The chair asked to add the Annex Policy document; agreed to consider it at the next meeting and invite Judy Gardner to discuss it with us. Agenda approved as distributed.
The revision distributed February 10th were accepted with one change, the removal of Mulcahy’s name among those attending.
At request of User Services Council, we discussed making the advanced search mode the default in databases and LRC agreed to do so for the Ebsco databases. Cathy attended the USC meeting where members also agreed to make Ebsco databases default to advanced mode, but to leave others as they are. The Digital Interface Group will look at issues involving other databases.
Team leaders have been busy. They have received 14 or 15 new requests for databases and are consulting with their teams to prioritize requests. Team leaders met on the 12th to make sure prices are being obtained, etc. They discussed the possibility of taking money out of arts / humanities and social sciences for approval. Bob will try to get a better idea of monies available as soon as possible. Team leaders will meet again on March 9th to review requests. They will also meet on April 6th to review Academic Search Premier and Wilson Omnifile. We may not be able to keep both next year.
Bob Sewell's presentation to the New Brunswick Faculty Council is available as a Powerpoint. Vice-President Furmanski told Marianne Gaunt it was a clear presentation and on target and would like to discuss further. Also Gaunt attended a meeting of the Deans’ Council and shared the Powerpoint [now available at: http://hdl.rutgers.edu/1782.2/rucore30018600001.Manuscript.17589]. We are not sure what effect either will have on funding. He is meeting next week with Doug Greenberg, Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences (SAS) for further discussion about the Libraries’ situation.
Sewell feels quite sure there will be no give backs this year and that we should have money of at least six figures for one-time purchases. For one-time purchase requests we will entertain continuing costs of up to $500. It is tricky to calculate at this time how much money will be available. There are several factors that are unknown at this time:
Advice: keep compiling prioritized lists of purchase recommendations so we will have them ready when we have a better picture of the budget outlook.
The Open Library Environment (OLE) project is very important; they are discussing workflows and core services. We can possibly integrate natively open access items with our public catalog. We need to think about how RUcore should be crafted and what it means when we no longer differentiate between what is commercially purchased and what is created here. The implications of VALE undertaking a system migration to OLE was discussed. This would not work the same way. It will integrate fully with everything else including Sakai. Rather than a stand-alone system, everything will be integrated and will affect serials control. Our collection will become part of a statewide collection. It is much most cost- effective to have resources located in a central location instead of sending a truck to remote areas, with 24- hour turn around time. One of the goals that TAS Heads discussed was weeding. Smulewitz will develop a matrix for weeding which will be approached on a very small scale. Mulcahy questioned if faculty and students have been consulted about this. Agnew noted that we are the stewards of the collection. There was discussion of subject differences in collection use, weeding procedures at Camden and LSM, and the definition of a research collection.
Fetzer introduced our Libraries' new development officer, Tara McDonnell, who discussed the Capital Campaign, her focus on collections endowments, and interest in family foundations in New Jersey. There was a discussion of the proper way to thank donors, naming rights, joint fundraising, and other issues. Liaison librarians might consider the possibility of retired faculty and librarians as potential donors.
Farideh Tehrani, Agnew and Sewell discussed the plan they developed. LRC endorsed going ahead with the plan at our August meeting, but the plan was rejected by Cabinet. This version of the plan provides more recognition of digital preservation and RUcore as a preservation vehicle. Since we received the report the day before the meeting, LRC has had limited time to review the document but recommended it be edited and endorsed it in spirit. A revised version will be submitted to Cabinet before the end of this fiscal year.
The authors of the report propose establishing a preservation working group. Funding for preservation staff this year is unlikely, but doing some experimentation and workflow analysis will give us a better idea of what we need at RUL. Isaiah Beard is now the Digital Data Coordinator; Farideh is the Administrator; and there is currently a preservation assistant reporting to her and paid by salary savings. The lack of positions should not hold up the process; going ahead will provide justification for positions.
At our last meeting there was a discussion of our last copy policy and VALE's last copy policy. The digitization piece reflects the planned tasks of the VALE group. The group has dealt primarily with out-of-copyright items and has not moved very far into the process. Three universities are part of a pilot project : Rutgers, Montclair and William Paterson. The items reviewed so far are pre-1900 and have not been compared to libraries across the state. Agnew suspects we will see a push for digitization of last copies. A subcommittee composed of Sewell, Bonita Grant, Jim Niessen, Tom Izbicki, Melissa De Fino, Gracemary Smulewitz and Fetzer will look at the current RUL last copy policy.
This discussion was precipitated by an incident in which a faculty member dropped off a number of boxes of donated materials at an RU library, and a work-study student accepted them. Some journal issues were discarded. The donor wanted a letter of acknowledgement and was upset to learn that some items had been discarded. It was suggested that a copy of our gift policy and forms should be available at all service desks. The policy will be discussed further at a future meeting. Information on our policies should also be added to the RUL website and be included in student training. Volunteers for a small subcommittee include Tom Izbicki, Carla Zimmerman (the current head of the Gifts and Unit Receipts Section in Technical Services), Laura Mullen, and Julie Still. The existing policy is available at http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/collection_dev/policies/gifts_policy.shtml
Due to lack of time, this discussion has been deferred to the next meeting. Planning and Coordinating Committee will request some evaluation and assessment of LRC and USC this spring to determine how the new council structure is working. Agnew expressed some concerns about the new council structure. Jane Sloan will be invited to a future meeting to discuss the commercial video phase of NJVid.
Laura Mullen will be part of a panel presentation on core journal lists at ACRL. All disciplines are trying to figure out if lists are still relevant.
The meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m.
The next meeting is March 19.