Agenda
Meeting notes--Bill Hook
- Privileges for Meharry faculty and students
- Privileges for faculty from other institutions
- Faculty delivery announcements and questions
- Fines
- University Librarian search and 'future of the library' planning
Presiding: Flo Wilson Meeting Notes: Bill Hook
Attendees:
- David Carpenter, Central Library
- Martin Cerjan, Law Library
- Bill Hook, Divinity Library
- Frances Lynch, Eskind Biomedical Library
- Juanita Murray, Special Collections
- Tracy Primich, Science & Engineering Library
- Holling Smith-Borne, Music Library
- Celia Walker, Peabody Library
- Flo Wilson, Management Library & OUL
Announcements
Flo indicated that two interviews were being scheduled for the Peabody Library Director search. October 25, 26 and November 5, 6, she asked the directors to please check their calendars for availability for these two interviews.
Privileges for Meharry faculty and students -- Privileges for faculty from other local institutions
A request had been made by a faculty member from Meharry for borrowing privileges. There has not previously been a formal arrangement for Meharry faculty and staff similar to such as exists for Sewanee, except in the Eskind Biomedical Library. Eskind uses a manual circulation process to track activity by Meharry faculty and students.
The question was do we need a process or procedure to handle what would appear to be a low level of requests for such privileges? A similar request for privileges was received from a TSU faculty member for example.
One option for such requests would be through the existing Visiting Scholar process, but that would require a sponsoring faculty member or department here within Vanderbilt.
After discussion the proposal to advance to Paul, is that he approach the NALA libraries to propose institutional arrangements similar to what is used for the existing OCLC/RLAC agreement. Faculty would ask their university librarian to submit a request for privileges to Vanderbilt’s University Librarian. A commitment from the home institution to help collect any fines or fees if necessary, would allow the privileges to be granted under our OCLC/RLAC procedure. [Flo subsequently confirmed after discussion with Paul that this proposal addresses his concerns and he will propose it to the NALA directors]
Faculty Delivery Announcements and Questions
A request for an exception to the policy for faculty delivery was received, where individuals who are classified as staff by the university might have access to the faculty delivery service. Jim Toplon has indicated his willingness to be flexible about this, and could accommodate such requests with existing status.
It became apparent in discussion that there is openness to being broad in allowing access to the service, and the conversation turned to how this could best be done. Should such individuals have their ACORN profile changed to ‘faculty’, or should we create a new profile that would mirror library staff for instance, which gives them faculty privileges and loan intervals, yet also allow them to be tracked separately.
The consensus was that it would probably be best to create a new profile. Tracy indicated she will raise this with the CAC for their response and or identification of other issues that might arise relating to this proposal.
Fines
Flo distributed another draft of a statement to articulate our decision regarding fines. Discussion of the draft was positive. Some concerns that David raised based on conversation with the Central staff were:
- Clarity about which categories of materials are included in the new policy [regular circulating books, NOT reserves, DVD’s etc]
- It was proposed that we should consider raising the billing fee from $15 to something a bit higher, perhaps $20
- It was requested that we seek consistency among the libraries practices regarding the interval between the “time to bill” notice and when the item is actually billed.
A separable issue was raised about considering lowering the overdue fines on laptops, which seemed a reasonable proposal but not really linked to this particular policy change.
The consensus after discussion was that we were ready to advance this decision to CAC, and ask them to review it to develop specific proposals for implementation. The draft report as amended will be made available to CAC.
University Librarian Search and ‘future of the library’ planning
Several members expressed concerns about the process for the search for a new University Librarian, and the delay in any planning about the future of the library.
Concern about what input library directors (and staff) will have in the search was expressed, as well as questions about what the process will actually be. Flo indicated that this is actually very early in the process, and while the vacancy announcement was posted on the Heard web page, the search committee has not yet been finalized.
It was suggested that it would be useful to invite Dennis Hall to meet with the group to discuss the process, and to hear some of the concerns expressed. It was also agreed that it would be useful for the directors to proceed with some discussion about our vision(s) for the future of the library, both for conversation with candidates when they are interviewed, as well as preparation for participating in the process for the committee Dennis will appoint eventually.