University Librarian's Cabinet: Minutes of the April 5, 2005 Meeting

Fultz, Gaunt, Golden, Sewell, Zapcic
Agnew, Fetzer, Puniello (from New Brunswick)
Mullins (from Newark)

University Librarian's Report - Gaunt

All Funds Budgeting Process - Gaunt/Hendrickson

Hendrickson distributed several charts, which demonstrated where the state and non-state funds are allocated and spent. A review of last year's funds, with a focus on where salary savings were spent was analyzed, as our state funds do not cover all our operating expenses. The largest portion of salary savings goes to voucher support. An increasing amount goes to services and maintenance contracts. If we look at the last five years of expenditures, the amount spent on equipment and furnishings has declined the most due to needs in other areas that could not be put off. We are short one million in permanent below the line funds for basic operating expenditures. Without salary savings we could not manage, and the new university policies on how it can be used gives us much more operating flexibility. In developing overall budget strategies we should focus on collections and below the line. We should also acknowledge that growth in programs and enrollments have an impact on services and collections. Changes in residential students in Camden and Newark will also make a difference. While we need to assess this impact against overall staffing, we must also consider the potential for changes in scheduling. We should examine where we would prefer to have voucher funds and where a line is preferred. We should also consider making a case for the Libraries to be included in the re-conceptualization of student fees. As we prepare for our budget request, it important to categorize our primary needs and make a case for permanent increases.

Collections Budget Update - Sewell

Sewell distributed similar charts for collections allocations and expenditures. Following requests from our University-Wide Libraries Advisory Committee we compared our expenditures per student with other public AAU institutions with similar size enrollments. We do not compare favorably-the lowest of ten peers. Looking at the permanent base budget, our base this year is less than in 2001 due to budget givebacks when the university's budget was cut by the state. In 2003 fixed costs were more than base budget. In 2004 there was an even wider discrepancy. We are able to meet costs due to non-state funds from endowment, unrestricted development funds, gift funds and one-time funds from the university (administration, student computer fees, departmental gifts). While some of these come every year, they are not part of the permanent base and we can't rely on them nor the amount we might receive. For a collections budget request strategy, we need to consider inflation, the lack of growth in our permanent budget, the increase in F&A from grants our faculty are awarded, and comparisons with peer institutions. In discussions with our Advisory Committee, several principles arose: the base budget must cover fixed costs; we should develop a plan to be in the top quartile of public AAUs in the amount we spend per student. We decided to compare overall student population because both our graduate student population and number of PhD programs is less than our peer institutions-we are more heavily undergraduate. Faculty members have noted that they are having a hard time recruiting good graduate students and faculty because we don't have the sufficient depth in library collections. In overall expenditures for collections we should use the AAU comparisons, but pick the mid-range for our goals over the next five years. Also build into our plan inflationary increases, even if not the exact amount of inflation each year but an increase acknowledging growth. A small percentage of the increase in the F&A on grants should come yearly as one-time funding. We will begin to assemble the appropriate charts and case statement.

Repository Mission Statement - Sewell

Cabinet discussed the draft Rutgers Digital Repository Mission Statement that had been developed by the Scholarly Communication Committee. Draft statement attempted to state the main purpose and function of the repository - to permanently preserve and make freely accessible intellectual output of the university and its partners. Cabinet decided that partnerships should be to further the mission of the university, and that doesn't come through in this statement. Focus should be on published output of the university. Issues of permanence, freely accessible, publications, administrative records, criteria and impact need to be incorporated in the next version. Articles for the repository will be selected based on significant impact on the Rutgers community, the state, and the international scholarly community. It is critical for the repository to be supporting unique materials. Can have a neutral statement about the repository's collections, but the faculty will be interested on whether we're focusing on scholarly and/or administrative information. Criteria will need to be developed. Cabinet determined the statement requires more discussion and needs to go through a vetting process in strategic planning. Sewell will work with the Scholarly Communication Committee to revise the statement incorporating the comments and Cabinet will review again.




Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy
© Copyright 1997-, Rutgers University Libraries