WICHITA STATE UNIVERSITY

FACULTY SENATE LIBRARY COMMITTEE

Summary

Tuesday, November 27, 2007, Deans’ Conference Room, Ablah Library

Present: Kathy Downes, Annette LeZotte, Cathy Moore-Jansen, Peer Moore-Jansen, Nan Myers, Tim Quigley, Pal Rao

Absent: Johnnie Thompson, Prakash Ramanan, Silvia Carruthers

The meeting was called to order by Peer Moore-Jansen at 3:30 PM.  Tim Quigley moved to accept the minutes of October 24, 2007.

1.      General comments.

a.       Ikram Ahmed asked for clarification of the charge of the committee.  Peer Moore-Jansen explained that there is a document outlining the charge of the committee and suggested that all review this document before the next meeting.

b.      Peer Moore-Jansen expressed some thoughts on the committee’s direction mentioning Provost Miller did not look favorably on resolutions dealing with university budgetary issues coming from the Senate library Committee or the Faculty Senate.  He also stated that he believed Provost Miller wished to deal directly with the Deans when making budgetary decisions.  Peer Moore-Jansen indicated that he had met with Dean Rao and Kathy Downes to discuss directions for the committee. These can be discussed further during a review of the committee’s charge.

c.       Kathy Downes commented that the one of Provost Miller’s expectations of the committee members is that they will take information regarding the library back to their colleges and bring library issues or needs from their colleges back to the committee.

d.      Annette LeZotte suggested creating a policy that library support for their research is written into a grant.

e.       Dean Rao explained that the committee is important to him for counseling of the needs of the colleges.

f.       Ikram Ahmed asked to review the meeting time for the committee in the spring.  Dean Rao suggested that they have a set meeting day and time that is the same each month.  He further suggested that this set time be consistent from semester to semester to assist members in planning their schedules.  Peer Moore-Jansen requested that all committee members submit their availability for the spring to him and Annette LeZotte before the next meeting.

2.      Dean’s Report.

a.       Dean Rao reported that a budget enhancement request was submitted to Academic Affairs last spring to support the current materials budget and materials enhancements.   The Senate supported this request; however, it never went any further.  In October, Provost Miller notified the Deans that one-time money was available. The Libraries requested $448,024 to support library collections and services.  Of this, $150,000 has been granted with an indication that additional funds may be available in February.  This means that no journal cuts will be made in FY2008. 

b.      Dean Rao shared that the report in response to Provost Miller’s memo requesting information about current library funding issues and acquisitions operations was recently submitted.  To date there has not been a response from the Provost.

c.       Dean Rao shared summaries of areas needing improvement for compliance with ACRL standards for libraries in higher education.  These areas were identified last year during a library-wide review chaired by Nan Myers and Cathy Moore-Jansen.  Peer Moore-Jansen requests that the committee review these documents for the next meeting.  Dean Rao explained that these areas of improvement will be incorporated in the Libraries’ goals.

d.      Dean Rao will meet with David McDonald, Associate Provost for Research,   regarding the research priorities/expectations of the university on Wednesday, November 28, 2007.

3.       Web of Science Report – Cathy Moore-Jansen

a.       Cathy shared a handout for a proposal of a campus-wide purchase of Web of Science.  This is an expensive service that the Libraries will need additional financial support to acquire.  Cathy Moore-Jansen discussed potentially partnering with colleges and ORA.

b.      It was determined that support for this product must come from the faculty.  Dean Rao suggested that the Deans of the various colleges will need to hear from their faculty that they want and need this product. 

c.       Annette LeZotte suggested that WOS could be used as tool in lieu of external review.

4.      Empower Update – Nan Myers

a.       Nan gave a brief explanation of Empower, explaining that Empower is an, “information literacy tutorial that introduces students to the process of researching information in an academic environment.”  The link to Empower can be found on the library’s website main page or at: http://library.wichita.edu/empower/ .

b.      A trial of this tutorial will be incorporated in the curriculum of English 101 and 102.  Peer Moore-Jansen asked Nan to present the success of Empower to the committee next spring when data is available.

The meeting was adjourned.