Wednesday, 21 October, 2009
3:00 – 4:30pm
Stauffer Library, Room 121

Present: S. Andrychuk (Stauffer), A. Chowdhury (History), J. Druery (Stauffer), J. Hartwick (Economics), B. Kelley (Psychology), S. Larin (Political Studies, Graduate student rep.), F. P. Lock (English), C. Miners (Business), J. Moon (Stauffer), J. Nesbitt (Stauffer), J. O’Neill (Art Conservaton), J. Philipps (Library Collections), B. Reeves (Classics), N. Rewa (Drama), A. Thomson (Collection Development), M.C. Vandenburg (Stauffer), L. Walls (Jordan Library), M. Whitehead (Library Administration).

1. Welcome, Introductions and Adoption of Agenda
   The agenda was approved.


2. Approval of the Minutes of April 1, 2009
   The minutes were approved.


3. Business Arising from the Minutes
   Addressed in agenda.


4. Library Budget Planning Update and Discussion (M. Whitehead)
   
   How planning is happening:
   • M. Whitehead reported that the Library Change Steering Group was formed to articulate what the library will look like in 2012, after a 15% budget reduction. A Library 2012 Change Framework document, to be distributed later in the week, will provide an overall vision rather than exact detail. It is intended to provide internal guidance for the following special task groups: Technical Services, ILL and Document Delivery, Information Services, Collections and Space, and Operations Review. The Task Groups’ reports and ideas will be assimilated to develop a plan for moving forward.
   Budget update:
   • 15% budget reduction target for next 3 years: $1,199,000
   • Cuts: year 1: 5%; year 2: 3%; year 3: 7%
   • Hoping to achieve staff reductions through attrition
   • Library covers costs of early retirement incentives
   • Library covers annual PTR (progress through the ranks) tax: $40,000 / year
   • 90% of the operating budget is salaries (does not include acquisitions)
   • 2008/09: 8.9 FTE positions closed; 2009/10: FTE 12.37 positions closed. Resulting operating budget  reduction:  $588,000
   • 5% reduction target for 2009/10 met
   • 3% reduction target for 2010/11 partly met
   • Must identify $600,000 + $40,000 PTR tax for year 3
   • Since 2006/07 we have lost 30 positions; 120 remain
   • There is a possibility that we will be asked to increase the 15% reduction target
   • Bulk of recent retirements has been in Technical Services, leaving gaps that need to be filled with staff from other areas in the immediate term as planning continues
   • N. Rewa wondered if anyone is listening to the Library’s expressions of concern about the impact of budget cuts on our ability to function. 
   • M. Whitehead responded that we are modeling what we think we can do differently in the libraries and ensuring that the Vice Principal (Academic) is aware of the impact of the these potential changes.  The library staff is still providing excellent services as evidenced by our recent A+ rating in the Globe & Mail survey.   The question of what is core library service and what is not (and therefore can be stopped) is key to the argument and the solution. For example, the laptop lending service has been discontinued as it was felt not to be a core library service.   Librarians work closely with the academic departments to understand their perception of the key services the library must continue to provide, and comments on this are welcome at any time.  Changes that departments make in relation to programs, courses, evaluation, etc. are very relevant to the work of the library and Martha requested that all departmental library representatives keep the library informed of these developments.
5. Collections Update
   
   a) Aquisitions budget update (J. Philipps)
   • There has been no increase to the budget this year.
   • Funds have had to be reallocated. The multimedia and print serials budgets have been reduced. The departmental allocation for books has been reduced.
   • Most spending is in foreign currency.
   • Generally, publishers have been responsible and have not increased their prices significantly over last year; only one database (Investext) was cancelled because of what we considered an unreasonable price increase.
   • A process for assessing collections is being developed so that we can make the most efficient and relevant use of our acquisition budget.
   • Central Technical Services has been reduced to ten library technicians due to retirements.
   • J. Philipps requested that departments spend as much of their monograph budgets as possible by December so that the materials can be ordered and received in time to expend the budget by the end of the fiscal year.
   b) Print journal review project update (J. Druery)
   • The goal of the project was to make decisions about whether journals that we currently receive in paper could be replaced by an electronic version and whether the print version of journals that we receive both electronically and in paper could be cancelled.  Approximately 1200 titles in the humanities and social sciences were evaluated over the summer according to a set of criteria including the quality of the electronic version, the completeness and quality of images and charts, and whether the electronic version is complete.   Approximately 120 print journals will be cancelled in favour of the electronic versions.  A few titles were also cancelled outright (i.e. we will no longer subscribe to either the print or the electronic).   More analysis is required before we can say how much money will be saved and if any of that money will be available to purchase new titles.
   • In the summer of 2010 the project will be extended to evaluate all print journals to determine if they are still relevant to teaching and/or research at Queen’s. This project will require extensive consultation with faculty as the journals that will be cancelled will no longer be available at Queen’s in any format.
   c) New journal requests (J. Druery)
   • In 2007 we requested suggestions for new journal title purchases.  One hundred and twenty-nine requests were made; 27 of those have been made available.   Fifty-two of those titles were monographic series or titles that we already subscribed to.  Fifty titles were not ordered and remain on the list.  An additional 25 titles have been requested in 2009 – for a total of 75 titles still outstanding.  We hope to be able to order some of these titles from the money saved from print cancellations.   
   • B. Kelley asked if back issues of print journals already in the library will be kept.  J. Druery replied that journals available only in print would be kept, unless they were deemed to be irrelevant to teaching and/or research at Queen’s when the Summer 2010 print cancellations are made. However, if back issues are available electronically (e.g. in JSTOR) we would have to consider whether or not to keep print issues based on much the same criteria as we have been using to assess electronic journals in this past summer’s project.
   • S. Larin wondered if a journal’s lag time is considered in the print journal cancellation process.  J. Druery stated that print journals to which Queen’s currently subscribes and that have an embargo period on the electronic versions will not be cancelled.
   • F. Lock asked about the cost of the duplication of e-journals which are purchased in different packages. J. Druery agreed that there is duplication but said that much of the duplication is a result of the Knowledge Ontario databases purchased through Gale, which are paid for by the Ontario Government and thus of no cost to Queen’s.  Another example of duplication is the overlap between databases like Ebsco’s Business Source Complete and Proquest’s ABI / INFORM.  They are both business journal databases, but each has enough unique titles that justifies subscribing to both.  In addition a journal may be included in more than one of a vendor’s database products.  In these cases the vendor credits the library for duplicated content. Titles negotiated through OCUL or CRKN have been paid for only once although they are accessible from two sites - the publisher’s site and also through the Ontario Scholar’s Portal.  J. Philipps also outlined that we are working on an electronic resources assessment plan that will help us to better assess the overlap in databases and help us to make informed acquisition or cancellation decisions. 
6. Services Update and Discussion
   
   a) Web proxy (M. Whitehead)
   • S. Larin voiced concerns that the former Squid proxy service is no longer available. The new proxy service, EZProxy, now provides users with remote access to licensed web content but is less convenient than the old one. He commented that now that one must login (rather than configure the browser), one must search journals through QCAT. It is frustrating to have to do everything over again for every search. He said that he contacted IT about the problem and was told that the Squid proxy was difficult for new users to access and that hackers were an issue.
   • A. Chowdhury asked if this is the reason why articles cannot be accessed through webCT?
   • M. Whitehead provided background information on the change. EZProxy was introduced three years ago and the two systems ran parallel until recently, when the Squid proxy service was discontinued. The activity level of the old service is not known for this time period. M. Whitehead pointed out that new users find EZProxy much easier to use.  Now the EZProxy link can be embedded into the URL, which prompts the user for their NetID during searches.  There were issues with firewalls, security concerns, and problems for users in some locations connecting to the old service. 
   • B. Kelley asked if it would be possible for ITS to consider making the old system available again. M. Whitehead replied that this is not possible.
   • S. Andrychuk suggested accessing Google Scholar via the Library homepage as proxy access is automatically provided to the full-text of the articles that are available through QUL.
   b) Creating Course Reading Lists website (M. Whitehead)
   • M. Whitehead showed and commented on the following webpages:
     http://library.queensu.ca/news/archives/796
     http://library.queensu.ca/help/coursereadings
   • M. Whitehead explained that a Course Readings Working Group was formed to explore ways that the library could improve access to course readings.
   Resulting observations:
   • The group scanned campus to see what was happening on campus and surveyed faculty to see how things could be done differently. There is some convenience to course packs, especially for first year students who tend to purchase the packs. Upper year students try to save money be searching for readings in other sources.
   • The university is already paying for access to millions of electronic journal articles. By offering those articles in course packs the students are paying again.
   • Now we suggest online access to course readings when an item is requested for reserve. To facilitate this, the course readings list website includes information on how faculty can create permanent links and embed proxy access in the link.
   • Issues with copyright and the digitization of print sources need to be considered. It can be tricky to discern what is permissible.  Queen’s Counsel is in agreement with the information provided on our webpage: http://library.queensu.ca/help/coursereadings.
   • B. Kelley asked if the link to an article or the article itself should be added to WebCT. M. Whitehead replied that the link is safest.
   • N. Rewa asked about stable url’s that don’t work. She has used the off campus link creator. S. Andrychuk pointed out that a durable URL needs to be proxied.
   • N. Rewa commented that students already have to sign in to WebCT and so why do they have to sign in again? M. Whitehead stated that single sign-on is not possible with the university’s current technology.
   • M. Whitehead pointed out that we have platforms for online course readings, such as Qshare, which provides secure web-based space where files can be stored and shared.
   • She also remarked that in 2010, if new legislation is passed, all new course materials must adhere to accessibility standards.  S. Larin asked if every book must be translated into Braille.   M. Whitehead replied that this will not be required.
   c) Videostreaming (J. Druery)
   • J. Druery reported on the work of the Library’s Videostreaming Working Group (VWG) which is looking at the state of videostreaming in general and what the library’s role should be in making it available to the Queen’s community. 
   • Videostreaming is becoming more common as an option for purchasing media.  This is a positive development as DVDs are likely to become obsolete; DVDs in our collection have disappeared and have been damaged; and, users increasingly want to be able to access materials electronically.
   • The VWG completed a pilot project in collaboration with the Global Development Studies Department to provide streamed video for their online course, Development Studies 100.   Seven different titles were provided.  The project was a success with the students only reporting a few minor access problems.  There was considerable variation in the cost of the streaming products with each vendor having a different pricing model.  One product was not purchased as the cost was just too prohibitive. There are no vendor standards on pricing; it is very much in flux, and could be compared to the early days of electronic journals when vendors had not yet decided how much to charge or did not know how much customers would be willing to pay.
   • S. Larin asked if we can stream DVD’s that we already own? J. Druery responded that we could only do this with the permission of the vendor.
   • S. Andrychuk mentioned that one faculty member she works with has the students watch the streamed version of media prior to class.   This means that class time is not used for watching dvds and that the students can come to class ready to discuss what they have seen.
   • M. Whitehead commented that the accessibility issues mentioned earlier need to be considered for multimedia course materials.
   • J. Hartwick stated that he tried to borrow a DVD twice through Interlibrary Loan. The first time he was able to borrow without a problem. The second time he was told that he would have to borrow through the Interfilm Service.  He asked if the library has a firm policy on requesting multimedia through interlibrary loan.  J. Druery replied that we would look into this issue and report back.  She also reminded everyone that the library has a budget to purchase multimedia and encouraged them to make a request.
   • J. Philipps asked if we buy DVD’s with non-performance rights.  A. Thomson replied that we usually do not. A. Chowdhury suggested a DVD without Public Performance Rights could be put on reserve.
   • J. Druery noted that the company, Films for the Humanities & Social Sciences, has been a leader in providing videostreaming for higher education. They offer different types of licences, including 1 and 3 year licenses, streaming plus purchase of dvd and permanent licences. They will soon be offering a pricing model for Canada that will be available through McIntyre Media.  
   • J. Druery reminded everyone that the library has purchased public performance rights for the NFB streaming video that is now available to everyone through the NFB website.   Catalogue records will soon be available for the 1200 streamed videos.  These will be loaded into QCAT.
   • J. Druery commented that the Library would like to hear from faculty about their experiences in the classroom using streamed videos or from their students who may be asked to view streamed videos outside the classroom.
   d) The Literature Review: An Expanding Horizons Workshop for Graduate Students  (M. C. Vandenburg)
   • M. C. Vandenburg reported on a workshop that was presented as part of the Expanding Horizons Series for graduate students.  The workshop, which was held in Speaker’s Corner, Stauffer Library, on September 22, was a panel discussion on the literature review, bringing together students and others from across the disciplines.  The success of this workshop makes it a good example of how the Library can facilitate the meeting of graduate students with faculty.
7. Open Access Week (J. Druery)
   • J. Druery reported that Queen’s is participating in International Open Access Week. There are seven events scheduled this week.  Everyone was encouraged to attend the remaining events, including two events tomorrow and two events on Friday. The keynote speaker is Prof. John Willinsky from Stanford University. J. Druery mentioned that earlier in the week a workshop had been presented on open access in Engineering and that she thought it would be beneficial to organize a similar seminar on the opportunities and challenges of open access in the humanities and social sciences.
8. Senate Library Committee 2009/10 Agenda (M. Whitehead)
   • M. Whitehead reported that the Advisory Subcommittee on Scholarly Communications will continue to meet and discuss issues related to the changing nature of scholarly communication and open access.  
   • A LibQUAL survey will run in February 2010.
   • MINES survey (Measuring the Impact of Networked Electronic Services) will measure the impact of networked electronic services to help understand how materials are used for research. Exact dates are not yet know but it will likely begin in early 2010.  
   • M. Whitehead asked for suggestions of things for the Senate Library Committee to address.
   • F. Lock asked about the University of Toronto’s new charges for using their libraries.  M. Whitehead clarified that users from other universities could still go into the libraries at U of T and use materials onsite without charge.  If you want to borrow materials on site, however, you will have to pay.   She remarked that the issue is being discussed at the Ontario Council of University Libraries.
   • J. Hartwick mentioned that he knows two people in anomalous categories - an adjunct and someone on contract - who are not eligible to use the library. He pointed out that they are integrated members of the Queen’s community, but have been advised that there status does not allow them to use the library.  M. Whitehead replied that we follow the collective agreement for adjunct faculty.   M. Whitehead will investigate further and report back.

M. Whitehead will look into the best time for the next Library Advisory Committee meeting but advised everyone to keep the tentative date of Tuesday, March 30, 2010.

M. Whitehead adjourned the meeting at 4:25pm.