Attending:
Irene Owens, Charles Radin, Kenneth Ralls (chair), George Sylvie; Lisette Espinoza, Blaire Knox, Cale McDowell, Angela Palmer; Fred Heath, Dennis Dillon, Jo Anne Hawkins, Sue Phillips, Mark McFarland; Jocelyn Duffy
The next meeting of the committee will be on November 15 from noon until 1 P.M. The agenda will include: (1) an examination of the distribution of tasks and person hours at peer institutions (e.g., Michigan, Cornell) that have lately installed an integrated library system (ILS); review of the consequences for users if an ILS is not installed; review of the benefits of an ILS to users; and possible changes in the Libraries that would benefit the Libraries and their users, such as creating an inviting atmosphere.
The Vice Provost's office will begin organizing tours of library service departments and branch libraries for the committee. A schedule will be prepared and sent for 30-minute, behind-the-scene tours. Meetings of the committee will be scheduled at the branch libraries, including a possible meeting at the Fine Arts Library in December. Life Sciences and Law libraries were mentioned as possible meeting places during the spring semester.
The committee watched a slide presentation by Mark McFarland, associate director for Digital Initiatives, concerning the reasons an Integrated Library System is being considered for purchase, the scope and process for such a purchase, what a prospective ILS does for users, and how the acquisition of an ILS would affect the library's services and operations.
Glossary of Terms used in the ILS presentation
Professor Radin asked whether the systems under consideration include the flexibility to permit policies for particular units and branches?
Dr. Heath confirmed that the vendor systems under consideration provide that capability.
Associate Professor Sylvie asked for an example of what federated access will mean for users. Dr. Heath will provide an example at the next committee meeting.
A discussion followed on the means of paying for an ILS. Some states, such as California, provide for public support for such big-ticket items. Some universities, such as Michigan, have increased their tuition rates for such purposes. The University, of course, supports its libraries through student library fees.
University Libraries is currently attempting to reorganize itself to increase the efficiency of its operations and services, and to maintain its ranking among its peer state-university institutions. Purchase and installation of an ILS is presumptively part of this reorganization.
Graduate Assembly representative Lisette Espinoza requested that agendas for committee meetings be sent to members before meetings, that when possible slides to be used during meetings be emailed to members before meetings, and encouraged members to use the listserv to discuss topics and to build a broader dialogue outside of committee meetings listserv.
Senate of College Councils representative Angela Palmer commented that it might be useful for representative members to ask the major student groups what they would like to see from the University Libraries?
Professor and Chair Ralls suggested that students and members might send any input about suggested benefits desired from and improvements to the University Libraries to him via email.
Dr. Heath appended that students and members may always contact members of the library administration directly for information (Fred Heath, Jocelyn Duffy, Mark McFarland).
Professor Ralls adjourned the meeting at 2:00 p.m.
