October 21, 2009
TO:
Wayne Quirk
Provost/Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs
Tracy Pellett
Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies
FROM: Philip Tolin
Interim Dean of Library Services
RE:
2009 Program Review – Brooks Library
I write to provide commendations and recommendations as part of the program review process for the
Brooks Library. These remarks are based on the Library’s Self-Study, the external reviewers’ evaluation,
and my personal observations.
At the outset, I would like to acknowledge the leadership of Daniel CannCasciato in the preparation of the
the Self-Study. Library faculty and staff made major contributions to its content. It is a good document
that reflects both on the Library’s strengths and several of its challenges. Drs. Rick Rubin and Greg
Byerly, of Kent State University, did a comprehensive external review. I have met with Library faculty
and staff, and have solicited their rejoinder to the report of the external review. Responses from faculty
and staff, in the form of comments embedded in the document submitted by Drs. Rubin and Byerly, are
attached to this letter. Additionally, I have discussed with the faculty and staff my own response to the
program review, which I summarize below.
First, I should note that the responses of faculty and staff to the external review suggest that the report
contains several factual errors and misunderstandings. Also, there is strong feeling that appropriate
questions were not asked in several instances. I do not dispute this. Still, on general matters, I believe
that the reviewers successfully captured several strengths and challenges confronting the organization.
COMMENDATIONS
1. In general, the Library’s collection, both print and electronic, appears to be appropriate to the
needs of the university. Toward this end, through the ORBIS Cascade Alliance, the Library
makes effective use of licensing agreements so that on-site and remote users can be
accommodated. The reviewers suggest that many academic departments have raised concerns
about the Library’s resources, and examination of LibQual survey suggests that this is an area of
concern. I agree that this may be an issue: After significant cuts to Library periodicals holdings in
the 1990’s, to the best of my knowledge, funding was not restored. Subsequent funding has not
kept up with regular and predictable inflation in the costs of materials, particularly serials and
electronic resources. Still, librarians work with departmental representatives to acquire needed
resources. A Collection Development committee has been formed, after having been moribund
for many years, and has been charged with developing criteria for acquisitions.
2. The Systems department is strong and provides for the needs of Library faculty, staff, and
students despite serious resource issues.
3. The Circulation department functions effectively.
4. The Government Documents/Maps/Microforms unit provides a high level of service.
5. Interlibrary Loan continues to provide valuable services to the university community. It should
be noted that despite the reviewers’ suggestion that the need for ILL services will decrease as
patrons become more familiar with ORBIS Cascade services, actual ILL borrowing has increased
substantially over the past several years. Further, it is likely that current and anticipated
budgetary limitations will increase the use of ILL services.
6.
The Reference department was singled out for criticism in the external review. While some of
the suggestions warrant attention (and several already are being addressed), it must be noted that
the Reference department has been critically under-staffed. With recent additions of nontenuretrack faculty and the part-time reassignment of a tenure-track faculty member to work in this
department, the staffing issue seems to have been resolved for the moment, and several longdiscussed initiatives are now being pursued. I believe that the reviewers got some things wrong
here. For example, they criticize the unit for its apparently limited involvement in informationand technological-literacy instruction. However, Reference librarians have been active in
providing Univ. 101 instruction, course-specific instruction in many academic departments on
campus, LIB 345 classes, and orientation sessions for faculty. Instruction conducted by Music
Library personnel also seems to have been ignored (contrary to the assumption by the reviewers
that the Music librarian directly reports to the Dean, this individual actually reports to the head
Reference librarian).
7. In the course of the external review, Drs. Rubin and Byerly commented positively on the
dedication to service and competence of the Library faculty and staff. I am also impressed.
Despite several issues confronting the organization (addressed below), Library personnel are
genuinely committed to serving the needs of faculty and students. Also, despite some significant
tensions, there is a remarkable degree of collegiality: faculty and staff work together well to meet
emergent needs and there is an excellent degree of inter-department support. Frankly, when I
accepted the position as Interim Dean, I had not expected to find this degree of mutual support.
To be sure, there are issues of collegiality that must be addressed, but in my experience these are
not unusual in an organization of this size.
CHALLENGES
1. Leadership: A lack of effective leadership over a prolonged period has left the Library adrift. The
Library needs an effective permanent dean who is capable of inspiring professional confidence,
conducting careful planning and analysis, and making difficult decisions. This has been discussed
enough at both staff and administrative levels that it needs no further elaboration here, except to
reiterate its importance. However, as the reviewers note, the hiring of a new dean is not sufficient
to create forward momentum, stability, and administrative direction for the Library. Perhaps
because of the administrative disarray of the past few years, my sense is that there is a level of
learned helplessness: passivity bred of a perception that one has little control over outcomes.
There is a serious need to nurture leadership within the Library.
2. Financial:
a. Costs of information resources have risen inexorably, yet funding has not kept pace.
Arguably, the tenuous link between funding and need is an issue affecting the broader
academic community, but the Library is central to the academic endeavor and failure to
provide adequate resources will have broad repercussions for student learning, and
faculty development.
b. Spending on technological support seems to me to have been unfortunately ad-hoc. For
example, there has been no systematic program of computer replacement. As a result,
this year the Library has been confronted with the issue of having to replace both
employee and public computers en masse. A systematic and predictable replacement and
maintenance program should be established.
c. As enrollments at the university centers increases and as it becomes likely that programs
will be added at still other sites, budgeting for the Center library operations should
become more explicit – perhaps as a separate budget line – to ensure that funding for
Center operations isn’t merely absorbed into an already stagnant general Library
operating budget.
3. Staffing: Inadequate staffing remains an obstacle to development. The self-study makes a
comparison of staffing levels at the Brooks Library with those at comparable institutions, and the
difference is striking. One of the early tasks of a new dean should be to lead a planning effort
that will inform future hiring decisions.
4. Collaboration with academic units needs to be strengthened. The liaison program should be
examined with an eye toward greater outreach to academic departments. Additionally, the mission
and role of the Library Advisory Council should be assessed. This body ought to be an important
link between the Library and the academic departments, but it has not filled that role.
5. Facilities: The Library is widely viewed as an uninviting building. Short-term planning should
consider changes to the first floor consistent with the general assumptions of the Mithun plan.
Longer-term modifications should be discussed broadly in the context of developing a master plan
to assure accommodation of future needs.
6. Organization: The reviewers raised the issue of administrative organization within the Library. I
share their concern that the organizational structure may be a bit cumbersome, that spans of
authority seem a bit small, and that changes might be advisable, but I’m not sure that their specific
suggestions are necessarily the most logical. This is a matter that should be addressed by the new
dean.
7. There needs to be a systematic analysis of the mission, goals, and fiscal support of the libraries at
the university Centers.
8. The mission and priority of the Archives unit should be clarified.
9. Outreach to students and faculty should be increased. Reference department faculty, in particular,
should consider ways to increase their effort in this regard.
10. Strategic Planning: Embedded in all that has been discussed above is the need for a serious
strategic planning process in which the reciprocal responsibilities of Library faculty/staff and
administration are recognized. For planning to be other than an empty exercise, of course,
resources need to follow.
PROCESS
Some concerns have been expressed about the process.
1. Library faculty and staff played no role in selection of reviewers.
2. There was some consternation that there are several perceived factual errors and mistaken
assumptions in the external review, and that the reviewers failed to ask relevant questions to test
their assumptions. For example, the Reference department reported that the reviewers spent
almost all of their meeting time trying to elicit what they wanted in a new dean and little time
asking questions about the operation of the Reference department, instructional and outreach
efforts, etc.
SUMMARY
I commend the faculty and staff of the Library for maintaining a high level of public service and, in
general, a collegial environment despite administrative drift, significant financial stresses, personnel
shortages, and failure to develop a shared vision for the future development of the Library. While there
are significant issues to be addressed, I am confident that with appropriate administrative support the
talent and motivation exist to support further development of the Library as the intellectual center of the
University.
c:
Library Faculty and Staff
Attachment: Library faculty/staff rejoinder to external review