There has been a final call from Vibiana Bowman (Faculty Coordinator) regarding the elected LRC general/reference representative. This librarian will replace Mary Fetzer who has transitioned to the User Services Council as part of the responsibilities of her new positions as interim AUL/RIS. The second candidate from the previous LRC team leader election is unable to serve at this time. After the next Planning and Coordinating meeting, hopefully LRC will have a resolution on this. The team leaders group will convene again soon.
An item leftover from previous LRC business is the issue of a task force to study mobile devices. This is an emerging technology goal from USC. Members of that group should convene as soon as possible. Another emerging technology focus is the issue of federated search. L. Mullen is the LRC representative to the Digital Interface Group (DIG) and other LRC members also serve on that committee so the Council is well represented.
It is necessary for LRC to complete the identification and analysis of the ethnographic study comments that relate to collections and services. The same coded information was sent to multiple parties regarding federated search, and vendor issues. Please review comments from the spreadsheets related to collections. We need to extract anything that reflects website issues as well any topics that might inform practice, or are related to LRC's goals. Forming a task force or other group to go over the comments was mentioned but it seems the timeline is too short. Before November 15, please send any comments to the chair first, and she will compile them. There will be discussion of federated search and vendor issues to follow in future LRC meetings.
Annex policy issues have been brought to K. Hartman's attention. A discussion of "How do we define last copy?" was deferred to accompany the deaccessioning policy discussion later in this meeting. All of these issues are tied together.
K. Hartman reminded the council that the next LRC meeting will be at Robeson on Nov. 19. The meeting will start later (10 a.m.) to allow for travel time. Carpooling might be possible, and videoconferencing will be available. J. Still will take minutes for that meeting.
Cabinet discussed the budget and was given a target for collections reductions; we started last year on the target. There have been many facets to our strategy for meeting budgetary goals: we switched some databases to cheaper alternatives, cancelled more print, and renegotiated contracts where possible. About $475,000 has already been saved. R. Sewell has been asked to add a $300,000 further reduction for next year. A likely scenario for reaching $300,000-$350,000 has been formulated. If reached, we might even be able to purchase some one-time money databases. Possible sources of reduction include:
Systemwide collection support issues have also been examined by R. Sewell. Certain memberships and other support have been deemed valuable to keep. For instance, Sewell reiterated that CRL is an important resource, and is considered money well spent. There is also somewhat less stress due to little or no cost increases from some publishers this year.
Other concerns include:
We will continue to conduct usage analysis of separate titles in large packages, look at benefits of consortial offerings, examine extra costs associated with content/service fees, re-examine "pay per view" options, analyze costs of suites of products from any one publisher, and seek savings in any way possible.
Materials on the T drive regarding usage in the large packages will be put on the selectors Sakai site.
G. Smulewitz noted that cleanup of multiple URLs for electronic serials will be undertaken. This is a major project and includes determination of what is appropriate in terms of multiple URLs. URLs can possibly be moved to holdings statement rather than remain in the bibliographic record. G. Smulewitz and M. B. Weber will bring mockups and potential options to a future LRC meeting.
In response to a question asked by R. Sewell, M. Weber reported the transition to Coutts is proceeding; test orders are going through and problems are being ironed out. YBP will cease soon.
Another candidate is coming soon for the Director of Integrated Information Systems position. TAS will lose four proposed positions; and there is another proposed cut to Lyrasis (formerly PALINET). Discussion of use of WorldCat and its cost ensued. Government documents are available through MARCIVE, for instance, and maybe this category does not need to be reflected in WorldCat holdings. ETDs may also not need to be included as a category. PALCI (70 percent of our ILL) does not use OCLC. G. Agnew noted that there is an unconscious assumption in libraries is that OCLC holdings must reflect library's internal holdings. Data sets and other types of materials will not be in WorldCat. This is an older model based on many outmoded assumptions. We can catalog in a number of ways; records come directly from vendors- while there is an extra charge for OCLC. We don't have to add everything to OCLC. M. B.Weber is looking into options for other sources of records such as Library of Congress, Biblios, and GPO. Are we paying to search the professional WorldCat when Open WorldCat might suffice? It was felt that this might be a good discussion to have with selector groups.
G. Agnew led a discussion about "Summon," the next generation federated search option being developed by SerialsSolutions. This product has received a lot of attention, and there seems to be a number of high end partnerships forming. There will be good pricing for development partners. Comments included the fact that relevance searching seems subpar, and that this might not be the right product for a complex research library. It was noted that there were problems with the presentation at RUL; the program may not have represented the product or the developers well. There is support for Summon or a product like it at RUL. G. Anew will pursue a conversation with Summon regarding development.
The Council discussed systemwide issues of duplication of materials destined for the annex. The example was given of a New Brunswick selector wanting to send a book to the Annex when there is another copy of the book on the shelf in Dana. Can this be done if it flies in the face of the policy? Digitization issues were discussed as means of making available poor quality materials needed by faculty and students. We have to distinguish between "in demand" and "last copy." "Designated research copy" can be used in a note field to keep things from being withdrawn. This field may also be useful for denoting books that are classics in a field and cannot be withdrawn. The Council was reminded that "last copy of low use items" is THE priority for the Annex. Many issues are campus-based and systemwide designation might be at issue. Government documents are an issue in terms of duplicates sent to the Annex. The Council concluded that the Annex policy needs to be looked at again due to digitization changes, copyright issues, and new developments such as research library designation in note field on books. The Last Copy Task Force will be charged by R. Sewell to look at all new issues with last copy and Annex. TSCWG is another RUL group that is looking at all weeding issues holistically. There will be some overlap, and these groups will work in concert. The group that R. Sewell will charge includes G. Smulewitz, Bonita Grant (or Dave Kuzma), Jim Niessen, Tom Izbicki, Melissa DeFino, R. Sewell, John Brennan, Andy Martinez, Mary Fetzer, and Ann Watkins.
This agenda item pertained to deaccessioning rare materials. There are cataloging backlogs of rare books; there are duplicate copies, and there is a need to set up a policy for SC/UA to handle the deaccessioning of these materials. Are there restrictions on gifts? Do we have booksplates in some materials, and, what do we do with these materials? Are there other RU libraries (such as Art and Music) that have duplicates of rare materials? Discussion revolved around gift policies already drawn up stating that the material becomes the property of RUL upon donation to the library. RUL cannot make any long term promises about donated materials. The best decisions are made with library expertise and may include withdrawal, sale, etc.
R. Becker and R. Sewell will focus on this policy for rare books and rare materials. Weeding of SC/UA is the issue at hand.
RUL is now a subscriber to the Portico "dark archive". We will pay a subscription that acts as a "failsafe" for disaster recovery in case of catastrophic event or other permanent failure of content provider. "Trigger events" allow participating libraries to access content. Publisher failure initiates trigger event; there have been four so far. LOCKSS serves a different purpose, and is for more temporary interruptions, but Portico is for catastrophic failure events.
A related issue for discussion is that the major journal cancellations projects of the past few years, have left print runs all over the system. There is major duplication of print bound journal (and index) volumes. It is time to approach a consolidation project. LRC members discussed this at length in terms of the appropriate retention of print volumes (especially last copy) in a research library environment. There would be many details to discuss such as where to put bound volumes (designated "research library" location, "home" library, or Annex). This consolidation must be looked at holistically. Chemisty/Physics/LSM issues may be used as a test case first. The Last Copy Task Force charged to look at monographs originally will also consider issues of print journals and indexes. It is assumed that the object of this consolidation would be titles for which we have online access established.
T. Izbicki: The second music librarian candidate will be here October 29 and October 30. The public presentation will be after lunch on the 29th. -Input on both candidates is requested.
R. Sewell: The Scholarly Communication Symposium was well attended and some lively discussions at tables were noted. RUCore was mentioned by presenters. Evaluations were filled out, but Bob would like anybody taking notes of table discussions to also send him those by email.
K. Hartman: Future agenda items will include the E-Book Task Force recommendations, and a joint meeting with User Services Council.
Laura Bowering Mullen
Oct. 15, 2009