Library Task Force Report

Document Sample
Library Task Force Report Powered By Docstoc
					Library Task Force
                                 Library Task Force Report
                                       June 28, 2010

         The Library Task Force was convened in February 2010 to “examine the current
operations and to assess the foci and scope of collections and services provided by the
Library in order to identify ways to enhance support for our research and educational
missions, increase efficiency, and plan for the future.” The purview of the Task Force
included all libraries on campus, with less emphasis on the Law Library given its relative
autonomy within the Library system. The deadline for submitting recommendations was
the end of Spring Quarter 2010. Rosters for the Task Force and the expanded
subcommittee membership are attached. Reports from those subcommittees are also
attached. (Membership on the subcommittees extended well beyond the Task Force and
was as representative as possible of the full range of campuswide interests on those
         In order to complete its work before the deadline, the Task Force decided to focus
on the mission of the Library in support of our research and educational programs, and on
the scope of services offered to faculty and students. The internal operations and
organization of the Library were excluded from our deliberations except as they reflect
the needs and priorities associated with those more general issues, but an internal review
of the Library would be a reasonable second step in this process.
         Our deliberations were informed by formal consultation with faculty and students
via (1) a general request for comment that accompanied the announcement of the
formation of the Task Force and that was renewed by subsequent request to Deans; (2) an
invitation to the Schools and support units to discuss their specific interests in the Library
(accepted by two Schools and the Library); and (3) separate meetings with
representatives from AGS and ASUCI (in addition to the students on the Task Force
itself). In addition, an on-line survey was administered and elicited 6,786 responses
from faculty, students, and staff. The results are described and analyzed in an attachment
to this report.
         We also met with the UCB University Librarian Tom Leonard; UCSD University
Librarian Brian Schottlaender; and with Dan Greenstein, UCOP Vice Provost for
Academic Planning, Programs and Coordination, who also has been UC University
Librarian for systemwide library planning and Executive Director of the California
Digital Library.

Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations

       1. Reallocate approximately 30,000 asf of space currently allocated to the Library
       for use by other units. Based on current cost of leased space off campus, that will
       save $720,000-1,000,000 annually. To this point, space is the only area where we
       were able to identify significant savings associated with Library resources that
       would not require unacceptable reductions in the quality of support for the
       research and educational mission of the university.
                                                            Library Task Force Report, p. 2

         2. The top priority for the Library is to support the research and educational
         mission of the university by making research material available to faculty and
         students. The Library is systematically exchanging electronic for print material
         where possible, and the campus is generally satisfied with (or at least reconciled
         to) this change and with the access to research materials generally. However, the
         Library’s ability to meet these needs is constantly threatened by escalating costs
         of electronic resources, especially subscriptions to on-line journals, so we are
         unlikely to see any savings associated with the conversion from print to electronic
         access except in the physical space of the buildings.

         3. An important exception to the general satisfaction with the Library’s materials
         and resources is complaints about specific problems related to the retrieval of
         print material through Interlibrary Loan and from off-site storage. Those
         problems need to be addressed immediately. They are a real obstacle to research
         and teaching, especially in the humanities, social sciences, and arts, and they
         threaten to undermine the faculty’s tolerance for shifting more toward electronic
         resources generally.

         4. The current internal allocations of the Library budget appear appropriate and
         generally correspond with the top priorities of the campus in terms of support and
         resources. However:
              the Library needs to find approximately $350,000 to “permanentize” the
                cuts that are covered with one-time or temporary funds this year;
              it also needs to develop a restructuring plan to address staffing
                deficiencies in some areas resulting from turnover and the hiring freeze;
              The UCI Medical Center should contribute additional funds to support the
                Grunigen Medical Library, which currently utilizes $360,000 of the annual
                budget for the Library system as a whole. The Medical Center does
                currently contribute $50,000 for technology related expenses in the
                Medical Library.

         5. Study space emerged as an important priority in the survey and in consultation
         with graduate students and undergraduates. By all reports, current study space is
         heavily used, especially at certain times of the year, and studying in the Library
         has an important symbolic significance to students as well as a practical benefit.
         That symbolic and practical importance of current study space could be leveraged,
         however, by moving some educational support services (LARC, a Writing Center,
         etc.) to make the Library an “educational hub” of the campus.
                  Study space is relatively inexpensive to manage, so even substantial
         reductions in current levels would not result in much savings. That said,
         providing and managing study space should not be the sole responsibility of the
         Library, especially as it varies from the prime space in Langson and the Science
         Library. For example, the Gateway Commons, also under management of the
         Library, is heavily used, though it is less closely identified with “serious study”
         by our student consultants. Similarly, the Student Center is not effectively
         organized as it might be for study space.

Academic Planning 6.28.2010 mpc
                                                            Library Task Force Report, p. 3

         6. Some Library services and resources traditionally considered central to its
         scholarly and educational missions were not ranked among the top priorities by
         respondents to the survey. These results, and the written comments on the survey,
         require closer study, but it appears that what people expect of the Library beyond
         the very top priorities may be changing. As identified on the survey, few of these
         changes involve major expenditures compared to, for example, collections and
         subscriptions, so potential savings are limited, but they should be evaluated and
         monitored. The current alignment of budgetary priorities within the Library with
         the more general priorities of the campus concerning the mission and services of
         the Library are likely to change over the next decade as those secondary priorities
         continue to evolve.

         7. The Task Force recommends that the Library undergo a comprehensive formal
         review of its internal structure and operation modeled on the reviews of academic
         units, i.e., beginning with an internal self-study that is followed by review by
         external experts in the field, including ideally someone from outside the UC
         system. The qualifications of the proposed Interim Librarian may preclude the
         need for such external consultation if he is appointed, but in any case the
         Academic Senate Council on Research Computing and Libraries (CORCL)
         should also be involved in e this second stage of the review, along with selected
         members of the Library Task Force.

We considered several utopian (or dystopian, depending on one’s perspective)
projections for the “library of the future,” and it would have been much easier to plan for
the library of 2020 and beyond than to imagine how best to get there from where we are
now. The conclusions described in this report are our best effort to position the Library
at UCI to get ready for that future by offering the highest possible quality of resources
and services that are needed now in ways that are flexible enough to accommodate
change in the near future.

Conclusions and Recommendations

(1) The Task Force identified the reorganization of space currently allocated to the
Library as the single source for immediate substantial savings where the benefits would
not be significantly undermined by attendant negative impacts on our research and
educational programs. We believe that approximately 30,000 asf, equivalent to the 6th
floor of the Science Library, could be used to house units that are currently occupying
leased space off campus, either by moving those units directly into the Science Library
space, or by relocating other units around campus with a more direct relation to the
Library and using that vacated space to house the units now off-campus. Of the two
suggestions above the Task Force recommends the latter. Moving the complementary/
units into the Science Library would reinforce the educational and research mission of the
Library, as discussed below in # 5. Either way, the reallocation of approximately 30,000

Academic Planning 6.28.2010 mpc
                                                            Library Task Force Report, p. 4

asf in the Science Library would save the campus approximately $720,000-$1,000,000
annually in foregone lease costs based on current rates.
         The report of the Task Force subcommittee on space offers more specific advice
about how space might be reconfigured in the Science Library to free up that space on the
6th floor. Determining the exact extent, location, and prospective uses of Library space
for reallocation would, of course, require more expertise and extensive consultation than
were possible given our deadline. Nevertheless, we believe that the scale of this
suggested reallocation is appropriate and realistic, and this reduction would cause less
damage to the Library than equivalent cuts to other resources (i.e., operational funding
and personnel). Generally, space is not used as intensively in the Science Library as in
Langson. In addition to allowing for the use of this space to other units, it would also
facilitate the move of some material from the Langson Library into the Science Library,
thereby alleviating some of the intense pressure on space in the Langson Library, at least
for the next few years.
         This recommendation is somewhat at odds with the high priority of study space
that was expressed by most students (see below). The reallocation recommended here
could result in the loss of approximately 360 reader-seats if that study space were not
otherwise accommodated in Langson and/or the Science Library. (Currently, UC
standards recommend library reader seats for 25% of students, whereas UCI has only
13%, a deficit which will grow if enrollment increases.) Even if there were no other
means to mitigate the loss of study space, the Task Force still thinks our current
budgetary situation warrants the reassignment of that space for use by off-campus units,
but it would represent a reduction of services for students.

(2) The Task Force concluded that the principal role of the Library is to support the
research and educational mission of the university by making research material available
to faculty and students through print and digital collections, access to electronic resources
(online journals, etc.), and location and retrieval of print material from other libraries as
needed. There is a general consensus across campus that the Library is fulfilling that role
well, with occasional problems in the availability of print material (see below). In the
survey, faculty designated access to online resources and the expansion of print and
online collections to be the top priority of the Library. Current resources are considered
relatively extensive and adequate to meet present expectations and needs. The Library is
planning effectively to expand that access as digital media become the norm in scholarly
fields across the campus. Most faculty and students in all fields are content with digital
and electronic versions of their research material as long as those versions are reasonably
easy to use, and as long as print materials are available in a timely and reliable manner
when there are no electronic equivalents. It is imperative that our planning horizon not
be so distant into the future that we neglect current needs
        We therefore concluded that the support of research and education offered by
Library collections is appropriate for a major research university; it is at least adequate
and in many areas outstanding. It should not be significantly changed apart from the on-
going effort to accommodate the shift from print collections to electronic resources, and
to design on-line instruction in research methods and other forms of support that have
traditionally been offered by Librarians in person. We believe the Library has a coherent
and systematic approach to this trend that should accommodate the ever-increasing pace

Academic Planning 6.28.2010 mpc
                                                            Library Task Force Report, p. 5

of change without disruption in the quality of access and services in the foreseeable
future. Unfortunately, it appears that costs saved on one hand from elimination of print
journals, moving some books to off-campus storage, etc., are more than balanced by the
cost of the electronic resources that replace them. We therefore do not foresee any
significant savings associated with this aspect of the Library’s mission and services.
        Although maintaining the UCI Library collections should be a top priority for the
campus, the committee realizes that the cost of doing so will continue to place a burden
on library budgets. Any savings realized from library reorganization could be wiped out
in the near future by the rising cost of journal subscriptions. For example, the UCI
contribution to the UC Digital Library has nearly doubled over the past six years: from
$1,803,368 in 2005 to $3,584,985 in 2010. Recently, one publisher, Nature Publishing
Group, has submitted a 400% increase for the subscription cost of their Journals as the
starting point for the next round of negotiations. The campus must work closely at all
levels, UC, the state and the nation, to help keep the cost of Journal subscriptions within
reason. This may require some very difficult choices regarding which publishers to work
with and which to cut. Such choices are especially difficult because we negotiate for
bundles of Journals, not one at a time. In the case of specialized journals with only a
handful of readers, individual subscriptions may be preferable to campus-wide access.
The Academic Senate should be consulted regarding how to make these difficult choices,
especially when the careers of individual faculty members may be impacted.

(3) If necessary, the Library could simply do less of any or all of what it now offers by
way of subscriptions, direct instruction on research methods and sources, management of
study space, etc. The Task Force strongly recommends against any across-the-board
reductions of that sort. We believe that the savings generated by significant reductions in
these areas would not be worth the direct negative consequences for the research and
education at UCI.
        One example of those direct consequences of cuts made against the priorities
described here is the recent series of complaints about disruption of Interlibrary Loan
services. ILL is especially important to Humanities, Arts, and some of the Social
Sciences where print materials are still essential to research and teaching. That specific
problem appears to derive from two sources: the departure of a Libraries staff that have
not yet been replaced; and delays caused by staffing cuts in other libraries that have
delayed the loan of materials to UCI in ways beyond the control of UCI.
We were not able to determine the real extent of this problem, but the number and
intensity of complaints with these services have increased over the past year. That is
especially the case in fields where there are few, if any, alternatives to the print material
in question.
        It is imperative that the Library continue to make print materials available to
students and faculty when digital versions and other electronic forms are unavailable or
are impractical. Funding staff positions to accomplish that end should be a top priority
for the Library. If the source of the delay is beyond control of the Library, then
alternative means of obtaining the material must be found. Furthermore, the Library
should implement policies designed to keep the process running as smoothly as possible,
such as charging individual users of ILL with late fees when material is not returned on
time rather than absorbing the late fees.

Academic Planning 6.28.2010 mpc
                                                            Library Task Force Report, p. 6

        A related but separate issue is that of Document Delivery Services. Unlike ILL,
DDS involves material that is already on the campus either originally or from ILL, so
DDS is more a matter of convenience than essential need. Nevertheless, it is highly
regarded by many faculty, and discontinuing the service would probably have a negative
impact on the morale of some faculty that exceeds the value of the monetary savings.
        Even if the number of such specific problems with obtaining print materials
remains small, failure to resolve them will create a significant issue for a wide range of
fields including humanities, arts, and the social science in particular. It will also more
generally erode confidence in and support for plans to increase reliance on electronic
resources in all fields.

(4) The Task Force Survey Subcommittee report revealed campus respondent priority
services provided by the library. These priorities included the following:
     Print and Online collections
     Use of Library website to access online services
     Library hours
     Study space
     Interlibrary loan services
     Public computers to facilitate access to online resources

    A review of the deployment of library resources to functional areas within the library
indicates that 58% of the total library budget is directed to Books/Cataloging/
Collections/Acquisitions, 20% of the total budget is directed to Public Services/Technical
Services, and 12% of the total budget to Library Reference Services. These budget
allocations by functional area confirm that the 90% of the library’s resources support the
user priorities as revealed by the Library Survey.
    Applying the library’s overall distribution of cost by major cost category indicates
that to provide these services the library is spending 57% on salaries and benefits, 39%
on online subscriptions and current serials, and the balance (4%) on materials and other
operating costs. These data would suggest that the library’s resources are deployed in
alignment with user priorities. Similarly, our survey of library funding by other UC
campuses (and a few peer non-UC public research universities) indicated a high degree of
consistency on the percentage of total state funding devoted to the libraries, and on
funding categories and the percentage of library budgets devoted to those categories. We
therefore concluded that funding for UCI’s Library follows best practices among public
research universities generally, and we noted that where UCI differs significantly from
older libraries, UCI had adjusted its funding priorities accordingly. (For example, UCI
spends far less on special collections than many older, larger libraries.)
    It is, of course, always possible in principle that things could be done more efficiently
and effectively, and a detailed review of the Library’s internal operations and
organization might discover some sources of possible savings that were not evident in
this first stage of deliberations. Such a review might be especially useful in light of the
extent to which the Library—like many other units--has met some of its substantial
budget cuts through open positions resulting from retirements and resignations and with
temporary money (including substantial carry-forward funds) rather than a systematic
reallocation of positions and funding across programs and operational budgets.

Academic Planning 6.28.2010 mpc
                                                           Library Task Force Report, p. 7

       Pending more specific recommendations that might follow an internal review of
operations, the Task Force recommends in particular that
 The UCI Libraries should complete the absorption of its permanent budget reductions
   in 2010-11 so that it no longer relies on its carry-forward balance for normal
   operating expenditures. The Library indicates that it is tapping the significant carry
   forward balance it had accumulated to facilitate a two year plan to fully implement
   the significant budget reductions that it has been assigned. The Libraries need to find
   approximately $350,000 to “permanentize” the cut. This should be completed in
   fiscal year 2010-11 with the goal to operate within its annual allocation level for
   fiscal year 2011-12 and maintain a carry forward balance for special initiatives and as
   a reserve fund.
 The UCI Library should evaluate how its recent practice of refraining from hiring into
   positions that become vacant has affected the staffing levels in priority areas and
   develop a plan to address the areas that now have staffing deficiencies with a
   restructuring plan.

    In addition, the Task Force recommends that the Library should also reconsider the
extent of services provided to extramural users, including community members and users
at the UCI Medical Center. A state university has an obligation to provide library access
and services to the region and state, and we are meeting that obligation in Langson
Library now at a level that is adequate and relatively inconsequential in budgetary terms.
However, we believe that the UCI Medical Center should contribute to the support of the
Grunigen Medical Library, which is currently $360,000 of the annual budget for the
Library system as a whole(currently, the Medical Center does contribute $50,000 for
technology related expenses to the Medical Library). It is important for a wide range of
users to have access to the Grunigen Library resources, but the range of and number of
those users is substantial and highly specific to the Medical Center and should be funded
as such.

(5) Study Space emerged as the single most important issue for students, , as reflected in
both the Taskforce survey and a survey conducted by ASUCI open to both undergraduate
and graduate students. The majority of students felt the Science Library has more
individual and group space for study, is the biggest library and the most popular on
campus. Students repeatedly described Langson Library as needing more outlets for those
students who work on laptops. Students who could tolerate some social interaction and
still get work done went to Langson. Students said that others with a need to see and be
seen went to Gateway, but Gateway Commons was consistently criticized as too noisy
and crowded, often with the paradoxical comment “no one goes there because it is always
too crowded.”
         The symbolic significance of being in the library, apart from the physical
attributes of the study space, clearly contributes to the focus and seriousness of students’
work while they are there. The degree to which students emphasize this was persuasive
and surprising to some members of the Task Force who had not thought of study space as
a very important priority among Library services. Students are unsatisfied with current
space availability, believing more study space is necessary. Furthermore, with the
relocation of offices and/or material to the Science Library, reader seats would be

Academic Planning 6.28.2010 mpc
                                                             Library Task Force Report, p. 8

decreased by 10%. As a means to create more study space, students have suggested
leaving lecture halls open during evening hours not only to provide more space, but also
to allow students to make use of the whiteboards. Also recommended was the opening of
larger rooms in the Student Center complete with desks, lighting, security and
plugs/outlets for additional study space options. Students were very unhappy with
restricted hours of access; they repeatedly recommended extending library hours,
especially as crucial times of the year. (This is a relatively low-cost issue that the Library
has already addressed.)
         Graduate students seemed less concerned with the symbolic attributes of the
library study space than its practical benefits, especially in fields where students routinely
lack laboratory space and/or offices suitable for scholarly work (vs. meeting with their
students). Students at both levels, however, praised the library as an academic social
space that counter-acted the isolating effect of students’ use of electronic media,
encouraging collegiality and intellectual exchange that was increasingly rare in the
student’s lives off-campus. (These anecdotal observations are supported by a study at the
University of Rochester 1 that found a significant correlation between study space and
student success. The experience reported by our students was also confirmed by
Librarians from UCB and UCSD, both of whom said their students treat the library as an
educational hub of the campus.)
         The Task Force concluded that maintaining the current extent of study space in
Langson Library, and to a lesser but still important extent in the Ayala Science Library,
should be a high priority. If/as space becomes available through the systematic reduction
of print material stored on-site and other forms of reorganization of current uses of space
in those buildings; current study space in the libraries should be expanded whenever
possible. If current space could be expanded enough, it might replace the study space
currently managed by the Library in Gateway Commons, which was repeatedly criticized
for being noisy and for being treated by students as a place more for socializing and “less
serious” academic work than Langson and the Science library. In our present budget
crisis, however, the expansion of study space is a lower priority for the present than
reallocating Library space to house units now in leased space.
         More generally, the campus should begin relocating educational support services
into the Library when possible to create an educational hub that reinforces the symbolic
importance of the Library as the academic center of the campus (e.g., LARC, a Writing
Center, the Graduate Resource Center, etc.). The result would be a net gain of space
campuswide as those support units moved into the Library even if this plan reduced the
amount of Library space that could be used to house non-Library related activities. If
more of the latter use is necessary to affect immediate savings, we could still imagine the
creation of an educational hub to be the longer-range goal and relocate the non-Library
units as soon as other space became available elsewhere.

(6) The survey identified several areas which were not ranked in the top three priorities,
but which were identified as being important to a number of respondents:
         Studying Students: The Undergraduate Research Project, University of
Rochester, 2007.

Academic Planning 6.28.2010 mpc
                                                              Library Task Force Report, p. 9

             Microforms, atlases/maps, government documents, multimedia, and special
             Digital scholarship
             Research guides, class-related instruction, and departmental liaison activities
             Exhibits
             Specialized software

A preliminary examination of these results suggests that traditional scholarly techniques
and research methodologies are changing through increased use of Web-based search
engines, online resources associated with professional organizations and reader
communities, and related services and electronic databases. The survey’s numerical
results, along with close examination of the written responses, require further analysis to
determine how the Library can best respond to these changes.

Academic Planning 6.28.2010 mpc
LTF Roster                                      2
LTF Subcommittees                               3
LTF Memo                                        5
Internal Operations Final Report                6
Budget Subcommittee Report & Documents         12
Space Subcommittee Report                      17
LTF Ed. Subcommittee Report & Recommendations 19
LTF Research                                   21
Student Service Subcommittee Report & Survey   23
Survey Subcommittee Results                    29

      Task Force on Strategic Planning for the Libraries
      Michael P. Clark – Chair                                                                  4/19/10-update
Nominee          Title                     Status        Unit                                  Contact
Bruckner, Tim       Assistant Professor                Faculty          Social Ecology

Bush, Larry         Graduate Student, CLS              Student, Grad.   Social Ecology

Clark, Michael P.   Vice Provost                       Vice Provost     Academic Planning

Crawford, John      Associate Professor & Chair,       Faculty          Arts         
Frydenberg, Jia     Director, Distance Learning        Staff            Continuing Education
Herbert, James      Professor                          Faculty          Humanities   

Hughes, Carol       Associate University Librarian     Librarian        Library      

Janda, Ken          Professor                          Faculty          Physical Sciences

Jiang, Sunny        Professor                          Faculty          Engineering  

Johnson, Cynthia    Act’g Head, Med. Lib. & Head of    Librarian        Library      
                    Ref. for Sci. & Langson Lib’s
Leslie, Frances     Dean, Grad. Division               Dean             Grad. Division

Lynch, Richard      Associate Vice Chancellor,         Associate Vice   Budget Office
                    Budget                             Chancellor
Minear, Nancy       Director, Research & Evaluation    Staff            Student Affairs

Palmer, Cathy       Head of Education/Outreach         Librarian        Library      

Pantelia, Maria     Professor                          Faculty          Humanities   

Roode, Dana         AVC, OIT                           Staff            OIT          

Ruminson, Kevin     Director of Library Planning,      Staff            Library      
                    Assess. & Research
Salinger, Sharon    Dean, Division of Undergraduate    Dean             DUE          
Sibert, Lisa        Electronic Research Acquisitions   Librarian        Library      
Siddiqui, Hamza     ASUCI                              Undergrad.       Political Science
Striedter, Georg    Associate Professor                Faculty          Biological Sciences

Talesh, Rameen      Dean of Students                   Staff            Student Affairs

Tanji, Lorelei      Associate University Librarian     Librarian        Library      
                    for Collections
Tice, Beatrice      Associate Dean of Library          Faculty          Law School   
                    Services and Information
Warner, Mark        AVC, Research                      Staff            Research     

Wolonsky, Karl      Assistant Dean, Physical           Staff            Physical Sciences
Wright, Charles     Associate Professor                Faculty          Social Sciences
                        Library Task Force Subcommittees
                                   April 2010


Ken Janda – Physical Sciences, Co-Chair
Maria Pantelia – Humanities, Co-Chair
Frances Leslie, Grad Division
Ted Wright – Social Sciences
Sunny Jiang – Engineering
Beatrice Tice – Law
Lorelei Tanji – Libraries
Lisa Sibert – Libraries
Mark Warner – Research
Susan Bibler Coutin* - Soc Ec


Sharon Salinger, Humanities, DUE, Chair
Cynthia Johnson, Libraries
Catherine Palmer, Libraries
Jia Frydenberg, Extension

Student Services

Frances Leslie, Grad Division, Chair
Carol Hughes, Libraries
Rameen Talesh, Student Affairs
Hamza Siddiqui, ASUCI
Esther Castillo* - Grad Stu, Soc Sci
Jasmin Dao* - MSTP Stu
Travis Van Den Vlerkkert* - Ugd Stu, Engr

User Survey

Tim Bruckner, Social Ecology, Chair
Larry Bush, Graduate Student
Nancy Minear, Student Affairs
Catherine Palmer, Libraries
Lisa Sibert, Libraries


Karl Wolonsky, Physical Sciences, Chair
James Herbert, Humanities
Dana Roode, Office of Information Technologies
Deb Sunday, Libraries
David Meyer* - Soc
Janet Mason* - Capital Planning
Rick Fruchey* - Soc Sci Facilities


Richard Lynch, Budget Office, Chair
George Striedter, Biological Sciences
Deb Sunday, Libraries

Internal Library Operations

Ted Wright, Social Sciences, Chair
Deb Sunday, Libraries
Kevin Ruminson, Libraries
Cynthia Johnson, Libraries

*Recruited to join the subcommittee.

To: Members of the Task Force on Strategic Planning for the Libraries:
From: Michael P. Clark, Vice Provost for Academic Planning and Task Force Chair.

By now you should have received a letter from Provost Gottfredson inviting you to serve on the
Task Force on Strategic Planning for the Libraries. I hope you will agree to join us on this
important project.

Our charge is broad and fundamental: we will be considering the current and future role of the
library system on our campus, including its support to our research and educational missions,
student services, budget, and space. We will not be responsible for oversight of the operation and
management of the library system, nor will we focus on the Law Library and the Grunigen
Medical Library except as they interact with libraries on the general campus. We will, however,
be looking at general operating procedures and structural issues internal to the Langson Library,
the Science Library Libraries, and the Libraries Gateway Study Center, especially as they reflect
the role of the libraries and Study Center on the campus as a whole.

Our report on those issues (and any others we find pertinent) is due at the end of Spring Quarter.
The committee may remain in place through next year to follow up on issues that arise as the
report is considered by other groups on campus.

Our first step is to determine the best schedule for our meetings twice a month. We might not
meet that often, but please keep those times available. Contact my assistant, Ms. Deborah
Chennault, at, with your availability for the rest of this quarter and next,
starting next week (i.e., Mar. 1). We will try to avoid conflicts with your standing obligations as
far as possible.

Our tentative agenda for the first meeting follows. If you think of additional items we should
discuss, please contact Assistant Vice Provost Rob Ameele at

                                     Agenda for First Meeting

 1. Welcome and general introductions
 2. Discussion of the charge to the committee
 3. Review membership of the committee: anyone else needed for the Task Force itself (i.e., vs.
    expanded membership for the subcommittees)
 4. Workplan for the next three months
 5. User survey
 6. Literature in the field/best practices survey
 7. Expert consultants (UC and beyond)
 8. Consultation with campus groups
 9. Form subcommittees with prospective membership:
    Research (a broadly representative committee with members from each of the Schools and
      other academic units as well as Librarians and others)
    Education
    Student Services
    Space
    Budget
    Internal Library operations and structure (Langson, Science, and Gateway)

                UCI Library Task Force – Internal Operations Subcommittee
                       Summary and Preliminary Recommendations

Subcommittee Members:
      Ted Wright, Chair, Professor Cognitive Sciences
      Cynthia A. Johnson, Head Library Reference Department
      Cathy Palmer, Head Library Education & Outreach Department
Also Consulted:
      Carol Hughes, Associate University Librarian, Public Services
      Deborah Stansbury, Associate University Librarian, Administrative Services

Internal Operations Summary
This summary of the internal operations of the library is organized using the breakdown and
group names found on the library’s organization charts (
On the last page of this document is a new chart showing the functional organization of many
internal library groups and how they are related to the services that the library provides
externally. Below is a quick description of the function of each of these groups. When
considering these materials it may help to have an understanding of the Research Librarian
model. All Research Librarians have three broad areas of responsibility: Collection
Development, Reference, and Instruction. In the list of groups below, these functions fall into
Collections, Reference Services, and Education and Outreach. The Head of each of those groups
evaluates the performance of the reference librarians in that area. Following the list of groups is a
list of issues and questions that came to light in the process of obtaining this information.
University Librarian The University Librarian is both the leader of the library and the primary
representative of the library on campus, in the Dean’s Council, at the system level, and outside
the university, for example, in the Association of Research Libraries. The position is currently
being filled with an interim appointment, whose term may last several years.
Office of the University Librarian This office is responsible for Development, monitoring
library performance, strategic planning, and interactions with the Librarians Association of the
University of California (LAUC).
Administrative Services The groups in this division include one that deals solely with internal
library operations: Finance. Library Human Resources has a dual internal and external function.
In addition, this division also includes the Space Planning and Facilities group that is responsible
not only for maintaining the library spaces and facilities used by the library staff, but also the
extensive public spaces (visited roughly 2.5 million times in ’08-’09) and public facilities – e.g.,
600 computers as well as many printers, copiers, and readers (microfiche).
Collections The task of building and maintaining the UCI collection is split across two divisions
in the library. The Collections division handles what might be called the intellectual part of this
task. The research librarians decide which new items to purchase with pre-allocated budgets in
order to best meet and anticipate the needs of users in their assigned academic areas and, more
generally, across the broader university. Their ability to do this well – buy what will actually be
used – depends critically on their knowledge of the needs and activities of those in their subject
areas. Special collections librarians and archivists in this division also develop, maintain, and
help users access the special collections maintained by UCI.

Technical Services This division is responsible for the other part of the task of building and
maintaining the UCI collections, both print and electronic. Members of this division order and
receive materials, catalog them, label them with call numbers, and, when necessary, take steps to
preserve them.
Access Services This group handles the actual circulation and shelving of physical materials
(roughly 500,000 books a year), as well as reserves. This group also manages document access
and delivery as well as inter-library loans (28,000 books received; 26,000 delivered).
Web Services The 2.5 million actual visits to the library are dwarfed by the 8.8 million virtual
visits. These visits, along with 2 million catalog searches and access to millions of electronic
documents are funneled through the library websites. These websites, developed and maintained
by the web services group, provide an ever more important face of the library. As access to the
library and its resources becomes increasingly virtual, the reliability and user friendliness of the
websites become ever more important.
Reference Services As the materials available become more diverse, finding appropriate
materials for a project can become harder, especially for students. The research librarians, who
are experts at identifying and locating useful materials, help to bridge this gap. With the growth
of the virtual library, there has also been a trend to provide virtual access to reference services.
This fills an important need; however, for complex problems, in-person interactions are often
still far more effective. The expertise of research librarians is often dispensed in a one-on-one
setting; however, they also play a useful role by coming into classes to teach groups of students
how to access materials in specific areas (see below).
Education and Outreach This group coordinates activities directed at both internal and external
audiences. However, its traditionally important external outreach to local schools and teachers
has diminished because of reductions in outside funding. This group has oversight for all of the
instruction provided by librarians including course-integrated instruction provided by research
librarians in support of their academic departments. In addition, the department coordinates
library instruction for all of the lower-division writing courses which include Writing 39C, the
First-Year Integrated Program and the Humanities Core. The department coordinates the
Libraries’ participation in campus-wide recruitment and orientation events such as Celebrate
UCI and Welcome Week. This group also supports faculty who have Early Career awards from
NSF and are required to leverage their work into the K-12 stream.
Design Services Originally focused on print publications, the responsibilities of this group now
include publications for print and the web, webpage design (artist/designers determine the “look”
of webpages that are then implemented by programmers), and editorial oversight of the website.
In addition they also do the interior design of the public spaces and the design of public exhibits.
Information Technology Although at the end of this list, this group plays a central role as the
library becomes increasingly digital. This group maintains the computer and network resources
used by library staff, as well as the many public-access computers in the library. At least as
important, the group is responsible for the databases that describe and allow searching of the
holdings of the library as well as the circulation data.
Some Issues and Questions
 The library has absorbed the loss of over 40 positions and is understaffed given the current
  scope of its activities. Because of uncertainties about both its budget and role, it has been

   reorganizing by attrition – that is, as a position was vacated, rather than leaving it “unfilled,”
   the position was eliminated by changing the responsibilities and reporting relationships of
   remaining positions. Continuing this process will create both inefficiency and morale
   problems. If new positions are unlikely to be available in the near future, the campus’s
   expectations for the library’s role need to be adjusted to match better the number of positions
   actually available and the library organization needs to be changed to reflect that new reality.
 The unionization of staff (CUE, but also UPTE and AFSME) and, although possibly to a
  lesser extent, professional librarians (AFT), may be an obstacle to the implementation of any
 The physical collection of the library is quickly approaching the capacity of the space
  available for it. As a way to both to free up space and make the best use of the budget for new
  physical acquisitions, consider developing a policy with the other libraries in the southern
  region to explicitly coordinate and share holdings to minimize duplications. To be effective,
  such a policy would require a robust inter-library loan system.
 There is a policy in place to stop receiving paper journals for which we have electronic
  subscriptions. Consider eliminating storage of those paper journals beyond the single, clean
  copy at SRLF.
 Because public computer terminals are an expensive resource to provide, consider ensuring
  that they are being used by members of the UCI community by requiring users to login with a
  UCI-NETID. Collecting more detailed usage statistics for these terminals might help to clarify
  how they are being used.
 Several libraries have experimented with various forms of Patron Initiated Acquisitions, a
  system in which items are not purchased until it is requested. This scheme appears not to be
  promising for physical items, given the current processing lags; but, as we move to more
  electronic books, this could be a possible way to reduce the costs of buying materials that are
  never actually used.
 Can the movement on campus to centralize some services – IT but also development, HR, and
  training – be leveraged to produce efficiencies in the library?

Preliminary Recommendations
Quickly Fill the Position of University Librarian
Libraries in general and the UCI Library specifically, have a history of adapting to the evolving
needs of faculty, students, staff, and the community for access to an exponentially growing world
of information while working, with other libraries, to ensure that materials are stored so that they
can also be accessed in the future. During this financially challenging period, the Library has
been reorganizing by attrition. Although a reasonable short-term strategy, in the long run this
approach is unsustainable. Given its history, there is every reason to believe that the Library has
the ability now to develop and carry out a plan to reorganize itself in a way that will allow the
current staff to most efficiently serve the needs of the campus. However, such reorganization will
require a clear vision and leadership. For that it is essential that a University Librarian be in place
with a clear mandate to make the changes required. Unfortunately, the University Librarian
position has been vacant since April.

Recover Costs for the Operation of the Grunigen Medical Library
The 09-10 budget to operate the Grunigen Medical Library is equivalent to roughly one-third of
the amount that the Library had to rely on reserves to fund its operations this year. Because this
specialized library, besides serving the Medical School, is of particular benefit to the Medical
Center, it has been suggested that the Medical center could contribute a portion of the budget to
operate this facility.

Consolidate Some Information Technology Services
There already exists a working relationship between the Library Information Technology (IT)
group and the campus Office of Information Technology (OIT). The clearest benefits of IT
consolidation generally come from what are termed “commodity services,” that is those
operations and services that can be provided in similar manner by a shared, core staff. Along
these lines, the library already contracts with OIT for Linux system administration and would
contract for Windows server system administration and security services if OIT were prepared to
provide these services on a contract basis. In addition, the library houses critical servers in the
server farm maintained by OIT. The one remaining commodity service that could be shifted to
OIT is workstation maintenance. Because the Library maintains over 700 public and staff
workstations, the possibility of passing responsibility for those machines off to OIT, along with
the staff lines involved in such support, warrants careful immediate exploration.

Beyond commodity services, there are other potential benefits of consolidation; however, these
benefits are more difficult to quantify because they have less to do with the efficient provision of
services and the savings that such efficiencies potentially can generate. One such benefit is in
staff development. Integrating IT staff who are in separate, small groups, into one larger
organization rather than many small organizations and having a management structure in which
their supervisors are aware of activities directed to a broad variety of campus goals, creates the
possibility for increased sharing of techniques and ideas across campus IT efforts. Such an
organization facilitates the interactions of staff members working to support (and often
physically in) a particular unit with those who perform similar tasks in other units and with folks
who have higher level of expertise in specific areas. A second benefit of a central organization
arises in an era of attrition, such as the one the campus is currently experiencing. With many
small groups, the loss from one group of an individual with key knowledge in a critical technical
area (for example, information security) can create a substantial knowledge vacuum that has the
potential to jeopardize the efforts of that group. When IT efforts are managed within a larger
organization (OIT), this both creates the possibility of identifying, within this larger pool,
someone else with the requisite background and increases the campus’s flexibility to reassign
tasks in a way that will keep critical efforts moving forward.

From this perspective, the most obvious consolidation opportunity would be the group
maintaining and overseeing the operations of the Millennium ILS system. This database system
and related interfaces, which the Library licenses from an outside vendor with whom they work
closely, is critical to many services provided by the library. At its heart is a database of all the
Library’s holdings. The integrated modules are central to critical Library operations such
circulation (including handling holds on materials and inter-library loans), cataloging of
materials, acquisitions, and tracking of serials. Because of its central role to library operations,
the specialized nature of the integrated system, and the necessity for working closely both with

other library staff and the vendor, many in the library are justifiably wary about moving the
group responsible for maintaining this system out of the library. It should be noted, however, that
the library is hardly unique as campus organization that depends on a large, task-specific system.
One long-term example of such an arrangement is Administrative Services (now part of OIT),
which has run the Financial System for the Accounting Office for decades. Within the current
transition of administrative IT groups into OIT, similar situations have arisen for the Registrar’s
Office, Facilities Management, and the Office of Research. In the areas with similar challenges,
the solution has been to work out an arrangement according to which the functional unit retains
control over functional issues and OIT has the lead in IT issues.

Assuming that this consolidation is judged feasible and desirable, it should probably be viewed
as a medium-term rather than a short-term objective. Although this consolidation will probably
produce overall benefits, as noted above those benefits almost certainly do not include any
substantial savings. At the same time, to bring this consolidation about will require substantial
planning and coordination, both within OIT and the Library. Because the Library needs to be
focused on other aspects of its reorganization and OIT is hard at work consolidating other
administrative IT groups, this is not the best time for either organization to focus on this
particular change.

Improve the Development Efforts on Behalf of the Library
The library has a position for a development officer to work with the office of University
Advancement to bring private funds into the library. This position has been vacant for since
February 2010. Although this vacant line has undoubtedly been the source of useful, short-term
funds that could be used for other purposes, it is important for the Library to have an active
development program. For example, one crucial role of a research library is to acquire and build
special collections and archives: unique sets of holdings in specific areas that are valuable both
for researchers at UCI and for researchers from other institutions. This last point is critical
because it justifies, in return, the reciprocal access that these other institutions provide UCI
researchers to their special collections and archives Along with many smaller holdings, the major
special collections in the UCI Library include the Critical Theory Archive, the Southeast Asian
Archive, and the University Archives, as well as in-depth collections on Orange County and
California history, dance and performing arts, and 20th-century political pamphlets. Because
supporting the creation and development of collections such as these is an area of potential
interest to donors and because the budget for these efforts is sometimes difficult to justify in
times of financial constraints, it is particularly important that the library be able to maintain
active fund-raising efforts.

Possible Long-Term Goal: Consolidate the Library Human Resources
Office as Part of a Campus-Wide Consolidation
It is our understanding that the campus is looking at ways to consolidate human resources on
campus. If this effort bears fruit, it would make sense to consider including the Library.

External Services                                        Internal Operations
                              Support and Leadership
Borrowing/Returning              for Library Staff
 Loan Desks, Reserves,
      DDS, ILL              Access Services                                University Librarian’s Office
                            - Circulation (incl. Reserves)                - Dean’s Council Participation
                            - Document delivery service                   - Systemwide and ARL participation
 Physical Collection
                                                                          - Assessment and Planning
(Stacks) Books, Serials,
                                                                          - LAUC interface
  and Other Materials       Technical Services
                            - Cataloging
                            - Receive & catalog new materials
Electronic Collection
                            - Maintenance and physical repair
(Online) Books, Serials,
  and Other Materials

Discovery & Access          - Selecting materials to purchase             Information Technology
   Antpac, Melvyl,          - Special collections & archives              - Databases for holdings,
Databases, Online & In-                                                      circulation, operations
   person Reference                                                       - Network Security and
                            Research Librarians                              Support
Training & Guidance                                                       - Hardware and Software
Classes, Online Tutorials                                                    maintenance
  and Subject Guides
                            Web Services

   University &
 External Relations
                            Design Services
        Space                                                             Administrative Services
Classroom, Reading, and                                                   - Finances
      Study Space           Education and Outreach                        - Human resources
                                                                          - Facilities and space planning

  Public Facilities
  Computers, Printers,
   Copiers, Readers

                                   UCI Libraries Task Force 
                                 Budget Subcommittee Report 
                                         June 4, 2010 
Summary of Recommendations: 
      The UCI Libraries should complete the absorption of its permanent budget reductions in 2010‐
          11 so that it no longer relies on its carry forward balance for normal operating expenditures. 
      The UCI Library should evaluate how its recent practice of refraining from hiring into positions 
          that become vacant has affected the staffing levels in priority areas and develop a plan to 
          address the areas that now have staffing deficiencies with a restructuring plan. 
      The UCI Library should evaluate its current space assignments to free up blocks of space that can 
          be made available to appropriate campus units leading to savings in off campus lease costs for 
          the campus. 
      The UCI Library should use the Task Force campus‐wide Library Survey results to confirm the 
          alignment of budgeted resources. 
      The UCI Medical Center should contribute to the support of the Grunigen Medical Library, which 
          is currently $360,000 of the Libraries’ annual budget. 
The Library indicates that it is tapping the significant carry forward balance it had accumulated to 
facilitate a two year plan to fully implement the significant budget reductions that it has been assigned.  
The Libraries need to find approximately $350,000 to “permanentize” the cut. This should be completed 
in fiscal year 2010‐11 with the goal to operate within its annual allocation level for fiscal year 2011‐12 
and maintain a carry forward balance for special initiatives and as a reserve fund. 
The Task Force Space Subcommittee has identified that approximately 30,000 square feet of space 
currently assigned to the library could be freed up for use by other campus programs.  If one assumes 
this creates the opportunity to eliminate off‐campus leased space of similar amount this translates into 
a potential annual campus savings of $720,000 – 1,000,000 based on off‐campus lease cost of $2.00 – 
2.75/sf/month. It should be noted that losing 30,000asf will result in the loss of approximately 360 
reader seats. 
Alignment of Library Budget to Campus Survey Priorities 
The Task Force Survey Subcommittee report revealed campus respondent priority services provided by 
the library.  These priorities included the following: 
      Print and Online collections 
      Use of Library website to access online services 
      Library hours  
      Study space 
      Interlibrary loan services 
      Public computers to facilitate access to online resources 
A review of the deployment of library resources to functional areas within the library indicates that 58% 
of the total library budget is directed to Books/Cataloging/Collections/Acquisitions, 20% of the total 
budget is directed to Public Services/Technical Services, and 12% of the total budget to Library 
Reference Svcs.  These budget allocations by functional area confirm that the 90% of the library’s 
resources support the user priorities as revealed by the Library Survey.   

Applying the library’s overall distribution of cost by major cost category indicates that to provide these 
services the library is spending 57% on salaries and benefits, 39% on online subscriptions and current 
serials, and the balance (4%) on materials and other operating costs. 
These data would suggest that the library’s resources are deployed in alignment with user priorities. 
Background and Reference Materials 
The Budget Subcommittee researched the funding and expenditure patterns of the UCI Libraries over a 
multi‐year period and compared the expenditure patterns to other UC campus libraries.  In addition, we 
reviewed how the library implemented the approximate 22% ($4.98M) budget cut experienced over the 
last two fiscal years.  This review revealed the following:  
      UCI Libraries general fund expenditures represent 7% of total campus general fund 
         expenditures.  Across all UC campuses the range for library general fund expenditures as a 
         percentage of total campus general fund expenditures range from 4% to 9% with the 
         systemwide average being 7%. 
      Similarly, UCI Libraries total expenditures represent 1.5% of total campus expenditures which is 
         consistent with the UC systemwide average of 1.7% generated by the UC campuses range of 
         0.9% to 3.5%. 
      The majority of the UCI Libraries expenditures (73%) support services directly related to 
         collections, online services and technical services that support web access to library materials.  
         These services are provided through staff support, and print and online services that are 
         available to library users. 
      UCI Libraries approximate $16.2M of 2009‐10 resources support primarily salaries (57% of total 
         budget) and online subscriptions and current serials (39%).   
      62% of the budget cut has been absorbed by eliminating staff positions as they have become 
         vacant (42 positions comprised of 23 Librarian positions and 19 administrative staff positions) 
      33% of the budget cut has been absorbed by reductions to books/serials/library materials 
      The UCI Libraries carried forward $5.7M into 2009‐10 and will use some of this carryforward to 
         smooth out their budget cut implementation plan over a two year period (09‐10 and 10‐11). 
With the significant budget cuts that have occurred over the past two fiscal years there are not obvious 
opportunities for further budget reductions that would not significantly affect library services.  Nor are 
their obvious or significant opportunities for efficiency or program elimination savings.  Perhaps after 
the 2009‐10 budget cuts have been fully absorbed into the permanent budget operating plan there may 
be opportunities reveals for further resource savings. 
Data Schedules Attached  
Library Task Force – Budget Subcommittee members 
Associate Vice Chancellor Rich Lynch – Chair 
Associate Professor Georg Stiedter 
Associate University Librarian Deborah Stansbury Sunday 

                              Library Task Force
                              Budget Committee
                               Update 4/16/2010

The Budget Committee has assembled historical permanent budget and
expenditure data for the Library intended to provide an overview of the Library’s
resource history and profile. This information reflects the following:

   • 4-year history of Permanent Budget Allocations by fund source
   • 4-year history of Permanent Budget by Library unit
   • 3-year history of actual expenditures for all UC Libraries (ex-UCSF)
   • Distribution of UCI Library Permanent Budget by expense category
   • 3-year history of General Fund Carry Forward fund balances
   • 3-year history of UCI Library actual expenditures by Unit
   • 2008-2009 General Fund Expenditures for UC Campuses by Functional
     expense categories
   • 2008-09 Total Expenditures for UC Campuses by Functional expense
   • Distribution of 2009-10 $4M budget cut to the UCI Library across library

A review of this information reflects the permanent budget cuts to Library units,
reveals how UCI’s Library expenditures compare to other UC campuses (generally
in the norm), and reflects how the Library has implemented the 2009-10 $4M
permanent budget cut.

Regarding how the Library has implemented the 2009-10 budget cut, the majority
of the cut ($2.5M) has been absorbed through the loss of Librarian and Staff
positions. A total of 39 positions have been eliminated through attrition (there
have been no lay-offs). Of these 39 positions 22 are Librarian positions and 17 are
Staff positions. The next most impacted area by the permanent budget cut is the
Books/Serials/Library Materials budget component which was reduced by $1.3M
or approximately 16%. For 2009-10 the Library plans to offset this permanent
budget cut with temporary reserve funds but remains concerned about the longer
term impacts of this funding reduction to the Book budget.

                                                                                                         GENERAL FUND EXPEDITURES BY FUNCTION BY CAMPUS

                                                       %                       %                       %                       %                       %                      %                       %                       %                       %                                 %
CAMPUS                               TOTAL           TOTAL     UCB           TOTAL     UCD           TOTAL     UCI           TOTAL     UCLA          TOTAL     UCM          TOTAL     UCR           TOTAL     UCSD          TOTAL     UCSB          TOTAL            UCSC             TOTAL

INSTRUCTION                      $   1,554,026,000     52% $   282,187,000     57% $   231,059,000     49% $   167,309,000     49% $   319,613,000     52% $   13,660,000     37% $   107,933,000     48% $   199,718,000     53% $   146,614,000       61% $          85,933,000          45%
RESEARCH                              259,881,000       9%      52,542,000     11%      71,635,000     15%      18,089,000      5%      36,994,000      6%       823,000       2%      25,414,000     11%      27,125,000      7%      16,345,000        7%            10,914,000              6%
PUBLIC SERVICE                         34,960,000       1%       6,843,000      1%       3,459,000      1%       2,948,000      1%       5,567,000      1%      1,329,000      4%       1,883,000      1%       4,074,000      1%       2,236,000        1%             6,621,000              3%
ACADEMIC SUPPORT                      191,197,000       6%       1,256,000      0%      27,663,000      6%      38,972,000     11%      61,141,000     10%      5,892,000     16%      17,708,000      8%      11,455,000      3%      12,566,000        5%            14,544,000              8%
LIBRARIES                             200,610,000       7%      42,711,000      9%      19,299,000      4%      23,798,000      7%      35,057,000      6%      1,680,000      5%      14,347,000      6%      32,370,000      9%      17,947,000        7%            13,401,000              7%
STUDENT SERVICES                                 0      0%               0      0%               0      0%               0      0%               0      0%              0      0%               0      0%               0      0%               0        0%                      0             0%
INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT                 331,697,000      11%      52,762,000     11%      46,665,000     10%      24,298,000      7%      72,395,000     12%     11,356,000     31%      30,862,000     14%      44,509,000     12%      20,986,000        9%            27,864,000          15%
OP AND MAINT OF PLANT                 310,825,000      10%      50,520,000     10%      59,047,000     12%      30,602,000      9%      64,478,000     11%      1,807,000      5%      20,380,000      9%      43,965,000     12%      18,919,000        8%            21,107,000          11%
STUDENT AID                            70,893,000       2%       5,050,000      1%       6,425,000      1%      25,083,000      7%       3,864,000      1%       271,000       1%       8,271,000      4%       8,658,000      2%       3,410,000        1%             9,861,000              5%
AUXILIARY ENTERPRISES                     453,000       0%               0      0%               0      0%               0      0%               0      0%              0      0%               0      0%               0      0%        453,000         0%                      0             0%

            SUBTOTAL                 2,954,544,000             493,871,000             465,252,000             331,099,000             599,109,000             36,818,000             226,799,000             371,874,000             239,476,000                     190,246,000

MEDICAL CENTERS                        35,087,000       1%               0      0%       7,237,000      2%       8,323,000      2%      11,648,000      2%              0      0%               0      0%       7,879,000      2%               0        0%                      0             0%

                TOTAL            $   2,989,631,000    100% $   493,871,000    100% $   472,489,000    100% $   339,422,000    100% $   610,757,000    100% $   36,818,000    100% $   226,799,000    100% $   379,753,000    100% $   239,476,000     100% $          190,246,000        100%

Source: Campus Financial Schedules

                UCI                                                                                                                                                                                                                             BO:LLLLibrary FNDG HIST-PROFILE.xls4/15/2010

                                                                                                                     TOTAL EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION BY CAMPUS

                                                        %                          %                          %                          %                          %                         %                        %                          %                          %                                      %
CAMPUS                               TOTAL            TOTAL       UCB            TOTAL       UCD            TOTAL       UCI            TOTAL       UCLA           TOTAL      UCM            TOTAL      UCR           TOTAL       UCSD           TOTAL      UCSB            TOTAL               UCSC               TOTAL

INSTRUCTION                      $    3,660,487,000    25.9% $    545,062,000     31.6% $    559,616,000     21.8% $    446,371,000     27.4% $   1,117,861,000    27.8% $    21,271,000     20.9% $   164,933,000    32.3% $    474,704,000     19.7% $   204,152,000         30.5% $          126,517,000           25.6%
RESEARCH                              2,780,267,000    19.7%      481,914,000     28.0%      453,480,000     17.6%      226,133,000     13.9%      635,425,000     15.8%      12,891,000     12.7%      95,875,000    18.8%      609,963,000     25.3%     153,537,000         22.9%            111,049,000           22.5%
PUBLIC SERVICE                         271,439,000      1.9%       60,677,000      3.5%       57,392,000      2.2%       11,349,000      0.7%       91,685,000      2.3%       6,247,000      6.1%       4,230,000     0.8%       16,807,000      0.7%       7,557,000          1.1%             15,495,000           3.1%
ACADEMIC SUPPORT                       772,588,000      5.5%       54,718,000      3.2%      119,750,000      4.7%      101,444,000      6.2%      272,345,000      6.8%       7,620,000      7.5%      25,748,000     5.0%      152,320,000      6.3%      20,712,000          3.1%             17,931,000           3.6%
LIBRARIES                              244,976,000      1.7%       59,890,000      3.5%       23,060,000      0.9%       24,409,000      1.5%       49,023,000      1.2%       3,058,000      3.0%      14,808,000     2.9%       37,752,000      1.6%      19,265,000          2.9%             13,711,000           2.8%
STUDENT SERVICES                       541,503,000      3.8%      120,832,000      7.0%       60,821,000      2.4%       58,542,000      3.6%       70,056,000      1.7%       7,620,000      7.5%      41,544,000     8.1%       62,342,000     28.8%      68,232,000         10.2%             51,514,000           10.4%
INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT                  681,106,000      4.8%      131,882,000      7.7%       90,319,000      3.5%       44,805,000      2.7%      144,443,000      3.6%      25,400,000     25.0%      46,799,000     9.2%      121,632,000      2.6%      39,593,000          5.9%             36,233,000           7.3%
OP AND MAINT OF PLANT                  461,783,000      3.3%       71,377,000      4.1%       89,859,000      3.5%       38,056,000      2.3%       96,821,000      2.4%      11,559,000     11.4%      27,795,000     5.4%       69,356,000      5.1%      32,202,000          4.8%             24,758,000           5.0%
STUDENT AID                            423,025,000      3.0%       77,753,000      4.5%       51,197,000      2.0%       64,346,000      3.9%       71,198,000      1.8%      (1,279,000)     -1.3%     39,095,000     7.6%       58,931,000      2.9%      48,804,000          7.3%             12,980,000           2.6%
AUXILIARY ENTERPRISES                  895,896,000      6.3%      118,248,000      6.9%       89,998,000      3.5%      116,385,000      7.1%      243,859,000      6.1%       7,261,000      7.1%      50,440,000     9.9%      110,932,000      2.4%      75,162,000         11.2%             83,611,000           16.9%
    SUBTOTAL                         10,733,070,000              1,722,353,000              1,595,492,000              1,131,840,000              2,792,716,000              101,648,000               511,267,000              1,714,739,000              669,216,000                          493,799,000

MEDICAL CENTERS                       3,392,870,000     24%                  0      0%       976,287,000      38%       498,903,000      31%      1,224,888,000     30%                0        0%               0      0%       692,792,000       0%                 0           0%                         0          0%

        TOTAL                    $   14,125,940,000    100% $    1,722,353,000    100% $    2,571,779,000    100% $    1,630,743,000    100% $    4,017,604,000    100% $    101,648,000     100% $    511,267,000    100% $    2,407,531,000    100% $    669,216,000         100% $           493,799,000           100%

Source: Campus Financial Schedules

                UC Irvine                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Budget Office/LLL/s:Library FNDG HIST-PROFILE.xls

         UCI Libraries Task Force Space Subcommittee Recommendations
                                  May 28, 2010

The Space Subcommittee evaluated the opportunities that might be possible in the
reassignment of some space in the Science Library for other campus priorities. As a
result of these discussions, a net total of approximately 29,000 (asf) in the 6th floor Drum
and Bar have been identified for reallocation.

In order to appreciate the scale of the Science Library stacks the following current
capacities are provided:

       4th floor Bar          122,820 volumes
       4th floor Drum         149,940 volumes

       5th floor Bar          122,580 volumes
       5th floor Drum         149,910 volumes

       6th floor Bar          123,180 volumes
       6th floor Drum         149,910 volumes

At this time, there are 234,178 total volumes of bound journals housed in the 4th, 5th,and
6th floor Drums, which is 50% of capacity. The 6th floor Drum contains 76,645 volumes
of serials and the 6th floor Bar contains 91,465 volumes of monographs.

The relocation of the Science Library’s 6th floor inventory can be accomplished by 1)
eliminating or storing off campus approximately 50% of Science Library bound journals
(120,000 volumes) which currently have online full-text journal coverage; and 2) by
adding more stacks in the Drum area of the 4th and 5th floors by using a more efficient
stack layout.

This expansion of stacks on the 4th and 5th floors of the Science Library would allow all
remaining bound serials and monographs in the Science Library to be relocated to those
floors. In addition, it would also provide adequate space to relocate the East Asia
Collection from Langson Library 1st floor and basement, Government documents and
some overflow of monographs. Langson Library is currently over capacity; therefore the
relocation will help address this problem.

The Library has been working with architects on plans that would increase the capacity of
the Drums by 75,000 to 120,000 volumes per floor. Based on feedback from the
Education, Research and Student Services subcommittees, student study space in the
Libraries should remain a high priority. With the possibility of losing 360 readers on the
6th floor, our recommendation is to only increase the floor capacity of both the 4th and 5th
floor Drums by 30,000 to 50,000 volumes in order to maintain study space on those

floors. Additionally, the subcommittee endorses the planned move of all microformats
and readers from Langson Library 1st and 2nd floors to the Science Library 2nd floor. This
move would permit the creation of new student study space in Langson Library.

The space subcommittee also recommends the consolidation of staff and services on the
2nd and 3rd floor Bar space in the Science Library that is currently under utilized because
of staff reductions. This move would provide flexibility to help address other space
needs of both Libraries.

Lastly, it would be beneficial to continue the Library as the “educational hub” of the
campus. Using that as a starting point, the campus may want consider using the space
made available on the Science Library 6th floor for the relocation of LARC, DUE,
Graduate Studies, Office of Research, or other units with similar academic activities.

Library Task Force—Education Sub-Committee
April 14, 2010

UCI Libraries play an integral role in the mission of our university by supporting the research interests of
our world-class faculty and educating the students who come to learn from them. At the heart of any
research endeavor--professional or pedagogical--lies a library and its numerous services. Libraries are
responsible for collecting the information resources, keeping up with the new data bases required by the
faculty for research in all disciplines, and for providing access to these collections by engaging both
faculty and students in discovering new ways to recover and re-think a variety of knowledges. The library
also teaches students to engage in research, to find information both inside and outside the library, to
evaluate sources, and to investigate various opinions and expert accounts that are essential skills in
preparing students to participate in complex democracies. The University seeks to produce citizens who
know how to inform themselves about the crucial issues and debates facing our society. Libraries provide
both access and know-how to aid the development of a robust and enlightened body politic. Indeed
libraries form the heart of a university community. Just as the campus sought to shield the academic core
during this budget crisis, so too must we protect the library’s educational misson.

 The Library curriculum of instruction reaches all sectors of our student population—lower division,
upper division, outreach, graduates, professional, and medical. The programs encompass four broad areas.
In the lower-division writing courses (Humanities Core Course, Writing 39C, and the First Year
Integrated Program) librarians teach baseline library and information literacy concepts including
orientation and instruction in the use of basic library services and resources. This instruction is built into
the curriculum and serves to provide all entry level students with an introduction to academic research.
For upper division and graduate students, instruction focuses on disciplinary specific resources and on
how to understand scholarly communication and methodologies within disciplines. Research librarians
support the educational mission of the University and the Libraries by guiding individual students on their
quest to identify appropriate source materials. Finally, librarians introduce and teach students how to
locate and use the resources that faculty have deemed necessary for their scholarly areas and which the
library collects to support research and teaching.

All research librarians have general knowledge of librarianship, a subject specialty and three broad areas
of responsibility—collection development, reference and education. Information literacy is articulated as
a General Education student learning outcome for both lower-and upper-division writing courses. In order to achieve this outcome, all
research librarians participate in teaching the curriculum integrated workshops that are required of lower-
division writing students. They provide instruction in the use of specific resources that support research
in their disciplinary specialties as well as targeting instruction for students enrolled in upper-division
writing courses. Librarians also provide instruction to graduate students in all departments and to
professional students in the Paul Merage Business School and the School of Medicine. In 2008-09,
librarians taught 697 instruction sessions that reached 19,951 participants for a total of 759 teaching
contact hours between librarians and students. Many of these sessions represent ongoing partnerships
between key faculty and individual subject librarians. The Special Collections Department also provides
a wide range of instruction with the goal of introducing students to the primary sources that provide the
raw material of research in many disciplines.

In addition to face-to-face instruction, the Libraries have developed a range of online resources to inform
and teach students about resources and services. These include high-end interactive tutorials created in
partnership with the campus Distance Learning Center to short, made “on-the-fly” tutorials developed
using widely available free technologies such as Jing. These online resources allow librarians to make
their expertise available at the time and place that students need it. Examples of recent tutorials
developed by the Libraries include Begin Your Research ( Find

Science Information (, and Find
Evidence-Based Practice Information (
Librarians also create web-based Subject and Course Guides ( to
guide students to important information sources that support research in the discipline and provide
instruction on the sources necessary for successfully completing course-related research assignments.

Research librarians’ role in the educational mission of the library occurs primarily through one-on-one
reference sessions that guide students toward identifying useful sources, developing search strategies, and
evaluating resources. These sessions enable students to know, for example, the difference between a
scholarly or trade journal or discriminate between the quality and nature of presses. The library currently
provides one-on-one reference assistance by drop-in at the reference desk, scheduled consultations of 30
minutes or longer, email, telephone, and chat reference.

Looking forward, the library’s educational focus could include:

       Addressing the gap in transfer student information literacy skills (a GE requirement) and
        guidance toward navigating the university library
       Providing space for a Writing Center. Libraries often house Writing Centers since writing cannot
        be divorced from content and students easily find the Center since they often make regular use of
        the library space for studying.
       Helping to educate students about academic honesty so that they develop an understanding of the
        nature of research, the tools for communicating what they are discovering, and engage with
        research in a respectful and responsible manner.

Looking forward, the library’s educational focus could include:

       Addressing the gap in transfer student information literacy skills (a GE requirement) and
        guidance toward navigating the university library
       Providing space for a Writing Center and LARC. Libraries often house Writing Centers since
        writing cannot be divorced from content and students easily find the Center since they often make
        regular use of the library space for studying. It makes sense to put all tutorial services into a
        central space.
       Helping to educate students about academic honesty so that they develop an understanding of the
        nature of research, the tools for communicating what they are discovering, and engage with
        research in a respectful and responsible manner.

                                 Research Subcommittee
                        UCI Libraries Task Force Preliminary Report
                                        April 2010

Subcommittee members:
Ken Janda, Physical Sciences, Chair; Maria Pantelia, Humanities
Sunny Jiang, Engineering; Beatrice Tice, Law, Associate Dean of Library Services and
Information Technology; Lorelei Tanji, Associate University Librarian, Collections; Lisa Sibert,
Electronic Resources Acquisitions Librarian; Mark Warner, Associate Vice Chancellor for
Administration, Office of Research; Susan Bibler Coutin, Social Ecology, Associate Dean of
Grad Studies; Rudi Berkelhamer, Biology and Associate Dean DUE.

Developing UCI’s Collections of electronic and physical materials is a top priority for the
research needs of faculty and students. Increasing the E-Journal and E-Book cache keeps UCI on
the cutting edge. Purchasing multiple databases of E-subscriptions (for example, Web of
Science) as a collaborative effort by the 10-UC campus systems of libraries may prove
financially beneficial. Encouraging the use of “open access” resources and UCI Digital
Scholarship Publishing Service for monographs, journal papers (pre- and post-), and/ or hosting
peer-reviewed ejournals reduces cost of expensive serials, and open access offers UC discounts
on article publication.

UCI Libraries are moving toward better spatial configurations because E-journals and E-books
release display areas for alternative purposes since access to hard copy versions, preferably
selected by the appropriate academic professional, will not be as critical. This is advantageous
for three reasons: (1) students need space to study, meet, and relax; (2) it opens space for other
operations that currently pay off-campus rent; and, (3) room is created for tech-savvy research
stations (video walls and trendy software).

The Subcommittee agreed that study space for graduate and undergraduate students, especially
during peak periods, had a high priority. Book and journal print versions and older textual
material need to be accessible to PhD students who require historical perspectives (STEM
disciplines), such as Biology, Social Sciences, and Humanities, many of whom have little ability
to obtain the resources elsewhere. An efficient book retrieval system or “book valet” for book
stacks in condensed-spaces preserves journal and book collections, which were developed at a
staggering expense. The collection stays intact in the event of E-breaches of security that could
interfere with or erase E-collections. Currently, Inter-library loan and the DDS systems assist in
dispersing the demands on space.

As the Subcommittee considered plans for revenue generation and/or reduction, a contribution in
exchange for “naming” the Science Library could be a major development opportunity. UCI may
want to charge outside members, companies, and businesses for the use of its library services (cf,
UCSD). Whenever possible, University academic departments may be encouraged to utilize the
ASAP Information Service, which is a cost recovery research/document delivery service that is,
presently, a resource available to the community. Where research is highly specialized, the PI
could investigate the permissibility of accessing grant funds for materials. In the case of the

limited use of materials, negotiation of publisher pay-on-demand contracts could be cost
effective. Another suggestion was that a fee-based quarterly Endnote workshop be offered.

Libraries Task Force, Student Services Subcommittee: Progress report, 4-14-10

Members: Frances Leslie, Graduate Dean; Carol Hughes, Associate University Librarian; Hamza Siddiqui,
ASUCI; Esther Castillo, Graduate Student; Jasmin Dao, MSTP Student; John Crawford, Associate Professor,
Arts; Larry Bush, AGS; Rameen Talesh, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs, and Travis Van Den Vlekkert,
Undergraduate Student.
Meetings: April 2 and 13.
Materials reviewed: ASUCI 2010 Library survey; University of Rochester ethnographic reports on undergraduate
and graduate student needs; library use data; library memos on ILL and DDS.
(1) the ASUC survey indicates that there is widespread student dissatisfaction with study space and library
hours. Cutting these services further will severely impact student morale. Students want and need a variety of
flexible study spaces that are safe, comfortable, well lit and open late, particularly during week 10. Library
opening only in the afternoon on both days of the weekend is an ineffective use of student time. Science library is
a preferred study space that is not open enough. Gateway Commons is large and noisy and not conducive to
some study habits; (2) the University of Rochester reports emphasize the need for flexible group study space that
is designed by students themselves. Graduate study space should be separate from that of undergraduates and
should have lockers for storage of their materials. Libraries provide critical writing support services in
conjunction with their Writing Center, and early training in electronic literacy; (3) graduate students are the
major users of ILL. Less than 10% of use is by undergrads. Only 7% of ILL requests are not picked up, mitigating
concerns about inefficient use of the service by students.

Recommendations and/or issues for further consideration:
Immediate: Cost-saving
       Have students serve as library assistants and peer tutors for academic credit. This will provide
        professional development experience for the students. It will benefit the library by reducing staffing
        costs, and by providing peer expertise on library resources.
       The subcommittee supported the library proposals to eliminate DDS and to charge late fees for ILL
Immediate: Cost neutral
       Provide extensive study space during week 10 rather than finals week.
       Extend library hours on Sunday and, if necessary, close all day on Saturday.
Longer term: One time cost
       Reorganize Commons study space to provide more flexible study space and sound proofing.
       Expand study space within the Science Library by removing stacks and storing unused books in the
        regional facility.
       Use discarded furniture and materials from the Student Center renovation to furnish these spaces.
       Integrate a Writing Center, an Electronic Media Center and Electronic Literacy services into library

Michael Clark (on behalf of the Survey Sub-Committee [SSC]) disseminated a campus-wide
survey from May 12th to May 19th. The SSC designed the survey to assist the Library Task
Force with strategic planning. The SSC tailored the survey to each of the following affiliations:
undergraduate, graduate/post-doc, staff, and faculty. The key objective of the survey involved
identification of library resources that the UCI community views as the top priorities.

The figures and graphs (attached) show responses from the survey. Below we summarize the
main results and provide our interpretation.

      6,786 respondents completed the survey
      Participation rates ranged from 12% (staff) to 25% (faculty)
      Faculty, staff, and graduates/postdocs viewed (1) expansion of print and online
       collections and (2) continued use of Libraries website to access online resources as the
       top two priorities
      Undergraduates viewed (1) library hours and (2) individual and group study space as the
       top two priorities
      Several resources and services received lower priority scores across most affiliations:
           o Collections: microforms, atlases/maps, government documents, multimedia,
               special collections
           o Use of materials: Next generation Melvyl
           o Staff: Digital scholarship services (Faculty only), research guides, class-related
               instruction, departmental liaison
           o Space: library exhibits, multimedia software

Undergraduates differed from the other three affiliations regarding their top priorities for the
library. We note, however, a convergence of opinion for the lower ranked priorities. Examination
of the figures and responses (below) reveals nuanced responses across affiliation—especially for
the “middle-range” priorities and usage— for virtually every question.

The survey gauges the perceived “importance” of specific services and resources. In addition,
the survey asks respondents to choose overarching “top priorities” across the many services and
resources. We note that several services the respondents chose as very important or essential did
not always correspond to their top priorities. For example, although 51% of undergraduates
viewed “Research Consultation Services (in-person meeting with a Librarian)” as very important
or essential, only 10% recommended “Reference assistance with using library resources” as one
of the top three priorities. We interpret this divergence as an indication that the UCI community
generally views even the “low priority” resources and services as important to the functioning of
the Library.

We also coded and analyzed 2,000+ submitted written comments. The majority of the comments
reflect the high value respondents place on the Libraries. We summarize, at the end of this
document, key themes of the written comments. We suggest that the Task Force carefully
considers the written comments in addition to the itemized survey responses.

                         Library Survey Preliminary Results
User Survey Subcommittee:

Estimated Response Rates
Undergraduate                  15%
Staff                          12%
Graduate Student               22%
Faculty                        25%

*Note: respondents could select multiple affiliations.

Survey SubCommittee: Library Survey Results                                         6/10/2010

Highest Priorities (See Appendix A for details)
                 Items selected most frequently as a “top 3” priority                           %
Faculty             1. Adding new print and/or online journals, books, and databases            66%
                       to the permanent collection  
                    2. Libraries Website (i.e., access to Libraries’ services such as chat      60%
                       reference and subject guides, Access to Antpac, Melyvl and 
                       online resources such as databases and electronic journals; etc.)  
                    3. Interlibrary Loan (ILL)                                                  49%
                    4. Document Delivery Services                                               21%
Grad/Post Doc       1. Adding new print and/or online journals, books, and databases            65%
                       to the permanent collection  
                    2. Libraries Website (i.e., access to Libraries’ services such as chat      53%
                       reference and subject guides, Access to Antpac, Melyvl and 
                       online resources such as databases and electronic journals; etc.)   
                    3. Library Hours                                                            45%
                    4. Interlibrary Loan (ILL)                                                  45%
Undergraduates      1. Library Hours                                                            77%
                    2. Individual and Group Study Space                                         64%
                    3. Libraries Website (i.e., access to Libraries’ services such as chat      46%
                       reference and subject guides, Access to Antpac, Melyvl and 
                       online resources such as databases and electronic journals; etc.)   
                    4. Public computers to facilitate access to online resources                43%
Staff               1. Libraries Website (i.e., access to Libraries’ services such as chat      51%
                       reference and subject guides, Access to Antpac, Melyvl and 
                       online resources such as databases and electronic journals; etc.)   
                    2. Adding new print and/or online journals, books, and databases            40%
                       to the permanent collection  

                    3. Library Hours                                                            37%
                    4. Public computers to facilitate access to online resources                31%

Most Important Library Resources/Services (see Appendix B for Details)
                Collections                 Finding & Using Library               Library Staff Assistance             Library Space
Faculty                Electronic                Interlibrary Loan Services            At a service desk                  Access to print books 
                        journals,                 UC‐eLinks                             Through online chat, text           while in the library 
                        magazines, and            Melvyl & ANTPAC (tie)                  message, email, or phone           Access to print 
                        databases                                                         reference                           journals while in the 
                       Print books                                                      From your departmental              library 
                       Print journals                                                    librarian liaison (in              Self‐service printing 
                        and magazines                                                     person, via email, by               and copying 
                                                                                          phone, etc) 
Grad/Post Doc          Electronic                UC‐eLinks                             At a service desk                  Access to print books
                        journals,                 ANTPAC                                Research guides for                Individual study 
                        magazines, and            Interlibrary Loan Services             specific subjects or                seating 
                        databases                                                         courses                            Self‐service printing 
                       Print books                                                      Through online chat, text           and copying 
                       Books in digital                                                  message, email, or phone 
                        format (e‐books)                                                  reference 
Undergraduate          Electronic                ANTPAC                                At a service desk                  Individual study 
                        journals,                 Print and Electronic Course           Research guides for                 seating 
                        magazines, and             Reserves                               specific subjects or               Computers in the UCI 
                        databases                 UC‐eLinks                              courses                             Libraries and 
                       Print books                                                      Research Consultation               Libraries Gateway 
                       Books in digital                                                  Services (in‐person                 Study Center 
                        format (e‐books)                                                  meeting with a Librarian)          Late‐night hours in 
                                                                                                                              Libraries Gateway 
                                                                                                                              Study Center 
Staff                  Electronic                Interlibrary Loan Services            At a service desk                  Access to print books
                        journals,                 UC‐eLinks                             Through online chat, text          Computers in the UCI 
                        magazines, and            ANTPAC                                 message, email, or phone            Libraries and 
                        databases                                                         reference                           Libraries Gateway 
                       Print books                                                      Research guides for                 Study Center 
                       Print journals                                                    specific subjects or               Access to print 
                        and magazines                                                     courses                             journals 

Appendix A: The current financial situation for UC Irvine has necessitated a
strategic review of library services. To assist with this review, please rank your 3
highest priorities for library spending for the next 2 years. You may only choose 3.

   1. Faculty 


2. Grad/Post doc Priorities 

3. Undergraduate Priorities 

4. Staff Priorities 

                                Summary Figure: Highest Priorities by Group

                 Adding new Libraries                       Document              Individual and Public
                 print and/or Website (i.e.,                 Deliver Library Hours Group Study computers to
                                             Loan (ILL)
                    online     access to                    Services                  Space      facilitate
Faculty             66%           60%            49%          21%         0%          0%           0%
Grad/Post Doc       65%           53%            45%          0%          45%         0%           0%
Undergraduates      0%            46%                         0%          77%         64%          43%
Staff               40%           51%                         0%          37%                      31%

Appendix B: Importance of Library Resources and Services

      Faculty: Collections 

      Faculty: Finding & Using Library Materials 


    Faculty:  Library Staff Assistance 


    Faculty: Library Space 


Grad/Post Docs: Collections 

Grad/Post Docs: Finding & Using Library Materials 


    Grad/Post Docs: Library Staff Assistance 


    Grad/Post Docs: Library 


Undergraduates: Collections 

Undergraduates: Finding & Using Library Materials 


Undergraduates: Library Staff Assistance 


Undergraduates: Library 

    Staff: Collections 

    Staff: Finding & Using Library Materials 


Staff: Library Staff Assistance 



        Staff: Library 


Written Comments 

We received over 2,000 written comments. Overall, the largest number of responses
related to the value of the Libraries for the UCI campus.

                              Most Frequent comments
Faculty                       Value of Libraries (34%)
                              Importance of Online Resources (34%)
Grad/Post Doc                 Value of Libraries (27%)
                              Importance of Online Resources (26%)
Undergrad                     Hours (45%)
                              Value of Libraries (24%)
Staff                         Value of Libraries (36%)
                              Importance of Online Resources (14%)

Given the large number of response related to the value of the Libraries, we attached a
few representative comments on this topic.

   Representative Comments from Survey
Faculty                  Even in the electronic age UCI cannot be a world‐class 
                          research institution without a well‐funded library. Top 
                          research faculty consider library strength when recruited 
                          and places like Harvard, Berkeley, Michigan lead the way 
                          because they have extensive on‐site resources and 
                          special material that won't be superseded by electronic 
Faculty                  It would be terrible to destroy the library due to financial 
                          cutbacks.  Without a strong library a university is in 
                          serious trouble. 
Faculty                  The University needs to thoroughly rethink and reinvent 
                          the place of the library in its mission. But it is short‐
                          sighted, and reactive, to let that retooling be shaped 
                          entirely by the logic of cutting budgets. The idea that 
                          Google Scholar is even on this survey is surprising to me. 
                          Our students do not, simply by dint of their age, know 
                          how to navigate the ocean of information available to 
                          them today. More than ever, they need to learn in college 
                          how to negotiate, search, interpret, and evaluate stores 
                          of knowledge‐‐if we want them to contribute to them. 
Faculty                  The library is essential. We should be expanding library 
                          services and not cutting them. This survey is very 
Faculty                  The library is a most important part of the University and 
                          to reduce its role is to reduce the mission of the 
                          University. The entire University suffers when the Library 
                          is treated as if it were an 'extra' rather than a central 
                          piece of the University's mission. 
Faculty                  Ranking the top three was a Faustian bargain.  The library 
                          is a TOP priority, period.  This is a research university!!!!! 
                          Librarians, books, and online resources should be a 
                          priority.  What is wrong with this administration that we 
                          are being asked to rank our preferences for new books 
                          and periodicals against to having available librarians or 
                          access to the latest online material as if this will somehow 
                          make the library a more productive asset?  A university is 
                          not a corporation.  There are core educational needs that 
                          simply need to be funded.  Like libraries, like books, like 
                          journals and the online access to libraries, books, and 
                          journals and the people that make these core educational 
                          assets work. What are you people thinking? 
Faculty                  The university is only as strong as its library. The UC 
                          system's crisis is, currently, salved in part only by the 
                          wonder that is its library system (in spite of drastic cuts!). 
                          The library and its archives (at my home campus and 
                          across the system) are a key reason I was recruited to UCI 

                    and their dismantling would be a key reason for me to 
                    leave. I have been thoroughly impressed with the staff at 
                    UCI's libraries in spite of resource and physical plant 
                    woes. Off‐campus access to digital resources and DDS 
                    services are remarkable and essential to my publication 
                    work which, it appears, is the basis upon which all 
                    rewards (to teaching faculty) are premised within the UC. 
                    Thank you for the opportunity to extend my thanks to 
                    those who work for the libraries and for the services we 
                    currently have. 
Grad student       It is shocking to me that an R1 university is facing these 
                    sorts of cuts to library services.  How can we consider 
                    ourselves a premier research institution deserving of 
                    national ranking while deprioritizing the vehicles to 
                    successful research?  It's embarrassing, and is going to 
                    have really unfortunate, and unanticipated, long term 
                    effects on the University's reputation and the state of 
                    California as a dynamic economy. 
Grad student       We need our library! The library is the cornerstone of a 
                    good university. 
Grad student       DO NOT MAKE CUTS TO THE LIBRARY.  There are plenty 
                    of ways to fund the library that the UC system as a whole 
                    and UCI in particular should investigate.  The cuts have 
                    already lowered the quality of the conditions that are 
                    necessary for research.  The hours are already too short, 
                    and there is already too little face ot face engagement.  
                    Though we are increasingly relying on on‐line sources, 
                    and I have listed this as the highest priority, a fully 
                    servicable on‐line system would still require keeping a full 
                    library staff.  This should be the first priority.  There still 
                    needs to be library staff to manage, update, expand, and 
                    explain how to access these resoruces.  Furthermore, 
                    having the the xerox machines outsourced has been both 
                    difficult and costly, even though most of the machines 
                    are often out of service.  Xeroxing is essential given that 
                    many of the periodicals are still not available on‐line.  
                    Coming from a small yet less funded liberal arts 
                    institution, in comparison I find the library resources at 
                    UCI already abysmally low in quality due to underfunding.  
                    CUT THE BUDGET ELSEWHERE!!!  Should the library 
                    budget diminish, I will not recommend this campus to 
                    new undergraduate, graduate, postgraduate, or faculty 
Grad student       do no cut access to materials. 

Grad student       I understand that in this severe financial situation it's 
                    unavoidable to make decisions and cut down something 
                    which is not so important. However, it's a bit too narrow‐

Survey SubCommittee: Library Survey Results                                        6/10/2010

                             minded to let us choose only three choices among a 
                             dozen options which are all important and indispensable. 
                             Anyway, it would not be worth being called discussion if 
                             one is said to choose only three priority things without 
                             any detailed explanation of why one should accept that 
                             from the very beginning. 

Undergrad student           I think the availability and resources of the UCI libraries 
                             are a crucial part of being a student at a UC, thus its 
                             future should be handled with this in mind. 
Undergrad student           The UCI libraries are very essential for students the way 
                             they are now, especially during finals and midterm 
Undergrad student           This library was, many times, more valuable than in‐class 
                             instruction. I would hate to see its enormous usefulness 
                             and applicability diluted by funding issues. 
Undergrad student           Libraries are doing great right now. Hope all of them can 
                             be the same or better in the future. 
Undergrad student           It's very unfortunate that we have to cut the library's 
                             budget.  The services provided were essential to my 
                             experience in college courses.  The amount of resources 
                             available for students is amazing and very useful; 
                             anything from the online chats with librarians to 
                             interlibrary loans. 

Undergrad student           Although I realize the impact lack of money has on 
                             educational resources I feel as though if our school were 
                             to get rid of some of our resourse, the university would 
                             not have as great of standing in the society. The 
                             University of California, Irvine is known for its amazing 
                             research which I believe would not be possible without 
                             the resourse we have avialiable to us, as students. 

Undergrad student           The Library is the heart of any University 

Undergrad student           I love UCI Libraries! They are extremely important to the 
                             quality of our education and shouldn't be messed with! 
Staff                       An excellent library is the most critical element of a 
                             university's success as a research institution.  Please be 
                             smart about this. 

Staff                       Libraries are a very important part of the educational 
                             experience and are very essential to any campus and to 

Survey SubCommittee: Library Survey Results                                      6/10/2010

                            the community, and I think our libraries are very good. I 
                            think every effort should be made to continue to provide 
                            library services and keep the services offered, especially 
                            the interlibrary loan service which is very helpful when 
                            certain books are not available. It is also important to 
                            continue to make sure we are aware of new resources for 
                            the library. Thanks! 
Staff                      Students who have to work in order to pay for school, 
                            need access to sources with in the Library. To take away 
                            this privalege to me, would be very devastating to these 
                            who want to learn and make better persons of 
                            themselves, and a better country. Please do not take 
                            away their furture! 

Staff                      the students need as many libraries so they can all have a 
                            chance to do what they needed to do..limiting libraries 
                            facilities will not be a good idea. 
Staff                      Libraries are a very important part of any learning 
Staff                      Vital to educational institutions and community to have 


Shared By: