Minutes of the Meeting of April 9, 2001
Chair Swansinger called the meeting to order at 4:00pm in 105 Fenton Hall
1. Swansinger: Ok everybody, we're going to go ahead and get started and anticipate that people will walk in, thanks to the rain. Could I have a motion for approval of the agenda?
Reddy: Motion.
Swansinger: Thank you, could I have a second?
Palumbos: Second.
2. Swansinger: And the next thing I need it for is the approval of the minutes. It says December 11, I'm sorry about that, I just caught that one. Sorry my fault. Yes approval of the minutes of March 12.
Reddy: Approval.
Swansinger: Thank you, could I have a second.
Boynton: Second
Swansinger: Nancy. Thank you. Oh ok, I keep forgetting these little parts, we have to vote on it. Can we go back then to the approval of the agenda? Could I have a vote to vote. Thank you. And could I have and nays? And could I also have a vote for the approval of the minutes? Any nays? Thank you!
Both motions were passed.
3. Ok moving on to the, I am giving the chairperson's report primarily because my vice-chair, Patrick Jones, because you may need to know he is the vice-chair of the College Senate is not here today. He will be back. But in the mean time I guess we'll kind of present the report that is attached to this. And what you should have received both in the minutes as well as an attachment to your minutes is the old organizational chart, which we passed out in February, as well as the new organizational chart. And a document which is called College Senate Personnel and Structure. My intention this afternoon is to basically open this up to discussion from the floor. There are a number of issues which I would like to highlight but I'll come back to that in a minute. What I would like to do is on the one hand have some discussion about this and tentatively, my plan, would be to finish this off with a motion to either approve this particular plan or a plan with changes, amendments whatever. With the understanding that this would then go to another task force, short task force, volunteers-which means I am looking for them. Which would help us write this up into by-law language. So today's goal is simply to ascertain whether or not this body is willing to make this particular change or some pattern of changes along this line. And what I am hoping is that we can discuss this. Real quickly, a couple of points which have come up from a combination of Prof Talk or the voting faculty list serve, has simply been the question of representation in terms of the divisions. It is not mentioned in this short document that you received, but there was no intention to change the balance of representation. At this point as you can see from the attendance sheet, we basically have fourteen representatives from Arts and Humanities, fourteen representatives from Natural and Social Sciences and then fourteen representatives from the Professional area. As well as another number of Ex Officio's. At this point, we're not trying to change that balance the notion of changing the representation from one to ten to one to twenty is simply to maintain that proportion but to have fewer college senator's. So that's point one, which is certainly open to discussion. And let me just say one more thing which is simply that the other thing that has come up through Prof Talk is simply been some discussion of the philosophy of these changes. And I know that both Patrick and I have stated here that our intent is primarily to make this a more effective governance body. And I am certainly open to any discussion as to whether you see that as happening through this particular schedule or not. Nancy?
Boynton: The only question I have was wondering if, sometimes people have said that how representatives said that or specify how to split up the work, definitely...
Swansinger: I know that at this point, from our brief conversations, it has not gone that well. Which does not mean we couldn't, its just we were just simply trying to make a bigger body to a certain extent smaller so that it could meet in a support group and talk about group work more effectively. But we haven't thought about the issue and where it is right now. Michael?
Grady: As far as this body is concerned, I think that we'd be reluctant to make it smaller. I think that already there is just by accident certain parts of campus not represented. And it could get much worse ()()()(), so I mean its important for (), a lot of this goes on and its something ()at least to get back to the fact.
Swansinger: Can I just on response say that I agree with the problem, I am not sure if my solution is any different. In the sense that many of you know for all the conversation that goes on here does not all get down to certain departments. And at the present time there is a paper of representation that I do not believe we usually obtain the phone number of senators of each division of each meeting.
Faulk: Again, one issue is standing committees, and I wanted to clarify the graduate council and why is there a standing committee should be ()(). I guess the other issue is that as representative recommendations for CCC committee, a sub-committee.
Swansinger: I think that a part of that is confusion on my part. Regarding the changing of by-laws, which were coming away for public elections. I am pretty sure, my understanding at this point is CCC did a standing committee, it is not a sub-committee of academic affairs. And I simply used the old structure as I had found it within the by-laws to put together the organizational chart. And so we've actually changed that. The main intent that I had in mind was to keep the standing committee and I say in my intent, mind you this is a task force and there a number of people who can speak to how they were seeing that. But my original thought was simply that the standing committee should be policy -making committees. And that they in turn can set up ad-hoc working committees. Which then would also have a limited life, therefor to do their task and then be disbanded. Leaving the policy committee to be the one to both bring them up and end them when their task is done. The part about the graduate council, my search so far has led me to the minutes of '99, and that's my first mention of it, but I have not yet found a by-law, which creates the committee. So it may be a case of simply...
Reddy: It was fall of '98 that the actual by-law was passed.
Swansinger: I haven't found it yet, but once I find it then we can proceed with that language to put it in the chart and stand it...and that comes the next question. Whether that would be a standing committee or a standing sub-committee of academic affairs.
Reddy: I think there, that part of the purpose of graduate council is to approve all graduate programs and curriculum as a body that is a standable body. The votes are approved through graduate council not academic affairs. So, they work with two different persons, academic affairs is for undergraduate programs.
Swansinger: And that indeed is how the academic affairs was set up in the by-laws. To deal with undergraduate affairs in particular.
Grady: As I remember we went through a long discussion last year on whether the CCC Committee should be a sub-committee of academic affairs and I believe we voted not. To make it a full standing committee and not to make the sub-committee. So are you suggesting we go back on that?
Swansinger: No, on part of this I am relying on Dick's interpretation of this as well. My understanding of what we voted (and I haven't checked more recently) my understanding of what we voted was that CCC at this point was a full standing committee. And is no longer reporting back to academic affairs. And so my chart does not reflect that and should. Which means it would have to be a standing committee. The only...right.... I have it as a sub-committee exactly. It's one of these cases where I passed this out and Dick made a comment to me which made me realize that I should have re-done it.
Reddy: Just a couple of clarifications. The GCP committee or whatever everyone wants to call it, historically was a sub-committee of academic affairs for a number of years. The committee as always thought of as () over a period of time. It then became an independent standing committee, over the last decade, I don't remember the exact time, but it's been 7 or 8 years at least that it's been in any standing committee. Subsequently, we because of the main change and because of a desire to change the composition of the committee, in December we passed a resolution a by-law amendment which would have made those changes. There were some technical problems with that, we came back to it in our last meeting in March and when we visited the issue with those technical, and there needs to be a vote on that. So that there will no longer be a GCP committee, it will be a CCC committee and it will be structured differently. It was as a standing committee, there was no motion to change that considered it either of the past times, in December or in March.
Swansinger: My reason for putting it in that particular configuration sub-committee, was simply that to a certain extent when Patrick and I were talking about this we were trying very hard to establish policy committee's. And the CCC at this point in time is of course a policy committee because of the situation of changing from the GCP to the CCC and all the work that its doing. However it will go back to being a working committee and so part of me was wondering whether it didn't go on back under. However, that's just my thinking its certainly not something I am proposing at this point given that we have just set it up as a standing committee. But that explains the chart and I talked to Dick about it, (I think on Thursday) and by then I had already sent it out to you.
Telly: Is this still open for...?
Swansinger: Sure, sure...
Telly: It's probably old business...I hesitate on this planning the budget ()() committee, that there should only be three people on it. I understand that what you're trying to do is to cut down, but it seems to me that that's a very important committee for the future of this campus, and to cut it ()()(). Ten- but three seems to me like not enough there to really get a discussion with just three people. I would suggest it would be at least be two more people in there.
Swansinger: Where did you...who would you be adding to it is one of the questions?
Sarkar: I would agree fully that the number seems to be very very low only three people. At least let the present the existing academic divisions might care that maybe representation from social science, a representation from medical science, a representation from ours, a representation from humanities, and so on. If the number can be raised and to keep a line with the academic appropriations committee.
Palumbos: The way I read the chart there is space for three more people, which means that there are six people on the committee, not just three. And also even if it's three we're doing these committees...is this a full board at the moment? Or is there trouble getting people on these committees? Because I don't want to eliminate committees, but we also need effective committees, and the way they are now there are not people on the committees and its pulling teeth to get people on these committees. And I think we should take that into consideration that we may not have quantity committees, but we may have quality committees. I think that's important to consider. So is that going to be with six people?
Swansinger: Actually it would be, but the way it's set up right now is three, at the end it's just the summary. Part of the thinking on this was simply that planning a budget would be (to my mind, and this is obviously to my mind) most effective if it could work with the executive committee to present faculty and professional views of what's necessary or what's the vision for the budget and planning. And the reason that I put three was partially to limit the committee, also to give representation to natural and social sciences, arts and humanities, and professional division. So that there was a conversation and three people that are very involved in it. Frankly, my impression (and this is my impression of course, and I'm sure you'll feel free to disagree) is simply that at this point in time, planning and budget is not always effective at sharing what is going on, and sharing with faculty and professionals how they could possibly be involved in the planning and budget process. I think we are reactive rather than proactive. And I am hoping to find a way to make us more proactive.
Telly: I just wonder if having three people there, if there can be that much discussion or ideas presented to people. I would suggest two more people, they had ten before, and we cut it down so much...
Kraus: Actually the chart that you have of the existing is not quite correct. There are only four faculty members, there are evidently some students who are not at the moment. There's a liaison from the President, the President picked somebody with this happened to be a faculty member, which makes five. Although the two professionals one is ex-officio one is vice-president for administration who I see grouped in here. But, so the contingent is six or seven plus any students who are appointed. It has in my mind when it was effective over these few years it has broadened itself as we created a sub-committee. Because I don't think when I was on it, I didn't think it was very effective to talk to itself, the president, talk to us, and it didn't go much further. And we wanted to see what the school wanted to do and planning we created a sub-committee rather than go through constitutional changes. Which brought back in the Presidents or Vice-Presidents to Deans and associate Vice-President which is nothing I can () it was a year ago and this kind of start meeting. Again it's a sub-committee which is a larger one... I feel of experience of three people that I don't know what to do. It does get short changed-two people resigned this year. And it is sometimes hard to get people to attend, but basically was working well several years ago so ()(), it had full attendance, it had discussions. The main problems are the continuity of people, people who are involved in the process.
Steinberg: I had a question on, and I don't know the answer. What kind of accomplishments has the committee had? In these years, that you should continue with the...
Kraus: I think the major accomplishment...well first of all last year it didn't totally disappear. Some of them just disappeared. But prior to that time about two, two and a half years I think the major problems show the () resolution sub-committee and the bringing up of a serious strategic planning issue- meaning hopefully we can get resource people. We were looking at problems of the budget, we were looking at a whole series of problems, stuff the president appointed some sub-committees, prior President's to deal with various issues. But then major issues in the teaching planning, and the solution to think about. And one of the major ones they did look after part of the year was problems of personal enrollment. Everybody enrolled ()()()()()...But there are....the President and administration of admissions, and one of the things they see tested, and what this school needs to is to look at strategic planning, more on raging issues, and just the process of re-creating a sub-committee- 2 weeks prior between now and the end of the year. We did what, when we were having those meetings we did regularly talk to the college senate, academic council, regarding what we were doing.
Antosh: I have a question for you Jon. Why did the committee disappear last year?
Kraus: I don't know, I wasn't on it last year.
Antosh: Because if it disappeared because of people getting ill, or having to resign...that might suggest...
Kraus: I don't ....
(laughter from Senate)
Kraus: It is also partly true. Sub-committees at various times are just all disputes and for whatever reason.
Maheady: Larry Maheady, Education, former member of planning the budget. I'm not exactly sure what all the accomplishments, but probably the only place I ever heard of a candid discussion about issue like long-outpatient between administration and faculty...I'm not sure whether we've had that happen either reactively or proactively, but it was a salary () at times. To at least a place where a good administration has () where faculty about ()()() ..... the only place I ever saw it on this campus. I don't know how many people actually learned that...
Kraus: I forgot to mention that regularly Presidents have for some years come in and put forth planning a budget but they decided to (). Unfortunately for some years that was where they were kind of diminished. And in recent years that has been obviously not the case, they have made a presentation of where they would like to allocate them and in some years we responded to response to committee has an effect on the other program. They listened and in other years not. Last year we found out because we weren't prepared, this last fall. We were preparing information because the council for the change. But they did regularly put that fund.
Telly: One of the last comments was the kind of thing that I teach. And I know of no business organization, I consider them all some kind of organizations, they are going to go and replace that ten year plan? They should have applied near finals I can't imagine faculty along those two hundred. The business organization is larger without having a planning a budget and advising committee to going over this. It would seem to me that there should be there, there should be more than three people on a second committee, that's all I wanted to say there.
Reddy: Just a couple of points. I had served on the committee on a couple of different occasions including last year and a portion of this year (and four years on). It has on occasion functioned well, it has on occasion functioned very poorly. And the recommendations that the executive committee is making, has a dimension that we haven't talked about before. And that is that this is being appointed committee as opposed to an elected committee. Is that correct?
Swansinger: Yes.
Reddy: And that could be a very salutary change and I believe in democracy and people voting and all the rest of it. But for this kind of committee you need to have a couple of things; you need to have a kind of continuity that we talked about. If you have any number of brand new fresh people, this is a committee that requires an understanding of what's going on on campus, and understanding of budgets and budget terminology- it is not a committee that is easy to get to speed for. So when you have people turnover (a substantial turnover taking place), that can be a real problem. I think being less diplomatically beyond and trying to be honest and to save time-there were serious problems with leadership last year. The chair who came in was someone that was not really use to making the committee and to its work. Wasn't able to devote the time and energy that was necessary to having meetings, to doing the things that were important- and then went on leave in the spring semester. And so even though I as the College Senate Secretary at the time was doing everything to get the committee to work, get up and working and whatever-it just wasn't happening. And that was fundamentally a problem. So regardless of the size (and I certainly think of some larger committee's would potentially be a good idea) having some continuity, having people who could develop some extra piece in this area and work over a period time. Having a situation where there are problems with the effectiveness of the committee, the executive committee could come in and change its compositions so the committee would in fact be productive and effective. It's probably better for this type of committee than from some other types. So I think it's fundamentally a good idea.
Swansinger: I'm not entirely sure if this is the proper place for me to say this, but part of our thinking was simply that this is indeed some ways a very important committee for faculty. And because of that we honestly felt that if it was an advisory committee to the executive board, there would be more continuity between the interface of administration and this committee, and this committee and the executive board. Therefore, making better communication with the executive board and the college senate. And bringing budgetary and planning considerations directly to this body for some discussion. Rather than having it be a situation where in a committee where it's a fifty-fifty situation- with not all the member of the committee having the kind of budgetary knowledge necessary- to ask the kind of question which can be conducive to a deeper discussion and a greater chance at introducing other possibilities. We thought that this particular structure might have a better chance of addressing some of those issues and the one that was presently in place. So that's where we're coming from.
Kraus: One other point-historically I was on the committee. At some point when the by-laws were re-written, was apparently the belief that had the members of the administration on the committee was intimidating. So it was re-written to eliminate all the members of the administration with the exception of the Vice-President for administration. As such a committee it was, I thought (for being on it for so many years) virtually useless. The administration had a talk with us and gave us some information then go away. They do planning on their own, we do planning and they do planning on their own. If the faculty wanted to be involved or to have opportunities to speak obviously the administration has actually notes and for sharing, ()() it involves a () of their time and energy to share these things. They have notes and opportunities so that they're not part of the planning process, because you want to open up, create a sub-committee for all senior administrators back on, then try to develop some planning tasks through them to which we would then go somewhere. I am not saying that the committee is working that way or last year we did so well, we are starting to get it back. Hopefully we can get it back on track. It was not primarily advisory to the executive committee or the faculty council, although we tried to do faculty counseling and faculty informational meetings, but it was in fact trying to develop a systematic input and having planning after. To () what a hard willing administration does to their own planning, which is now changing, they used to have () of their budgets, now it's a longer type of sequence of thinking about things. The laws of mechanism, that's what we try to do. So this is () essential ()() faculty and this common thing...()() actually have the information and are working on the information in a certain way ....
Swansinger: At this part of my question at this point, I have been pressuring that this is pretty much where the discussion is on the issue on how do we define this budget and planning committee. I take it the rest does not create many objections. Partially I am trying to figure out how to either get a motion to either accept a piece of this and go back and revisit planning and budget. Or a motion and accept this and turn this into by-law language that I could bring back to you in May.
Sarkar: Will somebody expanding the size of this committee?
Swansinger: Sure. I guess the only other thing I would ask in terms of that motion is if you have recommendations as to when...the purpose of that expansion besides two or three extra mind. Division wise, or whether you'd like to do it in terms of for instance- one from performing arts, one from humanities, one from natural science...I don't know. But how would you see this expansion?
Sarkar: I think you keep it consistent with the other committees...
(tape change)
I would suggest that we have four faculty from each arts and humanities two, and another two from natural sciences, and then two additional faculty members they can be elected at (). And so we have six faculty and maybe one or two professionals.
Swansinger: So, extending the committee to six?
Sarkar: Six or seven.
Steinberg: May I suggest that there is another area that is of concern...and that is the library. And a representative from the library.
Swansinger: So, as I understand it, what we're suggesting at this point, is that the planning and budget advisory committee be expanded to a minimum (I probably have this wrong) four faculty, two of which would represent arts and humanities and natural and social sciences. Two which would be elected at large...
Sarkar: Two or one.
Swansinger: Ok. And then of course, one professional as well as one librarian in order to split that? Is that OK?
(man): That counts to, what, seven people?
Swansinger: Yes. And then don't forget, we still have administration. So you are back to a very large committee.
Reddy: If I can recommend that rather than going with the movement ()() that you () to come up with a model for presentation as a by-law amendment. At that point then we can have a discussion on the specifics and make any changes that you want. But there has been a very extensive discussion about this committee and about its structure. And rather than having a motion at this point its probably better to ()..
Swansinger: Ok, if there are no objections, could I have a motion for that one then? To make the by-law and as soon as we have the by-law language when it comes to you, we'll then be given the opportunity to agree or disagree when that's been written up. Could I have a motion for that?
Reddy: I would move then as I said.
Swansinger: Oh ok, just move for it.
Reddy and Sarkar give a motion.
Swansinger: Ok, thank you I appreciate it. So then do we have to have a vote?
(man talking...inaudible)
Swansinger: Not as favored right now, but basically to use the discussion to build a revision to be set up in by-law language and put into the proposal.
Schwalbe: This is a quick ()...()()
Swansinger: Yes it does at this point, unless you're going to object to that, in which case there is going to be a separate motion by-law motion to that effect. In which case it will come down to a vote as to whether people are going to be () and to have that...
Schwalbe: I just wanted some.....()()()()()()()()
And who could find what planning and budget's ... and what its powers are, other wise it just sits there...
Swansinger: I think yes indeed, but that's a whole other conversation. Part of the problem here is when by-law consent situation, we don't really have the power to do much more than make suggestions and raise questions.
Telly: But if you're not advising and consenting, then there and all I'm saying is the structure ...
Swansinger: May I suggest that you forward me emails for further definitions that you need? Or repeat it in whatever text we can put together for the by-laws. So that they will have both the by-laws and a common... as they do when you go they will have the by-laws language and the short explanation of the by-law.
Sarkar: I think one of the () is that...()()()()
(inaudible)
Swansinger: Yes, indeed this is one of those things that you can () at discussion ()() rather than do it...Can I have a () vote for those who will support the motion of taking this back and writing up by-law languages to match those charts and explanation of what(). To bring to the College Senate next time with an understanding that we will have the by-law language and a couple of models for the budget and planning committee. Can we hear those people who are in favor of that motion? Those people who are against it?
The motion was passed.
Swansinger: Thank you. And we'll do that. The other thing that I could mention is that Pat Jones, Melinda Karnes, Ted Steinberg, and Dick Reddy were the people who basically helped put a lot of this information together and I would appreciate if some other people who are very good at by-law language would be willing to help us put this together. Patrick and I and Melinda are certainly willing to work on this, put we'd like some sort of input and help us out.
Kraus: I came here thirty years ago...one senator per twenty constituents, and I just feel that maybe ..How many, what is the proportion now?
Swansinger: Actually, that's not including part timers, and we have both part timers and full timers in our representation. At this point, on a one to ten, we basically have fourteen in each division. We have fourteen representatives...right...
4. Ok, moving to part two of the schedule. President Hefner had to attend a Lang's Presentation for the President's award, so he will be here a little bit later.
5. And we're going to skip him for now and move on to the status report for the Vice-President of student affairs. And Mr. Tracey Bennett is willing to tell us all about it.
Bennett: We have ten members on the committee and it works fine! (laughter) We've been meeting hot and heavy for the last three weeks, about twice a week. At this point we have 41 applicants in, we reviewed all of them. We classified 11 of those applicants as works well and acceptable, based on a meeting last Thursday. So right now we are contacting the applicants, we're contacting the references with a goal of this Thursday meeting and getting our tool down to four or five for campus interviews. So, we'll schedule the interviews the week after next and hopefully the two weeks before finals we will have four or five candidates here on campus. That's our goal- to have the VP for student affairs candidates here before the students leave.
Sarkar: Will we have internal candidates? Will we have candidates from this campus?
Bennett: There is a candidate from this campus. Anyone questions? You'll see lots of information about two weeks from now. Hopefully we can keep on schedule and we'll get everybody in.
Swansinger: Thank you.
5. Ok, and then we'll move to the report for the Vice-President of Academic Affairs.
a. Reck: The first thing I would like to do is to give you an update on our faculty searches. We ended up having 31 searches, and we have currently hired 21. So 21 new faculty will be coming. So that leaves 10 searches, 8 of the ten are still active searches, 2 of them have stopped. So there is a possibility of adding still 8 more faculty, ()there is still going on. Are there any questions about faculty searches? And I want to thank everybody who has participated, the search committee worked very hard and very diligently ()()... Item "b" will be the library report, and Randy...
b. Randy Gadikian: Thank you. This is going to be a report, bear with me it will take about five minutes. Basically where we were at the beginning of the year and where we are today... We had an extremely busy year in the library- as you know we have moved to a new library management system and that transition was suppose to start in September. Well, low and behold, the contract was not signed until late October. I asked my staff if they were still up to the challenge, they responded positively and we were literally shot out of a cannon, with an implementation that usually takes four months- in ten weeks. So, Fredonia is the first, at this point the only campus that has an ALEPH catalogue up and running within SUNY. All of the local modules are implemented but we are still learning the system to greatest effect. We are still learning to pull reports out of it, we're still learning how to manage the circulation system. I understand that some faculty have received overdue notices allowing to be hundreds or even thousand of dollars! (laughter) Just don't worry about it, we'll take care of it as time goes on! This summer we will see significant improvement and we will look at the feel of the catalogue. What you see when you open the catalogue is pretty much right out of a box presentation. This system has a great deal of flexibility as far as the ability to customize the look and the fell of how user interact with it. So far we have had 23 training sessions for faculty and students. Some of them have been better attended than others, we did have two faculty training days with early morning training sessions- we had 34 faculty and staff attend. Will I () more? Yes I was very happy to get good reports, I thought that was quite good. Implementation will be complete on a SUNY wide basis in 2004, maybe. 2004 is the target date, but remember that they are () this up on 64 campuses, so it is a very big project. Why this is fully implemented Fredonia with around 400,000 files in its collection. We will then have access to the 18 million volumes in all of SUNY. And another piece of this implementation involves a delivery service. So if a faculty member or a student requests an article that's on another campus, the () cost for a two day delivery time. Quite honestly I think two days is very optimistic, three or four will probably be the norm. But to get something from Stony Brook to Fredonia in four days is quite remarkable to do it reliably. We have inquired an incredible number of online resources, through a project called SUNY Connect and through other techniques. Our electronic resources are available to students and faculty 24 hours a day, thanks to a piece of software called easy proxy. It identifies members of our campus community as users, and allows them to access our resources via the library web page. So it you're home and it's the weekend and it's rainy and ugly and cold, you can still come to the library. What do we have in those online resources? Well, we have 5000 electronic books, again we didn't go out and just purchase these, we purchased the electronic book collection with other members of SUNY. We have 770 titles assumed to be 1100 titles in the hard sciences. This is due to the purchase of the collection called Elsevier Science Direct. I talked about Elsevier Science before, we're still working on the details of this, but there will be an announcement in Prof talk shortly with some of the details. Let me just give a brief overview of what this means in terms of library collections. (Remember this is just in the sciences.) Biology now has 94 titles online, where before they had none. Business Administration has 81 titles available electronically. Economics, we can also lump Political Science in there with Economics also Finance, has 66 titles. Mathematics and Computer Science a whopping 140 journals available online. Physics, 78 titles available online. Psychology, 66. And there is an interesting mix of another 133 titles. And these are available online 24 hours a day, the full text of the journal. I won't get into the finances, but it was pretty darn cheap. As of last week, we acquired another 760 titles to a state library. Theses covered the humanities, social sciences, general sciences, and the health field. We also acquired earlier last year a product called Lexis-Nexis, which covers general news, reference, business, economics, law, and government. That is over 5000 titles. Again, these are available full text online. We have had a number of training sessions on these tools over the course of the last year. We will have a training session during faculty development week in May, and there will be more training in the fall as well. Training for these things is not rocket science here- it's more like learning how to cook an egg on a non-stick fry pan. You know there is a little intricacy here and there, but you do have to use them you have to play with them in order to get the most out of it. As far as journals are concerned, Fredonia has more journals now than it has ever had at any time. We had a high of I believe 1800 journals in the late 60's early 70's. It's been downhill since then with a low of just under 1300 journals. Now we get over 7000, so the information is there. Our inner library loan activity has gone up dramatically, more than 50 percent in the last year. Why? Well we put an interlibrary loan form on our web page. Faculty who want to do interlibrary loans can simply hunt and peck. We also subscribe to a service that has an interlibrary loan form built into it, that would be First Search, so we make it very easy for students and faculty to request books or journals. We need to re-create an emphasis on instruction so people know how to use the resources that we are (). Consequently we have rebuilt the library classroom. We purchased a new projection system, a teaching workstation that is about a third of the size of that monster over there. And fan because the room has very poor ventilation, so now we can pack it with 28 people, close the doors turn on the projection system, and people will usually fall asleep until the last five minutes. We totally revised the library web page and spent a particularly in-depth effort on developing help with the research page. This has not been an easy thing to do-we brought the library quite far in the last year. One of the things that we need to do now is look at a reallocation of our resources, where do our dollars go? And how can we get the best collection possible for faculty and students? We don't have a finite... I'm sorry we do have a finite budget, we don't have an infinite budget, we are subject to the same constraints as the rest of the campus. I've said this before, inflation rates for all periodicals- 10.8 percent per year. In many disciplines, the rate of inflation is over 13 percent per year. If you look at publications that come from private press publishers or perhaps from foreign presses, you never can tell how much its going to cost. Inflation in Europe is incredible. And it directly effects the library budget. This year, print periodicals represented 83 percent of the library materials budget, 83 percent. It left very few dollars to purchase books. Next year, thanks to the savings that we will have () from moving from a Unisys hardware platform and PALS software, to ALEPH we'll be able to reduce that expenditure as far as percentages is concerned, it will come down to 75 percent of the library budget. Quite honestly that is still unhealthy, we need to work our math a little bit more. Just as an aside here, the effect of inflation on the budget- it costs us $25,000.00 in 2001 budget dollars to purchase the same quantity of journals that we could purchase in 1991 for $10,000.00. Believe me when I say our periodicals budget, our library budget has not gone up, by 250 percent, it has not happened. How we cope with this...well in the past we've cut periodicals, and that will probably occur again. One of the things that we can do to lessen the impacts of those cuts is to convert to online subscriptions where available. For example, the () collection of 760 titles contains $8280.00 worth of titles that are duplicated in our current collection. Substituting those electronic titles will allow us to stretch our dollars further. I said earlier, 75 percent of the budget goes to cover the cost of periodicals- that's about $300,000.00 a year. What's inflation at 10 percent at $300,000.00? $30,000.00. We will eat up our savings for coming from the PALS and moving to ALEPH very quickly unless we don something to control the cost of periodicals. Consequently we will be presenting a list to faculty of periodical titles that you would like to replace with electronic subscriptions. Some departments will see a tremendous boost in the number of online subscriptions they receive. Remember now we have more information available to us than in any point in the past. Reed Library is committed to staying within its budget, while at the same time, seeing our collections grow. We can do it. We have a few goals for the 2001-2002 academic year. Number one- we need to rebuild our reference collection. It hasn't seen a lot of activity in the last 10 years, we need to put some dollars into it, some effort unto it. Number two- we need to prepare the library for ncaid accreditation, working on the process to do that at this point. We need to increase our assessment activities as well, we want our students and our faculty to be comfortable with the use of library materials to understand how to use the tools that we have purchased and developed and will be assessing instruction program as we go along. Finally, we need to increase our outreach to students and faculty. And this means more instruction, greater publicity. Questions? Thank you