the split and the Libraries’ response to this new configuration. Much of this information is summarized in Response # 1, above. The Committee did obtain a copy of the Huron Report, IT Assessment, University of Kansas, and discussed the report on Nov 23 during the session. A follow-up discussion on 28 Feb along with a thorough, illuminating update from the Dean made clear that the Libraries have managed the process in a logical manner and have implemented protocols for absorbing responsibilities for IT, including the appointing new support positions and searching for a Director of Integrated Technologies (see information in Response #1, above). The Committee commends the Dean and the Libraries for the management of the decoupling and for ensure that there was no breakdown of user services and support. Given the efforts of the Libraries, the Committee also expresses concern that the lack of a relatively flat budget and lack of growth in allocations may result in diminished support of IT and no growth in services.

The Committee recommends continued monitoring of the decoupling of IT to ensure that the transition goes without complications. The Committee also suggests that next year’s Committee report on the results of the consultants’ visit and recommendations to the Libraries as it pertains to the Libraries’ IT needs.

Recommendations for AY 2011-2012

1.Monitor the Libraries’ long-range planning and allocation of resources in light of the needs of different academic disciplines and the flat budget situation.

2. Report on the progress of the decoupling from IT and the results of the consultants’ visit with reference to services, collaborative models, and workforce.

3. Report on the effectiveness of communication between the Libraries and students, faculty, and staff.

4. Hold an open meeting with Libraries faculty and staff, including liaisons to academic departments, in the fall semester. Report issues and recommendations for action to SenEx.

5. Provide an update on the progress of the implementation of the Open Access policies and the activities of the Open Access Board as they relate to faculty and students.

6. Collect information on collaboration with KUMC Libraries Committee. Report on the issues associated with this initiative and make recommendations as warranted.

7. Seek information on Library Value and Return on Investment. Report issues and make recommendation to SenEx.