New Brunswick Collections Group Meeting Minutes
Thursday, August 14, 2003
Approval of Agenda: Agenda was approved.
Approval of Minutes: Minutes from the previous meeting were approved as distributed.
FY2004 Budget Update - H. M. Dess
The chair distributed a one page document entitled "NB Collections Budget Update & Summary, HMD, 8/13/03".
|Total Central electronic resources spending|
|current periodical spending|
|estimated firm budget FY2004 - (handout #2)|
The chair reported that a "cancellation committee" has been formed by R.G. Sewell. This committee consists of the chairs of the e resources committees, H.M. Dess and Dr. Sewell. Howard then distributed R.G. Sewell's two page document entitled "Some Points About the Libraries Budget, Updated 8/12/03" (Handout #2).
Howard reported that RUL could receive more than the estimated $6.3 million dollars for collections. We can also expect to receive non-state funding from the RU Foundation in late October. However, the non-state amount will be lower than last year interest rates are down, reflecting the current economy.
Of this $6.3 million amount, $6.2 million is for fixed costs, and $260,000 is for prepayments. Reading page two of Handout #2, we find that RUL base + ICI funding equals a shortfall of $750,000. So, $750,000 is our working cancellation target amount!
FY2004 Budget Discussion - all
K. Mulcahy, J. Niessen, H. M. Dess initiated a discussion of NBL 2003 monograph expenditures. The situation for any 2004 monograph expenditures is grave. R.G. Sewell is still waiting for a response to his proposal to RU administration that library budget be a fixed percentage of RU budget. In 1995, our base budget was $5.7 million and in 2003 our base was $6.1 million. C. Wu recommended the use of non-state funds to mitigate the extreme shortfall in state funding for periodicals. H.M. Dess replied that we are not permitted to do that; as our non-state budget varies from year to year
Some discussion of binding expenditures followed. Gracemary Smulewitz reviewed expenditures for FY2003. She mentioned that NBL now has a new binder contract with ICI … NBL seeking standardization and cost reductions. Presently, NBL is not binding monographs.
Howard then reported on the Electronic Resources Review Committee. The committee has met twice. He distributed Handout #3, "Electronic Resource Review Committee, Cancellation Recommendations for 2004 - Revised per meeting of ERRC on 8/12/03".
The ERRC must arrive at an electronic networked resource cancellation target of $500,000. A major criterion for selecting titles to cancel will be usage statistics. A low usage title may still be an important item in a particular research niche. Of the ERRC recommendations, the Web of Science would save $172,910. A brief discussion ensued about NBL/RUL offering an alternative for the loss of Web of Science-i.e. ROARS searches. The group thought that NBL/RUL librarians might need some refresher workshops, as many find their Dialog/STN, etc searching skills to be rusty.
J. Niessen, K. Mulcahy and K. Hartman spoke about World News Connection and the need for further review prior to a formal assent to cancel. R. Womack spoke about keeping Global & Financial Data as a networked resource and cancellation of the print version. K. Denda recommends retention of Wilson Art Abstracts. H.M. Dess noted the CDC decision to cancel Beilstein despite the negative impact on the user community.
Discussion about Science Direct then followed. The chair said that a use study he ran revealed about 300 core journals. R.G. Sewell would like RUL to renegotiate our SD contract to cover the 450 former RUL print subscriptions. We could possibly save $100,000 … not good but some savings.
C. Wu and the chair then said that IEEE Xplore should be retained and not cancelled. It is a very heavily used electronic resource. C. Wu went on to propose that in the future, subject selectors have more say in which full text electronic resources are cancelled. The ERRC should concern itself primarily with indexes and abstracts. R. Womack and K. Mulcahy concurred with this idea. Several in the group mentioned that in many cases, subject selectors had already cancelled print subscriptions in order for NBL/RUL collections budget to afford to pay for the electronic. More discussion followed. R. Womack recommended the creation of a file with notes about print titles cancelled to pay for electronic/networked versions. G. Smulewitz remarked that an IRIS note field already exists for this purpose and that RUL has begun including this information. DANA just began (2003) displaying this information in their IRIS records. NBL has also begun doing so … however, evidence of this feature will be slower to notice as NBL has so many more titles.
K. Mulcahy and the chair then mentioned to the group that our Wiley electronic subscription is being reevaluated. Mary Page is investigating options with our Wiley representative.
Some discussion about Ingenta ensued. Supporters of Ingenta maintain it should be preserved because it is supposed to be faster than document delivery via ILL since it is not mediated by library staff. Then, our RLIN/Eureka package was mentioned. Central has already prepaid for RLIN/Eureka …
C. Wu then distributed copies of the indexes and databases listing from the RUL web site. Selectors should review for possible cancellations. K. Mulcahy said that he would speak with M.C. Wilson regarding the LISA database. M.Lo said that we should review Agricola (through OVID) … can we make do with USDA web site version.
Much discussion then followed regarding the need for a letter to faculty explaining our upcoming drastic collection cancellations. A letter composed by the University Librarian is deemed best. However, selectors should not await this letter, but begin contacting their library committees and liaisons immediately. R.G. Sewell will be visiting departments and conveying this news in person. H.M. Dess said that we should plan on a 15% worst case cancellation target. He went on to say that we will not be receiving one time funds and with rising inflation, we will not have the option of prepaying to save additional costs. The chair and K. Mulcahy said that they would draft a letter in the name of NBCG. More discussion followed.
Hopefully our worst case will be 15% and reality will be less. Ideally, we need to have our lists prepared by September 1st. If you are taking vacations, meet the deadline as best you can.
H. Hoffman remarked that the fund code current subscription list she received in late spring was not as helpful as she had hoped. Many titles had a zero dollar amount indicating an unpaid invoice. H. Hoffman said the list provided no indication of the transfer to a package of zero dollar amount titles …G. Smulewitz commented that these were payment lists. A zero dollar amount does not indicate a cancelled title … To ascertain that fact, selectors need to login to Workflows, identify a particular title with a zero dollar amount, and use the Display 2 option. If selectors find a zero for copy paid and a zero for copies funded then that means a title was cancelled.
H. Hoffman expressed a desire to use titles funded and not paid as credits against her cancellation target. More discussion followed. H. Hoffman then distributed copies of an email from M. Page noting those e-journal providers for which we cannot cancel print (email dated 7/18/03, addressed to: RUL_CDC from M. Page).
K. Mulcahy and the chair reviewed overall 2003 NBL expenditures for periodicals, standing orders and packages and said that 61.4% were in the sciences ($190,000). The chair again urged everyone to begin compiling their cancellation lists. Cooperate fully with colleagues in Camden and Newark. Finalized lists should be sent to G. Smulewitz.
NBCDG Future Roles and Goals - H. Dess/all
C. Wu recommended the tabling of the discussion of goals and objectives. All present approved.
Meeting adjourned 11:50 a.m.
Patricia Piermatti, Secretary du jour