UC San Diego Summary

From LAUCWiki
Revision as of 14:23, 6 February 2012 by Phoebe (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

UC San Diego Summary

Budget/Overview Over the last two years, the UCSD Libraries have taken about $6 million in cuts (~4.8 in services/operations, ~1.2 in collections), of which about $3 million, or 10%, are a permanent reduction. Per campus request, the Libraries are submitting budget scenarios for a 10, 15, or 20% cut for the coming year.

There is a trend for more tenured faculty to do instruction. Joint programs with other universities are increasing as well as new programs and enrollments on campus. The role of the university is perceived to be changing and becoming more vocational.

Beginning in November 09, a broad based Strategic Planning Working Group (SPWG) was charged to develop a process for strategic planning, coordinate that process, and prepare a draft strategic plan for library administration and library management group review. The SPWG held meetings gathering input from staff of individual library departments as well as with other library groups, such as LAUC-SD. The Group is also meeting with external groups, such as the deans, faculty, and student government associations. The Group will analyze and synthesize this input so as to present a draft strategic plan at the end of March with a final draft due the end of May.

Campus decisions about reductions to the various divisions' support budgets have been made. Reductions are to be taken over the next three years and are not assessed evenly across divisions, ranging of 7% to 17%. Decisions about the budgets of the colleges will be made next, followed by decisions about "central service" budgets, including that of the UCSD Libraries. Since library staff know the budget reduction scenarios, waiting the campus decision about the Libraries? three year budget is suspenseful.

ILL consolidation from multiple units into one unit will complete by September.

Our IT department has also instituted some cost reduction strategies: moving some servers to the San Diego Supercomputer Center, lengthening computer replacement cycles by one year, and reorganized its services and staff so as to take advantage of services provided by campus computing staff.

With the final approval of the LAUC Bylaws, locally we have set up a committee to review and update our local bylaws to be in compliance with the state bylaws and to make other changes as we find appropriate.

To continue the work begun last year, we reconstituted and recharged our ?Finding Community Website? committee, created in response to a need to provide potential candidates information about San Diego. The website provides information about the various communities of San Diego, some of it from official websites, but a good portion from library staff.

In the fall we inaugurated two ongoing librarian recognition events, one initiated by LAUC-SD, the other by Library Administration.

In an effort to recognize professional achievement, Library Administration is now hosting a reception to honor Librarian achieving Distinguish Librarian status during the past review cycle.

To recognize service to the Libraries, LAUC-SD established the Librarian Service Recognition Program. Librarians celebrating a five-year increment service anniversary are now honored web 2.0 tutorial with a reception, a certificate of service, and posting of their name in the library newsletter (noting years of service) and on our local website. This is modeled after the similar campus annual staff recognition ceremony sponsored by UCSD administration.

Reference Reference requests are dropping with the exception of chat reference. Texting reference should be pursued.

In response to staffing and budget shortfalls the following have or are planned to occur. The Science & Engineering Library service desk (circulation/reserves) was consolidated with the main Geisel Library service desk.

Info Providers There is an expectation that scholarly publishing will increase.

Personnel There is an Academic Affairs Division freeze on all recruitments. All vacancies are now strictly reviewed by library administration and only those with a strongly demonstrated critical need are considered for recruitment. If approved by Library Administration, a request for an internal-to-the-campus recruitment needs approval from the Vice Chancellor?s office. Outside-the-campus recruitments would also need VC approval, but we have yet to ask for permission (leaving positions unfilled to meet our budget cuts). Over the past two years and forecasting through this June, the Libraries have/will hold vacant or eliminate 42 positions of which 11 are librarian positions.

Need to eliminate a ceiling by decoupling step 6 from Distinguished status. The following should be given more weight in reviews: Embedded librarians, Liaison librarians, Instruction, Informal teaching experiences (e.g. consultations), Collaborating with faculty. UC librarians should be able to move up in rank without taking on additional responsibility.

Reward creativity and innovation. Reward ?soft skills,? such as collaboration, communication and project management (we think that a successful project manager has to excel at ?soft skills.? Reward initiative, process and effort, not only accomplishments.

Technology There is an expectation that data curation will increase for which librarians need more expertise.

Cooperative collection and technical services among the campuses will require a universal technology with a current interface. There should also be a true federated search of all formats across the system.

The library should get out of the way by not putting up barriers that delay access.

Document scanning continues in a decentralized mode.

Collections On the collections side, the Libraries cancelled 750 print serial subscriptions and reduced the binding budget.

A one-copy library would require one budget to operate from with funding from the top down. But with the development of digitization, the one-copy model will enable new efficiency. UCLA and Berkeley could be used as the physical site for print holdings of the one-copy collection. Coordinated weeding and collection would be required. If no e-version available, core print would be available at all campuses. Binding decisions would be coordinated in a similar way. Special Collections has cultural barriers to digitization that will need to be addressed.

Buildings The Libraries reduced late night hours at Geisel, the main library, from 2 am to midnight. All libraries are now closed on holidays and hours at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography and at the Medical Center Libraries reduced to one shift (effectively reducing evening and weekend hours). Overall library hour reductions amount to 11%. Further library hour reductions may be considered once budget cuts for 2010/2011 are known.

Campus Roles There needs to be more awareness of faculty and student expectations. More needs to be known about the use of textbooks. There needs to be more empirical data about what technology they own.

The Committee Chair noted that the faculty will have to be made to feel the pain before they understand the magnitude of what the Libraries is up against.

Library Networks There is a sense that UCLA and Berkeley will need to give up their status as flagship campuses to enable more networking. These two campuses are unwilling to give up local access and to carry campuses with smaller budgets. Knowing the strengths of each campus is essential to system-wide cooperation. Areas of expertise need to be identified.

Organizational Cultures There is a perception that unspoken cultural and university librarian expectations impact reviews ? (e.g. it is not clear what the UL really wants to see highlighted in files; there is an expectation to be involved in national organizations as one progresses through the steps, however it is not explicitly stated anywhere)

Generally, we would like to see more formal goal setting. We discussed the possibility of tying goals to reviews, but realized there would be a lot of issues related to how that would be implemented before we would feel comfortable with it.

Make the process for making a decision transparent (i.e., is NextGen Melvyl Pilot here to stay? Who decides and how do we know?) (1)