Initiative Review Group XII Final Report June 30, 2001

Develop operating budget procedures supportive of the collection development program.

Report submitted April 30, 2001 by Initiative Review Group. Members of IRG 12: Ann Waligorski, leader, Donna Daniels, Jo Grippe, Elizabeth McKee.

1. Briefly describe the background, present setting/structure which applies to the initiative.

Over the past 10 years the materials budget, fund 04092 which is a part of the overall library budget, has increased from $1.5 million to $2.5 million, an average of $100,000 each year . However, with inflation and the monopolistic trends developing in the publishing world, the ever-rising cost of serials, and the new, sophisticated, but highly expensive electronic-access formats, budget growth has not been sufficient to support the research and teaching needs of faculty and students. As mandated salary raises increase, a smaller per cent of the overall library budget will be allocated for materials purchases. There have been three serials cancellation projects. Book orders, generally submitted directly by the faculty to the Acquisitions Department, have not necessarily reflected the offered graduate courses nor reflected the ratio of subject matter to number of books published in the field as set out in the Bowker Annual. In addition, only rarely have reference librarians (excluding Business and Agriculture) been authorized to purchase materials with academic departmental allocations; they do not have budgetary authority over funds.

Funds for materials, in addition to those from the annual materials budget, are sporadically available. These funds include arrearage and Act 255 monies from the state, gifts, and grants. Without these additional sources the library would not have been able to meet inflation (see appendices). It is only through serials cancellations that the materials budget has been kept in balance even though the library is still adding serials without dropping a cost-equivalent journal. Funds for non-serial formats are particularly dependent on two sources: 1. the leftovers from the materials budget once serials payments have been estimated and 2. any funds from additional, perhaps one-time, allocations. At present, the Bumpers College of Agriculture allocates $65,000 annually for library purchases, and the King Fahd Middle East Studies Program has and intends to continue transferring $50,000 each year for the purchase on materials on the Middle East and Islamic world. The Walton Foundation granted University Libraries $750,000 to expand electronic database service, including funding for database subscriptions, staff, equipment, and supplies. The Canadian Consulate in Dallas has awarded University Libraries six matching grants of $2,500 each for the purchase of materials on Canadian studies.

Allocations reflect academic departments rather than programs. This has had a negative impact on interdisciplinary and area studies. In addition, the university has established new graduate programs without providing materials funding required to meet research and accreditation needs.

2. Develop an inclusive list (in ranked order of importance) of issues that must be addressed/considered for that initiative, consulting non-group personnel as appropriate.

If the goals are to achieve ARL status and support the recommendations of the 2010 Commission (which include raising enrollment to 22,000 students by 2010), University Libraries must initially benchmark the library budget against those academic libraries we have selected as future peers and determine how a third increase in student population will impact the library. This will involve assessing, developing, and expanding our collections. Therefore, top priority is given to those issues which directly impact the quantity and quality of library resources. Some of those issues are currently being addressed: the search for a Head of Collection Management, realigning the materials budget along broad subject areas, etc. We have tried to address macro-issues rather than the day-to-day micro-issues. If the budget is stagnant, the strategic goal of ARL status is unattainable, many issues will evaporate since repercussions on the university community will be less (which is definitely not a plus), and morale could deteriorate. Of course, it could also deteriorate if we're stressed out implementing a substantially higher budget!

Ordering and accounting issues include discussions of:

establishment of comprehensive, coherent, and consistent policies and procedures for how book/serial/electronic resource go through the entire process from faculty request to payment of invoice

timetable and training to allow subject specialists to work closely with faculty and collection development officer to explain new ordering procedures and the basis for the new allocations (probably the most controversial of all the issues for the faculty)

creation of a comprehensive and plug-in formula that reflects the research statements and goals of the chancellor and the faculty

separation of materials budget into categories for large-ticket items as well as area allocations

identification of programs that are book-dependent, electronic-dependent

review of use of materials budget for filling in identified major gaps in the collection, including primary source material

consideration of purchase of OCLC tapes for various microform collections that are not in the INNOPAC

re-evaluation of consortial agreements and commitments

re-evaluation and establishment of new approval plans

timetable for ending the fiscal year when expenses/encumbrances must be established

evaluation of expanding ordering for multidisciplinary subject areas

vendor negotiations for electronic resources, including licensing agreements

cooperative purchasing within the university

Funding issues include discussion of:

grant writer

full-time development officer

development of a library component in every grant (work with Research and Sponsored Programs)

charging fees that can go to the materials budget (ILL, replacements, etc.)

requirement of real evaluation/assessment of library resources for all new programs and/or revisions, particularly at the graduate level

additional sources of funding and publicity, perhaps a Library Bookstore similar to the one at Smathers Library University of Florida, to replace the book sale

library fee

coordination of all university lobbyists to work together to encourage the legislature to rescind the use tax

commitment of distance education to materials funds for access to electronic resources

feasibility of entering state-wide contract with vendors for books and serials

Technical issues include discussion of :

impact of NetLibrary and other electronic resources on ILL and the Acquisitions Department for printed materials

impact of growing materials budget on all non-library areas of the budget (impact on Initiative 17): staffing including students and hourly employees, space, shelving, paper, trucks, computers, etc.

cost of constant computer upgrades to handle access

outsourcing of most/all books for return as shelf ready material

what constitutes the new materials budget under a major focus of collection development, including such areas as digitization, preservation, etc.

cross-training

weeding: effect on replacements, storage, and preservation costs

InfoLinks expandability

copy services and fees for users (i.e. the paper problem)

3. Briefly describe how the initiative fits into the long-term goals and/or fulfills the mission of the University Libraries.

The resources devoted to library materials in all formats and means of accessibility will determine the long-range viability of University Libraries attaining ARL status. After all, many students and faculty are quite capable of using what the library has to offer without the assistance of librarians but they do not have timely and adequate access to the necessary resources.

4. indicate other of the initiatives that should be considered in connection to, coordinated with, or that may overlap the initiative.

Initiative 12 is closely related to and overlaps Initiative 6 (Collection Development), Initiative 10 (Fund Raising), Initiative 11 (Data Collection), and Initiative 17 (Budget Process). While the materials budget and all other initiatives interact at various levels (consortial agreements, full text resources, and digitization, in particular), selected members of Initiatives 6, 10, 11, 12, and 17 should be involved in the initial evaluation of the current situation and discussion of issues that Initiative 12 demands.

5. note any initiatives or considerations that are lacking from those delineated thus far which may be essential to the planning and redefining process.

We need to enhance library publicity and work with the University lobbyists to present our needs accurately and forcefully to the legislature and public and private interests if our goals are to be achieved. How are the concerns of University Libraries expressed in the Offices for Planned Giving and Research and Development?

6. recommend names of individuals who are essential (i.e. add to, delete from, or leave intact the list of the IRG) to the Initiative Planning Team that works on developing and implementing the initiative in the subsequent phase.

The collection management librarian, library accountant, heads of Acquisitions, Serials, Reference, fund raisers, and leaders of the various subject specialist groups should be involved in implementing the initial phase. As we are not familiar with the next phase nor will it be clear for some time if an increase in the materials budget will be forthcoming, we would defer making recommendations beyond the second year of the five year plan.

7. recommend, based on best educated guess, the amount of time that will be required to develop effectively the plan for implementing the initiative.

1-3 years to establish the basic plan and formula, educate subject specialists and faculty, and write and test policies and procedures. But there must be a continuing commitment since costs for resources are only going to rise as is the amount of material available.

8. recommend the priority level to be assigned to this initiative in the three-to-five year planning phase: first (1) = mission-critical; places this initiative among the top few to be engaged in as soon as possible; may also be required to be completed before other initiatives may be worked on; second (2) = a very important initiative, deserves attention as soon as possible; third (3) = important but not essential to be developed in the first year of planning; fourth (4) = important but can be deferred till later in the planning process; has less impact on overall revision of services.

1 = mission critical; long-term commitment and a top priority