The regular meeting of LRC was preceded by a joint meeting with the User Services Council in Alexander Library's TLH in which Stephanie Bartz, chair of IPAC, demonstrated the new books lists. This has been IPAC's major project for the fall. The list, which will be implemented fully in the spring, represents all materials cataloged within the last month. It is divided into four sections: All LC classed items; U.S. Government Publications (by agency); Media materials (audio and video; alphabetical by title); and Online Resources (also alphabetical by title). There may be duplication among lists. Plans are to have a one-month archive only, but there will be a stable URL for each list and the lists may be linked to subject research guides. The IPAC project will be a welcome addition to our services, and Bartz will ask Harry Glazer to promote it.
Following the demonstration, LRC and USC members returned to their respective meeting rooms for their regular agenda.
Adopted as distributed.
Minutes of the November 20th meeting were approved with one correction. Under agenda item #5, the end of paragraph 2 should read "Authors should seek permission to deposit a publisher's PDF of their article. Publishers will more readily grant permission to deposit pre-publication manuscripts, but they are less desirable for researchers and authors."
Team leaders met Monday to discuss various issues. Included:
Sewell anticipates that the money that we freed up from cancellations will probably not be asked for this fiscal year, but that money will not be available in FY 2009/10. The amount is a moving target, but is around $300,000. We will have more information after the Governor's budget address in January or February. Meanwhile, we should begin planning for the spending of the "saved" money. Planning should focus on four areas: one-time purchases, prepayments, approvals, and e-book packages. He asked team leaders to update the Central Funds Request List. Our "wish list" also needs to be prioritized. Smulewitz suggested that it would be good to begin this process early, e.g. October; we may want to analyze our one-time package spending patterns and consider splitting available money for purchases to be made pre-December 31 and then again in late spring. Revisions and new requests from selectors should be sent to team leaders, and then Sam McDonald can update the list that appears under Staff Resources/Library Faculty/Collection Development/Reports quickly.
When asked if selectors might consider submitting requests for packages that include nominal maintenance fees, Sewell responded no, not unless there is some tradeoff. Vendors often approach us this time of the year with special offers. One offer discussed at length was the IOP (Institute of Physics) package which could ultimately reduce our long-term costs despite the on-going cost commitment. Timing is important in this instance. Some LRC members expressed concern regarding equity among the disciplines and within disciplinary areas as well. In some years one discipline may be advantaged while others may wait for another year or for a special pricing opportunity. Hartman observed that the needs of social scientists are materials with on-going costs; they could possibly benefit from an e-book package. Bob will email selectors about one-time requests and will include information on the IOP offer. Mullen will follow up with science selectors.
We are in the last year of some of our five-year purchase contracts, but prepayments may be made for some Proquest (OCLC, for one) items and for memberships.
Smulewitz reported that monies from the cancellation project have now been transferred to central funds. This includes money resulting from Mulcahy's and Womack's cancellations for reference materials and for business materials being transferred to Kilmer. There's about $265,000 currently in central funds, and we should reach our target. We did not realize as much in savings from our transition to all Blackwell titles to online since increases there amounted to 7.5%. We will be saving only about $7,000 there. She will send out a notice to appropriate people regarding price increases to see if any other journal cancellations are warranted.
Sewell also discussed the future of our budget and ways in which we might want to allocate future funding. The Libraries are increasingly looking at access over ownership.
LRC members raised various concerns regarding the philosophy of access over ownership:
Both the budget and the access vs. ownership debate will merit continuing discussions. Funding within universities is being analyzed generally. Brown University is doing some creative things related to pay-per-view. Niessen said that the Committee on Scholarly Communication is planning a forum for next fall, and participants will be balanced among the three disciplinary groups.
Niessen reported that USAWG has an emerging collaboration with CSC since RUCore is of concern to both groups. Communication vis-à-vis faculty liaisons needs to be addressed further. A distinction needs to be made between RUCore faculty deposits and content issues in which CSC is particularly interested , and in software issues with which USAWG is involved. Discussion is ongoing regarding outside grants that are important for funding, copyright issues, FAQs. The Cyberspace Committee has both USAWG co-chairs on it.
Concern was expressed by Council members about the phrase "RUCore is our future" and what that implies. The question was raised whether we should think of RUCore as a replacement for our collections. The comment needs to be placed in context, and it probably means that RUCore becomes our special collection and institutional memory; and OLE (Open Library Environment) will be our new operating system. Neither will satisfy all our needs however. There is also a preservation aspect. We need to preserve the data we create at the institution, but we also need the data that others create.
In Weber's absence, Smulewitz said that the Task Force is meeting on December 22d, and there will be a more robust report for our January meeting. Members did meet with YBP (Yankee) and Swets, but Coutts needs to reschedule its meeting. They also need to discuss platforms with the e-book vendors. Another challenge for the Task Force is how to represent e-books in our system. Izbicki suggested that the future of e-reserves should also be discussed. If departments begin to deliver their own e-reserves, might the library have to give up any of our funding for reserves? We may want to ask Judy Gardner to address e-reserves in the spring. Sara Harrington has been added to the e-Books Task Force as a member from USC.
It was determined that many of the printouts that were being held in cataloging had been sent by a staff member and were not appropriate for cataloging. However, there is selector judgment involved in deciding when it might occasionally be appropriate to retain a print copy of an item for the permanent collections. Weber felt that the guidelines initially developed by LRC at the October meeting were quite helpful. Fuller review of the issue was tabled until Weber is present.
Our January 15th agenda will be very full. Fetzer suggested that she would like us to review how LRC is doing. We will revisit our goals, hear the report of the e-Books Task Force, review agenda item #6 above, and check on the status of the Annex Policy Review Committee. We may have a better sense of the budget by then and need to review requests for one-time expenditures. DTS staff will have data to help assist in the assessment of our electronic resources, and may also have data from a pilot project whereby re-shelving data of print journals is being collected. The pilot is starting at Alexander and, if successful, will be used in other libraries. Serials Solutions has created a fee-based service for this assessment.
Meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m.