Wednesday, 1 April, 2009
3:00pm - 4:30pm
Stauffer Library, Room 121

Present: C. Adamson (Stauffer), S. Andrychuk (Stauffer), R. Ascough (Religious Studies), P. Baxter (Film & Media), D. Burke (Stauffer), C. Chen (Business), A. Chowdhury (History), S. Dickey (Art Department), J. Druery (Stauffer), E. Gibson (Library), S. Greaves (Library), J. Hosek (German), J. Kaminskas (French), S. Larin (Political Studies, Graduate student rep.), H. Laycock (Philosophy), F. Lewis (Economics), J. Linton (Geography), F.P. Lock (English), J. Moon (Stauffer), J. Nesbitt (Stauffer), J. O'Neill (Art Conservation), J. Philipps (Library Collections), N. Rewa (Drama), N. Soini (Stauffer), M.C. Vandenburg (Stauffer), L. Walls (Jordan Library), M. Whitehead (Library Administration)

1. Introductions and Adoption of Agenda
   The agenda was approved with the addition of an item added under New Business by M. Whitehead for H. Laycock.


2. Approval of the Minutes of 22 October, 2008
   The minutes were approved.


3. Business Arising from the Minutes
   None.


4. Discussion: Impact of Queen's budget reductions (All)
   

   M. Whitehead introduced the topic of overall university budget cuts and emphasized the importance of the Library being informed about discussions regarding curriculum changes, as well as other changes that will impact the Library.

   Focusing specifically on the Library budget, M. Whitehead indicated that the 15% budget reduction target for the next 3 years means a $1,200,000 cut from the Library operating budget. There will be no cut to the acquisitions budget. Since almost 90% of the Library's operating budget goes to salaries, staff positions will be closed and staff numbers will be reduced. 17 positions have been closed over the past 3 years. A 15% reduction in the operating budget over the next 3 years will result in a loss of about another 18 positions. In 1995/96 there were 180 staff positions. By 2008/09 the number was reduced to 135. The current target takes us below 120. This situation is similar across Ontario. The Ontario Council of University Libraries, the Canadian Association of Research Libraries and the Association of Research Libraries are sharing ideas about how to manage the changes.

   There is a need to reinvent ourselves and change how we use staff positions. A Library Change Steering Group has been created to provide a planning framework and articulate a vision for what the Library will look like in the future. The group will address the budget cuts as well as look at longer term changes that are occurring in academic libraries. The Group will look at reorganizing the library infrastructure and finding new ways of organizing services so that the delivery of service is more efficient and continues to be robust.

   Although there will be no reduction to the acquisitions budget, there will be a reduction in buying power. There will be no budget increase to offset the 3-5 % increase in costs and the lower value of the Canadian dollar. Approximately 80% of the acquisitions budget is in U.S. dollars. Staff cuts impact acquisitions and access to resources as well. Electronic books and journals are labour intensive. Keeping abreast of what's happening in the Departments, how instruction etc will be impacted by budget cuts, is a challenge for the Library.

   Members were invited to share information about potential changes in their departments that may change expectations for Library services and collections.

   • S. Dickey asked if there is a freeze on acquisitions. J. Philipps responded that the earlier moratorium has been lifted and the departments can spend their budgets. The new fiscal year starts May 1.
   • R. Ascough mentioned the Report of ad-hoc committee on curriculum restructuring in the Faculty of Arts and Science. The report proposes a reduction in how we credit courses. It recommends reducing the number of courses required for a degree thus providing a deeper engagement in learning. The budget is accelerating the need to think outside the box regarding the curriculum and the way the curriculum is delivered.
   • F. Lewis wondered if there has been a discussion about consolidating libraries. M. Whitehead mentioned the idea of combining the Engineering and Science and Bracken Health Sciences Libraries - this is still just in the "idea stage". The Engineering and Science circulation point has low activity. Users are now untethered from physical collections to a great extent; so this is an opportunity to develop a new vision of physical space.
   • P. Baxter asked M. Whitehead to speak about the drop in circulation. M. Whitehead reported that use of physical collections across the system has decreased by 50% since 2000. Stauffer Library circulation is less affected than other libraries. The Library has already absorbed this change by reducing staff. Approximately 60% of the acquisitions budget is now spent on electronic materials. Many books are purchased through approval plans and arrive shelf-ready.
   • R. Ascough commented that there used to be a one year lag for electronic journals and wondered if that will change. J. Philipps responded that as more publishers look at electronic publishing only, the electronic is more current and is often published before the print. R. Ascough asked if this will bring down our cost, or just the publisher's cost. J. Philipps replied that publishers are trying to be more reasonable and that some publishers give a better price for electronic only. M. Whitehead mentioned that because of the economy some publishers find themselves in dire financial circumstances.
   • N. Rewa noted that the proposed departmental amalgamations such as those in the Language departments could affect collection development in other departments. For example, books related to Drama published in languages other than English are currently purchased from other departmental budgets such as French, Spanish or German. If these budgets should cease to exist these books would have to be purchased from the Drama budget to avoid gaps in the collection. J. Philipps remarked that changes in the curriculum, courses, degree combinations and departments have to be monitored closely to avoid such gaps and reinforced that it is important for Departmental Library Representatives to keep the library informed of changes.
5. Collections update (J. Druery, J. Philipps)
   J. Philipps provided an acquisitions budget update:
   • For many years the University has provided a base budget increase to support Library acquisitions. No increase has been received since 2006/07 because purchasing power was considered to be enhanced by the high value of the Canadian dollar. It is unlikely that there will be an increase this year despite the impact of the now unfavourable exchange rate. We anticipate that the acquisitions budget will be in deficit this year; the amount will not be known until the end of the fiscal year. Some publishers are feeling the pinch and are increasing their prices to keep themselves afloat. Monograph purchases will be decreased in 2009/2010 and a review of print journals and electronic databases will be done to determine where savings can be realized. The budget situation for next year is still not completely known but is likely to result in cancellation of some journals and databases.
   • Library staff reductions have occurred in Central Technical Services, where staff numbers have decreased significantly in recent years. Cataloguing has been provided by vendors and CTS has been reorganized. Further efficiencies, such as expanding approval plans, are now being looked at. This means more monographs would arrive with a catalogued record and shelf-ready, which would reduce the need for firm orders and reduce the number of electronic slips. Approval plans will also be expanded to disciplines where they have not previously been used including Art, Music, Education and possibly Engineering and Science. We are also looking at expanding approval plans for monographs in languages other than English. Workload would be decreased by reducing print processing.
   • Print serials review: A print journal cancellation project to review print titles for which there is an electronic option will be completed across the system by the end of August. Where electronic options are available, the print will be cancelled assuming the electronic version meets certain criteria including comparable content and quality, reliability of the platform, and the assurance of perpetual access.
   • S. Larin commented that some e-books are useless and are not designed to replace the print version. In addition, there is no standard between publishers. Platforms are not very good for reading books. J. Philipps responded that ebooks will not replace print in general until platforms have improved. That being said, we do own some ebook packages. M. Whitehead mentioned the Ontario Scholars Portal ebook project and that the OSP platform will provide more consistency and we have more control over it than other platforms. H. Laycock spoke to browsability in terms of electronic content versus print books (which are easily browsable). It was noted that, regarding browsability, if you are browsing the stacks you won't find the Springer books. H. Laycock stated that Oxford Scholarship Online is not user friendly and pointed out that it is difficult to print some online books. R. Ascough commented that he starts browsing online since electronic books are not checked out. S. Dickey added that the searchability of online books is an advantage. J. Druery mentioned that when librarians attend conferences they talk to vendors about the issues of ebooks and encourage them to develop better interfaces and more usable models of use and distribution. She suggested that faculty could lobby publishers as well especially in the issues related to making ebooks as usable as print.
   • J. Philipps stated that at the present time, unless otherwise specified, print copies of monographs are purchased. S. Larin asked if one can order a monograph which we own electronically. J. Druery responded that we would consider these on a title-by-title basis but that with some packages like Springer we have stopped ordering the paper copies. She also noted that interlibrary loan requests have been placed for books that we own electronically. She emphasized that we need to make difficult choices and that we cannot purchase materials in two formats unless absolutely necessary. If we do purchase materials in two formats it will be at the expense of not being able to purchase materials that we do not have at all.
6. Open Access: Library statement and update (J. Druery)
   

   The Library Statement on Open Access was distributed. J. Druery defined Open Access as information that is online and free for anyone to use, although not necessarily totally free for libraries and authors. She explained that a Scholarly Communications Working Group within the library had produced the statement, a statement which reflects the Library's commitment to the principles of open access. The Senate Library Committee's (SLC) Advisory Subcommittee on Scholarly Communication had made further revisions which had then been endorsed by the SLC. Discussion followed, and the statement was revised slightly to read: "Queen's University Library is committed to the principles of Open Access (OA) to all research results and educational resources. The Library includes OA resources in its collection and believes in the importance of promoting modes of scholarly communication that enable people to share knowledge as broadly as possible." J. Philipps pointed out that the intention is to encourage publishers to adopt open access models. Some publishers have already adopted Open Access models that allow free access to developing countries. J. Druery mentioned that one of the purposes of the statement is to encourage discussion within the university community.

   Open Access Week has been declared for 19-23 October, 2009. Last year the Association of Research Libraries started Open Access Day, an event that was very popular around the world and consequently the event has been extended to encompass one week so that more organizations will be able to participate. The Library is striking a committee to plan a number of events around Open Access Week. Some ideas include a debate on the pros and cons of Open Access, and a talk about the issues such as peer review and having to publish in high impact journals that are not free for securing a job and for tenure, broadcasting of podcasts that will be offered by the organizers of Open Access Week followed by discussion. Find out more about Open Access on the SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) website or on the Library's Scholarly Communications Services and Open Access site.

   Ideas for speaker and other ideas or thoughts for the week were requested. J. Hosek suggested Lawrence Lessig - possibly a podcast. R. Ascough suggested David Weinberger as an alternative. N. Soini mentioned that CLA has an Open Access Day and suggested talking with Heather Morrison. J. Hosek mentioned RiP!: A Remix Manifesto and suggested a competition of students/grad students to remix. If you have other ideas please pass along to M. Whitehead or J. Druery.

7. Other business
   

   H. Laycock introduced the problem that philosophy books are scattered over 3 libraries: Stauffer, Education, and Engineering and Science. This fact, which he understands to be an LC taxonomy issue, is very inconvenient. In some cases there is an understandable overlap, but for the most part the books are clearly philosophical; it is hard to imagine Engineering and Science patrons looking at them. It is frustrating that the philosophy collection is not all together.

   • J. Philipps responded that unfortunately there is nothing we can do to change this situation. The LC Classification scheme puts the Philosophy of Science in a call number area that dictates by QUL policy that it gets shelved in the Engineering and Science Library. This is also true of the Philosophy of Education which is shelved in the Education Library. We do not have staff resources either to reclassify books or to move books from other libraries to Stauffer nor is there space to house them in Stauffer without major reorganization, which would also require considerable staff and financial resources. Even if we started shelving the books in Stauffer from this date forward, they would still sit in a different section of Stauffer from the other Philosophy books. Starting this practice now would create not only a space fractured collection but a time fractured collection as well. M. Whitehead concurred that even though we would like to do something with the current staff reductions we cannot.
   • J. Moon pointed out that books can be delivered from Education to be picked up at Stauffer.
   • N. Soini suggested adding information to the subject guide to explain the situation and to direct users to groups of certain types of philosophy books.
   • J. Druery and M. Whitehead commented that if budget reductions result in radical revisioning and physical collections merge, this problem of split collections might be solved. This could only be accomplished through major one-time projects, like combining the Engineering and Science and Bracken Libraries, which would require one-time funding.
   • H. Laycock asked when the LC cataloguing system was devised and how sensitive it is to the evolution of scholarship. J. Philipps replied that it is difficult to make changes and provided the example of QA76 being the only call number assigned for computing science.
   • J. Druery mentioned that subjects are more interdisciplinary now, a fact which LC also does not accommodate. She also mentioned that LC does make changes but it is very bureaucratic and changes happen very slowly. J. Philipps added that LC subject headings are behind the times as well.
   • R. Ascough noted David Weinberger's book, Small pieces loosely joined: a unified theory of the Web, about the internet and how it blows apart the taxonomy of LC.

   S. Dickey asked about the current food and drink policy. M. Whitehead replied that snacks are allowed and that patrolling has been increased. This can be an issue when the library is open 24 hours. S. Dickey noted that some people are concerned about the wear and tear on books and asked if there has been any evidence of damage. M. Whitehead replied that nothing had been reported to Library Administration.

   S. Larin requested information on the project to replace QCAT. M. Whitehead explained that the vendor, BiblioCommons, was unable to continue the project due to the economic downturn. There are many other developments that QUL is watching including the University of Toronto and initiatives within Ontario College and University Libraries but most new systems are experiencing growing pains. M.C. Vandenburg pointed out that no money was lost when the project with BiblioCommons was terminated.

   P. Baxter asked if departmental acquisition funds will be reduced for the next fiscal given the financial constraints and the acquisition of more books on approval plans. J. Philipps replied that it is too early to tell about specific changes but that changes will be necessary.