Academic Library Budget Cuts – Are Serials Always First Resort?

While I agree with the sentiment that appeared in library committee minutes at our sister institution -

that is, if the choice is between periodicals and staff, obviously the staff need to be preserved -

I’m beginning to wonder, are serials always the first to be cut from academic library budgets during difficult times?

The academic library where I work is cutting

-staff positions (currently and hopefully only through attrition)

-computer footprint (college-wide cut of 11% of machines)

-some electronic resources (based on usage statistics and cost)

-all print journals that can be subscribed to in online format

-some memberships through which we receive serial publications

-almost all journal and monograph binding

-and they’re investigating moving some of our online journal subscriptions to a pay-per-view model

A moderate reduction to the book acquisitions budget will also be made.

You’ll begin to notice that the sub-department of serials (2 FTE), while we’ll likely be keeping our jobs, will bear the brunt of the cut in materials budgets.

So, we’ll have our jobs (I hope), but what exactly will we be doing when our job responsibilities are so reduced?

Is this similar to what’s happening at other libraries?

Decentralized Serials Administration

While I’ve already posted about journals check-in, I’m wondering how other library systems with multiple library sites manage serials in general.

I work in the ‘central’ branch at a college where there are two additional branch libraries.  A few years ago the decision was made to decentralize much of the serials administration, such that subscriptions, renewals, binding, and cataloging continued to be administered by the ‘central’ library staff, but check-in was managed by the branch libraries for titles which were shelved there.

This decentralized serials administration model poses problems for claiming missing issues, updating the cataloging for title changes and mergers (etc.), updating the frequency of the publication, and collecting journal issues for binding – all among the other exciting things that the world of serials throws our way.

These problems may all become non-issues as we move progressively towards an electronic-only serials collection, but in the meantime, it is a collection management mire.

Do you work with serials in a multi-site library system?  How does your library system handle serials administration?

Professional Resolutions for a LWSI-less 2009

Some of you may remember the posts “End of an Era: LWSI disbanded as consortium restructures library technology management” and “LWSI reconvened as technology management discussion continues”.  It’s ultimately come to pass that LWSI is dissolved in favor of a new experimental structure of technology administration for the Trico consortium.  While I’d hoped to become more active with the Library Web Services Integration working group, that’s no longer an option -

So here are some professional resolutions for 2009.

1)  Begin a graduate program in library and information science

I’ve been accepted into a program and could start classes as early as March 2009, pending a final financial aid decision and my husband finding stable employment.  More information to come when I enroll.

2) Clean up our Union Listings

This will be a large, ongoing project involving updating our institution’s Local Holdings records in WorldCat.  This project is the outcome of a continuing education course that I took through Palinet (see “You think you know, but you have no idea: Local Holdings”).

3) Create a system for processing journal price increases, title and publisher changes, etc. during renewals season

Renewals season is a harried time of shot-from-the-hip emails as this kind of administrative information is provided on a title-by-title basis by our primary subscription agent.  I’d like to create a system, modeled on one developed by a colleague, of blogging or otherwise listing subscription changes in a central place for our collections, branch, and public services librarians to access and comment on, rather than herding the barrage of emails I receive regarding susbcription renewals and changes.

4) Coordinate training for staff communication tools

Our library staff uses a collection of blogs and wikis to record and discuss everything from committee minutes to application user documentation.  The skill and comfort levels across the staff in using these tools are varied; I’m in the process of working with colleagues to coordinate a series of orientations to blogs and wikis to promote the use of these tools by all levels of library staff.

5) Be considered for inclusion in technology projects coming through the new management pipeline

There’s a number of people in line in front of me, but I know a graduate program will be more meaningful if I can put theory into practice in my professional life.

6) Stay active in the professional debate

Keep reading, thinking, and writing

Do you have professional goals for the new year, or suggestions for a paraprofessional working towards the goal of a professional library career?  Please comment!

LWSI reconvened as technology management discussion continues

Almost a week ago I wrote that the Tri-College Management Group had decided to dissolve a long-standing consortial committee, the Library Web Services Integration group, and to replace it with a top-heavy Technology Advisory Group.

Today, LWSI was reconvened to discussed the proposed model for technology management in the Trico.  It became increasingly evident that the management decision, presented as final, was in fact a ‘first draft’ attempt to distill a model for technology management that has been percolating in the six months since a pivotal member of the Trico IT team resigned.

What emerged from LWSI was a proposal to create a standing working group from the pool of individual systems SuperUsers that would succeed LWSI to exist alongside the new Technology Advisory Group.  The overarching philosophy is that TAG includes the kind of administrative staff who are able to make decisions about new technology projects, but there still needs to be a group composed largely of systems users who can make the day-to-day tweaks to our systems that are required for them to run smoothly and play together nicely.  There is also a concern for including representation from people who are intimately knowledgable about the user experience of our patrons, and a SuperUsers working group will serve this need quite effectively.

I think that convening a SuperUsers working group to exist alongside TAG and to manage the day-to-day maintenance of our existing systems is a feasible solution to the problem we identified in TAG; namely, that it consists of people who are ultimately too separated from the systems they are managing to effectively maintain day-to-day operations, and that these day-to-day operations should not have to move through a top-heavy bureaucratic structure to get taken care of.  While, at this time, I don’t qualify for inclusion in a SuperUsers working group, I hope to be considered as a candidate for any systems that aren’t currently served by a SuperUser.

End of an Era: LWSI disbanded as consortium restructures library technology management

The Tri-College (Bryn Mawr College, Haverford College, Swarthmore College) Library Management Committee decided today to disband the long-standing consortial committee for technology research, development, implementation, and advising.  After more than a decade in service, the Library Web Services Integration (LWSI) committee, comprised of members from the public and technical services departments from all three campuses, was dissolved in favor of

“A Technology Advisory Group comprised of select members of the Management Group, likely including one head of Technical Services, one head of Public Services, [the convener of the Systems Group], and appropriate others.”

The most recent incarnation of LWSI did not include any department heads or members of the management group, and I think it is clear that the decision to move to a Technical Advisory Group whose composition draws heavily from administrative staff is something of a sea change in the way technology will be handled in the TriCo.

Speaking personally, I felt incredibly lucky to serve however briefly on a committee like LWSI, where my paraprofessional status seemed to have little bearing on how my input or interest was received by other committee members.  I viewed LWSI as an opportunity to develop skills and professional relationships as I move towards library school and a professional library career, and also as a venue through which someone who is new to the field could introduce new concepts and practices for technology use in the TriCo.

The proposed composition of TAG does not seem to present the same opportunities for paraprofessional staff to become involved, and, I think, could present an unfortunate step back for staff development and interaction in the TriCo.