|
Background and Process
In the fall of 1998, Interim Provost, Dr. Dorothy Brown, initiated a review
of the Main Campus Library. In December, Dr. Brown appointed an External
Review Team (appendix 1) and on the recommendation of the Executive Faculty
of the Main Campus appointed an Internal Library Review Committee (appendix
2). During the same period, University Librarian Dr. Susan Martin and the
Library staff produced the "Georgetown University Library Self-Study"
(appendix 3), which provides detailed information on the Library, its
resources and operations. After consultation with Dr. Martin and Prof. James
Reardon-Anderson, chair of the Internal Review Committee, Dr. Brown charged
the External Review Team (appendix 4). The External Review Team visited the
Georgetown campus, January 10-12, 1999 (appendix 5), and on January 29,
submitted its "Report" (appendix 6). On February 16, Dr. Martin issued the
"Library Response to the Report of the Review Team" (appendix 7). On
February 22, the Internal Review Committee met to consider the "Report" of
the External Review Team and the "Response" of the Library. During February
and March, members of the Internal Review Committee met with the executive
committees of each of the schools on the Main Campus (except the College of
Arts and Sciences, with which we were unable to schedule a meeting) and the
Executive Faculty to make a progress report on the review and solicit
comments and advice. On March 26, Dr. Brown and Prof. Reardon-Anderson
reported
on the review to the Library Advisory Council. On April 6, the Review
Committee held its final meeting and approved this "Report," which was
submitted to the Executive Faculty on April 9.
Strengths: Staff, Service and Organization
One purpose for reviewing the performance of all units of the University is
to identify problems and propose ways of solving them. As a consequence,
reports that emerge from these reviews often emphasize "what's broken" and
"how to fix it." This report is no different. The Internal Review Committee
has focused on areas where the Library can improve and on ways the
University faculty and administration can help it achieve this goal.
However, it is also important to affirm the abundant good news about the
Georgetown Library. The "Report" of the External Review Team, which casts a
constructively critical eye on all aspects of the Library, also identifies
several of its strengths. While we could cite many examples, two stand out.
First, is the recognition the External Review Team gives (page 1) to the
Library staff and their commitment to service: "Lauinger and Bloomer
Libraries are characterized by an outstanding community of librarians and
support staff. They are highly professional, dedicated and productive, with
an excellent commitment to responsive -- even anticipatory -- service to
student and faculty scholars at Georgetown. The Library outreach and
instruction programs are well-developed, productive and successful.
Georgetown has a bargain in its Library, which produces a high yield of
service for the relatively small number of dollars invested."
Second, is the strength of the internal organization of the Library and the
successful cooperation among its units (page 4): "A strength of the Library
organization is that departments work together cooperatively to achieve a
broad set of information, service and collection management goals...."
Weakness: Campus Relations
Both the External Review Team and the Internal Review Committee found
abundant evidence that within its walls the Library is well staffed (in
quality, if not quantity), well organized, and well run, whereas in its
relations with other units on campus, both the Library and its Georgetown
partners need to improve their communication and cooperation. This is
especially true of relations between the Library and the faculty, the senior
University administration, and the University Information Services (UIS).
The primary purpose of this report is to comment on and make recommendations
regarding relations between the Library and other units of Georgetown
University.
Oversight and Advice
The "Report" of the External Review Team states and the findings of the
Internal Library Review Committee confirm that the Library has not related
effectively to the Georgetown University administration or faculty. The
Committee takes note of these problems and makes two recommendations for
correcting them.
Library-University Administration Relations. During the past decade, the
Library and the Librarian have not received sufficiently clear and
consistent direction from or been adequately integrated into the University
administration. One reason for this has been repeated changes of senior
administrators, which have left the Library and the Librarian without proper
supervision or support. The result is that the Librarian is often uncertain
about the expectations of and support for the Library among senior
administrators, while some senior administrators appear equally puzzled
about the Library, its mission, and priorities. The "Report" of the External
Review Team cites the exclusion of the University Librarian from the regular
meetings of the Council of Deans as one example of how the Librarian lacks
access to senior administrators.
Recommendation 1 The Provost, the Senior Vice President, the Vice President
for Alumni and University Relations, and other senior administrators should
provide the Librarian with clear instructions regarding the mission of the
Library and with the resources, authority, and access to information and
centers of University decision-making needed to accomplish this mission.
Given the attention that has been focused on this issue, it would be
especially helpful to clarify the role of the Council of Deans and its
relationship to the Library.
Library-Faculty Relations Relations between the Library and the faculty have
not always served either party well. Many individual faculty members have
made real contributions to the Library and the University through their
service on the Main Campus Library Committee. However, some faculty believe
that this committee has not been consulted sufficiently and has not played
an effective role in shaping the policies and practices of the Library.
Conversely, many Library staff have made substantial and successful efforts
to consult with and address the needs of the faculty. But these efforts have
not provided an effective conduit for addressing and affecting Library
policy.
Recommendation 2
The Main Campus Library Committee should be replaced by a
"Faculty Library Advisory Committee," to be composed of eight (8) faculty,
appointed two (2) each by the University Librarian, the University Senate,
the Executive Faculty, and the Provost, one (1) undergraduate and one (1)
graduate student appointed by the appropriate student bodies, with the chair
appointed by the Provost. This Committee should have responsibility for
advising the Librarian, reporting directly to the Provost, and notifying the
Executive Faculty on all aspects of the Library, including its internal
operations and relations with other units on and off campus. (The creation
of the Faculty Library Advisory Committee does not preclude the Librarian
from forming a separate advisory committee for the Library per se.)
Agenda and Priorities
Assuming that the first two recommendations are adopted, the following
comments and recommendations are designed to establish an agenda for the
University, the Library and the Faculty Library Advisory Committee, in the
immediate and intermediate future. The Internal Review Committee has been
unable to examine every issue raised in the course of this review and
believes that the management of most issues should be left to the capable
staff of the Library and associated units. However, the Committee wishes to
focus on issues that deserve the most immediate and high-level attention:
Leadership The Review Committee has noted some confusion over the mission of
the Library, its position within the University, and the direction the
Librarian can and should give to the Library's future. As indicated, the
Committee believes that the first responsibility for addressing this problem
lies with senior University administrators, who should give clear direction
and support to the Librarian, so that she understands the mission of the
Library and can identify the resources needed to carry out this mission. At
the same time, the Librarian should articulate a "vision" for the future of
the Library, including a clear, concise and specific statement of goals and
priorities, that can guide Library staff and provide a benchmark against
which to judge the Library in the future.
Recommendation 3 The Librarian should produce a clear, concise and specific
statement of the vision of the Library, including its priorities, and
strategy for realizing this vision within the limits of available resources.
Fundraising. The Review Committee shares the concern of the External Review
Team that the University Librarian has spent too much time fundraising and
too little time on the management and representation of the Library on
campus. The Committee recognizes that the Librarian may have been directed
or persuaded by senior University administrators to allocate her time in
this way, and that she may have been acting under pressure to meet the goal
set for the Library in the Capital Campaign. If so, these directions should
be reconsidered. The Committee also recognizes that the Librarian has played
an important and successful role in fundraising and should continue to play
this role, as appropriate, in the future. However, the Library and the role
of the Librarian as chief executive of the Library are too important for the
job to be performed by remote control.
Recommendation 4 The Provost, the head of the Office of Alumni and
University Relations, and other senior administrators should set reasonable
targets for fundraising by the Library, so that the Librarian can continue
to play an appropriate role in fundraising, while devoting the necessary
time to the direct supervision and representation of the Library on campus.
Library-University Information Services (UIS) Relations Many faculty have
expressed concerns about access to information and facilities that involve
contact and cooperation between the Library and University Information
Services. It is clear that there has been too much conflict and too little
cooperation between these two units. Recently, attention has focused on the
collection, storage, and classroom delivery of audio-visual (AV) materials,
but the problem extends to other areas as well. The cost of friction between
these two units is prohibitive; they must find more effective means of
working together for the benefit of all.
Recommendation 5 The Library, the UIS, and the various components of both
units should find effective means of working together, and the Faculty
Library Advisory Committee should monitor progress on this dimension and
report its findings to the Provost. In particular, the Library and the UIS
should consider the establishment of joint advisory bodies, including an
advisory body that includes faculty, such as the "Teaching, Learning and
Technology Roundtable," which played an effective role in the past.
Budget The Internal Review Committee recognizes that the budget of the
Georgetown Library is less than that of libraries at peer institutions. The
Committee also notes the recommendation of the External Review Team that the
University implement the proposal to add to the base budget of the Library
$100,000 per year for ten years. Although the Library Review Committee has
not been able to conduct a careful assessment of the University budget, the
Committee recognizes that the demands on the Library are growing rapidly,
strengthening the Library is crucial for the University as a whole, the
proposed increase is modest, and the University Librarian believes that this
annual increase is the minimum amount required to meet the core needs of the
Library.
Recommendation 6 The base budget of the Library should be increased by at
least $100,000 per year for ten years. Furthermore, the Faculty Library
Advisory Committee should investigate the level of support to and services
offered by the Georgetown University Library in comparison with libraries at
peer institutions and should make recommendations in this area.
Space Both the "Report" of the External Review Team and the Library's
"Response" make clear that the University must move immediately to address
the problem of Library storage and space. These documents show that there
will be no additional Library construction on the Main Campus in the
foreseeable future, that the Library is already at effective full capacity
(85%), and that "it is mandatory that immediate action be taken to find
alternative book storage space within 18 months or sooner." ("Report," 11)
Storage is not an option; it is a fact. The options concern what, where,
when and how storage will be achieved.
Recommendation 7 The University Librarian should act immediately to clarify
and articulate the options for storage of books in the next 12-18 months.
The Faculty Library Advisory Committee should ensure that faculty
participate fully in decisions regarding all aspects of storage, including
which volumes to move, or in the case of duplicates to deaccess, and when,
how and on what schedule stored volumes may be accessed.
Recommendation 8 The University administration should plan for the expansion
of Library space on campus, including, as recommended in the "Report" of the
External Review Team, Library space in new academic buildings.
Collection Development Successful collection development depends on the
degree to which the Library has timely and accurate information on the needs
of academic programs, especially new academic programs, the necessary
Library staff, especially staff with relevant subject expertise, appropriate
faculty cooperation in the selection of materials, and the resources to
build the collection to the required standard(s).
Recommendation 9 The University administration, Library, and faculty should
work together to develop and implement a common strategy for collection
development that takes account of resource allocation, collection
priorities, and selection of` materials. It is especially important to
develop mechanisms for cooperation between faculty and Library staff in
collection development.
Library staff The successful operation of the Library depends upon the
treatment accorded to and continued high morale of the Library staff.
Recommendation 10 The Faculty Library Advisory Committee should monitor the
terms and implementation of the new "Academic and Administrative
Professionals" (AAP) system and seek opportunities to meet with Library
staff at various levels to ensure that they enjoy both good professional
treatment and high morale.
Facilities Several faculty expressed to the Review Committee concerns about
the manner in which space in the Library is allocated for use by members of
the University community, especially the practice of reserving general
meeting space and classrooms for priority use by Library staff.
Recommendation 11 General meeting space, and especially classrooms, within
the Library should be administered according to the same principles that
apply to similar space in other units of the University.
Review In order to ensure that the recommendations of this report are
carried out in a timely fashion, the Review Committee believes that a
follow-up review should be conducted in the near future.
Recommendation 12 The schedule for review of the Library should be
accelerated, so that another review is conducted in three years to evaluate
progress on the matters mentioned in this report.
Submitted by the Internal Library Review Committee
James Reardon-Anderson, chair
Mary Culnan
Alison Hilton
Amy Liu
Alexander Sens
LeRoy Walters |
