TO: Mr. R. Heath
Secretary of Senate
FROM:
Thomas W. Calvert
S-87-77
FOR INFORMATION
.
?
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
VICE-PRESIDENT, RESEARCH AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
.
SUBJECT:
ANNUAL REPORT OF
?
DATE:
November 4, 1987
SENATE LIBRARY COMMITTEE
I attach the Annual Report of the Senate Library Committee. Will you
please take this Report to Senate?
It will be noted that the major concern of the Senate Library Committee
during the period covered by this Report was a Review of the 1984
Recommendations of the President's Advisory Committee on the University
Library. There have been major changes in the Library since 1984 - these
include a complete reorganization and implementation of the Library
Automation project. Thus, a review seemed appropriate at this time.
In the present climate of University funding, and indeed, even in a more
generous climate than we might reasonably expect, there will be real difficulties
in maintaining the kind and quality of Library which many of us considered
reasonable in the past. To-day few universities can aspire to a comprehensive
archival primary collection. Instead, we must maintain a primary collection
which is current and matched to our programs at the same time as providing
flexible access to an essentially unlimited secondary collection. Simon Fraser
has been a leader in this and our goal for the future is to provide faculty and
students with the means to quickly access information no matter where it is
located.
Attachment
cc: T.C. Dobb
Senate Library Committee
A
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE SENATE LIBRARY COMMITTEE?
FOR THE YEAR
September, 1986 to September, 1987
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preamble ..................................................page 1
Summary of the November 6/86 and March 17/87 meetings ....... page 1
Review of the 1984 Recommendations of the
President's Advisory Committee on the
University Library ........................................ page 2
Membership of the Presidents Advisory Committee
on the University Library, Appendix A .....................page 7
Selected Library Statistics, Appendix B ....................page 8
Annual Report of the Library Penalties
Appeal
Committee ...........................................page 9
0
PREAMBLE
.
This report covers the meetings of the Committee on November
6, 1986 and March 17, June 11, July 23 and October 7, 1987. The
most important business for the Committee during this period was a
Review of the Report of the 1984 President's Advisory Committee on
the University Library (PACUL). The PACUL Report is conveniently
summarized by the 16 recommendations and the Senate Library
Committee focused its discussion on these recommendations.
It should be recognized that the period since 1984 has been
one of major change for the Library. There has been a major
reorganization and a library automation project has been planned
and implemented and now is almost complete. In the light of these
changes, and the continuing financial restraint, it seemed
appropriate to initiate this review.
Summary of the November 6/86 and March 17/87 meetings:
Copyright
•
?
?
The Library is contributing in-house data as part of a study
initiated by the Canadian Library Association and the Canadian
Association of Research Libraries in anticipation of new copyright
legislation. This new legislation may see the end of "fair use"
and the establishment of one or more collectives empowered to
collect "license to copy" fees on behalf of publishers and
"creators". A study undertaken for the publishers has suggested
that such fees should be five cents a page based on estimated
copying volume---approximately three cents more than is usual in
countries where collective type agencies are in operation.
The University has felt obliged to reaffirm its compliance
with the existing legislation, and there was considerable
discussion and unresolved concern about the effect this would have
on the teaching process.
Loans Policy, Space,and Budget
The Loans Policy, Space and the Library Budget were
considered at some length, but these discussions are subsumed in
the Review of the PACUL Report.
0
-2-
Review of the 1984 Recommendations of the President's Advisory
Committee on the University Library
The meetings on June 11/87, July 23/87, and October 7/87,
were devoted to this Review. It is convenient to present the
findings under the following general headings.
Primary and Secondary Collections
RECOMMENDATION 1: The primary goal of the SFU library should
be to provide maximum information access to
its users as suggested in Option II.
(...this later approach makes the Library an
information exchange agency and not just a
repository of books....)
RECOMMENDATION 2: Collection Policy should continue to
emphasize enhanced access to the secondary
collection.
RECOMMENDATION 3: That Library Management review and reduce
the annual acquisition of serials.
RECOMMENDATION 4: That the conversion of serials backfiles to
microform should be. continued and
accelerated where feasible.
The Committee generally concurred with the Review's
conclusion that the levels of collections were appropriately
related to faculty needs, but acknowledged that such a judgement
assumes an understanding that SFU cannot aspire to the "archival"
status of UBC which acquires
90,000
volumes per year to our
30,000.
The Committee emphasized that continuing faculty input should take
place so that the adequacy of the Primary collection could be
assured. There was consensus with the methods the Library uses to
determine the degree of support provided for individual
disciplines, with the issue of new serial titles being the most
problematic in this respect.
Negative faculty reaction to the 1984/85 cut of
$60,000
in
serials subscriptions, prompted the Committee to conclude that no
further reductions in annual subscriptions were practical.
The continuing space squeeze and the long term need for
preservation supports the program of converting serial backfiles to
microform. In acknowledging the necessity of this process, the
Committee was anxious that faculty concerns be considered.
...3 ?
0
-.3-.
.
??
The Review's opinion that enhancing access to the Secondary
Collection is not merely this Library's response to short
resources, but rather a necessary activity for any academic
institution that wishes to maintain a respectable level of access
to the variant forms of scholarly communication is reaffirmed. It
is noted that the
$60,000
cut in our serials budget has been far
exceeded at several major Canadian universities. Notwithstanding
its support of current emphasis on the Secondary Collection, the
Committee is interested in improving its understanding of the
relationship between the two Collections, and in particular, the
nature of the effect of the Secondary on the Primary. The
Committee will examine this issue at one of its Fall '87 meetings.
!±
fls
Policy
RECOMMENDATION 5: That the Senate Library
loan period with a view
shorter.
The Review's opinion that a shorter loan
increase the availability of books is not gene
is concluded that this is a complex issue, but
and that discussion can be delayed.
Committee review the
of making it
period would
rally accepted. It
not an urgent one,
The Loans Policy has recently been rewritten and revised in a
non-substantive manner to take account of the facilities
available in the new automated circulation system.
Budgets, Financial Flexibility, Staffing Levels, and "Rot Spots"
RECOMMENDATION 6: No major cuts in the Library budget should
be considered.
RECOMMENDATION 7: The Librarian should review the present
complement of professional staff.
RECOMMENDATION 8: The Vice-President, Academic should review
budget policies as they pertain to the
Library with a view of providing increased
managerial flexibility.
There have been no major cuts in the Library budget, but the
general inability to keep pace with Primary Collection costs,
attrition in the professional ranks, and increased workloads
resulting from demands for new services and increases to old, have
been having their steady, telling effect on the Library's ability
to perform at an acceptable level. The Committee feels that it
needs more information from Library Management in order to assess
such serious issues adequately; accordingly, the Library will
.
provide some background papers for discussion at one or more of the
Fall '87 meetings.
...4
-4-
The Materials Budget for 1987/88 contains $20,000 for new
serials subscriptions in addition to continuing the previous
year's accession rate.
Steady Space Library Plan
RECOMMENDATION 9: That the Steady Space Library concept be
formally recognized and that appropriate
administrative and fiscal procedures be
developed in order to facilitate
implementation.
RECOMMENDATION 10: a. Study space outside of Library should be
a university capital planning priority.
b.
Study space in the Library should be made
more comfortable where necessary and
appropriate.
c.
Library Management should establish
firm rules for occupation of study space
(to be for study while using Library
materials) and these rules should be
enforced.
The objective of the Steady Space Plan is to postpone for as
long as possible the building of additional Library space on this
campus; such postponement is to be accomplished by the application
of a variety of acceptable means such as were listed in the
initiating document of 1982, including, but not confined, to the
following:
a)
the use of microforms and other compact forms of
information 'packaging' as alternatives to letterpress
b)
resource sharing (e.g. Interlibrary Loans: UBC,
OCLC, et al.)
c)
movement of low-use research material to high-density
shelving on the first and seventh floors
d)
the use of electronic files as a means of preservation
and compacted storage of data.
After considerable discussion about the serious overall space
problem
faced
by the University, the Committee reaffirmed its
support of the objectives of the Steady Space Plan, and recommended
that planning take place at the University level to assure its
implementation. The Committee will participate in updating the
details of the Plan in the light of developments since it was first
drafted. ?
...5
-5-
.
??
The Committee recommends that the Library space needs be
recognized by the University Administration and that the need for
the Library to have use of the entire Library building as soon as
feasible be accepted.
The Committee encouraged the Library to renew its efforts to
curtail the reserving of carrels.
Library Organization and the Consultative Process
RECOMMENDATION 11: That the organizational structure of the
Library be reviewed by the Librarian and
that the recommendations stated in this
report be considered in the review process.
RECOMMENDATION 12: The President should review the composition
and chairmanship of the Senate Library
Committee with a view to enhancing its
standing and enforce deliberations.
RECOMMENDATION 13: In the future, draft documents concerning
major policy decisions should be circulated
to senior library staff in a timely way so
that appropriate consultation and feedback
• ?
can occur.
In the Fall of 1984, the Library began a lengthy series of
internal considerations aimed at designing and implementing a more
effective and efficient organizational structure. As a result, the
three Collections Divisions (Social Sciences, Sciences and
Humanities) were replaced by a Reference Division and a Collections
Management Office. Subsequently, the Systems Office was joined to
the Monographs Division to form a single division, a clerical pool
was established, and Interlibrary Loans was administratively joined
to the Reference Division. The Library plans to centralize current
5th and 6th floor reference functions on the 3rd floor when
renovation funds are available. Funds are not yet available for
this move; the Committee will be informed and involved when active
planning begins.
These changes have resulted in marked improvement in the
consultative process. The Committee recognized that the changes
result in improved use of limited resources but lamented the loss
of the often personalized service to faculty characteristic of the
earlier, more generously staffed structure.
Committee Relations
0
?
RECOMMENDATION 14: That the Librarian become a standing member
of the Deans Council
. . . 6
-6-
RECOMMENDATION 15: That all faculties establish Library User
Committees.
The Committee agreed that having the Vice President to
whom the Library reports as Chairman of the Committee was very
beneficial. However, there is a need for the Committee to be more
activist and to be seen to be more activist. For example, while it
is the case that Library policies are reviewed by the Committee,
there is some perception in the community that this is not the
case. The Committee will actively pursue a solution to the
problem. A key element would be the establishment of Faculty
Library Advisory Committees in each Faculty chaired .by the Faculty
representative on the Senate Library Committee. The Committee
believes that such committees, preferably made up of departmental
Library Representatives, form a useful means of assuring relevant
input from faculty.
The University Librarian is pleased to have been seated for
many months at the regular meetings of the VPs and Deans.
Library Automation
RECOMMENDATION 16: That a state of the art library automation
system be acquired and fully implemented by
September 1986.
The University has funded the acquisition of a Geac library
automation system. It was upgraded. in 1987, thus making possible
the implementation of the Loans subsystem and the provision of
remote access to the On-line Catalogue and circulation information.
While implementation of the full system is not yet complete there
is no question but that the conversion from several sub-systems to
a fully integrated one is a success.
.
0
-7-
APPENDIX A
MEMBERSHIP OF THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE?
ON THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
August, 1984
Chairman: George Suart,
Vice-President, Administration
Members: ?
Bob Brown,
Dean, Faculty of Arts
Charles Hamilton,
Professor, Department of History
4
.
0
-8-
APPENDIX B
** ** * * *
9-4
0
4i
Id
'p11 ?
v-lW ?
0>
?
0
rEi
DI
0
1-i
4-I >i
H
4J'p
(U
U)
o -I
4J
'OW
v-14i
v-I U)
I-i
10
OU)
U-14
140
UI
'p
.0lU
41 41 U
$-I ?
•.-I
4-1 0.0
4-4:i
14(00
4-1140
4i ?
4.4
rl -rI $4
'p
11) u) .0
4JØ.J
H PlO
U)
:io
U'ti
14(U
.
El
[II
U]
C)
b-I
U)
I-I
El
El
U):
El
LI
U)
(I)
'p
1.0
?
tO
N I
en
0 0 N 0
w co
en
0
U)
•
- N
• -
in
N
r4 ?
' ?
r4
U)
N H
N
?
H
C
1.01
coi
10
en
?
1.0
U) i-I
H
en en
?
N 10
0% ?
ItT
?
1.0
I-Il ?
U)
1.01 N O
10 co
?
N ?
en
U) ?
H 0 r4
H
en
N 1.0 ?
N N
-.i o
?
en ?
In
In I
?
- ?
• ?
-
(N N (N
r-, ?
N
O Hr- H
?
(N ?
N
Hi
l
w
?
CO
en
U)
101 (fl
?
10 ?
. ?
(N ?
co ?
to
IA H 0s
OHH
co
?
°.'
I(N 1.0
rn rn
?
H ?
ffl
CII
N
?
1.0
?
i-I
?
(N ?
N
r4I
?
co
1.0
l I
?
1.0
?
'0 ?
•- ?
In
00l
co I
H
N
?
0
en
co
.-
H
?
. ?
N ?
-
en
I - ?
- ?
• ?
-
I
N en
en
0 0
?
en ?
Oil 0 N H
N
en
.-IJ
in ?
co
Co
en
I
I en
.-4
1.0
en
N
0 N
N
?
en
H
?
N N
N ?
0
en
U)
co
In
an
?
2
c
co
I 10 N
en ?
Jf ?
Ct ?
N ?
en
?
r-II
oI
?
co
1.0 v-I U)
N
WI (N N N
?
-I ?
ON
NI 1.0
N N
en
IOu1O ?
II
?
I ?
I
NI ?
- ?
•
?
-
NI N (N
en
0
HI
o
?
'iI 0 N H
tO
eni
0
1.0
0
Ni
O. ?
Ch
IA
I 0. i-I
U)
en
?
v-
.1 ?
I ?
I
(sil ?
• ?
-
HI
NI CO
en
N
?
in
IN
H
H
0.
i-I
en
?
N
?
Ii
-9 -
?
ANNUAL REPORT
LIBRARY PENALTIES APPEAL COMMITTEE?
FOR THE YEAR
September, 1986 to September, 1987
The Committee is pleased to report that it did not meet
during the period because Loans Division staff were able to deal
successfully with all but one problematic instance. The Committee
0
?
is prepared to meet when there are sufficient agenda items to
warrant the effort.
n
