NOTE: The business meeting was preceded by a joint meeting, from 9:30-10:30, of the Library Resources Council and the User Services Council for the purpose of a presentation on the Interim E-Books Report by Mary Beth Weber and Gracemary Smulewitz in the Teleconference Lecture Hall. The business portion of LRC's meeting began at 10:45 a.m.
The agenda was approved with the addition of discussion of the draft RUCore brochure as part of Sewell’s AUL report.Minutes were approved.
Membership of the Mobile Devices Task Force was compiled by N. Borisovets, S. Harrington, and K. Hartman, and an invitation to join the task force has been distributed. A report with recommendations and an action plan is due by 5/30/2010.
A. Elsevier negotiations- We have been working intensively with Elsevier to come up with a combined approach for cost savings. Bob Sewell anticipated that the negotiations are expected to be completed by the end of the year.
B. Last Copy- This policy was strongly driven by the ANNEX policy that states the ANNEX would only accept an item if it is not duplicated in the system. G. Smulewitz distributed a draft “Workflow for weeding RUL collections/Annex and Only Copy.” R. Sewell distributed draft criteria “Exceptions to the RUL ‘Only Copy’ Policy. “ The latter would come into play when the title being withdrawn is the only copy and the selector wants to completely withdraw the title (the title would be sent to the LRC Team Leaders for review vis-à-vis the criteria.) Discussion about the two documents led to suggestions the will be incorporated into the drafts and posted to appropriate locations on the website.
C. RUCore Brochure- This is a tool for faculty to use in discussions for RUCore. Suggested
-it should be mentioned on the front of the brochure “preserve your scholarly work” -add this to the flap inside.
-G. Smulewitz and G. Agnew both emphasized that the first paragraph should include mention of research being permanently accessible. G. Agnew suggested: "make your work available in the future"
D. Planning and Coordinating Committee- The Planning and Coordinating Committee would like to transform the ad hoc status of the Committee on Scholarly Communication to a regular standing committee with by- laws. It has asked the Committee to draft a rationale, charge, and membership to be discussed at a future Faculty meeting.
A. Access to the USC Shoah Foundation Institute’s Visual History Archive-
FAS is paying for access (an annual subscription) for a sub collection of high quality video interviews.
[The Institute’s Visual History Archive at the University of Southern California (USC) contains nearly 52,000 video testimonies collected in 32 languages and 56 countries. 105,000 hours of video occupy 135 terabytes of storage on servers at USC. The Institute interviewed Jewish survivors, homosexual survivors, Jehovah’s Witness survivors, liberators and liberation witnesses, political prisoners, rescuers and aid providers, Roma and Sinti survivors (Gypsy), survivors of Eugenics policies, and war crimes trials participants]
The sub collection will be cached on campus on a server in OIT. We can search the full collection at Shoah. RU will be able to swap titles in the sub collection, probably twice a year.
Ron Jantz is coordinating with Dean Greenberg on this project. The goal is for this to be available in the spring (it would allow us to have access to approximately 5000 testimonies.)
It will be added to the A-Z list (Indexes and Databases) and will have a collection level record in RUCore; because of the nature of the material, we will not catalog the individual records in IRIS.
B. USC Laptop Program Test- This was proposed by the PC Working Group. The Art Library was chosen to test this program because of the large number of power outlets. The goal is cost savings: for example, the Chang Library has old PCs and no space, NETbooks are about 15% of the cost to the University of full workstations based on the figures G.Agnew presented.
Cost and Space: two benefits of the program are no maintenance costs because of the economical price of NETbooks and improved flexibility of library space.
With the approval from USC, the pilot will begin in the spring with 6-7 laptops. This will only be available to RU students.
Issues with COUTTS: we are unable to load MARC records from COUTTS because of OCLC technical problems. C.Sterback, M.B.Weber, M.Belinsky are working through and testing to resolve the problem by early January. Librarians can still order books.
The cataloging backlog is three months.
ECCO MARC records were loaded; LTI issued a very large bill for authority control- because of the high cost, it was determined that no more record load sets will be sent to LTI.
LION (Literature Online) records are currently being processed, but some decisions need to be made, such as whether they are sent to OCLC.
R.Womack suggested we consider setting aside funding for LTI (Authority Control).
K. Hartman noted that the E-Book Task Force would be changed to a Working Group.
M.B. Weber and G.Smulewitz as co-chairs will determine membership and the future configuration of the group.
M.B.Weber mentioned that the evaluation is ongoing because the environment is changing all the time.
G.Smulewitz and M.B.Weber emphasized: this is an ongoing management group and will also be responsible for larger structural changes based on input from LRC (specifically involvement from LRC Team Leaders since they are responsible for Acquisition decisions). The group is managing a pilot for ‘patron driven requests.’
L.Mullen added that content issues, funding, department decisions regarding staffing issues and training should be considered by regularly discussing E-books at LRC.
G.Smulewitz emphasized that the Working Group would present discovered data, development of different models, etc. and LRC would decide what is ‘collected’ based on input from the Working Group.
Background: Mary Fetzer was approached by Harry Glazer regarding brochures (for example: Faculty Services). M. Fetzer brought this to K. Hartman and S. Harrington’s attention to review and make changes comments/input/changes
R.Womak noted USC comments: there is a lot of ‘library speak’ and this should be changed to have less ‘jargon’; the list of libraries should be removed; it was suggested that something very brief- such as a bookmark with a url without that much text should be distributed. It is also being thought of as a separate guide, but it should only be one ‘version’ on the web.
L.Mullen noted there was no mention of the role of liaison.
R.Womack reported from USC that Harry Glazer said there are many access points; USC proposed many different ideas; not just a wording revision.
K. Hartman asked that further comments be sent to her.
Next Meeting January 21, 2010 University Librarian’s Conference Room- Alexander Library (and via teleconference)