Almost two weeks have now elapsed since the outgoing Director of the
University Library, Sheila Delacroix, alerted the university community about
an impending crisis in the library budget - necessitating a 50% cut in
expenditures for serials (aka journals).   This announcement, quite rightly,
triggered a series of alarms in many quarters, leading to the issue
appearing on the agendas of both last week's Faculty Council and this week's
(upcoming) general Faculty meeting.
    I do not dispute the basic fact that Lupton Library's budget for serials
acquisition is regularly challenged by subscription prices that are rising
at an alarming rate.  The skyrocketing cost of academic journals has placed
most universities in a serious quandary - and real remedies for it are few
and far between.
      Nonetheless, I am troubled both by the description of the problem and
the particular manner in which Ms. Delacroix intends to deal with the
journals issue this time around.  Once more, I fear that "progress" in the
library will actually lead to a further deterioration of services.  This is
something that the university community should oppose.

    Ms. Delacroix has presented the journals issue to the university
community as a sort of dire threat which requires immediate action if the
rest of the library budget is to be saved.  This is why the measure of
drastic cuts are required.
     While the financial urgency is real, I'm not convinced that we must
deal with it in the matter Ms. Delacroix suggests, especially since she is
stepping down from her post.  My first question is what happened to the
money the library received from the Lupton Renaissance Fund?  In discussions
about the journals issue in the library committee last year, Ms. Delacroix
stated that the Library would use Lupton money to put a band aid on the
journals budget while a _reasonable and effective_ long-term strategy could
be developed.  We know that the library received the Lupton money, but I
hardly see calls for such a drastic budget reduction as a reasonable
long-term strategy.  Furthermore, at the same time that the library is
calling for budget cuts, it seemingly has considerable funds to invest in
new computer equipment.
      I am even more wary to regard it as effective.   One of the responses
that we have gotten from the library -- which generally has decided to
spring these matters (like the new fees for faculty borrowing) upon the
community without faculty or staff input -- is that on-line databases and
interlibrary loans will compensate for the missing paper subscriptions.  If
only this were the case.  As other contributors to the Raven list have
pointed out, many of the journals that would be cancelled are not yet
available on-line.  Other humanities and social science journals are
available in digital format, but UTC does not subscribe to the relevant
provider.  This would mean that cancelling journals would make interlibrary
loan the primary means of acquiring articles.  Unfortunately, at the present
time, this is not a reliable alternative - especially for faculty members
trying to conduct research.  Interlibrary loan delivery for many journals
remains slow, in part because Lupton Library is not part of the major ILL
consortia (which means the Library must often try several potential lenders
before they get a 'match').  And even then, the match might generate
additional fees for the requesting party.
      In short, future cuts in serials subscriptions should only be carried
out as part of a comprehensive plan that addresses real issues of access and
reliability with respect to the university's core missions of teaching and
academic research.
       It has become fashionable of late to emphasize the glories of
technology.  Of course, computer technology has brought us many benefits -
especially in the context of library services.  Nonetheless, we still live
in an age where older technologies - face to face contact with books and
journals - remain vital.  On-line databases are still a poor substitute for
books in many fields.
      Yet, acquisitions in these areas seem to be a secondary concern to the
Lupton Library.  In an era of tight budgets (indeed, of last year's budget
plans were actually implemented, Lupton Library was set to experience an
absolute _decrease_ in funding for fiscal year 2002-03), Ms. Delacroix
seemingly has preferred to make the library a center for computer
instruction and photoduplication services.  Her presentation of the journals
question, thus, begs the question of the larger mission of the Lupton
Library.  I would hope that this concern receives the attention it deserves
not only in the discussions over the university's mission but also in the
appointment of a new library director.