Attendees: L. Bowering Mullen, K. Denda, H. Dess, M. Fetzer, M. Fraser, B. Hancock, S. Harrington (recorder), H. Hoffman, T. Kuchi, M. L. Lo, J. Mardikian, K. Mulcahy, J. Niessen, H. Perez-Gilbe, P. Piermatti, S. Rauchmann, J. Sloan, G. Smulewitz, S. Tama-Bartels, L. Vazquez, K. Wenk, M. Wilson, R. Womack
Stephanie Tama-Bartels was welcomed to the group. Invited guest intern Sabine Rauchmann was also cordially welcomed.
The current state budget can be finalized after the cancellation process is completed.
As of September 8, 2002, we were less than half way to meeting the $300,000 cancellation target. R. Pastorio-Newman reported that 221 titles were cancelled, for savings of $51,400. K. Mulcahy reported that an additional 12 titles could be cancelled, for a total of 239 titles and $63,658 in savings.
A list of print titles that duplicated electronic subscriptions demonstrated potential savings of $160,000. However, in many cases contractual agreements forbade the cancellation of the print titles. Indeed, the contracts often require a print subscription to be held on each major RU campus. It was suggested that significant savings could come only from contract renegotiations of the major packages to provide for access to particular titles and overall savings. Nevertheless, selectors were encouraged look for any potential individual title cancellations, which should be rushed to G. Smulewitz.
J. Niessen noted that Biography and Genealogy Master Index (BGMI) was a potential cancellation, but added that the index might fall within the selection parameters of the General Electronic Resources Team, rather than the Humanities Electronic Resource Team.
A brief side discussion of the ELPX and ILMX fund codes ensued. Some concern was expressed over the use of ILMX funds, and it was decided that M. Wilson would write a proposal for overseeing the use of the ILMX funds.
The amount saved from cancellations could be used to transfer to monograph funds.
Currently, phonathon funds have been allocated for the 2003 fiscal year as follows:
As soon as the allocations are completed they will be sent to N. Hendrickson, however, some of this money may well go to pay bindery costs. B. Sewell indicated that it was hoped that funds would not be taken from campuses to fund centralized expenses.
Some questions were raised regarding a potential approval plan for Middle Eastern books. It was noted that the monies for these expenses would be dependent on overall cancellations. A longer discussion ensued in which it was proposed that when subject programs are developed or expanded, money for collection building in the Libraries should accompany such programs.
In a related subject, a question was raised about the possibility of joining forces with the law libraries for resource sharing. Currently, uneven resource sharing has much to do with the accreditation requirements of the law school. It was suggested that efforts be made to see of RUL can access the electronic resources utilized by the law schools. However, such a dialogue would likely have to be opened through the efforts of the Collection Development Council and the University Librarian.
The ordering backlog at TAS remains a concern. TAS is currently undergoing a department by department review to investigate how workflow efficiencies might be maximized. Collection service functions outside TAS will also examine the efficiencies of processes that connect to TAS.
A serious concern is the shrinking resources for monographs in the humanities and social sciences, in the wake of growing electronic resource commitments. A significant new endowment may be established for some humanities monograph resources. Despite this positive development, all selectors expressed concern with the inability to make "emergency" monograph purchases for faculty requests. The potential development of such a fund was discussed. It would be difficult to administer such a fund, but the issue will be further explored. If such a fund were to exist, it would have to be monitored and evaluated.
3a. Approval Fund Analysis (K. Mulcahy):
K. Mulcahy extracted data from a longer report to examine the BNA approval plan, which yielded the following:
- 12, 287 books were received
- 11,626 books were accepted
- 661 books were rejected
- for a total rejection rate of 5.38%
The total cost of the books was:
with a discounted price of
Selectors were encouraged to carefully examine their own fund codes within the report, with an eye to rendering the approval plan more efficient in all subject areas. Ideally, RUL would like to move to 100% acceptance of approval titles. Therefore, it is necessary to critically examine each profile. Some selectors expressed a desire to meet with BNA representatives, and alternative meeting dates will be explored.
(J. Niessen noted that J. Zapcic has been invited to the next meeting.) Further dialogue about collection development strategies among selectors was encouraged, as well as enhanced liaison relationships with RUL bodies, and those consortia outside of RUL whose work overlaps or relates to NBCG work. It was suggested that RUL might be able to learn from how other organizations deal with contracts with publishers, and what legal avenues might therefore be open to RUL.
Finally, it was also proposed that NBCG might wish to formalize some of its resolutions (depending on the issue at hand) for presentation to the Collection Development Council, thereby giving representatives more concrete language to work with.
H. Dess welcomed ongoing input and dialogue on all issues.
Proposed African Studies Program (L. Vazquez)
This item has been postponed.
There were no miscellaneous reports.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 a.m.