The agenda (with one additional item) and previous minutes were approved
Ryan uploaded various reports to the NBCG site with the help of Karen Hartman and Kevin Mulcahy. He displayed the current agenda and acquisitions/approvals reports on the screen and announced they would no longer be distributed in paper at the meeting. The approvals report shows the cost per title declined slightly, and the Art plan spent spent less. In total we spent $450k for the YBP approval plan, compared to $432k in FY08. The 09ybp.xls file on the sakai site shows a report run by Karen shows expenditures distributed according to LC classes. The total is only $408k, though we’re not sure why.
Transition from YBP to Coutts is progressing. Jackie Mardikian and Mei Ling Lo can help colleagues with the transfer of GOBI folders to OASIS. Selectors should stop initiating orders via GOBI and paste GOBI records into the RUL web form.
At the September 17 meeting of the Library Resources Council Karen was elected as its new chair. In discussing potential cuts, the council learned that this year will not be so bad, but next year will be worse; we want to equalize cuts over both years. One path to savings under discussion is a modification of the ScienceDirect contract. Bob Sewell provided a budget report that Ryan will distribute. “O” funds don’t yet include all online resources, and this will require additional work. Landscape Architecture is orphaned and needs a selector.
An election is needed for a new RUL Generalist Reference chair to replace Mary Fetzer on the LRC.
Kevin is working with Andy Martinez on Alex 2B, has sent spreadsheets of titles for weeding to some selectors. 2A and 3 are lower priorities. Weeding is also ongoing in Art, AlexRef, moving Alex Business to Kilmer, and Robeson GovDocs. There is concern that Robeson weeding may cause the deletion of IRIS records for which holdings for Alex holdings have not yet been attached. Inventorying has taken place for RU Publications, Physics, and Chemistry. Smulewitz will send out a report about this, identifying priorities.
Carla Zimmerman distributed handouts, and they are now also available on the sakai site including the new version of priority slips. A green sheet notes the top part of the priority slip should always be completed, with a separate sheet for every book except if the books will be part of the same record. If together, books should be gathered with a band. Please provide your last name, not just initials, on the slip. You may refer to file information for bookplate wording if it is on file. Do not write on the top part of the slips because that is for TAS use.
Salmon slips are for priority 1 (top priority), yellow for priority 2 (high), and white for priority 0 (low priority). Carla invited selectors to come to TAS and examine the gift cataloging backlog (ca. 10 ranges of stacks) and help prioritize it.
Gifts of current imprints (last ca. three years should also go to Carla at Gifts & Unit Receipts, not to DTS as indicated previously. Added copies should still go to DTS.
Non-print gifts can go to Carla or to Jane Otto. Units (additional items received with orders) also go to Carla.
Tom Izbicki, Carla Zimmerman, Laura Mullen and Julie Still prepared a Drop-Off Book Donation Policy, dated May 27, 2009, in response to “drop and run” donations. The policy includes a Book Donation Receipt form at the bottom for the purpose of creating a paper trail. One copy stays with us (going to the AUL for Collection Development), the donor gets one, and another stays with the gift. A scenario still needing clarification is what to do upon delivery if the donor is in front of you, but the drop-off is at another location.
Jane Otto distributed a handout, also on sakai, entitled Theses Library Locations, that shows the current procedure showing destination library according to the location of the program. She outlined three scenarios for the housing of theses and dissertations in physical form (NB: theses are not yet consistently digital):
Cook and Nursing theses remain a concern, and it is not clear where they should go.
The consensus of NBCG is to stick with the campus-based approach (b.), but circulate the list to NBCG electronically to see if individual revisions should be made at the suggestion of selectors.
Grace Agnew presented a PowerPoint (available on sakai) entitled Collection Development: A Technical/Digital Library Perspective. She argued that, while money for acquisitions will predictably be far less than we would like, “most of what we own will be available digitally in full text” and online material will also be accessible via personal devices. However, vendors will try to silo all content into products to which we will need to subscribe. What can we do?
It is suggested that this projected front end for OLE be called the Digital Library of New Jersey. OLE will help us reduce staffing in many areas, so that tasks can be redistributed.
We will maximize what we have by
Grace asserted that OCLC is now used mainly for Interlibrary Loan, for which the need will steadily decline. In the future, MyRutgers could be the hook for subject access that will be used more effectively than our OPAC is now. Rutgers computing now manages MyRutgers, and could use our staffing support.