S.92-17
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
TO: ?
Senate ?
FROM: ?
G. Mauser
S. Wade
SUBJECT: Notice of Motion
?
DATE: ?
January 15, 1992
In light of the Report of the University Library Review Committee presented at
Senate on January 6, 1992, the following notice of motion is presented:
"the Senate of Simon Fraser University believes that the funding
level for Simon Fraser University Library acquisitions should be
increased to approach the goal recommended in Challenge 2001
- The President's Strategic Plan and in the Report of the University
Library Review Committee"
The Librar y
Report, recently tabled in the Senate, brought to light some significant
shortcomings in the SFU Library. Since an adequate library is central to the academic health
of any university, we have decided to place the following motion before Senate
The Senate of Simon Fraser University believes that the funding level for the
Simon Fraser University Library acquisitions should be increased to approach the goal
recommended in Challenge 2001 - The President's Strategic Plan and in the Report of
the University Library Review Committee, to whit, that Library acquisitions funding
on a per student basis be increased at a rate twice that of enrollment growth over the
next five years.
As the Library Report made dear, and as many members of the campus community know
from personal experience, the SFU Library's resources are less than adequate. (See Table I in
the Library Report.) The continued growth in the student population (as spelled out in
Challenge
2001)1
means that this situation, if not corrected, will only get worse. The same
document, endorsed by Senate, provided a way out of this impasse, and it is this
recommendation which inspired this proposal. Challenge 2001 also noted
2
that without
proper governmental support the university's plans for growth served to be placed in some peril.
By implication, it can be extrapolated that without an adequate level of funding for the
library that the viability of continuing the access program is open to question.
That the SFU Library can no longer adequately serve neither the students nor the
faculty of our institution is attested to by the Library Report which cited very high inter-
library loansin Table
3•3
Certainly, some of these loans are understandable especially in light
•
?
of the specialized nature of some of our graduate and faculty research needs. However, nearly a
2:1 ratio indicates that UBC is providing more than a few obscure volumes. This imbalance
suggests that SFU is starting to be a "free rider" and to rely upon UBC to provide core research
material for undergraduates in addition to graduate students and many faculty. The question is,
how much of the ordinary research material should be expected to be found at SFU? It is
simply unacceptable to expect UBC to subsidize SFU to such a high degree. This is particularly
so, as our enrollment is expected to grow rapidly over the next ten years. By the year 2001, our
undergraduate population may surpass 20,000.
In light of inflation, student population growth, growth in course offerings, the
demands placed upon our collection by Distance Education Projects,
5
and the need to upgrade
the Geac computer system, dearly something of the nature of what we propose is required if we
are even to maintain our library's current unsatisfactory state. The SRI Library must find ways
to deal with all of these factors. Since, only in the areas of course proliferation and distance
education do we have any chance of exerting some control over the demands placed upon the
library, a strong mandate, such as the one we are proposing, is necessary to merely keep pace
with the increasing pressures that will continue and may even increase over the next decade.
While the sentiments embodied in the Challenge 2001 document and expressed in the
Provincially funded Access Program, are laudable, they do tend to be rather short on specifics.
1
Saywell, William G. Challenge 2001, The President's Strategic Plan, February 1, 1991, p.6.
2
1,id p.15.
3
Report of the University Library Review Committee.
pp.
11-12. See also the reference to the
•
?
less than adequate primary collection,.(Challenge 2001, p. 13.)
4
Challenge 2001, p. 6.
5 me
recommendations of the Library Review Committee notwithstanding (p.13).
/
Should SITU continue its growth strategy (and rather compelling arguments can be made for such
a strategy), the University community must be prepared, in the words of Sir Winston Churchill,
to give us the tools, so that we might finish the job.
In the past few years more funding has been accorded the SFU Library, but as Figure 1
in the Library Report shows, library funding at SF1.1 is continuing to decline of as a percentage
of the university budget - from 6.51 in 1985/6 (compared with the national average of 6.73) to
6.45 in 1989/90 (compared with 63 nationally). This seems to indicate that the problem in
absolute terms is getting worse not better.
The picture on the spending per capita is somewhat better. (See Figure 2 in the Library
Report.) After declining precipitously for a few years, there appears to have been an increase
in the last year -- however the library spending per student is still way below the national
average. This however fails to take into account the large gap in spending per student from
1986/7 through 1988/89. This gap in our spending per student has contributed to a situation in
which students accepted by the university during these years (especially 1987/88) were
seriously underfunded, and in effect their library needs have been subsidized by the students
who entered SF1.1 before and after them.. In effect, our deficiency in current (new) resources per
student is worse than the spending figures indicate, since resources deficits are carried over from
one year to the next, and are applied against next year's acquisitions budget. (Books which are
needed but not bought one year are either never bought or are bought the next year; in effect
diverting resources from some other demand that year).
In closing, we would like to urge that Senate approve our motion in order to encourage
the administration to give the library the funds needed to adequately finish the job which
Senate, in endorsing the growth plan in Challenge 2001 and in enacting new course proposals, is
asking of it.
Respectfully submitted,
Senators Gary Mauser and Shawn Wade
1992 February 13
0
6
FIGURE 1
Library Expenditure as Percent of University Expenditure
?
(SF0 and Average of Canadian University Libraries)
7.00-
6.90
6.80
6.70
6.60
6.30
6.20
6.10
6.00
1985/86 ?
1986/87
1987/88 ?
1988/89 ?
1989/90
1990/91
SFU ?
Average
Source: See Appendix D
FIGURE 2
Library Expenditure Per Student
?
(SFU and Average of Canadian University Libraries)
62o-
600-
580
560
54o-
520
500-
480-
460-
1985186 ?
1986/87 ?
1987/88 ?
1988/89 ?
1989/90
SFU ?
Average
.e.
L'J
Source: See Appendix D
'I
Li
3
of adequacy. However, some insights can be gleaned through comparisons with other
Canadian institutions. Detailed data collected by the Canadian Association of Research.
Libraries (CARL) are provided in Appendix D. From these data a ranking according to
several commonly used ratios was constructed and the results are shown in the following
table (Table 1).
Table 1
Ranking of Canadian University Libraries?
(1989/90)
Library as %
?
Library S
?
Students per
?
Volumes per
of Univ. budget
?
per Student
?
Library staff
?
Student
Toronto
8.45%
Toronto
826
Toronto
60
N.Bruns.
306
I
Regina
8370/0
McMaster
823
Dalhousie
63
UVic
255
UVic
8.30%
McGill
810
UBC
65
UBC
241
McMaster
8.2517o
UBC
746
McGill
67
Sask.
229
Carleton
7.66%
UVic
721
UVic
70
McMaster
221
Queen's
7.65%
Dalhousie
697
McMaster
70
Regina
210
W.Ontaxio
7.12%
Concordia
685
Concordia
72
Guelph
199
UBC
7.1217o
Montreal
684
Alberta
75
Toronto
188
j
N.Bruns.
6.92%
W.Ontano
678
Memorial
75
Memorial
185
Memorial
629%
Memorial
673
W.Ontario
76
Alberta
184
Waterloo
6.88%
Alberta
664
Montreal
81
Dalhousie
176
I
Sask.
6.88%
Sask.
663
Sask.
81
Calgary
173
Montreal
6.8001b
Regina
662
N.Bruns.
82
W.Ontario
169
Alberta
6.61%
Waterloo
600
Calgary
84
Queen's
162
SFU
6.45%
N.Bruns.
591
SFU
85
McGill
154
I
Calgary
6.40%
Guelph
588
Queen's
85
Windsor
147
Guelph
6.28%
Carleton
577
Waterloo
86
Carleton
129
Windsor
5.94%
Queen's
572
Guelph
87
SFU
124
I
Concordia
5.76%
Calgary
549
Regina
87
Waterloo
120
Dalhousie
5.73%
SFU
546
Carleton
88
Concordia
120
Manitoba
5.63010
Lava!
526
Ottawa
102
Manitoba
115
I
Ottawa
532%
Manitoba
483
Manitoba
102
Ottawa
111
Lava!
5.45%
Quebec
437
Lava!
103
Montreal
111
Quebec
5.28%
Sherbrooke
422
Quebec
120
Sherbrooke
96
York
4.99%
Ottawa
420
Windsor
121
York
95
I
Sherbrooke
4.40010
Windsor
398
York
153
Lava!
91
McGill
4.33%
York
320
Sherbrooke
176
Quebec
46
IAverage
630%
605
90
158
.T
he SFU Library does not do well in these comparisons. It is below average in all
. ?
four categories, and well below in two of them: library expenditure per student and
volumes per student. This is troubling because there are some scale economies in the
provision of library services. Some minimum collection is necessary to be credible, but the
.
Table 3
SFU
Inter-Library Borrowing and Lending
?
(1990/91)
?
BC
?
Other
?
Other
?
Net* ?
BC ?
Canada
?
US ?
Other ?
Total
Borrowed ?
5027 ?
183 ?
3142 ?
1255 ?
70 ?
9677
Lent ?
2766 ?
1787 ?
5116 ?
543 ?
31 ?
10243
J
(*BC Net
includes
BC post secondary
institutions)
LI
17^
&
