LAB | Minutes: 11-27-2000

LAB has determined that legally this would not be viable. E-mail is a university resource and technically is to be used for university-related purposes only. A separate list might call attention to the libraries' stretching of this policy. LAB is proposing instead that a standard code word (such as [chat]) be used in the subject line of any non-libraries (and non-university) related messages sent to the Norlin list. This way, those who do not want to read or manually delete these messages can configure Outlook to delete any messages with this coded heading. After some discussion and a straw poll, it appears that most staff/faculty are ambivalent on this matter (many do not feel that such messages are too numerous or intrusive) but none are vehemently opposed to using a subject line code. Two alternatives to this were also suggested. First, anyone who regularly sends non-libraries related messages to the list could create a separate list of staff/faculty members who want to receive this type of message. This would involve a little extra work initially on the part of the message senders. Second, LSA might be able to create a separate list serv for staff/faculty use. LAB will discuss this again and come to some conclusion at the next regular meeting.

Cross Training:

The cross training proposal is almost finished. It includes definitions and a form for employees wishing to be cross-trained. Sharon Gause will send this document out via e-mail this week, and would like to hear feedback from staff/faculty. After suggestions are reviewed and the document perhaps further revised, it will be sent to Cabinet. There is a difference between cross training and job sharing: cross training involves learning skills outside of one's regular job description (and would involve a separate evaluation), while job sharing involves two persons sharing one position. The LAB document is intended to formalize and standardize library policies, as well as encourage anyone interested in cross training.

FAQ:

LAB receives questions on a regular basis about issues such as the staff lounge, trash pick-up, and signs. Answers to these and other frequently posed questions will be compiled into a FAQ sheet to be posted on the LAB website.

Thank you to everyone who took care of the front porch gardening this past year.

Scott Seaman Comments

Off-site storage:

The new storage facility at Fitzsimons will be opening Jan. 16. A manager, Michael Kelty, has been hired. One LTII and two LTIs have yet to be hired. These positions (which are permanent positions) are currently posted and will be handled through the Health Sciences Center. Some temps may also be hired. We hope to start moving books from Louisville to Fitzsimons in late January. While the move will start slowly, within six months we expect to be moving 20,000 books each month. These books will be shelved by size and by the order they arrive at the facility. All four participating institutions' materials will be mixed together. A second, "smart," barcode will be added to each item - these barcodes indicate the exact location of the item. Tours will be offered of the facility, which Scott encourages everyone to take advantage of. During the move from Louisville there will be some delay in retrieving requested items, but in theory this should be no more than a few days.

Photocopy Contract:

Our current contract expires June 30. Bid specifications for the new contract include all new machines (whether we have a new vendor or not), microform reader printers supplied by the vendor (as opposed to being owned by the Libraries), and a focus on "load and fill" issues. The microform reader printers will be a new digital version that prints to an HP laser printer on regular paper. We are trying to keep the cost per copy at ten cents.

Faculty recruitment is under way, in various stages of the process, for many vacant positions.

The task force on the student budget has been meeting and plans to interview student supervisors. They are looking for ways in which the Libraries can cut back on student hours, as we consistently exceed our budget in this area. This year, as in the past, over-extension of student hours will be funded by faculty vacancies. This will not be an option next year, so cutbacks will have to be made somehow.

Susan Anthes Comments

The committee for cataloging guidelines for PASCAL (aka off-site storage) is meeting.

Pay for printing:

The Libraries are waiting for the university to make a decision on this before implementing anything. The Libraries' policy will be consistent with whatever the university decides.

NetLibrary questions (comments from Jim Williams interspersed):

There are many questions surrounding the netLibrary records in Chinook, including questions about access to public patrons, ILL, and Prospector. Many of these questions have no good answers yet, but all are issues that need to be looked at. A policy on duplicates (paper version vs. electronic version) needs to be decided upon. This question will be brought to the BFA to help determine what will be most useful to library users. The rights to e-versions are determined by the publishers, not by netLibrary, so it is unlikely they will be available through ILL. These are considered permanent purchases. NetLibrary has agreed to provide continued access to these records (perhaps on CD Rom) if they go out of business. There was a brief discussion of call numbers in the netLibrary records, which, while they may confuse some patrons, are useful for browsing and for considering the collection as a whole.

Janet Swan Hill Comments

Bill Garrison, Marcie D'Avis and John Culshaw have been working on procedures for representing Music's new digitized materials in the catalog. It has become evident that between Marc format, CORC requirements, III capabilities, the current version of LC's draft guidelines doesn't serve our purposes particularly well. We need to make our decisions by December. A presentation for the Libraries about challenges in cataloging digital materials is being planned, perhaps through the Faculty Staff Development Committee, so that other departments can understand these issues as they consider digitizing projects.

TS Planning and Reorganization. Cabinet has recently been given copies of the proposal, but they have not had a chance to meet and discuss it yet. Hopefully the proposal will soon be mounted on the Libraries web page for internal documents. The proposal has organizational charts as had been distributed to TS earlier, but now only lists functions under the different department headings so that people will not think that the boxes represent people or positions. The proposal continues to only have three departments: Cataloging, Acquisitions and Preservation. Cabinet is seeking a date for a retreat to discuss not only the TS Reorganization, but also the effects this may have on other divisions. It is unlikely that a date will be found until sometime early next year, hopefully in January.

Suggestions and comments submitted to Janet about the TS Reorganization have been read and appreciated. If people do not see their suggestions reflected in the proposal it could be for a variety of reasons including that some suggestions were mutually exclusive, are for the next stages of the planning process or outside the scope of this proposal. For example, one suggestion was that there might be a problem having only three department heads reporting to the division head. While not in the proposal, this was considered a good suggestion that may be addressed by having Unit Head meetings with the Division head.

Meri Willet was asked to report on progress of BCR project. She said that BCR has completed about half of the Dewey's in the basement and is now in the 800's. Almost 1/3 of all shelf list cards are found to represent withdrawn or missing materials.

Dean Jim Williams Comments

CU's new president, Elizabeth Hoffman,

has been traveling throughout Colorado. She has donated $100,000 to the Foundation for the Combined Campaign.

Program Review:

Recommendations have been received from the campus program review panel. It was evident that the program review process was not adequate for the Libraries, and the panel has requested another year of planning. A blue ribbon panel will be formed (made up of faculty and students, no one from the Libraries) to identify major issues. The Libraries will then create a strategic seven-year plan to address these issues. This process is to be completed by December 2001. Dean Williams hopes to hire a consultant to help put together and implement this strategic plan.

The Science Library

will not be getting a separate building for at least ten years. The Libraries will, however, be getting the space that the Law Library currently occupies after the new law school is built in 2003. No decisions have been made yet about exactly how this space will be used, but it will be connected with a retrofit, redesign, and renovation of Norlin (affectionately known as the Norlin Renaissance). There is some money available for a professional program plan and a committee will be formed in the spring semester to work on this plan. The Libraries will need to raise 30% of the funding for this project, for which the estimated cost is at least 30 million. One idea for fundraising is to consider re-naming the east side of the Norlin building after a major donor.

There are no further changes or additions planned for Prospector.

OCI (Organizational Cultural Inventory) Results:

After receiving our preliminary reports, we are waiting for Mark Augustin to get back to us. This issue will go to one of the existing libraries committees (Faculty Staff Development, LSA, LAB, etc.) for further consideration.

Submitted by Laura Wright on behalf of the LAB

This page last modified 22 January 2001. Send comments to: liblab@colorado.edu.

Top of page.