The meeting was called to order at 7:30 a.m. Grace Hall Café DeGrasta by Chairman Harvey Bender.Also in attendance were John Adams, Gail Bederman, Maureen Boulton, Roger Jacobs, David Mengel, Brian Moscona, Mark Pilkinton, Margaret Porter, Walter Pratt, Larry Rapagnani, Laurence Taylor, John Weber, Jennifer Younger, observer Joanne Bessler and secretary Melodie Eiteljorge.
1. Welcome, introductions and review of committee roster, and agenda review:
Younger welcomed new and returning members to the committee.She invited all to attend the morning sessions of the Advisory Council for University Libraries (ACUL)fall meeting, September 21, 2000 in the McKenna Hall auditorium.She distributed the agenda for that meeting and pointed out three particular sessions of interest:
8:45-9:15 -- An update on renovation with project manager Paula Carlaccini and architect William Ponko;
9:15-10:45 -- “Digital Libraries and Services,” presented by Daniel Greenstein, Director, Digital Library Federation;
11:15-11:45 – “Grading the Internet,” presented by ACUL member Vincent Friedewald, Jr., M.D.Dr. Friedewald is also an adjunct professor at Notre Dame.“Grading the Internet” was a project for students in his class last year.
2. Election of chair:
Jacobs nominated Harvey Bender to continue as chair of the committee.Boulton seconded.There were no other nominations.Bender agreed to serve a final term as chair.
3. Approval of minutes: The minutes of the meeting of May 10, 2001 will be redistributed for approval at the next meeting.
4. Set meeting schedule for 01-02:
It was agreed that
Thursday mornings have been a good meeting time and that the second Thursday
of each month is preferable whenever possible.Based
on this and the academic calendar, the following schedule was set for the
semester.All meetings are 7:30-8:30
a.m. at Café DeGrasta.
September 20, 2001
October 11, 2001
November 8, 2001
December 13, 2001
January - no meeting
February 14, 2002
March 21, 2002
April 11, 2002
May 2, 2002
5. Director’s report on the University Libraries Self Study 2001:
The last self study for the Libraries was done in 1998.For the current study, we are using the same outline of questions that is used in academic departments.The report is due September 30.
Younger is in the process of writing a status report on the 14 recommendations that came from the post-colloquy Ad Hoc Committee on University Libraries.Once completed, she will share her report with this committee.
Younger asked for questions, comments and suggestions.
Several questions were raised regarding book acquisition strategies and what kind of review has been done.Younger indicated that we have reviewed approval plan profiles primarily within the context of current funding, although approval plans in some areas – for example for languages and literatures – have been expanded moderately.
Questions were raised as well about interlibrary loan services, with particular mention that notifications to patrons are irregular when the books are not available.It was suggested that further discussion of ILL services be put on the agenda later in the fall.
The third area of discussion related to retrospective acquisitions.It was noted that colloquy funding did provide money for retrospective acquisitions.Currently there is only a small amount of funding for this.It should also be noted that the non-salary budget from the University, of which the library acquisitions budget is a part, has not increased for inflation in the last several years.Income from endowment, however, has increased and has provided the means for meeting inflationary price increases.However, this is likely to be a significant concern in the future.
It was suggested that Younger consult self studies and external reviews from other departments for references to library needs.She will contact the Graduate School to acquire this information.
6. Review of University Committee on Libraries: charge, composition, proceedings:
Recommendation #14 of the Ad Hoc Committee on University Libraries report addressed the restructuring of the University Committee on Libraries.This has been done with the exception of the last line: “The committee should report annually to the Academic Council.”There was a discussion of this with one suggestion that an annual report be submitted to the council.The minutes in Notre Dame Report also serve as a means of reporting.It was generally agreed that this recommendation should be viewed as an opportunity.Younger will make some inquiries about how this should work, and the committee will discuss further what should be reported in the spring of 2002.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 a.m.