Subject:  NBCG minutes for meeting 
Date:  Nov. 12, 1998

Sec’y du jour: Lourdes Vazquez

Attendees: Ben Beede, Ellen Calhoun, Jeris Cassel, Howard Dess, Mary Fetzer, Ellen Gilbert,
Helen Hoffman, Jackie Mardikian, Kevin Mulcahy, Ferris Olin, Mary Page, Penny Page, Pat Piermatti, Halina Rusak, Addie Tallau, Lourdes Vazquez

P.S. to minutes for prior meeting: Addie will circulate an updated list of full-text ProQuest titles to NBCG selectors so they can begin evaluating candidates for cancellation of paper duplicates.

1.  Report from the Chair, Howard Dess

a) Future ILL statistics reports

HMD relayed message from Judy Gardner about ILL statistics reporting capabilities from Unicorn.  Currently, the ILL staff are wholly engaged in processing new requests.  Data available from Unicorn will only cover counts of ILL requests newly entered, filled, cancelled or unfilled.
Unicorn has no capabilities to generate lists of titles or subjects requested via ILL.  This type of information can only be generated manually by library personnel, as before.  Judy hopes that this type of analysis can be initiated starting sometime early next year.

b) Status of budget planning for collections

HMD reported on work in progress by the Budget Planning Committee, a temporary advisory group whose purpose is to help formulate a long-term collection budget strategy (or strategies) for the University Librarian to utilize as a component of an overall library budget plan, which will later be  integrated into the University-wide budget planning process starting later this year.  This committee has been asked by Marianne Gaunt to develop scenarios that would specifically address the possibility of static collections budgets for the next five years (i.e., assume no budget increments for inflationary price increases imposed by publishers).  Clearly this assumption implies drastic changes in the library’s mode of operation and would necessitate implementation of actions such as the following: (1) Increasing reliance on digital/electronic information resources that could be networked across the University. (2) Cancellation to the maximum extent possible of duplicate paper subscriptions and cancellation of paper versions of online resources; in all such cases, however, due consideration would need to be given to the geographical dispersion of programs at Rutgers that necessitated such duplication in the first place. (3) Subsidized document delivery program. (4) Further trimming of lesser used unique journal titles. (5) Sharper delineation of collections into an undergraduate core and a graduate & research core.

 The prospect of a long-term stand-still budget for collections is a very troubling one for NBCG as was clearly indicated by the ensuing discussion, particularly since our collection budget has shown virtually no growth over the past eight years.  A concensus was finally reached that some formal, collective expression of this concern, in the form of a letter, ought to be presented to our administration by the library faculty.  It was agreed that NBCG will submit such a letter, in draft form,  for consideration by the entire library faculty at the special budget meeting scheduled for Nov. 23 and recommendations can be forthcoming at that time as to how best to proceed beyond that point.

2.  Fund codes by subgroups, Addie Tallau

Addie prepared a draft summary listing of all existing library fund codes and asked the members of NBCG to review for accuracy and relevance.  All comments concerning any errors or needed changes should be communicated directly to Addie.  Several new fund codes need to be added in the following subject areas: ecology, environmental studies, physical anthropology.

Other collection areas requiring new fund code treatments include, binding (building-by-building), and broad interdisciplinary subject areas such as “general”, “science”, “reference”, etc.  Suggestions or recommendations re these areas should be forwarded to Addie, who will summarized later for NBCG.

3.  Bibliographer subject assignments, Ferris Olin

Ferris raised a question about how best to match subject selection areas with available library faculty selectors.  Specific examples were raised where individual selectors had volunteered to take on the task of selecting for a subject area where they had limited expertise in order to pinch hit for a colleague who had resigned or was on leave or incapacitated due to illness.   Such mis-matches can be tolerated for limited periods of time, particularly if the subject area is limited in scope and budget dollars.  However, longer term, it is clearly desirable to obtain the best possible match between subject area and selector, and this may necessitate some realignments in selection responsibilities from time to time.  This raises a question of procedure: how best to accomplish this goal?  In the absence of any strong sense of direction from NBCG attendees on this matter, it was agreed that for now, individuals could try to arrange such realignments on their own with colleagues, however, if and when such shifts are made, it will be incumbent on the selectors to notify both NBCG and the NB Director of the change.

4. Ordering procedures for e-resources, Mary Page

Harriette Hemmasi has designed a new form to be utilized by selectors in requesting that Rutgers acquire access to new electronic resources..  Samples of the form were distributed for review by attendees.  Guidelines for use are very straightforward:   electronic access products to be acquired from selectors’ budget funds (e.g., such as an e-journal) will be sent directly to Harriette for processing.  Products that require central funds (e.g., such as a new specialized index or abstracting database) will be sent to Bob Sewell for approval.  It would also be helpful if the selector would append to the form any relevant registration forms required by the vendor or publisher.  Note: the form is to be used even if the electronic access is acquirable at no charge (e.g., as in the case of some e-journals for which we already have subscriptions to the print version).  This form will be posted on the TAS web page some time soon.
 

 5.  Kilmer Library recommendations, Ben Beede

Ben is very concerned about the number of out-of-date monographs that are still on the shelves as part of the Kilmer Library collection and he invited other selectors to review the Kilmer collection in their respective areas of subject expertise for deselection recommendations.  Mary Page introduced a cautionary note by pointing out that although this is a commendable objective, the Collection Services Group is not currently geared to handle any large scale deselection exercise.
Jeris also noted that even some of the older materials may still be useful.  Individual selectors who do wish to examine specific subject areas of Kilmer’s collection should contact Ben, Jeris,  and Mary Page for further guidance.

6.  Gift policy revisions, Halina Rusak

The Gift Policy Committee met with Ryoko to review and discuss the Gift Policy Report.  Halina reported that relatively minor changes to the report were proposed at this meeting.  The revised document will be resubmitted to NBCG in the near future, and then to the faculty as whole for approval and acceptance.

7.  Resources for new undergraduate programs, Connie Wu

Connie raised a question about obtaining library funding to support a newly announced undergraduate program in biomedical engineering.  Other people voiced similar concerns about other new programs.  What procedures do we have to accommodate these developments?  In the absence of any clear cut answers, Howard Dess will pursue further with Bob Sewell.