STAFF RESOURCES

Minutes of November 18, 1999 Meeting

Present:
S. Beck, R. Becker, V. Calderhead, J. Consoli, H. Dess 9recorder), H. Hemmasi, A. Montanaro, J. Nettleman, M. Page, R. Sewell, A. Tallau, L.Vazquez
  1. AUL Report, R. G. Sewell
    • Budget allocations: the gross state and non-state fund budget figures for FY 2000 have been announced by Bob. The process of allocating these gross dollar amounts to individual fund accounts has now been initiated by the respective groups responsible for this function at Newark, New Brunswick, and Camden. Spreadsheets covering the state and non-state funds have been prepared by Nancy Hendrickson and will be distributed shortly. [Spreadsheets for state and non-state funds were sent to campus Directors on Nov. 19.]
    • Budget comparison, FY1999 vs FY2000: Bob distributed spreadsheets showing the state funds budget breakdown among the three major campuses, plus Special Collections, and Systemwide or Central functions. It was noted that the base budget allocation was up by $700,000 in FY2000 vs FY1999, but when temporary funds were included in the totals, this increase shrank to $353,115 for FY2000 vs FY1999. This difference reflects primarily the absorption of the $500,000 temporary funds from FY1999 into the permanent budget base in FY2000, and the one time availability of $150,000 in FY2000 top for the back file of Web of Science. The other major temporary fund categories remained very nearly the same over the two year period, specifically, the UMDNJ, ICI, and Multicultural accounts.
    • In response to questions about the $9,800 provided for multicultural resources, Bob noted that none of this money was allocated to Central, and the total was split among NB, NWK, and CAMDN via use of the time honored formula 70/20/10. Because the amount is so small, Bob suggested that it might be desirable to use it for some agreed upon specific subject area, in order to produce the greatest impact. The subject area selected could be varied year to year. It will be up to the designated campus selectors to determine whether or how to act on this option.
    Questions and discussion about the budget:

    JN: We need to find ways to smooth out the ordering cycle. [Bob reminded the group of the "Fiscal Year Timetable for Collection Development and Acquisitions," which was first developed in 1992 and has been revised several times since. This timetable gives guidelines for an orderly process for allocations and ordering throughout the fiscal year.]

    JN: Status of the NB approval plan, specifically what action on inclusion of resources, Bob noted that none of this money was allocated to Central, and the total was split among NB, NWK, and CAMDN via use of the time honored formula 70/20/10. Because the amount is so small, Bob suggested that it might be desirable to use it for some agreed upon specific subject area, in order to produce the greatest impact. The subject area selected could be varied year to year. It will be up to the designated campus selectors to determine whether or how to act on this option.

    Questions and discussion about the budget:

    JN: We need to find ways to smooth out the ordering cycle. [Bob reminded the group of the "Fiscal Year Timetable for Collection Development and Acquisitions," which was first developed in 1992 and has been revised several times since. This timetable gives guidelines for an orderly process for allocations and ordering throughout the fiscal year.]

    JN: Status of the NB approval plan, specifically what action on inclusion of the full output of selected university presses in the program? Response from RGS: program based on revised and refined profiles and a single fund code is in place in NB. Next year we are looking to expand it to include comprehensive coverage of some university presses.

    JC: Raised questions about BNA's performance with the approval plan. [Subsequently Jane discussed the dissatisfaction with Pat Adams from Blackwells, and the specific criticisms brought up were explained. One general problem with Blackwells assignment of "level of audience" descriptions of "university-research" and/or "undergraduate collection" was noted. In the past, Pat has responded that the description is a function of customer demand and is always a hard call, as academic publishing changes and become more commercial. This time, she indicated that Blackwells is in active discussion this matter as a problem and is considering option to solve. Only a small number of books were returned compared all the materials we kept.]
    • Collection Development Planning and RU's Strategic Plan: Bob distributed a series of RU annual reports, describing developments which detail the University's progress on meeting the goals of its strategic plan. CDC and selectors need to consider how to prioritize our collection development plans and practices in sync with the overall University objectives. Bob also distributed copies of a portion of the latest U.S. News & World Report list of university rankings. [There will be a fuller discussion on this topic at the next meeting.]
    • Operations Overview of the Networked Evaluation Selection Committees: Bob requested monthly update reports at CDC by the chairs of the four committees. Two of the committees have sent lists of prioritized choices to Bob, and questions were raised as to the subsequent steps or actions required to move the process along. Bob emphasized the need for prioritization of the committee choices, and indicated that he has reserved some funds for the purchase of new electronic products. He will schedule a meeting with the four committee chairs soon for further discussion about the mode of operation of these committees and their future course of action.
    • Bob announced that he and Nancy Hendrickson will make two more presentations of the "Fund Management Workshop", one on Dec. 6 at Newark, and again on Dec. 8, in NB (both at 10 am).
  2. Report on Charleston Conference: "Issues in Books and Serials Acquisition".
    Mary Page reported on some of the very interesting topics discussed at this annual meeting of some 600 vendors, librarians, and publishers.
    • The next "big thing" coming: e-books. New hardware and software programs are making e-books much more user friendly, and publishers are gearing up for a potentially big consumer market. The academic market is then expected to get caught up in this development as technical improvements continue to increase the attractiveness of these products and prices decline. "Glassbook" and "Microsoft Clear" are two examples already on the market.
    • "Books on demand" is another important development. Books will be printed on demand, presumably on the spot, in stores, to specific customer orders. This will revolutionize the book business, because it will do aw with the need to stock vast inventories of books.
    • At North Carolina State U., they ran an e-book test program in various subject areas. Initially encountered big glitches with both hardware and software, but eventually worked them out. They used two brands, "Rocket Book" and "SoftBook" and both turned out to be very popular with users. Ann M. noted that these are available at Barnes and Noble stores---each unit can store a multitude of books. The group expressed the view that RULS should try a demo of this sort.
    • A program called JACC (Journal Access Core Collection) was discussed. This program, now in place throughout the Calif. State University, is negotiated with publishers to permit libraries to select and structure their own individualized core journal packages. Savings are expected in terms of the reduction in redundancy of print collections throughout the CSU system statewide.
    • Bob also attended the Charleston Conference and was on a panel, "What to Do When Your Ship Comes In: Meeting the Challenge of a Resource Windfall," concerning the planning process and the services available to carry out a collection development project with additional funding that must be spent in a limited time frame. Other members of the panel included a representative from a public library and two vendors, one from Baker and Taylor and the other from Blackwells.
  3. Retention or cancellation of Current Contents
    The question about the fate of Current Contents was put to the group by Bob: cancel or retain it? The consensus of the group was that Curr. Cont. essentially duplicated the Web of Science holdings and we cannot justify continuing our subscription, even at the newly reduced price offered by ISI as an inducement to continue with it.
  4. Acquisitions Update--Harriette
    > The discussion about treatment of records for RU theses has been deferred to a later time.
  5. Systems Update--Ann
    Major SIRSI downtime is scheduled for January. Starting on Sunday, Jan. 2, at least 5 to 7 ds of down time are anticipated to accomplish the various planned system upgrades. A shorter down time period, currently estimated at around 2 hours, will be necessary later in December, at the end of the reading period, for the purpose of installing new disk drives. Mary Page noted that the January down time would be troublesome because of the anticipated work load, and wondered about the possibility of rescheduling it for the period during the holiday break (in December). Ann stated that that possibility had been considered and rejected because of the possibility of Y2K problems during that period. Joe raised a question about down loading problems with Proquest, Ideal and JSTOR. Ann will investigate.
  6. Last Copy Policy Jim N.
    Jim informed the group that impending renovations at Robeson will drastically reduce shelf space in the library and necessitate the withdrawal of up to 50,000 circulating items from the collection. The question posed to CDC was how to deal with "last copies", cataloged as such in IRIS. He estimated that perhaps 10% of the withdrawals or 5000 volumes would fall in this category, and proposed to transfer these books to the appropriate research collections in system in a phased manner (s 50 to 100 books per shipment), starting no later than next May to avoid swamping any particular unit. Jim also emphasized that the following categories of materials would be excluded from such transfers, even as last copies: textbooks; early editions of non-fiction works (i.e., not the most recent listed in IRIS); books requiring special preservation measures. ( It was noted that sending these items to Annex was out of the question because of the severe space limitations there).

    A very spirited discussion ensued. It finally became apparent that further discussion was necessary. Jim agreed to meet with the New Brunswick Collection Group on Dec. 10. He also encouraged individual selectors to begin contacting their subject specialist counterparts at Robeson to get some idea as to the content of the items under consideration for transfer.
  7. Agenda Items for Next CDC Meeting:
    • Reports from Networked Resources Evaluation Committees.
    • Networked resources purchase request forms
    • Database usage review
    • Collection development and University's Strategic Plan


 
URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/cdc/minutes/cdc_99_11.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy

© Copyright 1997-2013, Rutgers University Libraries   (Further Copyright Information)