Cornell University Library Staff Web Page
Back to StaffWeb Index | Back to Executive Team Index
Notes from the 9/30/97 Meeting
Attending: Ross Atkinson, Lee Cartmill, David Corson, Tom Hickerson, Jan Olsen, Ed Weissman
Absent: Sarah Thomas
1. Materials Budget
Ross reviews the materials budget fund balance report. At year end 97% of the endowed appropriated budget was spent and 79% of the net allocation for endowments. Ross said that from his perspective the materials budget process runs effectively. This was endorsed by the group.
2. Capital Equipment Budget
We discussed how best to distribute funding for capital equipment in response to a request for a recommendation from Sarah. The memo from Ross to Sarah appended below, reflects the conclusions we reached.
FROM: Ross
DATE: 21 October 1997
SUBJ: Allocation of Capital Equipment Budget for 1997/98
Ref: your 21 September memorandum to me, subject as above.
The Executive Team has met to discuss your request for a recommendation on the method for distributing the capital equipment budget for this year, and in the future. Claire Germaine and Elaine Engst were not at the meeting, but they have reviewed and endorsed the recommendations below.
1. We felt it is not really possible to discuss the allocation of this budget in isolation from the total resources the Library spends each year on capital equipment. The budget for capital equipment, which we receive from Day Hall, represents only a portion of the total amount spent on equipment each year. We believe that, in the course of 1997/98, an expenditure plan, including a definition of base needs, for all capital equipment should be developed. We would suggest that the section of such a capital equipment plan that deals with computer equipment be divided into three categories: (a) public access equipment, (b) staff access equipment, (c) infrastructure-related equipment, such as servers needed for the digital library. Creating this plan should be the responsibility of the Executive Team, and should entail the projection of individual unit equipment needs, as well as a broad overview of needs for the CUL system.
2. As for the allocation of the current budget, we discussed the possibility of a joint allocation, in which all of the stakeholders would meet, and would decide where this funding is most needed for the current year. After some discussion, we decided that this would not be an effective method, because of the relatively small size of the budget (in relation to the needs and the total amount spent on equipment), and because it would reduce the flexibility each of us now has in this area; it could also engender an unnecessary level of competition among us, at a time when we are making every effort to develop ourselves into a team. We would therefore recommend that the endowed budget (there is no regular statutory capital equipment budget) be allocated by Lee, as it is now-except that we believe we should consider basing the allocation for staff equipment more directly on FTE in each of the clusters. We also think that, prior to allocation, a certain amount should continue to be withheld by Lee for contingency. On the other hand, we do not agree with the past practice of taxing the capital equipment budget for central equipment purchases (e.g., $40,000 was withheld for OPAC/Circulation equipment in 1996/97): we would prefer that such large purchases be funded centrally, without reducing the capital equipment budget, upon which we rely to support our individual operations.
[Sarah subsequently approved the recommendations and asked Ross to work on a plan for capital equipment needs for the future. Lee developed an allocation plan for the 1997-98 budget.]
Back to StaffWeb Index | Back to Executive Team Index
rev. 12/19/97 dih