Minutes, 12 May 1994
Present: Bowman. Braun, Cohn, Del Mastro, Lally, Moore, Pyatt
Absent: Hewett, Vozikis, Woo
Professor Moore of the Department of History, Chairman of the Library Services
Committee, called the Committee s sixth and last meeting of the of the Spring,
1994 semester to order at 11:00 A.M. The main item of business was the question
of whether the Committee should recommend that the College adopt an on-line
database service called InfoTrac, which Rod Welch,, director of IRM, had
described to the Committee at its meeting of May 3, 1994. After some
discussion, a consensus was reached that the Committee should not at this time
recommend purchase of the service. Disadvantages of the service included its
price ($16,000 per year), the fact that many of the publications available
through the service were of lesser interest, unavailability of graphics,
weakness in the search and indexing mechanisms, and the fact that the
publications provided by the service would become unavailable to the College if
it should decide to cancel it s subscription. Professor Moore agreed to send
letter to Rod Welch informing him of the Committee s decision and adjourned the
meeting at 12:10 P.M.
=============================================================================
Minutes, 3 May 1994
Present: Bowman, Braun, Cohn, Del Mastro, Lally, Moore, Pyatt,Vozikis
Absent: Hewett, Woo
Professor Moore of the Department of History, Chairman of the Library Services
Committee, called the Committee s fifth meeting of the of the Spring, 1994
semester to order at 11:00 A.M. The first and only item of business was the
presentation by Rod Welch, director of IRM, concerning a new on-line database
service called InfoTrac: Expanded Academic Index that the College of Charleston
was testing and that was being offered for adoption to the Citadel along with
the other members of Coastnet. The database, we were told, indexes 1500
periodicals, has abstracts for most of the recent articles, and has full text
for 400 periodicals. We were being offered the service for the price of $16,000
per year. Rod Welch asked the Committee to examine the service and to decide
whether to recommend its purchase to the College. The Committee voted to meet
again on May 12 to consider the question further.
Professor Moore adjourned the meeting at 12:10 P.M.
==============================================================================
Minutes, 31 March 1994
Present: Braun, Cohn, Del Mastro, Lally, Moore, Pyatt
Absent: Bowman, Hewett, Vozikis, Woo
Professor Moore of the Department of History, Chairman of the Library Services
Committee, called the Committee s fourth meeting of the of the Spring, 1994
semester to order at 2:15 P.M. The first item of business was the consideration
of the minutes of the meeting of 24 March, 1994, which the Committee voted to
accept as presented. The Committee then moved to the main item of business, the
consideration of the letter to General Poole and to Deans Metts and Reilly
thanking them for meeting with the Committee on January 13 and conveying to
them the reaction of the Committee to their presentation. The Committee voted
to approve a revised draft of the letter which Professor Cohn had prepared and
sent to the members of the Committee. Professor Moore announced that the
minutes of the Committee back to September 1992 are now on the VAX. The
Committee agreed to meet after the spring break to consider Antje Mays efforts
to devise a library allocation formula for the College. Professor Moore
adjourned the meeting at 2:45 P.M.
==============================================================================
Letter to General Poole Concerning Funding for the Daniel Library
The Library Services Committee
Thursday, March 31, 1994
MGEN R. Clifton Poole
Executive Vice President and Dean of the College
The Citadel
Charleston, SC 29409
Dear General Poole,
The members of the Library Services Committee want to express our
thanks to you and to Colonel Metts and Colonel Reilly for meeting with
us in January to discuss funding for the Daniel Library. Your promise to
resist further cuts in the Library's budget and the news of Ted Turner's
generous gift to the College were heartening to us. Unfortunately, certain
aspects of your presentation, and those of Deans Metts and Reilly, we
found somewhat troubling.
At the February 24 meeting of the Library Services Committee, the
Committee voted to endorse the concept of hiring an outside consultant
to analyze the adequacy of the Daniel Library. It is our understanding
that the Library staff has already begun preliminary efforts to find a
suitable person. The Committee feels that the College administration
should have the benefit of the best advice available, supported by as
much statistical data on levels of library funding by comparable
institutions as can be obtained, provided that the cost is reasonable. We
believe, however, that the recent investigation and report of the SACS
re-accreditation team provides more than enough additional evidence to
remove any reasonable doubt that a significant increase in funding for
the Daniel Library is needed immediately.
Moreover, it is the view of the Library Services Committee that the
matter of funding for the Daniel Library is one to be decided most
properly not on the basis of statistical analysis but rather on
philosophical grounds. While statistical measures such as "library
expenditures per student" have some relevance, it is the overall level of
support for our library that is most significant, in that it symbolizes the
Citadel's commitment to academics. The level of support for the library
is, primarily, a statement of what the College deems most important.
The Committee would therefore consider an understocked Daniel Library
a much greater embarrassment than overgrown lawns, barracks rooms
in need of paint, or threadbare carpets in faculty offices. Conversely, we
would regard a large and tastefully chosen library collection to be a
fitting source of institutional pride, like modern classroom facilities, up-
to-date computer technology, or a winning athletic team.
The Committee was, accordingly, distressed to learn from you (did we
understand you correctly?) that General Watts believes that the present
level of library funding is adequate, or at least that he needs to be
persuaded otherwise. We would think that the fact that our funding level
has fallen one-third below the minimum standard of the Association for
College and Research Libraries, that the size of our collection is 10%
below its minimum standard, that the growth rate of our collection has
dropped to 21% below its minimum standard, that our number of full
time professional librarians is 36% below its minimum standard, and that
our available library space is 26% below its minimum standard, would be
sufficiently persuasive that a change is necessary. The Committee
recognizes the seriousness of the Administration's responsibility to make
sound financial decisions and the difficulty of reconciling conflicting
demands upon limited resources. We nevertheless hope that you will
urge General Watts to consider the matter of increased library funding
as something that is a prerequisite to "academic excellence" at The
Citadel.
The members of the Committee understand that the statistics
concerning the College's funding of the Daniel Library understate the
actual level of support. At the January 13 meeting of the Committee,
Dean Metts noted that CDF has been providing funding to the Daniel
Library for the acquisition of technology and that IRM has been providing
computing support. But how large has CDF's funding for the purchase of
technology by the Library been and precisely what has been bought?
What is the precise nature of IRM's support and can a monetary figure
be given for it? In budgetary terms, how significant is IRM's support as a
percentage of total College support? Perhaps your office could help us
to clarify these questions.
Certainly, the Citadel's "off-budget" support for the Daniel Library
complicates comparison of our support for the Daniel Library with the
support provided by other institutions for their libraries. A proper
comparison of our level of library support with that of the University of
Charleston, for example, would require us to know the expenditure of the
University of Charleston for technology for its library. We would also
need to know whether it has been paying for the acquisition of
technology out of the approximately 5.5 percent of the total institutional
budget for educational and general expenditures that it has been
allocating for library support or whether it has been paying for it in some
other manner. Because of the recent growth rate of the University of
Charleston's library collection, the latter seems to us most likely. We
hope to obtain further clarification of this issue, but we continue to
believe that our Library support is inferior.
It is, however, not the total level of library funding that most distresses
the Committee, nor the Library's understaffing, nor the lack of space, but
rather the size of the collection and its rate of growth. It is the view of the
Committee, and its desire, that funding for materials acquisitions should
be as high as possible, in order to keep our collection up-to-date.
Publishers will not stop publishing while we computerize!
Some people may argue that we do not need to increase the size of our
collection or keep it up-to-date because we can always borrow the
materials that we need. The problem with this view is that, unfortunately,
"access" is at present a poor substitute for "ownership". It takes too long
to get materials. If what we want is available locally, we can usually get
the material within several days, which is acceptable; but otherwise, it
can take weeks, or even months if the material is hard to find. Such
lengthy delays are intolerable for a student with a deadline to write a
term paper. They are a serious handicap for the faculty. The members
of the Committee, like all users of the Daniel Library, marvel at the very
real advantages of a computerized library catalogue that we can browse
through at leisure in our offices or even our homes. But if the result of a
catalogue search is that the Library does not own the desired item, the
outcome for the user is the same as before -- frustration and delay. A
policy of systematic and sustained acquisition of high-quality library
materials can significantly lessen the likelihood of such an outcome, at
least for books, and should continue to be carried out, at least for the
immediate future. Ownership of books will, of course, always remain the
best way to express our appreciation for the ideas contained in them.
Technological advances will continue to transform libraries, perhaps, in
time, lessening the need for ownership of materials as electronic access
is improved. Compact disc technology appears extremely promising as a
means for the efficient storage of large amounts of material. For the
long term, the College needs to be prepared to adopt such technological
innovations as they become available; but a conservative approach
should be followed to avoid costly mistakes.
Finally, the members of the Library Services Committee wish to express
our deep sadness at the passing of Zelma Palestrant. We very much
admired the many improvements to the Library that have been carried
out in the last few years under her leadership. We particularly
appreciated her understanding of the need for the Library to seek the
cooperation and advice of the Faculty, particularly in the area of
acquisition policy. We hope that the next Director of the Library will be
someone who possesses her dedication, her understanding, and her
vision. In light of Zelma's important contributions to The Citadel, we
think that it would be most appropriate to rename the Rare Book Room
or some other part of the Daniel Library in her honor.
Sincerely,
Winfred B. Moore, Jr., Chair
Library Services Committee
Members of the Library Services Committee:
Professor D. Oliver Bowman
Professor R. John Braun
Professor Leslie S. Cohn
Professor Mark P. Del Mastro
Professor Stephanie M. Hewett
Professor Margaret M. Lally
Professor Sherman E. Pyatt
Professor George M. Vozikis
Professor Michael H.S. Woo
cc:
Professor David H. Reilly, Dean of Graduate Studies
Professor Isaac M. Metts, Dean of Undergraduate Studies
P.S. We apologize for the length of this letter but we wanted you to have
the benefit of all the thoughts expressed within the committee on the
subjects of library funding and acquisitions policy.
=============================================================================
Library Services Committee Meeting
24 March 1994
Present: Braun, Cohn, Del Mastro, Fatzer, Lally, Mays, Moore, Pyatt,
Vozikis
Absent: Bowman, Hewett, Woo
Professor Moore of the Department of History, Chairman of the Library
Services Committee, called the Committee's third meeting of the of the
Spring, 1994 semester to order at 11:05 A.M. The first item of business
was the consideration of the minutes of the meeting of 24 February,
1994. Professor Lally of the Department of English pointed out that
although Dr. Fatzer had stated that accreditation agencies do not require
adherence to ACRL standards, she had also pointed out that institutions
that aspire to excellence would necessarily want not merely to meet but
to exceed ACRL standards. Professor Del Mastro moved that the
minutes be amended by adding a sentence to the end of the first
paragraph making note of Dr. Fatzer's comment and that the Committee
accept the minutes as amended. Professor Lally seconded the motion
and the Committee voted unanimously to accept the minutes as
amended.
The next item of business was the consideration of the draft of a letter to
be sent to General Poole and to Deans Metts and Reilly thanking them
for meeting with the Committee on January 13 and conveying to them
the reaction of the Committee to their presentation. The members of the
Committee made several suggestions for changes in the wording of the
letter. Professor Cohn agreed to prepare a revised draft of the letter
incorporating the Committee's suggestions and to send a copy to the
members of the Committee prior to the next meeting which the
Committee tentatively set for March 31.
The final item of business was a report by Antje Mays of the Library staff
on her efforts to devise an allocation formula for the College. Her
recommendations are contained in a document on the Daniel Library's
budget which she distributed to the members of the Committee. They
are (1) that fund distribution should be greatly simplified; (2) that funding
for library materials should be adequate; (3) that departmental funds and
budget distribution should be reorganized; and (4) that the departmental
fund currently named "library" should be reorganized. Professor Pyatt
announced that he has accepted an invitation to be Acting Director of
the Daniel Library pending a search for a permanent Director. Professor
Moore adjourned the meeting at 12:40 P.M.
===============================================================================
Library Services Committee Meeting
24 February 1994
Present: Bowman, Braun, Cohn, Del Mastro, Fatzer, Hewett, Lally,
Moore, Pyatt,
Absent: Palestrant, Vozikis, Woo
Professor Moore of the Department of History, Chairman of the Library
Services Committee, called the Committee's second meeting of
the Spring, 1994 semester to order at 11:10 A.M. The first and major
item of business was a lengthy discussion of Library issues with one of
the members of the SACS Reaccreditation Team, Dr. Jill Fatzer of
Louisiana State University. Dr. Fatzer was interested in learning how the
Committee functions and the degree to which its views and desires are
taken into account by the Library and the College administration and
how well conflicts between the faculty and library staff are resolved. The
Committee expressed to her its concerns that annual funding has been
below ACRL standards. Dr. Fatzer explained, in response to a question
of Professor Moore, that regional accrediting agencies do not require
adherence to ACRL standards, but rather use judgmental criteria to
determine if institutions are supporting their libraries adequately. She
pointed out, however, that institutions that aspire to excellence would
necessarily want not merely to meet but to exceed ACRL standards.
After Dr. Fatzer's departure at 11:55 P.M., the Committee took up the
consideration of the minutes of previous meetings, voting to approve the
minutes of the meetings of May 4, 1993, Nov. 9, 1993, and Jan. 13,
1994. Professor Pyatt informed the Committee that the Library had
begun the search for an outside consultant to analyze the Library's
strengths and deficiencies, pointing out that the consultant would need to
begin work by March 15. Professor Moore suggested that the official
documents of the Committee be placed on the VAX. Professor Cohn of
the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Secretary of the
Library Services Committee, agreed to make the minutes of previous
meetings and the recent letters to Generals Meenaghan and Poole
available for this purpose. Professor Cohn also agreed to write a draft of
a letter to General Poole and Deans Metts and Reilly thanking them for
meeting with the Committee and explaining the Committee's reaction to
their presentation. Professor Braun moved that the Library Service
Committee officially endorse the concept of hiring an outside consultant
to analyze the adequacy of the Daniel Library. Professor Del Mastro
seconded the motion and the Committee passed it unanimously.
Professor Moore adjourned the meeting at 12:40 P.M.
=====================================================================
Library Services Committee Meeting
13 January 1994
Present: Allen, Bowman, Braun, Cohn, Del Mastro, Hewett, Lally, Metts, Moore,
Poole, Pyatt, Reilly, Vozikis
Absent: Palestrant, Woo
Professor Moore called the first meeting of the Library Services Committee of
the Spring 1994 semester to to order at 11:00 A.M. Because of the visit of
Deans Poole, Reilly, and Metts and Professor Allen, the Committee agreed to
postpone the consideration of the minutes of the previous meeting and devote
the entire meeting to the principal item of business, the response of the Deans
to the letter of the Library Services Committee expressing alarm at what the
Committee views as inadequate funding of the Daniel Library.
General Poole began his presentation by pointing out that there are in fact two
issues of importance concerning the library - whether floor space is too
limited and whether the growth rate of the collection is too low. General Poole
said that he thinks that these are indeed problems, but that he needs more
data, such as expenditures per student and comparisons with other schools, to
convince General Watts that the library collection is inadequate. He requested
that the Committee do a complete study, pointing out that what is needed is not
a comparison with national averages, but rather a comparative analysis with the
libraries of similar schools together with a self-analysis of our own
deficiencies. General Poole further informed the Committee that the College was
about to receive a large, unrestricted donation (as we now know, from Ted
Turner) and thus that the opportunity is here to have resources for change; but
that the College needs guidelines for use of the money and therefore that it is
particularly important for the Committee to marshall arguments for an increase
in library funding.
Col. Reilly pointed out that there is a national trend to decrease support for
libraries. He indicated that he thinks that we need to consider the book and
serial collections separately. The problem with serials is their increased
cost, particularly for science periodicals, together with low use. Col. Reilly
remarked that he feels that there is a need for a mini-strategic plan for the
library. He also noted that there could be a problem with accreditation
agencies if the library collection is too small.
Col. Metts said that before the introduction of new technology the Citadel
could not stand alone and therefore had to make a decision to change its
emphasis from ownership to access. He pointed out that IRM is assisting the
library and that CDF is providing support for the acquisition of technology. He
also pointed out the need to find a proper balance between access and
ownership, as the library cannot afford to be completely dependent on
electronic access. He remarked that a proper evaluation of the College's
support for the library must take into account not merely the acquisition
budget but also spending for computerization.
Professor Allen noted that a student survey has revealed satisfaction with the
service provided by the library staff but great dissatisfaction with the
physical plant of the library - that it is too small and too noisy, and that
there is a need for more individual study areas. He pointed out that the
present library is too small for the existing collection, not merely for future
needs, and asked about the possibility of an addition to the building. He also
suggested that the College hire an outside consultant to evaluate the
collection.
General Poole replied that is unrealistic to expect to get a new library in the
next decade, but that the present library could be expanded by moving the
Museum and Archives. General Poole and Dean Metts both noted that library
overcrowding occurs only during peak hours, 7:30 - 10:00 P.M. General Poole
promised to resist further erosion of the library's budget.
Professor Moore adjourned the meeting at 12:20 P.M.
================================================================================
Letter to Poole, Dec. 8, 1993
8 December 1993
BGEN R. Clifton Poole
Vice-President for Academic Affairs and Dean of the
College
The Citadel
171 Moultrie Street
Charleston, SC 29409
Dear General Poole:
Thanks very much for agreeing to meet with the members of the Library Services
Committee to discuss the Self-Study's assessment of the problems confronting
the Daniel Library. The meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, January 13 at
11:00 in the Rare Book Room of the Daniel Library. We would, of course, be
delighted to have Dean Metts and Dean Reilly attend as well.
Again, we look forward to meeting with you early next semester. If you have any
questions in the meantime, do not hesitate, of course, to get touch.
Sincerely yours,
Winfred B. Moore, Jr., Chair
Library Services Committee
WBM:enb
Members of Library Services Committee
Professor George M. Vozikis
Professor Stephanie M. Hewett
Professor D. Oliver Bowman
Professor Margaret M. Lally
Professor Mark P. Del Mastro
Professor R. John Braun
Professor Michael H.S. Woo
Professor Leslie S. Cohn
Professor Zelma G. Palestrant
cc: Professor David H. Reilly,
Dean of Graduate
Studies
Professor Isaac M. Metts,
Dean of
Undergraduate Studies
================================================================================
Letter to Poole, Dec. 3, 1993
3 December 1993
BGEN R. Clifton Poole
Vice-President for Academic Affairs and Dean of the
College
The Citadel
Charleston, SC
Dear General Poole,
The members of the Library Services Committee are disturbed by the persistent
underfunding of the Daniel Library. Over at least the past six years, the
percentage of the college's total educational and general expenditures devoted
to the library has fallen more than one-third below the six percent standard
set by the Association for College and Research Libraries (please see the
enclosed chart). Last spring, we sent Vice- President Meenaghan a letter
(please see the copy enclosed) outlining the severity of the problem. We
received no response.
Since then, of course, the Self-Study's Committee on Educational Support
Services has documented the damaging effects of the substandard appropriations
much more thoroughly. A copy of its draft report, dated August 14, 1993, is
also enclosed for convenient reference.
In our meeting before the Thanksgiving break, the director of the Daniel
Library briefed the members of the Library Services Committee on this year's
budget. We were informed that the monies allocated for purchasing books and
serials had been reduced to $265,440 ($240,440 in state funds plus $25,000 from
the CDF). The figure for academic year 1992-93 was $290,440 ($265,440 in state
funds plus $25,000 from the CDF). This reduction of $25,000 represents an 8.6
percent cut in the funding for acquisitions at the very moment when the primary
recommendation of the relevant portion of the Self-Study is that the The
Citadel move quickly to achieve "more appropriate levels of professional
staffing and a greater rate of acquisitions" for the library. Given that
recommendation plus the other information contained in the enclosures, the
members of the committee found it difficult to understand the logic behind a
cut--especially one of this magnitude--at the present time. In our judgement,
it will accelerate the Daniel Library's descent into second-rate status.
We understand that the issues involved are complex, and we believe that the
best way to address them effectively is for members of the administration,
faculty, and library staff to work together. With that thought in mind, the
members of the Library Services Committee would like to invite you to meet with
us early next semester to discuss both the short- and long-term difficulties
confronting the library as they are outlined in the self-study (we are also
inviting Professor David Allen, who was the principal author of that section of
the document). At such a meeting, we could, we hope, lay a foundation for
eventually bringing the Daniel Library into compliance with the standards set
forth by the Association of College and Research Libraries.
At first glance, Thursday, January 13 looks as though it might be an opportune
day for such a meeting. If not, we would, of course, be happy to try to
schedule it for whatever time might be most convenient for you. We look forward
to hearing from you and to the possibility of meeting with you early next
semester.
Sincerely yours,
Winfred B. Moore, Jr., Chair
Library Services Committee
Members of Library Services Committee
Professor George M. Vozikis
Professor Stephanie M. Hewett
Professor D. Oliver Bowman
Professor Margaret M. Lally
Professor Mark P. Del Mastro
Professor R. John Braun
Professor Michael H.S. Woo
Professor Leslie S. Cohn
Professor Zelma G. Palestrant
Enclosures
cc: Professor David G. Allen
================================================================================
Discussion Topics for Jan. 13, 1994 Meeting:
SOME TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AT LIBRARY
SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING
13 JANUARY 1994
FIVE AREAS IDENTIFIED BY SELF-STUDY IN WHICH
DANIEL LIBRARY
FALLS BELOW MINIMUM STANDARDS OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGE AND RESEARCH
LIBRARIES
Annual Funding: 35% below minimum standard (an average of @ 3.85% of The
Citadel's total Educational and General Expenditures has been appropriated to
the Daniel Library over the last six years instead of the 6% called for under
ACRL guidelines--please see graph of E and G expenditures. Supplemental funding
from the CDF and IRM has lessened the damaging effect of substandard
allocations but not enough to prevent the library from also dropping below ACRL
standards in the four subsequent categories) Size of Collection: 10.16% below
minimum standard (second worst among state-supported colleges in South
Carolina. College of Charleston, at 44.93% above minimum standard, ranks second
best) Annual Growth of Collection: 21.05% below minimum standard (College of
Charleston's collection is growing at an annual rate of 42.11% above the
minimum standard) Number of Full-Time Professional Librarians: 36% below
minimum standard (7 currently employed v. 11 needed according to ACRL criteria)
Available Space: 26% below minimum standard. (48,202 sq ft currently available
v. 65,165 sq ft needed according to ACRL criteria) Resultant overcrowding makes
it difficult for Library to house necessary resources. Also creates poor
environment for study.
SELF-STUDY'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DANIEL
LIBRARY
"Most pressingly, the college ought to establish a time- table to move closer
into compliance with Association of College and Research Libraries standards;
this is particularly critical in regard to the standard relating to the
percentage of E&G budgeting, inasmuch as more money would enable more
appropriate levels of professional staffing and a greater rate of
acquisitions." "In order to meet long-term needs, the College must heed the
call of numerous studies and establish firm plans for a major addition to the
Library."
================================================================================
Library Services Committee Meeting
9 November 1993
Present: Bowman, Braun, Cohn, Del Mastro, Hewett, Lally, Moore, Palestrant
Absent: Vozikis, Woo
The temporary chairman of the Library Services Committee, Professor Hewett of
the Department of Education, called the first meeting of the Committee of the
fall, 1993, semester to order at 11:10 A.M. The Committee elected Professor
Moore of the Department of History to be its new chairman and reelected
Professor Cohn of the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science to the
position of committee secretary. Professor Palestrant informed the committee
that the Library has suffered a $55,000 cut for 1993-94 from the 1992-93
acquisitions budget of $271,00. The Committee decided that a copy of last
yearÆs letter to General Meenaghan should be sent to General Poole and voted to
invite General Poole to meet with the Committee to discuss library funding.
Professor Moore agreed to write a new letter to General Poole conveying to him
the CommitteeÆs invitation. The Commitee agreed to meet again during the first
week of December. Professor Moore adjourned the meeting at 11:50 A.M.