Discussion about the detailed text of RUL meeting minutes that are able to be read on the open web-recently some sensitive comments have been found through Google searches. Should we restrict in any way what is recorded and made available on the web? Results of discussion: remind recorders of judicious use of wording, names do not always need to be attached to comments, meeting participants should check draft minutes to ensure accuracy of statements, brevity is fine for recorder, posted guidelines for recording minutes may be helpful, reminder that people outside RUL may be reading minutes. Consensus was not to restrict minutes by password protection, etc.
NJKI lobbying: NJKI funding will carry us halfway through next year; there has been a big effort to lobby legislature to continue funding for NJKI. NJKI has been building an information infrastructure for the NJ small business community. Bob visited a legislator recently and found that many do not know that RUL libraries are open to the public. Liaisons will need to ask faculty and other users for comments about the databases that make up the NJKI (available at: http://www.njstatelib.org/LDB/NJKI/) Specific comments from users will be helpful in making the case for continuing funding for databases. Rutgers patrons have benefited significantly from savings realized by NJKI funding of electronic resources used at Rutgers. NJKI branding is shown on corner of database description pages but we may want to promote in other ways. Action: MP will write a draft of wording/talking points that selectors may use to solicit comments from constituents about value of NJKI.
Budget report: From the 3/13/06 summary sheet (Total Book Funds-state and non-state), there is a grand total of 9.7 million dollars. As for current periodical funds, there is 18% cash balance in state funds, 7% unencumbered balance. State funds should be spent as soon as possible. Hoping to do some pre-pays with available funds; memberships always pre-paid. KM has sent out reminders to NBCG members about any funds showing an available balance. MP also reminds that there is money showing in both state and non-state and explains how some non-state money will carry over but not all. "Retroser" is used for replacements; leftover invoices for serials. Governor's budget message is slated for March 21-expectation is of a 100 million cut to higher education. Discussion of tuition increases and other means of making up the difference.
Research guides: Bob has received some feedback that groups and individuals are discussing the research guides and how to maintain and update them.
Cabinet has approved some necessary big ticket items-upgraded SIRSI model-2 million records now. Funding approved for Oracle upgrade, the ecommerce system will allow us to accept credit card payments. The ERMS Task Force continues to meet. Products that will allow us to work more effectively in the electronic environment include an electronic resources management system, link resolver, knowledgebase, and a federated search product.
Book Approval Plan/Shelf Ready? Receiving and processing orders are backing up because of both volume coming in and student staff on spring break. With the book approval plan, time is right for shelf ready because of low return rate and selectors are not coming as often to look at books, presumably because they are comfortable with their profiles and the books they are receiving. The current scenario, where selectors come to TAS to look at books is very labor intensive for Acquisitions staff. KM will bring the interim plan suggested by MP (while problematic call number areas are still being worked on by selectors) to NBCG and will let MP know how selectors want to proceed. Books will get to the shelf faster and free up staff for other priorities.
OCLC WorldCat Collection Analysis system was discussed. It was felt that it would be fine for RUL to be used as a benchmark for collections comparisons with other peer libraries. There is also an offer from VALE from OCLC to do collections analyses of VALE libraries(plus five other similar libraries). OCLC will ask us for approval before RUL is involved in any comparison. We would get some reciprocal benefit from these studies.
NetLibrary (MP): Desperately needs refreshing as many of the titles are out of date. Mei Ling Lo has developed a list of titles that can be withdrawn from the package. NetLibrary will contact us with a quote for replacement titles for those. Another option is the "patron driven model" where you pay for access after the first use. Also noted is that a selector can order a title from "NetLibrary" through Gobi, but those orders are not going through YBP.
Charge is to put out an RFP for serials vendors-will be for management of serials both online and in print. Task Force will have results in place by June 30 if they are happy with a proposal. Could involve one vendor or could be a distributed situation. There is no mandate to use multiple vendors.
VALE Films Media Group was
established a year ago. GA described streaming video technology-the network is a critical part of
the process. The more libraries sign up for this initial phase, the more discounts we all get on
broadcast rights. Why do this now? We shouldn't miss out on any opportunities or get left out of
this particular initiative. It is an inexpensive and good collaborative venture. Format should
not determine what RUL acquires; there is plenty we can't get from books (example of
Shakespearean dialect). There is lots of interest in media across the university and groups are
forming. Should we host this locally? Would NJEDge be the provider? These videos would be
available to classrooms and on personal desktop. We would have to decide how to publicize this
and make it known to faculty. We would launch this next September, and we would own the titles
and pay a one-time-only fee. Package includes 50 hour-long videos and software for cost of
~$7800. Source of material is FMG, which includes all types of films. Issues would be the
internal network and connections, and whether the internal network on all three campuses is good
enough. We really want to make this work on all three campuses. Selectors could buy videos with
their own funds in the next fiscal year. Consensus from CDC members was positive about this
initiative. Information may be found at:
Policies have now incorporated all suggestions from CDC and NBCG with just a few minor corrections needed. A disclaimer was added making sure we can't stipulate time parameters in most cases. Exceptions are rare but are possible. Gift questions will go to Bob.
Review Form: It was decided that the University Librarian did not need to sign off on most gifts. It was suggested that the Review Form be available online. Reminder that the group felt that the public policy needs to be somewhere up front on the library page. Should the bookplate issue be covered in the policies? Do we have a person to cover all languages? As for gifts guidelines, we have reduced the number of books accepted, added language about the consequences to the libraries of accepting gifts to begin with, and mentioned again the staffing issues and impact on workload of many gifts. Selectors will have to use their judgement in going further than the guidelines suggest. Shipping and receiving issues were discussed and Jeanne provided wording for the documents regarding "pick up and delivery of collections." Public Services Policy Memo 8 was referred to. There was a discussion of costs of processing gifts and fundraising possibilities, as well as a recommendation of a workshop for selectors focusing on issues with gifts. Who sends the acknowledgement letter? This is not consistent across libraries. Do we have a mechanism for replacing books in poor condition with newer gift copies? John will incorporate changes to all policy statements/forms and send revised documents to Bob.
Adjournment: 12:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted March 21, 2006
by Laura Bowering Mullen