I ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

PRODUCTION NOTE

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library

Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007.

LB.89.0J" .- ·' Apr i l''') , 1989

Report to the Senate

FOR INFORMATION OF ' li i u C :: ~'~ ,~',T ::A Library 'in Jeopardy

Committee on the Library

'The academic policy implications .of the library's deteriorating financial situation have become serious enough that the Library 'Commi t t ee feels impelled toeal! 'the matter to your attention, and to ask for your . suggestions and support.

We wish to stress that this report should not be viewed either asa criticism of the Campus Admi~istratiC)n nora. an attempt to pre-empt the work 'of lhe Campus Priorities Task rorce, ~- qUite ,t he contrary. The Campus Administration has been and continues ,t o .be very helpful in the face of declining support from Springfield for libraries in general and for 't he 'Onl ver s i t y of Illinoi8 Library in particular •. ,Mor e about that in a moment. The Task Porce and its LibrarySub-committeear. also very aware of the problem, 8y~pathetie, and trying' to do the best they can 'in a difficult situation. This report is intended toaupportboththe'l'ask Poree and the Administration by making the Paeult~ more broadly aware of the problem and of .om.~f the

-" :"d i f f i cul t choicesthatarelnvolved.Sinee thellatter 18 being discussed in ,,~t he national press in the Chronicle of Higher Iducation (3/1/89) and at the state level i~ Illinois Issues (2/89), it would seem that it should both be possible and appropriate that the matter be discussed on this campus within "our own Paculty • .

Academic Policy and Budgetary Support

A review of Library budgets for the past ten y.ars .how.that the " Li br ar y ha.been underfunded inrelatian to it. needs, in rel~tion to its , "peer . 1 and in relation to most other academieunits -on theOrbana Campus. This situation not only put8whatha.been the premier status of our University Library in 8eriou8 jeopardy, but it a180 raises a number of question. of

.""academi c pol i cy i nvol vi ng tbe8upportof instruction, research, 'and th'e ,va r i ous disciplines. '1'hedata (to be 8hownin aeveral graph. projected at 't he

.. Senate meeting) ,. how that:

1. Resources in real terms available -t o the Library have fallen apprOXimately 26' over the lastlD yeara. ,tI'he decline has been larger for the operations budget that supportsataff andserviees.

:,: 2 . In relation to its pe-er8 ,a report of 1987/88 library statistics that ,appear ed in the 3/1/89 Chronicle of BigherBducation shows, that while our Library ranks fifth overall, our staffing is 50 · positions below any of the top ten libraries. Our overall bUdget is smaller than any in the top ten by over 1.2 million d~11ar8.

3. A study within the Oniversity shows that the Library leeeivedan increase-in state funds from ,f i scal year 1979throughfiseal year 1988 of 53.9. while the average increase for all academic units

· 4uring that 's ame period was over 80'. That is, the increase in _, funding recommended ·bY Spr i ngf i el d for >t he Librarywas 'lower, , whi ch at least partly was responsible for real resources being shifted from a unit that serves all discipliii'88like the library, to particular fields. Had the Library received even an average increase in state funds during this period, its fiscal 1988 budget would be 2.3 million dollars higher than it i8.

It'!s important that you be aware that the Campus Administration has, . particularly during the past two years,~ad. the Library ~a high priority. One indication of this is preliminary 1987/88 figures that show the library's percentage of all the University'. Education and General funds increasing to 31, which represents the first increa$e in that figure in recent years. A second indication is that the library materials budgets have received increases that are significantly hi9h~r than the Oniversity's average increase in state funds over the past two years. Of partic'ularnote is that t.he campus p~ovided.9' increase in the library materials budget for the year 1988/89 even though ,no increase was prOVided in the Illinois Board of Bigher Education's final recommendation. The problem of underfundingthe Library 1s not one that has ,developed in the last year or two. Rather it is a long-term problem that will require a commitment of significant funding, over time, if ­it· is ~o be rectified.

·While the Library Staff'. strategy to cut services in deferrable and less obvious places would have been succe8sful had funding been restored quickly, "l t has , because of the duration of the reductions, become. monumental problem. Increases in the Materials Budget, while critical, do not address this operations problem, and may ever exacerbate it. The difficulties that the Library faces ~re primarily in two are•• : lack of personnel ~o

perform basic library functions and an inadequate equipment budget with a large backlog of items to be purchased. Increases in funds would restore -~.~~­.ervices that have been discontinued and would replace obsolete equipment 'as well a8 provide badly needed new equipment. Examples of specific uses of restored funding.re: to provide basic preservation and conservation of the collections,to add ataff to reshelvebookspromptl.y and to maintain the ' bookstacka, to install.nd prOVide staff ~o 'implement ·el ect r oni c security systems in all librari•• , to fund staff positions which would ensure prompt, accurate return of boo~. to their permanent location., to expand the ,when basic reference .ervic•• are p~ovided, to add user equipment.uch ,•• ' '. i c r of orm reader printera and computer terminal8,topurchaae equipment •• shelVing, Jlicroforll cabineta, and mapcase.~obouse the collections, to prOVide or enhance other, similar ~ervice8.

Your Univeraity Library 18 ata crueialpoi.nt in its history. Jfevant to continue to be one of the world'. ~reat libraries. The question ia ~hat

type of library will it .be.TheLibrary Dlustreceive a significant increase aupport if it ia to prOVide for responsible stewardship of the collections _&A'~ / " - ' ~

maintain responsive service. If that ianot 'possible, there must be. 4fundamental change with the result being a library that 18 more centralized and that ceases to provide .any of the, specialized services to which our users, particularly the faculty, have become accustomed. The Library i8, present, financially out of balance. Asaresult, the librarystaffi. WI ••iII""....

' t o maintain the collections, 18 unable ,t o process the materials that are' ,' '- ''.':... '',< ;;.' "".. 1 .'

· . cqul r ed ina tillely fashion and 18 unable tOllove the Library forward ina IIlanner that will allow it to continue to be the outstanding library 1t has

. been in the past.

Your comments and advice will be appreciated •

. The Senate Library Commi ttee Susan Dawn Conger James Dengate Richard A. Larson Bus.y!n Lebl~bici

Millicent Marti" Chr·1s:ann Sehiro-Geist 111en Daniels James Ward Ian D. Westbury David r. Bishop, Ix Officio Walter McMahon, Chairman

,I ,I

-Report to the Senate A .Library in Jeooardy

'-'Senate Committee on the Library

The academic polley implications of the library's deteriorating financial situation have become serious enough that the Library Committee feels impelled to call the matter to your attention, and to ask for your suggestions and support.

We wish to stress that -t his report should not be viewed either as a criticism of the Campus Administration nor as an attempt to pre-empt the work of the Campus Priorities Task Force -- quite the contrary. The Campus Administration has been, and continues to be, very helpful in the face of declining support from Springfield for libraries in general and for the University of Illinois Library in particular. More 'about that in a moment. The Task

, Force and its Library sub-committee are also very aware of the problem, sympathetic, and trying to do the best they can in a difficult situation. This report is intended to support both the Task Force and the Administration by making the faculty more broadly aware of the problem and ,of some of the difficult choices that are involved. Since the matter is being

•

: "..-:.:~.

':';';., :.

~ ' ~ ; (; ~ : : ' i ; -Education -: ,f igure in recent years.

>:state funds over the past two years. ..

:, ,·{~-' 3 .

.: ...;..: .:; , ; < , ,: ;;. · . :·,. , . : . ~- i:" :: · :. :

, :. ~ ", ":

discussed in the national press in the Chronicle 01 High Education (3/1/89) and at the state level in Illinois Issues (2/89), it would seem that it should both be possible and appropriate that the matter be discussed on this campus within our own faculty.

Academic Policy and Budgetary Support

A review of Library budgets for ,the 'past ten years shows that the Library has been "underfunded in relation to its needs,in relation to its peers,and in relation to most other academic units on the Urbana Campus. This situation not only puts what has been the .premier status of our University Library in serious jeopardy, but is also raises a number of

. questions of academic policy involving the support of instruction, research,and the various disciplines. The data show that

J. Resources in real terms available to the Library have fallen approximately 26% over the last 10 years. The decline has been larger for the operations budget that supports staff and services.

.2. ·· In relation to its peers, a report of 1987-88 library statistics ,that appeared 'inthe .3/1/89 Chronicle 01 Higher Education shows that, while our Library ranks fifth .overall, our staffing is SO positions below any of the top ten libraries. ,Our

. . overall budget is smaller than any in the top ten by over S1.2M.

A study within the University shows that the Library received an increase instate .·,·f unds from fiscal year 1979 through fiscal year 1988 or S3.9% while the average

increase for all academic units during the same period was over 80%. That is, ,the ':increase in funding recommended by Springfield for the Library was lower, 'which was

, .:;:: a t least partly responslble Ior tal resources being shifted from a unit that serves ; ,," all disciplines like the library ' to 'particular fields. Had the Library received even

,: :·aD average Increase in state funds during this period, its riscal1988 budget would : ' :be $2.3 M higher than it is. '

It is important that you be aware that the Campus Administration has, particularly ,d uring the past two years, made the Library a high priority. One indication of ,this is , preliminary 1987-88 figures that show the Library's percentage of all the University~s

and ,General funds Increasingto 3%,which represents the flrstIncrease in .that A second indication is that the library materials budgetshave .

. .recelved increases that are significantly higher than the .University's average increase in Of ·particular note is that the campus provided .

a 9% increase in the library mateiialsbudget for the year 1988-89, even though no increase was provided in the Illinois Board of Higher Education's final recommendation. . The problem of underfunding the Library is not one that has developed in the last year or two. Rather it is a long-term problem that will require a commitment of significant funding over time if it is to be rectified.

While the Library staff's strategy to cut services in deferrable and less obvious places would have been successful had funding .been restored quickly, it has, because of the duration of the reductions, become a monumental problem. Increases in the Materials budget, while critical, do not address this operations .problem, and may ever exacerbate it. The difficulties that the Library faces are primarily in two areas: lack of personnel to ' perform basic library functions and an inadequate equipment budget with a very large backlog of tiems to be purchased. Increases in funds would restore basic services that have been discontinued and would replace obsolete equipment as well as provide badly needed new equipment. Examples of specific uses of restored funding are: to provide basic preservation ,and conservation of the collections; to install and provide staff to implement electronic security systems in all libraries; to fund staff positions which would ensure prompt, accurate return of books to their permanent locations; to expand the hours when basic reference services are provided; to add user equipment such as microform reader printers and computer terminals; to .purchase equipment such as shelving, microform cabinets, and map cases to house the collections; and, to provide or enhance other. .similar services.

Your University Library is at a crucial point in its history. We want it to continue to be one of the world's great libraries. The question is what .type of library will it be. The Library must receive a significant increase in support if it is to providethe responsible stewardship of the collections and maintain responsive service. If that is not possible, there must be a fundamental change with the result being a library that is more centralized and that ceases to provide many of the specialized services to which our users, particularly the (acuity t have become accustomed. The Library is, at present, financially out of balance. As a result, the library staff is unable to maintain the collections, .is unable to process the .materials that are acquired in a timely fashion and is unable to move the Library forward in a manner that will allow it to continue to be the outstanding library /

. it has been in the past.

Notes Regarding the Attachments

FigUre I: Over the past ten years,the state-funded budget increases for the library have failed to keep pace with inflation and are much lower than the rates of increases for most of the larger campus academic units. .

Figure 2: The Library is one of the largest UIUe units.

Figure 3: ·To compensate Cor the shrinking 'budget and to maintain book and journal purchases at an acceptable level, ~e Library has been forced to decrease the numbers of its professional support staff and to devote more of its resources to student hourly

.help. , In the last two fiscal years even the numbers of 'these low-cost employees have been decreased. . .

figure 4: For the third largest university library in the US, to rank 83rd in median salary level seems unreasonable, U it is to ask the 3rd-larBest collection to be maintained on the ISth-largest total budget and the 26th-largest operating budget.

• Figure S:ln the last year, the campus administration has managed to reverse a steady, downward trend in the fraction of the education and general funds spent on the library. However,the percentage Is still lower than that allocated· by other major univeresities.

,

G) ::0 J)

< "..............iIiiiIii ~ o n co :0 m Z G)

r :0 :E: :0 G) ;0

:0 < t-t

r :0 en II :0 J)

:0 r en n ~ z r ~

::0 r t--f

rn en :E: A m o c

o o ::a ::a m o -t rn C

IDA ro ADO

of CHANGE IN CONSTANT $ SINCE '79 FIGURE 1

---_ ._-­... _

~m ::DC: -to ffiC)

m 01-1

S;o ~::I: rn>-tZ cC)t--im Acn

'-­:D n .:D .... 0(0

· m -.J ~(C °1 C .... z(Ct-i00 -1

. (j) 00

~~~

~~~~~~

TFfEr:lF-MeW~~~~ .~~~~~--

OTHER

VET MEDLAS

~ . .... " & ~:iz·n ~.._-. " - ~_. _ . '. __-~ .-:- - -::.- --:.?·S:i • .._,.• - ~ ... ::..:..-:.~....: ~,~ -.....~··-?27.:..~1 .~ ..· ~· ; ;.- .::~ ~ -- -:~:~~-s . a: • • _ ~..c ::,:::1Z '

ACADEMIC'UNIT BUDGETS FY 88LIBRARY

PI.CBA~

670

FAA

"\

, "

_ ~ (T0 to I : $204 mi 'Iii on)

, .

:t:­o E; "f\) m S-o -< m :t> :a m Z C-Z .C>

-z

11 -; m oC: (j -­oQ.r­(0 __

:. to ~:u »5::05-< C1

.(1) (/)-1r+» §.-n ~." r+­

:T o c.,

c.c o (Jl NN a o 01 a 01 o 0 o o

FTEs FIGURE 3

· .UIUC RANKINGS AMONG ARL LIBRARIES

15

'-----------~,l00 a.: W3= o .....

~--- 75 ~

-­~

150 ~ i a:~

a: r-----J'25 W

m

.0

~ ::l Z

COLLECTION TOT BUDGET OPER BUDGET MED SALARY

107 academic Iibraries compared.

:a » :D -< ED C C G) m -I

»,(1)

CJ1

co co

C1

,...... .CX)N ......:..;...~~_~---_____,r__--~___,r___--~__, ~-. (J') --f

FIGURE 5