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
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- Acquisitions Update--Harriette
>
The discussion about treatment of records for RU theses has been deferred to a
later time.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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