aahsl_survey_of_current_budget_situations1

August 22, 2003
The following are remarks from primarily Directors of the Association of Academic
Health Science Libraries regarding current budget situations--names have been
removed unless people specifically mentioned that it didn’t matter if their names
were mentioned. Additional minor edits were made to the messages.
Jean Sayre, Hardin Library, University of Iowa.
My deficit of $449,000 last year was softened by one-time funds. My deficit of $671,000
this year, must be made up in cuts. For the second year, we will not be buying any books,
but will cut serials to save the e-books. We cut Web of Science last year and some ejournals. This year, we are also considering UpToDate, MD Consult, MedInfoNow,
Journal of Chromotagraphy, J of AChemS, and after speaking with my boss last
Thursday, I must cut another $50,000 more. He is appointing a library advisory
committee to help make these hard decisions. So, not sure what will happen, but we must
do it by Sept. 1. It is just terrible. After all of these years to build a collection of respect,
we take 2 short years to dismantle a good bit of it.
************************************************************************
See our web site www.hsl.unc.edu
We have drastically cut back our Ovid ports, pushing folks to PubMed through various
means. We have been doing this gradually for several years so the outcry is not too loud.
This spring we cancelled MD Consult - we sought a lot of user input, asked them to
evaluate MDC versus Up to Date, InfoRetriever and another PDA product (I forget it at
the moment!) - anyway everyone wanted either MDC or UTD. Of course UTD is more
expensive, but people had been lobbying us for that also and we could not do both. The
result was that we cancelled MDC and got UTD - we were able to get a reasonable deal
with them that included off campus access, after lengthy negotiations. One thing that
brought them around was that we had done the user survey and we had data to show that
our users chose them over MDC so they asked us to show that (in summary form on our
web site) and we did. We also are asking for cost sharing with some depts (some of them
already had purchased UTD for their depts on their own so this is a good strategy I think).
Also we did a very useful cross-over chart (see: />that shows people how to get to virtually all the MDC resources another way, or
something comparable. With one or two exceptions we were able to provide substitute
access. That was one of our arguments - that we were duplicating access to MDC

resources that we also had in other ways. I think this cross over chart won most people
over.
We still provide MD Consult through the AHEC Digital Library through a separate
license. That is accessible to the students, residents, preceptors and community
practitioners and is a statewide product with its own budget. Since the other three med
schools in NC still have MDC this makes sense. Who knows what will happen, though?
************************************************************************

1


I met with the Dean last week to present an overview of our 2004 budget needs. He said
the library will receive the same amount of state funds as last year, but we do not know
how much additional funds will be available from our Board of Regents. Last year, we
received $293,000 from the Board. If we receive the same, we will still have to cut
approximately $100,000. We have not cut our databases or large services such as Ovid or
MD Consult. We have reviewed our continuations, reference collection and audio-visual
collections and have decided on some cancellations there. We met with the library
Committee last week and in September will conduct an online journal assessment.
I believe that because we went through the Faxon crisis and educated our faculty through
this process, they are more aware of some of the issues and challenges that face libraries
as they relate to shrinking budgets and increase journal costs. Not that journal
cancellations are easier, but perhaps a little more accepted.
This library has never had a "Friends" Group and but the establishment of a "Friends"
Group is one of the priorities of the new Library Committee. The next meeting will be
focused on off-budget funding.
I believe that XXXXXX is having to cut approximately $200,000 from its materials
budget and in speaking with someone at another library, they may also have to cut
$200,000 from their budget. Times are not good.
************************************************************************

We have changed authentication to require going through our proxy server for remote
AND using the libraries barcode. Then we added a new "e-only" category so individuals
never have to come to see us physically if they prefer not to.
Amazingly enough, we have discovered that we can lower our MDConsult license
level. Apparently we had huge numbers of former college students, etc.etc. that used our
resources. And, also amazingly enough, the "value-added" licensed resources are now
used more heavily by our hospital-based faculty. And they are willing to pay.
Our hospitals do now contribute to our collection development budget. And,
we were very lucky to have had our collection devt budget increased substantially...
************************************************************************
Nearly everything available online has been cancelled in print. We have only about 20%
of our collection left in print, only because they are unique. We have not cancelled
popular databases because the students use them heavily. We got the Provost to pick up
MD Consult on her local monies last year and this year. We can manage the others for
now.
Last year we made a presentation to the faculty senate about the looming disaster if we
are cut again. This year we were the only unit I know of that was not cut. So it helped.
But next year we start the crisis planning all over again.

2


I have to say that OhioLINK has been a godsend. Besides having credits from the 'flip'
from journal vendor to it, OL has negotiated lower inflation increases than the national
average. That saved our bacon.
************************************************************************
We've cancelled Web of Science so far this year and are looking at other big-ticket items
as well as some more journals.
************************************************************************
I'm interested in what others are doing. Especially MDC as the quality of texts (by far and

away the primary use where I just came from) is being compromised. Ovid --I'm not at all
a fan and we never had it at XXXX except for the books and then reinstated journals as
they moved over as part of the Kluwer deal. We have Ovid Medline and that I'll drop asap
and any dup titles that we can get directly through the primary publisher as fast as
possible.
************************************************************************
We made the decision to cancel Web of Science in June. It is saving us over $60,000. So
far, we have heard not major screams, but it is only August. We will be making many
other cuts and we will certainly rely on the Library committee to help shoulder the
burden on this.
************************************************************************
So far we have not cut any large services but we are certainly cutting journals! Our
University Libraries went to the all electronic version of Science Direct for 2003. It is
not saving us any money, but is actually costing us an increase rate per title. However,
several of the science libraries did not want to be held to the "no cancellation" policy in
effect with our print + electronic agreement. So, we are actually getting much less for
more $. We have cut a few seats on IPA and some other smaller items. We will be
cutting journal titles between 10-20% for 2004.
I was pondering yet another go round of discussions with UpTo Date. We have never
licensed it, primarily because the company wanted to charge us for every hospital in the
state! We do not have a university hospital any more. Previously they also informed us
that they did not issue site licenses for educational institutions--only for hospitals. They
have some new reps and we may be able to get educational/academic pricing. However,
they are reluctant to offer remote access. Given the outrageously high estimates they
have hinted at in the past, I'm not sure we can afford it. But, it certainly is popular with
students and faculty. Up until now I've been telling our patrons that the company refused
to deal with us---and also, that their individual subscriptions are much cheaper than what
we would have to pay, should they be willing to sell us a site license.
************************************************************************
We had a 12% budget cut this fiscal year (July-June). All our e-resources are shared with

the main university library and cost shared as well. Unless things change, ie. the provost
decides to slip us some extra bucks, we will be canceling Web of Science when it comes
up for renewal in a few months. This is a new resource for us, but we cancelled Current

3


Contents when we got it last year, so we will have to go back to doing mediated searches
of SCI on dialog for users and charging them for the service.
We plan to consider each resource as renewal dates arrive, see where we are financially,
check usage data and no doubt make some hard decisions. We're hoping the resulting
outcry will generate some additional funding.
************************************************************************
We haven't hit the wall yet, but have been under some stress through budget caps
significantly below inflation and salary range adjustments for a couple of years and will
have a flat budget next year. We have cancelled some electronic resources, e.g., BIOSIS
and will be canceling 300-500 print journal titles this year plus additional ones and more
electronic resources next year.
************************************************************************
Strategies of canceling print and going with "cheaper" online access is probably pretty
universal. This year we have elected to go with E-Choice from ScienceDirect. We save
the 10% on print but what happens next year? I preach and alert faculty about this
dilemma but the real message comes out that we always manage to find the resources. Is
that good or is that sending a wrong message? Right now I have doubled my efforts at
collaborative ventures. With the launching of the web-based pathway PharmD program
here we are getting much more support from the School of Pharmacy and Health
Professions. This has freed up some money for us to put into other resources. I feel as if
I am always just one step ahead of major cancellations and cuts. It is an ongoing and
never changing dichotomy. As to canceling big ticket e-resources to date we have not
done that. Of course, we don't have MD Consult or UpToDate. Too expensive upfront.

However, we do have AccessMedicine, which gives us e-access to McGraw Hill books.
At some point I'll have to say, we can buy two copies of these textbooks in print, cancel
AccessMedicine, and still be thousands of dollars ahead. The only strategy is more
money and the only way we'll get more money is through fund-raising, endowments, cash
gifts. These are not easy solutions but ones that I will be aggressively implementing this
year.
Faculty demand online access. What are we to do? I believe the regional medical library
program needs to step in with aggressive archival plans to help the individual AHSL. We
can't all be archives of rare stuff or even keep all back volumes to volume one.
************************************************************************
We do not subscribe to MD Consult. They keep telling us we are the only med school
library who doesn't. I tell them that keeps us unique! We do subscribe to Stat Ref! and
that seems to work for our institution. Our main library has some sort of OVID
subscription, but we do not. So far, our med students are getting through and our faculty
haven't made any noise. Maybe they just don't know what they are missing!
************************************************************************
We're making some cuts. We're still canceling print and cutting monographs and binding
to a bare minimum. We nearly cut MD Consult, asked the dean for more money, were
rejected, then reduced the number of seats instead (from 10 to 8). We're dropping small

4


pieces of OVID, but not the whole thing. As PubMed gets better and better, it's becoming
harder to justify the added expense. Micromedex is under consideration for next year
(renewal isn't until next summer). The "big deals" through the University of XXXX
system are both blessings and curses. We're on a biennial budget, so we know this
problem won't go away next year either.
************************************************************************
After years of trimming journals in order to keep within budget (strained by a much

higher inflation rate for materials than our very modest-to-low budget increases), we did
start to look at "big" resources this year. We've trimmed the margins for journals - now
any cuts are starting to eat away at the core.
We cut two smaller databases this year - AltHealth Watch (Ebsco) and Health and
Wellness Resource Center (Gale). We also trimmed two expensive print indexes from
ISI.
And we cut BIOSIS - we also serve the biological sciences programs. That came out of
our funding from the Arts and Sciences, undergraduate College which was level-funded
this year.
We looked very hard at MD Consult, hoping to replace it with STAT!Ref, Access
Medicine, and/or Ovid's Books@Ovid, but the Clinic much preferred MD Consult and
pay for half of the subscription. We did cut back on concurrent users, though, reducing
our cost but increasing "busy signals".
We are now looking hard at Ovid, particularly at de-emphasizing Ovid MEDLINE. We
probably will substantially reduce the number of concurrent users on our user license and
MEDLINE license. We will emphasize PubMed in training medical students, residents,
and other new users on MEDLINE. We will keep some Ovid because we need it for
digital access to many journals, and there are other full-text products we may want from
them in the future. We are de-emphasizing Ovid both for financial reasons and because
we think that we are better serving life-long learners by teaching them an interface
(PubMed) that they will likely have access to throughout their career rather than one
(Ovid) that may not be available to them when they leave Dartmouth (or even at
Dartmouth.)
We looked at our Journals@Ovid and cut some titles that we also had from the publisher:
Nature, Science, PNAS.
We've also transitioned most journals from big packages like Elsevier, Blackwell, Wiley,
Springer, Kluwer, and Oxford to digital-only subscriptions beginning in 2004. This will
save some money in subscription costs, binding, and labor, and will ease our space
problems, but is a risk for long-term access and loses browsability. But we feel we don't
have a lot of choice since we have a geographically dispersed user base and can no longer

afford to maintain multiple formats.

5


On the good side, we were able to add UpToDate last year and it is wildly popular.
************************************************************************
We have run out of gas are going on the fumes now! We were functioning at such a low
level of support, but it's getting worse, and I fret that administrators only see us an
extraordinary overhead cost. It's amazing at how some institutions place such a high
priority, with accompanying financial support, on the library, and others make it by with
what appear to be sub-standard programs. It has literally become exhausting to continue
to justify, encourage, educate about libraries and their importance - when it should be a
given in the first place. I had to have a talk with myself to try and calm down, not take it
personally, and continue to try to do what I can with poor staffing levels and a minimal
collections budget. And on top of it, I think that sometimes we are viewed, at the highest
level, as administrative assistant types who work in a stress-free environment.
************************************************************************
We've just been discussing our cuts here. We're cutting $75,652 of journals from assorted
publishers and Ovid products this year, including BioMed Collections 3&4, Clineguide
and PsychINFO. We are getting PsychINFO through our statewide consortium for a
much lower price, and are also getting CINAHL through it (although we haven't dropped
Ovid CINAHL yet because of the full-text journals with it). We will probably have to cut
at least $200,000 of journals, etc. for 2005, so we're trying to prepare for that now. We're
studying Up-to-Date, MDConsult, StatRef and some other clinical info products to see
which ones are the best, and to see if there is a lot of duplication. We will probably
cancel at least one of these products next year. We are also considering whether we will
cancel more of the $200,000 in Ovid products we still get. We may have to go with
accessing these products through PubMed and other sources - our reference librarians
will study alternatives over the next several months. We are still paying for Current

Contents through Ovid, and are considering whether PreMedline will be a good enough
substitute for CC (we don't have Web of Science, which some people say they use as an
alternative to CC). We're currently renegotiating with Elsevier for the journals we get
through Science Direct (we only get about 200 journals, MDConsult, and BioMedNet
Reviews from Elsevier) and want the price
increase to be capped at 6.5% for the next three years, but don't want to be tied to
maintaining our $300,000 spending level with Elsevier. I've been promoting open access,
BioMed Central, Public Library of Science, etc. throughout the campus and have several
more presentations scheduled, and we recently purchased an institutional membership in
BioMed Central so that XXXX authors do not have to pay the $500 per article fee to
publish in BMC journals. We hope that the open access movement will
progress quickly, but it won't happen quickly enough to keep us from really hitting the
wall next year. We've cut 10 positions in the past few years, and cannot cut more and still
keep the place open, so that's not an option.
************************************************************************
We've been pretty fortunate that our budget has held steady, especially in light of our
institutional finances. However, prices continue to rise and there are new things we want
to add that we can't often afford. We have moved to electronic only access whenever
possible and reallocated funds in this manner. We have also reduced the number of
simultaneous users for MD Consult. We have never been big OVID users and have

6


offered full text journals from them that are not available elsewhere - we've no duplicates
in OVID and anywhere else. We've also looked to Cambridge and others wherever
possible to avoid using OVID.
We have never been able to afford UpToDate and are now looking to see if we can find
money to add it even though our cost will be over $100,000 annually. We have licensed
eMedicine for us and our affiliate libraries and it has very good content, but a poor user

interface.
************************************************************************
We have had SCI on CD for many years. We cut it for 2003 (about $25,000 if I
remember correctly). There were a few complaints from regular users. If someone wants
a search the reference staff will do it through whichever 3rd party mounts it, but we will
charge it back to the individual. We were going to cut Chem Abstracts (hard copy) but
there are too many people who still use it. Chem. Abs. is also in the neighborhood of
$25,000. When users complain we tell them to let the Dean know that we need more
money.
************************************************************************
Yes, we've hit the wall. Our current approach is to review the big packages such as Wiley,
ScienceDirect, Blackwell and Oxford. We're reviewing use statistics for each package.
We intend to ask for pricing on only those titles with use above a benchmark (not yet
established). Because we purchase these packages with the rest of the university
libraries system this review is a bit complicated. Our usage of all electronics is so much
higher than that of any other unit in our system. Anyway, we have all agreed that if we
cannot get acceptable pricing on our high use titles, we are prepared to cancel these
packages and rely on document delivery and ILL. In the meantime we've curtailed almost
all new book/AV purchases and cannot entertain requests for any new subscriptions.
PS - At this point we aren't reviewing OVID or MDConsult. Our usage for both of these
is extremely high.
************************************************************************
I cancelled Ovid about a year and a half ago and almost cancelled MDConsult. Picked up
Up-to-Date and went electronic only with quite a few things and will be doing more of
the same there. Renegotiated for better pricing, dropped some other resources. Use
Pubmed only now for the last year and a half or more. Etc.
************************************************************************
We hit the wall when we were told that we would lose 25% of our budget over 3 years.
The budget cuts were further exacerbated by significant drops in our revenues, which
offset material costs. We will actually be losing about 30% of our budget and about 40 to

50% of our purchasing power when you factor in inflation.
The first year we cut the fluff from journals and databases and took a hard look at staff.
But even with a smaller collection, fewer books, and fewer hours the faculty thought the
cuts were no big deal.

7


I realized that the journal cuts would catch their attention and would directly impact work
at this institution, so instead of spreading the pain over several years, I decided to take the
majority of the cuts this year, effective January 1, 2004. Coupled with a 12% price
increase, we will have to cancel about 30% of our subscriptions (paper and electronic)
and renegotiate almost all our electronic licenses. I postponed further staff cuts and deep
cuts in databases, hoping the journal cuts might restore support and at least prevent the
projected future cuts. I have repeatedly warned them that we might lose all electronic
access to some publishers, but I really don't think they believe it. We have said no to
some of the new contract prices from major publishers such as AMA, Pediatrics, and Cell
Press. We will say no to other increases as well.
In terms of databases, we decided to cancel Ovid and move to other platforms for the
non-MEDLINE databases. We told Ovid this was happening and they came back with a
deal that we could support at least for the next two years.
MD Consult is our next target for possible elimination. We will soon start a review
process for that contract. I am also asking departments to help share the cost of some
specialty databases. We were able to obtain UpToDate through such shared funding and
a very low price quote. I am also seeking low contract prices for 2 to 3 years.
I am being harsher about the health system members. They do not want to pay, so they
are not getting access to services. If they complain, I send them a price quote and they
disappear. Whenever possible we have had our contracts extend to them when there is no
extra charge. But for most clinical resources, there is an additional fee, which we are not
paying.

Books will be cut to a minimum amount next year in order to further protect staff
positions, but some layoffs may occur. And we have already started charging back the
full fees for all interlibrary loans (including royalty fees).
Again, the faculty have not felt the impact of the cuts that dramatically, but in January we
will lose hundreds of subscriptions, including many e-journals, and at that point I think
the institution will become aware of just how much our cuts will impact the ability of the
institution to support clinical and research activities. I actually hope the faculty start
complaining loudly...
************************************************************************
We have not yet hit the wall so to speak, but we are within a stone's throw. This year we
made major cuts in print holdings while retaining electronic access. Next year, like you,
we'll need to find other ways to reduce our expenses. We probably won't cancel our Ovid
services outright, but we may trim components. No doubt our serial collection will also
take a hit -- at least those not included in our "big deals".
************************************************************************
I was debating answering this question, but decided that our good news might help you. I
received a 5.6% collections increase this year from the medical school. We have been
cancelling print in favor of online, but have not had to worry about cancelling large

8


services. We don't have much $$ for staff, but there is usually $$ for the collections -- we
have also been helped by this as we have a separate science library.
************************************************************************
We have been cut 13.5% (that .5% is real important). We may receive yet another cut this
year, but are being told that next year might be worse (how I can't think about yet). We
cut OVID last year and moved to PubMed. It is going great. The links work and the
searching via EBM is doing better all the time. We hustle for funds and will attempt to
charge for services that were free last year. While information was never free, it goes

against my grain to charge students for information, but that is what we may have to do.
We have not seen any inflationary increases for the last couple of years, so in effect we
have seen the budget cut around 4% for the last few years. Our users want more
information, our ablitliy to provide it is limited. I wish you well, REVENUE
FOREVER!!!!
Additional comment regarding canceling OVID:
Last year's 3.5% cut was my opportunity to separate myself from an expensive service
which seemed to always promise more than you got. PubMed is available to our
graduates and residents when they leave here, OVID my not be. That was my first
argument. My second was $. My third was the linking (we tried OVIDs a couple of
years ago and got around 80% link and 65% print if they linked). The OVID folks
worked with us but felt it was a problem on our end. We didn't think the same, so we
stopped the service.
************************************************************************
Colorado has been one of the hardest hit for libraries because of state budget reductions.
The Governor line-item vetoed most state funding, so the publics are in a tailspin and the
school libraries are also hurting. Then he insisted on major reductions to higher ed., and
in our case that led to a base budget reduction of about 25% being passed to the library in
a 15 month period. So, I've layed off 7 staff and we dropped $400,000 of print journals
for 2003, retaining them in e-form. Now we are about to ask faculty for input by month
end about cancellations for the coming year, to the tune of another $400,000. We are
proposing dropping more print to retain electronic, drop some journals in both print and
e-form, reducing book buying, and scaling back on databases. Among the items that are
sure to get some attention:
dropping e version of AMA, NEJM and PNAS publications -- print only to remain
dropping all or most of our Ovid databases and full-text
dropping MD Consult (Uptodate and StatRef would remain)
dropping Audiodigest and NCME videotapes
In January we reduced hours because of layoffs, from 110 to 87 hours per week. Our
Boulder campus is talking about closing the library one day every weekend, and our

downtown Denver campus is looking at closing the library on the other weekend day.
Because of the way our funding flows, the schools have not had the same cutbacks that
were passed to those of us in central admin., so I think many of the faculty are going to

9


be shocked at our numbers and the implications. Oh, well, time for a wake up call! I
actually think we might have been in worse shape if I hadn't quickly layed off staff and
cut hours last fiscal year -- students screamed bloody murder, and I think the chancellor
wanted to avoid a concurrent uprising of faculty so we didn't get hit as hard in the last
round of cuts.
************************************************************************
Fortunately, we haven't had to go this route just yet, but I would be very interested in
seeing a summary of the responses you get.
************************************************************************
We had some big cutbacks about 6 years ago, and at that time I cancelled Chem Abstracts
(print version totaling over $21K at the time). I substituted Beilstein's online, and
although the Pharmacy faculty were unhappy at the cancellation, I did provide them with
online access to at least some of the chemical information they needed. We discontinued
SilverPlatter and replaced it with OVID about 5 years ago. I cancelled BRAIN
RESEARCH around 3 years ago, after a lengthy process during which we posted the
impending cancellation in our newsletter, via our website, and I wrote to each appropriate
department chair and asked for rationales as to why we should continue this $15k plus
family of journals. Only one chair objected (and weakly at that), and so we cancelled it,
but arranged to get needed articles via interlibrary loan. Every year we constantly drop
and add journal titles. We have asked departments to suggest journal titles to cut if they
wished to add titles (dentistry has been very good at doing this). We have a Collection
Development program, where each library faculty member is assigned specific
departments within a college, and I write in their faculty goals that they must contact their

assigned department every year, present on library services, and solicit input regarding
the collection (additions as well as those things that might be cancelled). This has
worked well. We also have a very active collection development policy.
The electronic databases have different renewal times and so advance planning is needed
to cancel contracts (some of which require 3 months advance notice). We have
considered whether to cut OVID in light of how many faculty and students on campus are
using PubMed, but OVID has a very good search engine and interface, plus useful links
to our full-text journals, and so for the time being we will continue OVID (although we
have looked at EBSCO Host). We try and cut journals only once per year in advance of
our early fall payment.
I would not cut MD Consult here, as the usage statistics are so high plus it is one of the
most useful online resources supporting clinical medicine. We just increased from 3 to 5
user seats (although I have read that several HSC libraries are cutting back the number of
seats--but they seemed very high to me), but we have cut some of their special collections
(and they discontinued Cardiology this year). We added a number of online journals and
databases last year (e.g., Science Direct, SciFinder Scholar) since I was given an annual
recurring addition to my base library budget, and I am just trying to hold on to what we
have this year in light of a possible 10% fiscal impoundment.
************************************************************************

10


We are still up in the air as to whether or not we'll drop Science-Direct, Wiley, SpringerVerlag etc. as we're waiting for final word on our 2003/04 budget (to begin Oct. 1). We
had planned to cut OVID which had been running us about $90,000 annually. However,
when we told OVID we were dropping they "worked with us" and let us drop some of
the full text titles we didn't want anyway, plus they reduced the charges in a number of
areas to bring our total bill down to about $38,000. A HUGE difference so we're keeping
it. We would have switched to PubMed. We plan to keep WOS as of right now.
Originally, when we were given the bad news that our budget was being cut and that our

"nest egg" from our foundation grant of over $800,000 was being taken by the dean, we
were really shaken up. Over and above our regular budget of $2mil plus, we had been
spending $250,000 - $300,000 per year out of our Foundation money. With that gone
we've had to a nearly $400,000 shift downward. Much of it was relatively painless as we
had been using those monies for such things as a compact shelving project, getting the
backfiles for WOS, etc. Still, we had about $100,000k in electronic journals etc. that
we've have to eat up or cut. As mentioned, we're still up in the air as to exactly how
much more we'll need to cut. We're waiting on a Sept. 9th state vote on the Governor's
revolutionary tax plan. If the vote is in favor, then education will get a good shot in the
arm. If not, I shudder to think. Right now the polls are running two to one against.
************************************************************************
We are only subscribing to OVID CINAHL right now- all we could afford. Thankfully I
can go in with other libraries to access other databases. Primarily we are using Ebsco as
they have given us the best deal overall but this, of course, includes their business, etc. If
we were going it alone (as a medical) I'd really be having trouble.

11