|
Standing Committee on Universitywide Library Collection
Management Planning
Steering Committee April 8, 2003, 10 a.m. - 3 p.m. UC Office of the President, Room 9115 Meeting Notes |
||||||
|
||||||
| Meeting Objectives 1. Review and revise key discussion papers on planning for collection management and shared collections; discuss consultation process. 2. Review and continue to develop components of the planning framework for shared collections. 3. Consider the key characteristics of a trusted print repository as one component of a UC collection management strategy. 1.a. SLASIAC/ULs Planning Process Schottlaender introduced the planning process diagram, clarifying that the box to the right of the CMPG box labeled "University Librarian Systemwide Planning for Libraries and Scholarly Information" is really the office of Systemwide Library Planning (SLP). The group suggested that LAUC could be added under Campus Constituencies to represent campus librarians' associations. In the overview document, Schottlaender noted the importance to the Steering Committee of item 4.a., Collection Management and Coordination. Lease wanted to know an estimated date when a report of recommendations for the next set of strategic initiatives (item 1.a.) might be prepared. Lawrence reviewed the process for this report, and reminded the group that the draft paper prepared by SLASIAC's Scholarly Information Program (SIP) Task Force is a key component. Other elements of the final report will include a statement of vision and aims for the recommendations. The budget picture also plays a role in the timing and final formulation of the report. The report was originally connected to the Governor's Partnership Agreement, which has been in large part suspended owing to the current State budget crisis. The comprehensive report will go through extensive review by all appropriate constituencies. Meanwhile, Systemwide Library Planning representatives are consulting with and getting feedback from key constituencies about strategic directions. Lawrence estimated that a reasonable time frame might be the end of the next academic year. Lease's main concern was how to inform his campus committee of the planning activities. Also, there is concern that no action will take place until planning is finalized, which is not the case. Shelton assured the group that activities are indeed happening on the campus level, and that campus senior managers are already receptive to the ideas of collaboration, shared facilities, etc. A prime example is the Elsevier/ACM "pilot" project to "inform the planning process" about shared collections of print journals. ii. Shared Facilities (charge to RLB Chairs) Butter reported on the forming of the regional library facilities task force. While the final membership has not yet been determined, the existing members have been working on identifying issues. They will proceed by first gathering data from the RLFs and plan to have recommendations by fall. Other relevant groups will be consulted on the outcomes. iii. Budget Models for Shared Collections Lawrence described the overall purpose of a need to finance the shared collections, whether digital or print, of the University of California. The discussion outline provides data on what percentage of the current expenditures are funded by the systemwide "UCOP" funds and campus funds. Since the majority of the financing comes from campuses, continued growth of shared collections is dependent on campus contributions. Therefore, we need to develop a viable and equitable model to sustain funding for shared collections. Problems arise because campuses receive varying amounts of money, and varying proportions are spent on libraries. Butter expressed concern about a growing division between "haves" and "have-nots" for campuses that are not growing (and therefore not receiving new funding). iv. SLASIAC Resolutions E & F French further described the collaborative leadership position recommended by Resolution E. These coordinated print activities are already in progress and it would be beneficial to have a director to communicate between parties and be a spokesperson for the projects, in addition to management duties. The Committee received an older draft of Resolution F (the latest one can be found at http://www.slp.ucop.edu/consultation/slasiac/ SLASIAC_Resolution_F.html). The question of whether the data will be made available publicly or only within the UC community has not been finally decided, and may depend to some extent on the advice of the Office of General Counsel. In response to a question from Kruger, Lawrence described the purpose of producing this data as part of a campaign to educate the faculty about scholarly communication issues. In connection with this, Lease mentioned a recent public letter from MLA president Stephen Greenblatt's about the crisis in scholarly monograph publishing. (See http://www.mla.org/www_mla_org/reports/reports_main.asp?level=2&mode=page&page=1&area=&link=rep7202105823) b. Review and Revision of UC Interlibrary Lending Code At its last meeting, the Committee noted that material deposited at an RLF cannot be used for course reserve except by the depositing campus. At the direction of the ULs, a revised policy is circulating within SOPAG. With the realization that "interlibrary loan" is a restrictive way of thinking about resources sharing policies, the Resource Sharing Committee is working on creating a new "resource sharing policies and procedures" code. c. Collection Management Initiative update Johns said that all journal use data have been collected and are available on the CMI Web site (http://www.ucop.edu/cmi/data.html). The user preference survey closed on April 5 with a total of approximately 6,000 responses, although a few stragglers are still arriving. The response rate was relatively high for faculty (11%) and graduate students (34%), and lower for staff and undergrads (although still sufficient for analysis). While library staff were excluded from the survey, they will get an opportunity to comment on an early final report. d. Shared Journal Collection planning update Shelton reviewed the pilot project and passed out the Report of the Working Group on the UC Shared Print Collection Pilot, which was submitted to SOPAG in early March. The project, which focuses on Elsevier and Association for Computing Machinery journals, is an opportunity to identify issues that will exist with other shared print collections. In the case of the Elsevier and ACM journals, the Working Group has recommended that only one copy will be retained and it be available for use, although only for limited circulation within a library. Other than that, articles can be copied, faxed, scanned, and delivered electronically. Since ACM and Elsevier are widely held and distributed materials, there was not a huge concern about ensuring completeness of the content. Shelton pointed out that, while the Elsevier/ACM collection should be considered experimental for most purposes, some decisions that must be made during the course of implementation may set strong precedents for future shared print collections (e.g., treatment of bibliographic records), calling for careful deliberation. Suggestions were made to collect usage data on the materials, and to include a brief survey along with each fulfilled request. 2.a. Collection Management Strategy The paper was written to provide context and background for the paper, "Developing a Shared Collection for the University of California," prepared by the CMPG Steering Committee, February 2003. ULs suggested that it needed a restatement of campus collection centrality, and to explicitly acknowledge that shared collections are but one of the tools available as collection management strategies. Action: SLP will revise this paper per the advice of CMPG-SC, for transmittal to ULs 4/17 and subsequent transmittal by ULs to SOPAG for review. ii. Shared Collections Strategy This paper was previously reviewed by CMPG-SC, ULs, and SLASIAC. It is ready for transmittal by ULs to SOPAG for review. iii. Transmittal for review by SOPAG Action: Memo for UL transmittal to SOPAG of the two papers referenced above will be revised by SLP per the advice of CMPG-SC for consideration by ULs at 4/17 meeting. b. Shared Collections planning matrix Lawrence reviewed the reservations about the Committee creating a matrix, including that it would look too proscriptive to others. Therefore, the "axes" of the proposed matrix are presented as lists. Schottlaender said that he would like to see a matrix format, although not filled in. Librarians will use it at a tool to determine shared collection candidates by evaluating their characteristics by means of standardized assessment. Action: SLP staff will revise the document listing candidate collections and collection behaviors/characteristics and circulate to the Committee, in time for Shelton to consult informally with CDC on 5/1. The document will subsequently go to SOPAG for comments. i. Review of "Collection Behaviors" dimension The group agreed that "behaviors" be changed to "characteristics," and that a few more needed to be added. Shelton suggested inclusion of cataloging or metadata ("description for discovery"). Other characteristics might include "ubiquity" (how many copies exist within the UC system, outside UC), relationship to other formats (digital, etc.), the source of the material, and the trustworthiness of the provider of the materials. ii. Review of "Candidate Collections" dimension The potential shared collections list was left as is. c. Defining the characteristics of a Trusted Print Archival Repository
for the University of California The Committee agreed that the attributes of a repository constitute the "third dimension" of shared collections that needs to be considered (the first two being potential collections and collection characteristics, discussed in items 2.b.i and ii). The attributes of a print collection would not be too different from the attributes of a trusted digital repository, as described in the RLG-OCLC report. Schottlaender noted that an institution or organization instituting a repository needs to have sufficient authority in order to carry out its role. It will often rely on other agencies to contribute, and will therefore need to be well positioned to carry out its responsibilities. This brought up discussion of "risk" and "trust" and what these terms mean in the context of a print repository. "Irrevocability" is another important attribute of a trusted repository that is not necessarily well addressed by today's background documents. Finally, it was noted that, while many gradations are possible in the multiple collection attributes on the continuum between "general collections" and "trusted archival repositories," a UC RLF or other physical repository might be hard pressed to operationally support more than a very few distinct sets of collection characteristics. 3. Committee Business Schottlaender will begin consultations on the addition of two new faculty
members, preferably one in the physical sciences and one in the social
sciences, to replace Vermeij and round out disciplinary coverage. Owing
to ongoing spring/summer activities that might affect the charge or working
agenda of the Steering Committee (e.g., RLF Task Force, SOPAG review of
Collection Management and Coordination documents), Schottlaender will
defer making these appointments until Fall 2003. Schottlaender and SLP staff will develop a method of rapidly informing the remainder of CMPG (i.e., ULs) of Steering Committee meeting outcomes, and will inform the full CMPG in a timely manner about the posting of Steering Committee agendas and meeting materials. c. Workplan and Next Steps |