Library Committee Minutes - 31/05/00

Present:	Ms F.A. Abercromby Professor M.E. Adler Mr C.P. Briggs Professor S.J. Brown Dr D. Carroll Professor P. Grant Professor G.E Gretton Mr I.R. Guild Professor. P Hayes Dr M.A. Mackay Dr J. McKay Mr G. McAuley Dr J. Martin Mr H. Perfect Dr A. Short Dr M. Turnbull Professor J. Usher Dr S. van Heyningen The Deputy Librarian The Librarian (Secretary)
In Attendance:	Ms M. Allison Ms M Dozier

55. Apologies: Vice-Principal G.R. Field (Convener) (Vice Convener, Hugh Perfect took the Chair), Miss S. Carnie, Mr B. Gilmore, Mr T.C. Hopkins (for whom G McCauley substituted) Dr S. Nenadic, Mr J. Woodhead

• 45/33: Intra Library Loans. The Librarian advised the Committee that during his time undertaking the review of Helsinki University Library, he noted that it has a more generous approach to Intra Library Loans than EUL has. In discussions with others he discovered that the situation seemed to be the same in the Netherlands and Sweden. As a result, he has begun to rethink the Intra Library Loans issue and has been discussing this with colleagues. He asked that the Committee agree to continue with the present arrangements for the time being and that a paper will be submitted for the October meeting. He hoped this paper would meet some of the concerns expressed by the Faculties (particularly Veterinary Medicine).

• 46 The Definite/Indefinite article in catalogue searches. George Gretton had raised this matter at the previous meeting. The Deputy Librarian advised that a simple fix to this issue is not as simple as first thought. Voyager works more like an internet search engine than a catalogue and thus there will need to be an internet-based solution to the issue. Sheila Cannell hoped that an appropriate fix would be found. It was agreed that there will be a report back to the next meeting after the upgrade
  The Deputy Librarian also confirmed that the Library was still planning for the September downtime to enable the upgrade to take place. However, the software has not yet been beta tested and until this happens, it is impossible to absolutely guarantee the September downtime. She did confirm that OPAC and circulation activities should continue during any downtime although there may be some changes to processes. Colin Briggs suggested that publicity about the downtime should be circulated by e-mail as early as possible.

• 48a. Financial Situation. The Librarian apologised to George Gretton for not having included the ACTUAL budget figures in the most recent expenditure table and promised that he would do so from now on.

• Theft of Hardware and Equipment at KB: Sheila Cannell reported that although the theft, which occurred overnight on May 11th 2000, was serious and caused great concern, the Library system was back up and operating by 11am the following day. EUCS in particular should be thanked for their sterling efforts. The Library’s Disaster Recovery Plan was also a factor in the lack of major disruption as it enabled the hardware supplier to immediately courier the required hardware to the University from England. The Library and the University are working on the lessons to be learned from this incident. Sheila Cannell reported that an article in the Daily Record had reported in extreme terms on weaknesses in the Library’s systems security.

• Daily Record article on a Hacker Alert: The Library is currently investigating the use of a Pin number when seeking information from the Patron Record. This is not a straightforward operation and a number of options are being considered. Sheila Cannell has canvassed information from University Libraries in the UK and most, she discovered, did use a PIN for extra security although, strangely, none of the Scottish Universities did so. She confirmed that the Library was taking the situation seriously and would report back on any action taken.

• Grant Awards: For the first time the Library has been successful in bids to JISC although both the awards are only partial. The ANGEL project, concerned with authentication, would be led by LSE with Edinfo as the 2nd main partner. The SALT project had fallen but it contained a section on dealing with plagiarism and JISC had asked the Library to be a testbed for further investigations on this issue. The Librarian was pleased to have secured even limited success in JISC bids and hoped it would pave the way for further more substantial successes in the future.

• Electronic Journals: CURL has been presenting a strong, united front in discussions with ELSEVIER and Academic Press on the supply of e-journals. The Librarian was pleased to report that this has resulted in some concessions for CURL Libraries from ELSEVIER. This is an encouraging sign although it still does not represent a good deal for the institutions involved. Negotiations are thus progressing cautiously. The Librarian also advised the Committee of the efforts of Peter Grant in negotiating deals with IEEE. A number of solutions have been put to JISC from IEEE and discussions continue. JISC has formally registered its thanks to the Librarian and Peter Grant for progressing the negotiations to this stage. The Librarian commented that both these negotiations signalled a shift in power away from the corporate suppliers and indicated what could be achieved by presenting a united front in this way.

• Newspaper Article: Parochial Library is brought to book. This refers to an alleged instance of an Aberdeen University student being turned away told by a member of EUL staff that we ‘did not like to let students from other universities use our facilities’. The Librarian has not commented publicly because he very much doubts that such a quote was made. In any event, Library staff are aware of a national agreement, which allows users from other universities to have access to materials during the host Libraries vacation periods. This is not a new arrangement and is practised throughout the country. The Librarian recognises the need to do everything possible to deflect criticism and has thus drafted a note to Library staff detailing a standard approach about how the Library responds to people. This is currently being amended before being issued to staff.

• Expenditure to 30th April 2000: The Librarian commented that the percentage spend is the same as at the same point last year (72.5%) Professor Adler asked for an explanation for the drop in ILL expenditure. The Librarian confirmed that ILL spend varies enormously and one of the reasons for this is the British Library changing its charging mechanism.

• Unrestricted Funds: This paper is for information only

• Annual Library Budget (2000/2001): The Librarian expressed pleasure at the early allocation of the budget for the next financial year and was pleased to announce that the total allocation represents 2.84% increase on last year (this is higher than the 2.5% average across the University and partly due to the ASC top-slicing which has seen the Library do slightly better than previously. The paper attached identified a provisional division of the budget.
  Professor Grant expressed concern about the allocation to Science and Engineering, as it would inevitably result in the cancellation of journals and databases. He felt that there would be a negative impact in attracting staff and students if the Library is not up to scratch.
  Professor Gretton also expressed concern at a 7.4% reduction for the Law & Europa Library but the Librarian pointed out that this was because of different accounting procedures between the annual budget allocation and the monthly budget reports.
  The Committee agreed to the budget, subject to a diversion of £10,000 from the Strategic Fund to the Science and Engineering allocation.

• Faculty Allocation Model: The revised proposals for the FAM which have been placed before the Committee take account of the work previously carried out by the Deputy Librarian and also the discussions and concerns expressed at previous meetings. The proposal is for the FAM for 2000/2001 to be a ’shadow’ with the full-scale model being used from 2001/2002
  The Librarian emphasised the need to undertake such a process in order to provide transparency, respond to trends elsewhere in the University and indicate why money is being spent as it is and justifying that spend. The factors used correspond to those used by the University in making its strategic decisions but at the same time allow for the flexibility to deal with the special circumstances of the Library. The revised model includes an increase in the % allocated to small libraries as discussed at previous meetings and does not now include an inflation factor given that the University allocation has no such allowance. The 10% previously allocated here has been transferred to the Library usage factor.
  Dr Short expressed very great concern about the model. The sum of column A and Column B represents all costs, which might be attributable to each Faculty yet the Faculty has no control over column B. He asked why the formula is applied over anything other than the materials budget.
  Professor Adler was profoundly unhappy with the exercise. The standards were intrinsically arbitrary and he was at a loss as to figure out how the weightings have been applied e.g. why 70% allocated for the FTE factor and not 80%?
  Professor Usher reminded the Committee that the Library has to deal with real costs and take account of very serious resource issues. It is vital in a time of diminishing resource that relative need can be assessed.
  Dr John Martin asked the Committee to take a look at the only other option – the status quo. It does not allow for a proper assessment of relative needs. The Committee might disagree with the variables used in the model but they gave a far more accurate picture of need and projected costs than by using the status quo method. He urged the Committee not to give up on the modelling process in its entirety as the Library may come off even worse using the existing methods of allocation. He also stressed the desirability of a simple model.
  The Librarian stressed that this was the first step in giving Faculties helpful information, which would enable them to discuss library spending and to make hard decisions. There is a desire to look at the most cost-effective means of providing services and this may mean less use of staff and more of electronic media. This proposal is a way of ensuring that the users of the service (the Faculties) are actively involved in the decisions about how to spend your allocation. This was the first time that such information would enable them to do that.
  He also questioned the assertion that the figures are arbitrary. They were not totally scientific but they did relate to the realities of university life and were calculated on a basis that had common grounds with similar exercises elsewhere.
  Dr Turnbull agreed the need to be transparent for the University and reminded the Committee that central financial information is also being driven on a model basis. Indeed it would probably assist the Librarian to fight his corner if the Library model compared to that used by the University.
  The Convener suggested that there should be an agreement ‘in principal’ to the concept of a model. He stressed the need to be realistic because, whatever the model may look like, there will always be winners and losers.
  Dr Mackay asked that, in the next iteration, there is a list of principals and priorities to be taken into account. For example, it is impossible to come to any sort of reasonable prognosis if issues such as ‘excellence’ are ignored.
  Professor Adler asked that there be a clear distinction between what is appropriately a University Library function (e.g. staffing) and those of a Faculty. There is also a need to be explicit about special factors.
  Professor Usher expressed concern about the need to know what the University requires of the Library in terms of transparency. Any system adopted must be based on negotiating the changes that face us on a daily basis.
  The Convener summed up: the Committee was agreed ‘in principal’ to the need for a simple formula model based on student numbers, usage and costs of processing as a starting point for allocation. This will be modified by a series of special factors, to be discussed and agreed by the Committee but further work is required. The Librarian should still be on course for full implementation in 2001/2002.