| Members attending:
Members absent:
|
Butter, Dyson, French, Kruger, Lease, Leonard,
Munoff, Pritchard, Schottlaender, Sharrow, Vermeij, Werner
Thompson Johns, Lawrence |
1. Preliminaries
a. Welcome and introductions
b. Review of charge
Background Materials:
|
Schottlaender introduced the review of the committee charge by noting that the term "archival responsibility" is vaguely defined, both with UC and among research libraries generally; the Collection Management Initiative, in Phase III, addresses this matter directly, and it is within the scope of the charge to this committee. The role of the Regional Library Facilities (RLFs) is key in framing the archival role of the UC libraries and the means of achieving it. In discussion, the committee affirmed that the charge to re-examine the archival role should not be construed as suggesting that there is no archival role for the UC libraries; rather, it will be important to both reaffirm that role and to articulate it in a concrete and compelling way that is understandable to external constituencies. The importance of attending to various national interests and initiatives (e.g., the Association of Research Libraries, the Association of American Universities, various scholarly societies) and considering various organizational perspectives (e.g., the Modern Language Association’s position on responsibility for archival retention of primary source records) was emphasized. Kruger made note of his role in a Sloan Foundation grant, involving 17 scientific societies, to create an archive of primary source materials (e.g., laboratory notebooks) created in digital form. In this connection Schottlaender discussed the Mellon Foundation’s Electronic Journal Archiving Project, which aims to partner research libraries with major journal publishers to create durable archives of the publishers’ digital products, and noted that the Foundation’s grant to UC (discussed below) allows us to be included in the planning for that project. Dyson noted that the burden has increased for campuses to creatively plan and justify library projects, a trend with significant campus implications. In this connection, the committee discussed the use of library space as a study facility for students. The sense of the committee was that this was a legitimate and important use of library facilities, which serve as an intellectual center for the campus.
2. Background
a. UC policies and practices related to library facilities
b. UC capital budgeting and planning issues
c. January 1999 deferral of Northern Regional Library Facility Phase
3 project
i) Assessment of issues arising
ii) Analysis of space needs and capacities for campus libraries and RLFs
d. Provost’s charge to the Systemwide Library and Scholarly Information
Advisory Committee
e. SLASIAC recommendations
i) Collection Management Initiative
ii) Standing Committee on Universitywide Library Collection Management
Planning
Background Materials:
|
Lawrence reviewed the history of UC planning and policy related to library facilities and collection management, beginning with the University’s 1977 Library Plan. The two Regional Library Facilities were established as low-cost, high-density storage facilities for little-used library materials that nonetheless had enduring research value, designed with environmental controls intended to extend the life of the stored material, and accompanied by excellent bibliographic access through the newly-developed Melvyl online union catalog and high-quality services intended to guarantee delivery of requested material within the respective region within 1-2 days. Each facility is governed by a Regional Library Board consisting of the University Librarians within the region served by the facility, along with representatives of key constituencies (faculty, UCOP, LAUC, non-UC depositors). As part of the University’s agreement with the State to implement the Library Plan, it was understood that Continued growth of on-campus library space to accommodate growing collections not amenable to storage would be supported, but to ensure that the Regional Facilities were actually used, the State insisted on a commitment from the University for a specified level of initial and annual deposits to storage for each campus. Operating responsibility for the RLF’s was transferred from UCOP to UCB/UCLA in 1994, with a written understanding that: i) RLF budgets would be sustained and remain separately identifiable in campus accounts; ii) RLF expansion projects would remain part of the Universitywide capital program; and iii) governance would continue to be provided by the Regional Library Boards by appointment of the Provost of the University.
Within this overall planning and policy framework, University policies and practices have developed around these key features: i) as a condition for advancing campus library projects, campuses must demonstrate that they have met their storage commitments to the State (actual campus construction plans are subject to campus priorities and capital budget constraints); ii) RLF capacity planning is generally based on future projection of these storage commitments; iii) within these constraints, storage plans are adjusted on an annual basis to meet needs of participating campuses. NRLF was opened 1984; Phase 2 opened in 1990; and Phase 3 scheduled for occupancy 2004. SRLF was opened 1987; Phase 2 opened in 1996. The plan has generally been successful, with new state-funded library facilities having been constructed since 1977 at all campuses except LA and SB.
As capital funding is insufficient to meet all needs, the University has given the following priorities to its current capital budget program: (1) accommodate enrollment growth; (2) address critical seismic and life-safety needs; (3) renew deteriorating facilities and infrastructure; and (4) address obsolescence of teaching and research facilities. Total funding needed to meet these high-priority commitments is estimated at $500 million per year. The 1998 bond issue for higher education facilities supplies $210 million per year; the proposed 2002 bond might provide $330 million per year. Thus, for the foreseeable future, library projects will compete against numerous higher-priority capital needs for which funding is already insufficient.
Against this backdrop, the decision in January 1999 to defer the Northern Regional Library Facility Phase 3 project prompted a serious analysis of the library facilities situation. NRLF Phase 3 was originally included in 1999-2000 capital budget, but was deferred 2 years to assist UCB to raise matching funds for high priority seismic improvements. An analysis of space needs and capacities for campus libraries and RLFs (see May 10, 1999 to Provost King) showed that i) most campus libraries were then at or near capacity (exceptions are UCB and UCSF); ii) NRLF was nearly full; iii) SRLF had capacity through about 2008; and iv) if all Northern campuses diverted storage to SRLF, the Southern facility would fill by 2004. As a result of this analysis, NRLF Phase 3 was restored in the 2000-01 capital budget, with a planned occupancy date in 2004. This analysis and accompanying discussions also suggested that: i) campus libraries desperately need greater flexibility to manage their collections and facilities in innovative ways to respond to the pressure of growing collections and enrollments while maintaining quality service, as the capital budget is not likely to come to their rescue soon; ii) the library operating environment has changed considerably since the early 1980s – factors include overnight delivery between any two campuses, including RLFs, instant ordering of materials through the CDL’s Request service, delivery of journal articles via the Web directly to the requestor (available soon), and increasing availability of materials in digital form; there is less reason to operate storage on a strictly regional basis, and new opportunities are available in the rapidly-emerging technology-supported service environment to take innovative approaches to the management of collections; iv) under current operating assumptions, the regular and permanent deposit of materials "owned by" a campus in one region at the regional facility in the other region would be problematic, both operationally and in terms of faculty and public perception; and v) eliminating duplicate deposits as between the two facilities could extend their useful capacity somewhat, but issues of ownership, cost and operational feasibility would need to be addressed.
In light of all these considerations, the Systemwide Library and Scholarly Information Advisory Committee was charged by the Provost in 1999 to address these issues. SLASIAC’s recommendations in response to this charge are embodied in what has been called the "Collection Management Initiative," which has two parts: an experiment to explore ways to leverage our investment in digital materials and give campuses greater flexibility in their choice to acquire and retain print when equivalent digital access is available (the Collection Management Strategies in a Digital Environment project, supported by the Mellon Foundation), and the establishment of the Standing Committee on Universitywide Library Collection Management Planning to provide continuous planning oversight regarding these issues and advise SLASIAC on actions to be taken.
In the course of discussion, it was noted that, while unnecessary duplication of materials in UC library collections, particularly those in the Regional Facilities, was not desirable, a degree of redundancy was desirable as insurance against catastrophic loss of valuable research materials. Committee members also expressed interest in the current facilities planning standards for libraries and academic facilities. ACTION: Lawrence to distribute current applicable standards to the Committee.
3. Collection Management Initiative
– Overview
a. Project description
b. Relation to the work of the Standing Committee
| Background Materials: Collection Management Strategies in a Digital Environment, Proposal to the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, 11/17/00 |
Johns reviewed the significant characteristics of the Collection Management Strategies in a Digital Environment project, and summarized actions currently underway to implement the experiment. Collection Management Strategies in a Digital Environment is a two year grant project funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation beginning January 1, 2001 and extending through December 31, 2002.
In early 2000, two events initiated a planning process for a research grant to explore issues and strategies for managing collections that combine both digital and print formats. The Systemwide Library and Scholarly Information Advisory Committee (SLASIAC), a group of faculty and academic administrators who advise the University on library planning issues, approved a resolution endorsing "the implementation of experiments that would help the University increase its understanding of strategies for creating a durable, reliable archive of its print and digital collections and of issue arising from the development and implementation of these strategies." At the same time, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation expressed an interest in supporting experiments that would test aspects of managing its library that will increasingly consist of a mix of print and digital materials.
In preparing a proposal for the Mellon Foundation we made the case that the University is well positioned to undertake such a project because UC has: 1) a long history of collaboration, as evidenced by our union catalog (Melvyl), resource sharing agreements and our patron initiated request service, called CDL Request; 2) overcrowded physical facilities – many UC library facilities are full or nearly full and we do not anticipate additional funding for new buildings that will satisfy library space needs on every campus, while the University expects that it will have to accommodate 60,000 new student enrollments over the next 10 years; 3) the resources of the California Digital Library, which include over 4,500 electronic journals, over 155 reference databases/indexes, and numerous monographs in electronic form – UC can leverage these resources by relocating print collections from the campuses and freeing up stack space in existing library facilities; and 4) the University of California maintains two remote storage facilities to house "seldom used" library materials from the campuses.
The Project will involve a) removing from campus libraries selected print journals for which electronic access is provided, and relocating those journals to storage, b) gathering objective data, including cost and usage data for both print and electronic versions of selected journals, and c) studying user attitudes and preferences when the primary use of journals is via access to electronic versions. There are two ways that a campus library may participate. Experimental group libraries will participate by removing selected journals for which electronic access is provided from the campus library to remote storage. Data collection for the journal titles selected will include gathering data on requests to retrieve print volumes from storage and electronic use of these titles. Control group libraries will participate by maintaining selected print journals for which electronic access is provided on their shelves and gathering usage data provided through reshelving and circulation counts. Use data on the electronic will also be maintained.
In the planning phase for the project (July-December 2000), the following criteria were developed for the selection of journal titles to be included in the project:
A Project Steering Committee provides general oversight for the project. Membership will include to project staff (project investigator, co-project investigator, project director), 2 UL’s, faculty and a librarian. An Operations Advisory Committee will advise on operational plans. Membership will be comprised of one representative from each campus plus a staff member from each of the RLF’s. A Research Advisory Committee will advise on all research aspects of the project. The co-Project Investigator will chair. Membership will include faculty with research interests in user behavior. Existing advisory structures, e.g., University Librarians, SLASIAC, the University Librarians’ Systemwide Operations and Planning Advisory Group (SOPAG), and the Standing Committee on Universitywide Library Collection Management, will also be consulted and kept informed.
In discussion, the committee expressed interest in ensuring that the study captured in-house as well as circulating use, included use at branches as well as main libraries, and obtained survey information from users at both control and experimental campuses. With respect to archiving of digital material, Vermeij articulated the concern that faculty must be reassured that archived digital texts are authentic.
4. Issues for Standing Committee
consideration – Discussion
a. The RLFs as Universitywide facilities
i) "De-regionalizing" the use of RLFs
ii) Rationalizing duplication as between the RLFs
iii) "Ownership" of RLF materials
b. New roles for RLFs (e.g., the RLF role in the Collection Management
Initiative)
c. Re-examining and reinterpreting the archival role of the UC Libraries
Schottlaender noted that the suggested issues set forth in the agenda had been well covered and validated in the background material and preceding discussions, and recommended that the committee move on to consider next steps.
5. Planning the Standing Committee
Agenda
a. Next steps
b. Next meeting
Schottlaender recommended, and the committee concurred, that the group should plan to meet approximately quarterly.
The committee endorsed a suggestion by Dyson that the initial focus should be on the roles and capabilities of the Regional Library Facilities, and by Werner that this inquiry begin with development for committee discussion of some scenarios or models for the future development of the RLFs. ACTION: A subcommittee consisting of Werner, Munoff and Schottlaender (convenor), with staff support from Lawrence, will undertake this charge.