Site Index

Library Committee Meeting
September 19, 2000

Library Committee Meeting
October 25, 2000

1. Robinson expressed some concern about finding a time where more members could attend. Hall suggested that members be asked again to suggest available times and others agreed that this would be useful now that the semester has settled down. Hall also asked about the frequency of meetings. Robinson said that the Committee would meet monthly and this seemed reasonable to those attending.
   
   
2. There were no corrections or additions to the minutes of the September meeting.
   
   
3. Robinson distributed a handout on similarities and differences between Committee members and Library Representatives. If you would like a copy, please let him know. The meeting focused on two important questions: (1) To what degree does the Library Representative program reduce or minimize the need for the Committee? and (2) Should the committee have any direct relationship with the library representatives?
   
   Linda Phillips, who is responsible for the Libraries' Library Representative Program, spoke first. She noted that no library can develop and maintain a comprehensive collection by itself, but that information technology and collaborative initiatives lead to a situation where UT faculty may have access to comprehensive collections in the near future. In the past, much of the attention of Library Representatives has focused on inadequate financial resources which have led to inadequate local collections. While resources remain a problem, faculty are likely to have access to more resources than in the past because of collaborative purchasing, resource-sharing, and digital resources.
   
   Phillips briefly reviewed the responsibilities of Library Representatives with some emphasis on collection development issues and the importance of communication between the Libraries and the several academic units. It is essential that the Libraries maintain links with each academic unit to insure that the Libraries are informed of unit changes likely to affect needed collections and that the units are informed of library problems and policies. She argued that Library Representatives tend to deal with local library issues while the Committee would deal with broader ones, those with a campus-wide impact.
   
   Dewey spoke to the importance of having the Committee consider broad policy issues such as the future of scholarly communication, including the periodical pricing crisis, how the Libraries might benefit from a major fund-raising initiative, how to insure that enthusiasm for information technology includes concern for intellectual content as well as hardware and software, and how to insure that the Libraries were an integral part of the new priorities developed by central administration. She noted that a Top 25 University would need to have a Top 25 university library system.
   
   Both Phillips and Dewey were concerned with how the Library Representative Program might be more effective. With reduced departmental allocations and the increased role of library faculty in developing collections, the role of the Representative in coordinating unit collection development has diminished and may be seen as relatively unimportant by some. There was some discussion of whether or not it would be useful to recreate a Library Representative's Council to provide a focused outlet for the Representatives. Robinson responded that such a group would seem to minimize the need for the Committee. Phillips and Dewey said that the Committee was needed to deal with broad policy matters and represent the campus as a whole. It appears unlikely that a Library Representative's Council will be created.
   
   Thompson and Dewey spoke about the need to have Representatives to facilitate communication between academic units and the Libraries. The twice each year meetings for the Representatives, with much time given to announcements by Libraries' administrators, may not be as important as in the past since this information can easily be shared via email.
   
   After further discussion, the Committee agreed that the Library Representative Program does NOT reduce or minimize the need for a Faculty Senate Library Committee. The Committee also agreed that it would be useful for the Committee to have a direct relationship with the Library Representatives. To begin this relationship, the Committee Chair will speak briefly at the Fall Representative's Meeting about the role of the Committee and encourage representatives to contact the Committee with broader problems or concerns.
   
   
4. There was a brief discussion of scholarly communication concerns and the role of the faculty in encouraging research publication in affordable periodicals. This is an important concern and a Committee meeting in spring will be devoted to this topic.
   
   
5. There was brief discussion of budget issues with some emphasis on the cost of periodicals, including new, more convenient digital versions available at the faculty desktop. Collaborative or co-operative purchasing may allow the Libraries to purchase more titles at a better price.

Library Committee Meeting
November 28, 2000

1. Robinson briefly introduced the subject of library resources and collections for distance education and shared a brief handout on a few assumptions and goals for discussion. He also introduced Margaret Cassado who is the librarian responsible for outreach services. The handout content appears below.
   
   

   ---

   Distance Education and University Library Services

   Assumptions:
   
   

   1. The several departments and schools at the University will offer substantially more distance education courses in the future to audiences within the state and outside it.
      
      
   2. Use of a major research library is an important part of a quality undergraduate education and is even more important in graduate education. Students need access to a wide range of resources including both print and digital. Students also need access to experienced reference librarians who can provide instruction in the most efficient and effective ways to identify and retrieve information.
      
      
   3. In most cases, local libraries and the resources available via the Internet will not provide distance education students with the wide variety of resources needed to support high quality education. Without access to the collections and services available through the University Libraries, distance education students will have an education that is inferior to that on the Knoxville campus.

   
   Goals:
   
   

   1. The University Libraries need to review their public service programs to insure that collections and services are available and visible to those who teach distance education courses and the students enrolled in these courses. This may require increased staffing and increased funding. Serving distance education students should be an integral part of the libraries' services.
      
      
   2. Campus administration should recognize that access to library collections and services is an integral part of any distance education initiative, including the "New College." Funding for library support of distance education should be an integral part of distance education planning.
      
      
   3. In some metropolitan areas, such as Nashville, Memphis, and Chattanooga, the University Libraries should investigate opportunities for working with area research libraries to create arrangements so that UT distance education students might have access to local collections and services.

   ---

   
   
2. Dewey shared some of her thoughts on these issues. She noted the increasingly blurred line between serving students on the Knoxville campus and those off-campus. For example, access to digital collections, including databases, is increasingly available to students wherever they live. Distance education students benefit from digital collections that are available any time, anywhere. There have been some technical problems, but these are being solved. Licensing issues are a continuing concern since licensing often limits access or requires substantial payment for broad access.
   
   The geography of Tennessee is also a problem since university libraries are often located at some distance from each other. Tennessee also lacks the tradition of state-wide library cooperation, including resource-sharing, found in several other states. There is increased cooperation between the Tennessee Board of Regents institutions and UT. Distance education students may have access to a TBR borrower's card and use the TBR collections nearby. There appear to be more opportunities for cooperation between Tennessee universities and Dewy is involved in initiatives likely to help Knoxville and distance education students in the future.
   
   It is likely that as distance education grows, the University Libraries will need to devote more staff and budget to services for this audience. Service will need to be more seamless.
   
   
3. Cassado introduced herself as the Off-campus Services Librarian and described the activities involved in serving distance education students as well as Knoxville students who find themselves at some distance from the University. The latter would include "stranded" UT MS and Ph.D students who are working on their thesis or dissertation research while at some distance from the campus. Ordinarily, Cassado focuses on groups of students rather than individuals. Orientation, reference and document delivery services are provided. Library items requested by students are delivered by UPS. Students pay return costs. Students with barcoded ID cards are added to the Libraries' data base which allows them to use the digital sources limited to the UT community. Some video conferencing experiments were done with distance students, but that did not prove popular. Distance students are not charged for copying articles or parts of books needed for course assignments.
   
   Cassado noted that some faculty change the requirements of distance education courses to minimize the need for library use. This is done with course packs and the use of a text book instead of reserve readings. Assignments may not require the use of a research library. She does send letters to those teaching distance education courses informing them of library services available to distance students and directing them to the Off-Campus Library Services WWW site . AOL Instant Messaging is also available.
   
   The Off-Campus Services Librarian is funded by the campus outreach unit and not the University Libraries. Dewey is taking steps to make this position a permanent part of the Library Faculty.
   
   Cassado noted that accreditation standards, such as those of the Southern Association, require equivalent services for on- and off-campus students.
   
   Questions focused on several concerns. The Libraries will provide services to distance students taking one course and not a program IF that student is issued an ID and can be added to the Libraries's user database. This is important because licensing restrictions on some popular data bases limit use to UT students and faculty with a utk.edu address. There have been some problems with ID and IP addresses in the past, but these seem to have been solved. Faculty with concerns should contact the Library Dean's Office.
   
   Dewey added that the TBR university libraries are very much interested in closer relationships with the UT Libraries. A union catalog or some similar central database of holdings is needed. A state wide delivery system would also make a substantial difference. The Libraries now have a dedicated delivery system with the University of Kentucky and the Vanderbilt University Libraries using UPS. Reciprocal borrowing arrangements should allow local pickup and delivery of requested items. Such arrangements would benefit students and faculty at UT, and may allow DE students to secure needed material from a more convenient local library. Resource-sharing issues will be covered in much more detail in a future Committee meeting.
   
   There was some concern about the cost of providing library services to distance education, especially the added cost of photoduplication and materials delivery in addition to the staff costs (one professional and two graduate assistants). Providing library services for DE students should be more expensive than providing the same service for on-campus students. Perhaps distance education students should be charged a fee (a library fee?) to compensate for these additional costs. Dewey replied that the Libraries were developing cost models that should clearly indicate how much it costs to serve the DE student. Another remarked that if few DE students utilize library services then the additional cost may not matter so much.
   
   Dewey felt that it was particularly important that the Libraries be informed of new DE initiatives so that they can work with faculty and students to insure that needed library resources are visible and available when needed. She has some concerns about the likely impact of the New College initiative and the degree to which these students should have access to quality library services and collections.
   
   Some comments were made on the difficulty of DE teachers dealing with the Evening School and Distance Education on a variety of issues. Since both these units are now part of the Outreach unit, it is hoped that squabbles and turf issues can be eliminated.
   
   Relating both to services for distance education and resource sharing in general was the fear that resources traditionally available to on-campus users might not be available in the future if they are loaned elsewhere. Service to off-campus users might also deplete scarce resources needed to serve those on-campus.
   
   
4. At this point, it was time for the meeting to adjourn. Robinson asked those present to consider further the issues raised this day. At the next meeting, he will propose a resolution for Senate consideration based on the assumptions and goals mentioned in the discussion vehicle above. Please review this and be prepared to react to a resolution based upon it at our next meeting.

Library Committee Meeting
February 27, 2001

1. The first order of business was the discussion and approval of bylaws changes affecting the Committee. After a brief discussion, the following bylaws were approved. These have been sent to the Faculty Senate Bylaws Committee.
   
   K. Library Committee. Membership shall consist of one faculty representative from each college or school except the College of Arts and Sciences which will be represented by three representatives (one from each of the major divisions of the College). One student representative may be appointed by the Graduate Student Association and one by the Undergraduate Academic Council. Ex-officio members shall be the Dean of Libraries and the Associate Dean.
   
   The Committee works with the Dean of Libraries to insure that library services and collections meet the teaching, research, and public service needs of the University community. There is particular interest in library policies and procedures that facilitate use of resources.
   
   
2. We next examined the draft resolution on the need for campus support for the University Libraries. While there was general agreement on the importance of preparing such a resolution for Senate adoption, there was some concern about the wording of (2) which read "Additional funding be made available so that the University Libraries may take advantage of the many opportunities for strengthening collections and services and become one of the top 25 libraries in the U.S." Some members were uneasy about the top 25 phrase and the metrics that might be used to rank academic research libraries. Since (1) also deals with funding, Robinson agreed to rework these parts of the resolution for discussion at the next meeting. It was also suggested that the action part of the resolution might more strongly focus on how the Libraries' services and collections must receive more funding and attention if the University is to move forward.
   
   
3. Barbara Dewey announced that the Libraries had received supplemental funding for the current FY to help meet the problems with serials price inflation. While the funds received did not match the 10 percent serials inflation figure, they will make a substantial difference. Serials price inflation is expected to be about 10 percent in the next FY too. This means that the Libraries will need to receive another 10 percent increase next year just to maintain the present serials collection.
   
   
4. Outreach has retained a consultant who has looked at a variety of service issues including library support for DE students. It seems likely that the report will include a strong recommendation for funding to provide these library services. This may help in budget negotiations for the 01/02 FY.
   
   
5. The rest of the meeting was devoted to a discussion of resource-sharing. Robinson had prepared a brief introduction to some of the issues that might be considered. The text of that introduction appears immediately below.

At our next meeting, we will begin to discuss resource-sharing. Here I will limit "resource-sharing" to providing access to material not owned or leased. Traditional resource-sharing focused on inter-library loan which required a willing lender. Usually, resource-sharing requires some sort of quid pro quo, i.e. I'll lend to you if you will lend to me.

While there is much that may be said, I would like to make five points:

1. The UT Libraries should be funded at a level to allow for developing and maintaining a core collection; that is a collection that will meet most (say 80 percent) faculty and student needs. No research library, no matter how well funded, can meet every need. Still, the local collection should contain enough of the standard items so that teaching and general research needs are normally met. Resource-sharing should provide the advanced student and faculty member with with items that are specialized and used infrequently. Resource-sharing should not substitute for inadequate local funding, although it may somewhat reduce its impact. RESOURCE-SHARING MAKES A GOOD LOCAL COLLECTION BETTER. WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT ANOTHER INSTITUTION WILL DEVELOP A COLLECTION FOR OUR USE.
   
   
2. Resource-sharing must be based upon equity; that is borrowing and lending should be balanced enough so that no collection is disadvantaged by being a "net lender." This means that resource-sharing will sometimes involve some discomfort. An item that you would like to have today may be on loan to someone at another institution. Resource-sharing agreements need to be equitable for both borrowers and lenders. ARE RESOURCE-SHARING ARRANGEMENTS EQUITABLE?
   
   
3. Resource-sharing should facilitate teaching and research by bringing people and materials together as easily as possible. Policies and procedures should be simple and straight-forward. In some cases, it may be easier to bring the researcher to a distant collection than to bring parts of that collection to our campus. Intellectual and physical access to collections is especially important. How easy will it be for local users to identify useful items and retrieve them from distant collections? How long will it take? What conditions are placed upon use? ARE RESOURCE-SHARING ARRANGEMENTS USER-FRIENDLY?
   
   
4. Information technology has dramatically expanded the range of materials available to local users, often without mediation by the University Libraries. A growing number of collections are available to users in digital formats via the Internet. To what degree should the library promote or assist faculty in the identification and use of such resources? Will these resources substitute for traditional resource-sharing such as ILL? WILL THE INTERNET AND FULL-TEXT DATA BASES, FOR EXAMPLE, REDUCE THE NEED FOR TRADITIONAL RESOURCE-SHARING INITIATIVES?
   
   
5. There is still no free lunch. There are benefits and costs to resource-sharing. We need to be aware of both. For example, money spent to be a member of the Center for Research Libraries (where collections of less frequently used items are developed and made available for use) is money that cannot be used to subscribe to a periodical or purchase a monograph. DO THE BENEFITS OF RESOURCE-SHARING OUTWEIGH THE COSTS?

David Atkins, Head of Inter-Library Services, responded to these points while providing a thoughtful and most interesting introduction to resource-sharing at UT. In introducing David, Dewey noted that our ILS unit is one of the most innovative and effective in the country.

While we have a strong local collection, no collection can truly be comprehensive today. The UT Libraries have strong partners in Vanderbilt and Kentucky. IRIS is a union catalog that allows members of the three universities to quickly discover what is held at each institution. Some cooperative collection development has begun with some emphasis on foreign language materials. This means that each library agrees to focus on some defined collecting areas which will then be available to the others. Overlap for expensive, and perhaps infrequently used material, may be eliminated. Expedited services are provided by each library so that borrowers receive needed items quickly. One day courier service is available. A larger version of IRIS, called KUDZU, is being developed and it will include several more southeastern university libraries. This will substantially expand the number and variety of resources available to faculty at each participating university. Eventually, KUDZU will replace IRIS. There will be a virtual union catalog, i.e. there will be one search interface which will search several different catalogs at once (rather like Dogpile on the Internet). While no cooperative collection development is presently being considered, that is likely in the longer run.

While pleased by the progress in resource-sharing, some concerns were raised about the difficulty of finding particular issues and articles in serial publications. While union catalogs or online catalogs provide access to titles, they often do not provide access to holdings information so the prospective borrower does not know if a particular item is held or not. Dewey agreed that this was a difficult problem and noted that many university libraries do not have holdings information available through their online catalog. Atkins added that resource-sharing libraries are working on this problem.

Atkins announced that the Libraries were exploring the possibility of purchasing items requested from other institutions when they met certain guidelines. Since requests represent a felt need, it may be more effective to purchase an item rather than borrowing it, especially if it is likely that the item might be borrowed again in the future. It might cost $20.00 to borrow an item and $75.00 to $100.00 to purchase an item and place it on the shelf ready for use so frequency of use is an important consideration.

Atkins also announced that the UT Libraries, contrary to popular expectations, is a NET BORROWER rather than a net lender. This means that the libraries borrow more items from other institutions that we lend. It is clearly not true that other institutions are taking advantage of the Libraries by borrowing far more than they lend. We probably break-even in our borrowing-lending relationship with other academic libraries. As a leading research university, the demand for specialized material seems to be growing substantially. Last year, the Libraries loaned 19,000 items and borrowed 22,000 items. It is important to be seen by peer libraries as balanced, and it might be a good idea to market our lending resources to offset our borrowing and bring the two into balance.

Dewey noted the Libraries were critical in their evaluation of consortia as a resource-sharing alternative. Sometimes, as noted above, cooperative arrangements work well and are cost-effective. In other cases, the Research Library Group, for example, this was not the case and the Libraries are no longer a member.

Dewey alerted the Committee to the increasing demand from other colleges and universities in Tennessee to have access to the digital resources available here. Without full cost-sharing, this would create serious funding problems for our collections. Too, negotiations and legal problems relating to license agreements (and monitoring those agreements) would become more complex and costly. It is likely that additional administrative staff would be required. She hopes that the Tennessee Electronic Library (TEL) will meet this need and reduce pressure on the University Libraries.

Atkins discussed the automation of the Inter-Library Services unit. We now have a paperless inter-library loan environment. Backlog of ILL requests have been reduced to 1-2 days. Submission has become easier and no longer requires a visit to the ILS department during their office hours. Library Express will soon be automated and integrated into the ILL system. He noted that the January ILL requests had increased about 80 percent over those of the same month during the previous year. Since the Libraries have added more full-text databases, this is a notable development since some other academic libraries are reporting reduced circulation and reduced ILL requests. The ILS department will soon begin experimentation with all digital delivery of most ILL requests and hopes to have this implemented in the Fall.

Library Committee Meeting
March 13, 2001

1. Time before item in hand
2. Expense (in old days, departments were charged)
3. Use conditions by the lending library
4. Image quality in photoduplicated or faxed items and
5. Snags associated with bibliographic verification.

Library Committee Meeting
April 17, 2001

Resolution on Library Services and Collections

Whereas, the University increasingly uses information technology to provide both new and more effective and efficient services to the University community, including distance education,

And whereas, the University Libraries provide rich and varied collections, including on-line databases, personal and specialized assistance from trained information professionals, and instruction in the selection and use of print and digital information,

And whereas, substantial, current library collections and services are an integral part of learning, teaching, and research,

And whereas, the University is moving forward to become one of the top twenty-five research universities in the United States, the University of Tennessee Faculty Senate recommends to the University President, the Board of Trustees, and campus administrators that:

1. A program be developed to increase funding for the University Libraries to provide services and collections to on-campus students and faculty at a level comparable with the services provided by leading research libraries in peer institutions and
   
   
2. Such funding should also insure that distance education students have access to comparable services and collections as those students attending the Knoxville campus.

16 April 2001