Time and Location of Meeting
May 17, 20041:30 pm - 3:00 pm 428 Library
- Oak Street Update
- Budget Update
Kaufman and Allen
- Updates and Announcements
Paula Kaufman, Chair, Rod Allen, Bob Burger, Tina Chrzastowski, Barbara Ford, Peggy Glatthaar, Lyn Jones, Cindy Kelly, Betsy Kruger, Tom Kilton, Bill Maher, Michael Norman (for Lisa German), Diane Schmidt, Sue Searing, Paula Watson, Karen Wei, John Weible, Lynn Wiley
- Oak Street Update – B. Kruger (report attached)Skilled staff are shelving. These are people taken off barcoding and some that do only shelving. Accessioning is ahead of schedule. About half of the material that needs to go to Oak Street has been barcoded, but there is still plenty of work for 2005.
- Budget Update – Kaufman, R. AllenWe are working hard to keep from laying off staff. Rod and Paula meet with the Provost on May 19. They don’t expect to hear much then. The reserve money is to be returned (the Provost subsequently excused the Library from the requirement). There is a Deans meeting on May 20 and they will probably talk about the budget. We have about $900,000 that we’re going to have to find or acquire from the Provost. That doesn’t include price increases. Right now the University estimates that the cuts will be 8% for administration and 1 ½ – 2% for academic units.
In regards to the $900,000 this includes facilities and Oak Street approximations of what we’ll need. Right now the student wage budget looks pretty good. The rescission for next year is pretty likely. This year we only held back a third of what everyone else did. The $900,000 is broken down as follows:
GA health benefits – $17,000
Minimum wage impact – $85,300
2 debt payments – $300,000
Systems – $100,000
OCLC – $32,000
Savings consists of:
Reduction in GAs – $51,000
ILCS – $87,740
Staff vacancies – $186,000
We still have Oak Street, facilities, and some GAs to fund.
Other peer libraries are dealing with cuts by closing branch libraries, laying off staff, and decreasing collection budgets. The Implementation Team continues to meet. There are many things that will take longer than a couple of months to implement. They are planning to form several smaller teams this summer to include Access; Circulation, Holds, Mail Options, E-reserves; PSED and Life Sciences; Digital Library Issues; SWAT – to help out in areas where there are cyclical demands and for emergencies; and Marketing. Subgroups are looking at each and determining what each team would do, how many people we would need, and what the teams would need to succeed. Over the next couple of weeks the Team will be working on these issues and then be ready to share their ideas with everyone.
- Updates and AnnouncementsAt ARL there was a discussion about a proposal of a business plan to digitize legacy government documents collections, including the formation of a new organization. Participants would put $15,000 a year on the table for ten years. You would make that commitment up front and this new organization, that has an overhead of 9%, would re-grant the money so that GPO documents backfiles could be digitized. Prior to the meeting 47 ARL institutions said yes and a number of us said no.
Judy Russell, the superintendent of documents, has been holding a series of meetings over the last year or so. The idea is that some group let by ARL will take the responsibility for doing the digitization for all these backfiles and GPO would be responsible prospectively for the digital files.
There appears to be many problems with this report and plan. Bernie Margolis from the Boston Public Library made a very passionate plea that this is a public policy issue not an ARL issue. The government should be responsible for funding the digitization. There are also serious technical concerns; no discovery and retrieval mechanisms. No technical architecture infrastructure was presented. There is no plan for archiving and preserving these materials. There was an assumed responsibility that those who did the digitization would be responsible for the archiving. The costs presented were not fully loaded. They hadn’t talked to JSTOR or any other organizations about ongoing models that seem to work and how this might fit into them. Some directors pointed out that these are not the documents we worry about. We should be worrying about the rare and unique materials that are falling apart on our shelves. In addition, there is a risk to ARL in using its name.
We along with Yale, Harvard, Princeton, NYU, John Hopkins, Indiana, and Minnesota are writing a letter to the ARL Board asking that they not move forward on this until a lot of questions have been answered. Reportedly there was a discussion at the board meeting following the members discussion where there was a motion made for ARL to go ahead despite the concerns that had been mentioned. In the end we believe that ARL endorsed the concept of digitization of government documents without endorsing the proposed plan. Unfortunately, the split seems to be mostly between big libraries and little libraries.
AAP has challenged UC-San Diego’s e-reserve operation. They want UC-San Diego to get out of the e-reserve business entirely and UC-San Diego’s IP attorney, who studied under Larry Lessig, is defending the Library eloquently.
Grad Students survey should be out in a couple of weeks.
The audit of the GAs has been completed. The report is good; they’re doing pre-professional work.
The 1/3 mark of the campaign has been passed; $10,500,000.
Mary McLeod has replaced Judy Grainer in the Development Office. Mary comes from University Legal Council’s Office.