Wednesday, May 20, 1998

O’Neill Room, Faculty Club, UC Berkeley

1. Introductory Remarks.

Carol Christ, Chair of the Committee, convened the meeting at 10:25 a.m. After committee members introduced themselves, the Chair led a review and discussion of the Committee’s charge. There was extensive discussion of the implications of new forms of scholarly publishing for both libraries and faculty, with a particular emphasis on promotion and tenure issues, and the role of this committee and other organized bodies in addressing these questions. The Committee also took note of the importance of the evaluation functions included in the charge. No changes to the current draft charge were suggested.

2. Review of the final report of the Library Planning and Action Initiative Advisory Task Force (Lucier/Kennel).

 

3. Report on progress to date in implementing Task Force recommendations (Lucier)

Kennel introduced the topic by summarizing some key characteristics of a recent conference on educational policy sponsored by the Hewlett Foundation and including the senior higher education leadership in the U.S. and Europe. One theme of the conference was the combined influence of new instructional technologies and new competitive forces in reshaping and restructuring the university. A second theme was the inability of conventional higher education governance to deal with the rapid changes engendered by these forces. Kennel introduced to that conference the idea that libraries are affected by all these forces, and he now encourages SLASIAC to accept the daunting task of leading and shaping the changes required of the UC library system.

Lucier used a series of PowerPoint slides (<link>) to review the conceptual foundations and key recommendations of the Library Planning and Action Initiative and to summarize progress to date in implementing LPAI recommendations, including the planned availability of the CDL Web site for campus review in November, 1998, and its public rollout in January, 1999.

Discussion focused on the multiple, diverse and complex pricing and business models currently prevalent and likely to persist in the digital publishing industries, and some collaborative responses to these challenges such as the Association of Research Libraries/Association of American Universities SPARC initiative. The topic of archiving of digital content, and the possible benefit of interinstitutional collaboration in archiving, was also discussed.

King was asked to summarize the comments of the University Committee on Library on the final report of the LPAI Advisory Task Force (ATF). UCOL expressed strong concern about the effect on libraries of the President’s Budget Initiative. Decentralized decision-making about library funding undermines UC’s past achievements in creating a single coordinated library system. Central protection of the highly successful "one University, one library" model is essential, and some amount of central funding is necessary to create incentives for truly collaborative library development. UCOL also expressed its concerns about the lack of a clear process for implementing the ATF’s seven action strategies and the role of faculty individually and in Senate groups in the ongoing library planning process. UCOL members have agreed to engage their campus colleagues in discussions on faculty promotion and tenure issues (King feels strongly that solutions must originate from campus CAPs and the faculty review process) and about campus resource allocation issues. UCOL feels that faculty representation on SLASIAC must be increased and broadened, and recommends a model of faculty representation that is based on modes of inquiry rather than upon disciplines as conventionally understood.

4. Discussion of priorities for focused attention by the Systemwide Committee in 1998-99.
5. Next meeting

In introducing the afternoon discussion of Committee priorities for 1998-99, Christ suggested that the group would meet three times per year, i.e., quarterly except summer, that each meeting would focus on a single major topic (other smaller issues might be dealt with, as appropriate), and that the meetings would rotate among campus locations.

After extensive discussion, the committee agreed that for 1998-99:

• The fall meeting will focus on strategies to create a sustainable operating model for print collections, including a) funding, b) resource sharing and c) central vs. distributed responsibilities. The Committee suggested a substantial list of data reports, analyses, and background studies that it would find useful for this discussion. Staff will incorporate these suggestions into a brief proposal and guide for the fall meeting, and distribute to committee members for review and comment in early summer.
• The winter meeting will focus on models of scholarly communication, including identification and analysis of possible alternative forms of publishing and development of strategies to encourage faculty experimentation and evaluate results. A UC Press representative will be invited to join the committee for this discussion.
• The spring meeting will focus on external collaboration, with special emphasis on the CDL. An annual report on CDL progress will provide part of the foundation for this discussion.

The committee also agreed that funding/business model issues and the CDL would be continuing threads that would be woven into the thematic discussion at each meeting.

Possible locations for meetings in 1998-99 include UCOP, Irvine, Davis, and San Diego. It was agreed that the fall meeting would be held at UCOP, and the winter meeting at UCSD SIO; the location of the spring meeting will be determined later.

A mailing list will be established for the Committee by the end of June. Also, a new Systemwide Library Planning Web site is scheduled to be available by the end of June. This site will host information about the Committee and its work, as well as other information relevant to planning and development for the UC Libraries, and can be used by the Committee to promote communication with the UC community.