Associate Provost Venable, who read this document, wondered whether the library should propose that it be centrally funded by the Chancellor rather than rely on appropriations from the deans. Sherre responded that this might be one way to solve the Task Force's concern that, at present, we can do little when a library decision made by one dean impacts library users in other schools. A discussion of the pros and cons of centralized funding followed. Our endowment income is now used almost exclusively to support operational costs for the General Library Building. Paul asked if we should propose that the additional endowment be a general library fund or a series of separate, school-based funds.
Some divisions already have endowments for collections.
Paul asked if we should include a statement on the need for internal change and the importance of funding to support it. We may need funding for more technology and staff retraining, for instance. This would serve to reinforce the importance of allowing us to continue to draw on our reassessment reserves for extraordinary expenditures. Norman mentioned the need for additional staff that could help plan internal changes and library development. Paul suggested that we might ask for a grant officer to be funded as an endowed position.