Bob announced that the Collection Management and Development annual reports from 1999 to 2006 are now posted at Collection Development pages of the RUL website (http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/collection_dev/reports.shtml).
Bob circulated a new ARL brochure “Know Your Copy Rights: Using works in your teaching—What You Can Do: Tips for faculty & teaching assistants in higher education.” He also described a new ARL task force on measuring collections (number of volumes added, number of serials received, total expenditures, number of staff devoted to collection management and development). Gracemary mentioned that an earlier effort to measure Rutgers subscriptions was inconclusive, but Serials Solutions will now make measurement possible, as long as the means of gathering statistics is carefully evaluated.
Bob announced a Scholarly Communication Forum planned for 28 February 2007; the forum will feature a summary of the Scholarly Communications Institute which Bob and Jim Niessen attended, followed by discussion of scholarly communications and their relationship to strategic planning, institutional repositories, and collection development.
Bob stated that as of this meeting, there are enough funds remaining to support the approval plan for another six weeks. By the end of that period, he anticipates that we will know how much savings have been realized through serials cancellations and other economies. Mary Page estimated that another $200,000 would be needed to fund the approval plan through the end of the fiscal year. Gracemary reported that a new spreadsheet on serials costs would help in determining how much money is available to fund the approval plan. In response to a question from Karen Hartman, Bob estimated that the approval plan would cost $600,000 by the end of the year.
Mary urged everyone to orders in by 1 April and to spend out state funds. She urged selectors not to send orders to individual Acquisitions staff members, but to “Orders” (actually routed by Mary Belinsky). She added that for books, the fastest way to place orders is through Gobi, the next fastest is the online acquisitions form, and the slowest is sending paper to “orders” (i.e., Mary Belinsky). She also said that YBP notes in an order form slow down orders.
Sara again raised the issue of faculty requests that the Libraries acquire textbooks needed by their students. She said that in her discussions with Dan Fishman, chair of the NBFC Library Committee, they both realized that they had been failing to understand each other, so the issue will be reframed and revisited a future meeting of the committee. Of greater concern is a request that the NBFC be somehow involved in the planning for cuts to the New Brunswick Libraries acquisitions budgets. Questions asked included “What is the [budget cutting] process?,” “How can the faculty be involved?,” “How can the NBFC help?,” and “Do you protect the top ranked disciplines?” [instead of cutting by a percentage across the board]. Sara felt that sharing the minutes of the CDC would not help, because of library jargon. Laura Mullen said that faculty liaisons have different ways of sending out information; she doesn’t share information until the budget and the cuts are decided. Karen Hartman said that budget news is a moving target, so communication is difficult. Sara suggested that we should not rely on liaisons, but instead let larger bodies such as CDC of NBCG communicate with the NBFC. Bob Sewell said this year we did not have much input from the teaching faculty because of our strategy to cut duplicates where electronic versions were available and renegotiate pricing with major vendors. This strategy work out well for users because very little content was lost. But next year he said the budget cuts could be more brutal and more formulaic approaches may need to be taken, such assigning percentage cuts to subject areas and campuses. Sara said that the NBFC meets 4-5 times a semester, and the Library Committee meets before the full Council. She suggested that there may be an opportunity to have the NBFC apply pressure on the university administration about library collection issues. Bob volunteered to meeting with the NBFC Library committee. There followed a free-ranging discussion of faculty influence on the Libraries’ collecting, budget prospects, state funding, and the relationship among university administrators and politicians. Julie Still said that the Camden librarians have little communication with faculty there.
A draft policy statement was distributed, discussed and approved. See:
Mary discussed three different models for archiving. LOCKSS (“Lots of copies keep stuff safe”) provides seamless access in the event of temporary interruption of service: the participating libraries servers back up journal content from the e-journal publishers’ sites, verifying that copies are not corrupted. With CLOCKSS [acronym not understood by the recorder] publishers work with a smaller group of libraries, whose servers store content to provide access in catastrophic situations. Portico is a dark archive of source files from publishers in standard digital format.; the content migrates forward when platforms change. The relative merits of these models were discussed and issues—such as the commitment of library staff resources with the LOCKSS model—were raised. CDC resolved to continue the discussion of the archiving models, hear news about their use at other institutions, but commit no funds now. It was mentioned that for more background on this topic see the CLIR publication, E-Journal Archiving Metes and Bounds: A Survey of the Landscape ((Sept. 2006).
Bob distributed a form/grid that arrayed various Rutgers University Libraries bodies (committees, councils, working groups) against goals from the Strategic Plan. The CDC members went through the form and decided if the CDC had a primary or secondary role in relation to each goal. Sara suggested look at the instances where CDC has a primary role and coordinate them with the CDC’s charge (she said “the Strategic Plan is proactive, while much of what CDC does is reactive?). The group agreed to follow up on Sara’s idea at the next CDC meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 12 noon.