Minutes of December 20, 2012 Meeting

G. Agnew, B. Fong, T. Izbick, M. Joseph, B. Lipinski (recorder), R. Marker, K. Mulcahy (chair), V. Pelote (via videoconference), J. Pilch, G. Smulewitz, G. Springs, J. Still (via videoconference), A. Watkins, M. B. Weber, T. Yang

1. Approval of the Agenda

The agenda was approved as distributed.

2. Approval of Minutes from November 15, 2012 (posted in Sakai)

The minutes were approved with one change in the sequence of a sentence. The Council also agreed that AULs will be excluded from the rotation for taking minutes.

3. Chair's Report-K. Mulcahy

Two spreadsheets were distributed: one detailing RUL funds FY 2012-2013 and the other RUL funds 10- year trends (2004-2013). State funds for FY 2013 already show a negative Free balance. Looking at RUL fund trends, we are in one of our lower years; $9.2 million is our lowest since 2007. The RUL Non-state fund total of $1.3 million is at its lowest level in the last 10 years, but it is possible (but by no means certain) that additional money might be made available in the next six months, changing that total.

J. Still noted that Camden's fundraising took a hit last year. T. Izbicki said that Rutgers Phonothon funding was down and the Foundation has lowered the percentage of interest paid on RUL endowments.

At K. Mulcahy's request, Bob Warwick is running reports providing data on the use of titles acquired through the New Brunswick approval plan. The first report, covering FY 2009-2010 shows that off 8,678 circulating titles, 65.4% have circulated at least once, with a total of 25,220 circulations. Reports for several more years are being generated, and this will allow us to assess the impact of approval funding-and project the impact of the loss of funding for the approval plan.

G. Agnew said it will be interesting to see the impact of VALIDimplementation on circulation. We would like to avoid duplication throughout the State with the goal of becoming one library system.

K. Mulcahy remarked that he has studied some areas and has come upon titles that could not be purchased because they are available by subscription only as e-books. G. Agnew said three ways of addressing e-books would be 1) collaborative storage; 2) collective collection development; or 3) make purchases at the State level. K. Mucahy said selectors need to keep in mind what titles everyone needs to use and which are the more esoteric titles.

4. AUL Report-T. Izbicki

We need to show results in data for our new president. We've obtained statistical data on usage through working with UMDNJ. UMDNJ needs to know how we do business with vendors. We've initiated contacts with the CIC to determine when it will be in their best interests for RUL to partner with them.

T. Izbicki is working with M. B. Weber on setting up a plan for the development of the Kilmer Rec Reading collection, using McNaughton as a vendor for a book lease program. Kilmer librarians have identified funds that can be used for the first year.

T. Izbicki has also submitted a Blue-sky budget, including e-book packages, needed databases, and stable funding for a Patron Driven Acquisition plan, and we will need to document our needs to the new University administration.

T. Izbicki is trying to get the Music collection back in shape.

5. AUL Report-G. Agnew

G. Agnew reported on VALID developments. Steering Committee members are assessing the state's needs? Currently, there is no research footprint in the state. We need to focus on the unique problems that face our state. For example, with the exception of California, New Jersey has the most coastline subject to climate change as Sandy reminded us, suggesting an area for targeted research. A small database of de-duped holdings has been created. A Serials Team within VALE has been set up which includes M. B. Weber, G. Smulewitz, B. Warwick, and C. Sterback.

Regarding UMDNJ, the president sees RUL as leaders in making the July 1, 2013 integration deadline. Challenges for the Libraries include determining how to handle identity management and the separate link resolvers and separate web sites, which demand too much navigation.

6. Central Technical Services Report-M. B. Weber

RUL is getting 70,000 records from UMDNJ. The Catalog Committee of the integration team is studying workflow, including how the catalog can accommodate both LC and MESH headings. M. B. Weber has been in contact with OCLC regarding how to handle the merger of UMDNJ holdings with Rutgers' holdings. Weber has also been in touch with J. Gardner regarding ILL, and Gardner has stressed that only one holding symbol can be used for ILL transactions. Catalog display issues are also being looked at. RUL did not include medical subject headings in bibliographic records prior to 1992.

M. B. Weber said that RDA (Resource Description and Access), the new cataloging code that will succeed AACR2 will be implemented by the three U.S. National Libraries (LC, the National Library of Agriculture, and the National Library of Medicine in March 2013. It will provide the capacity for new fields and a richer description of resources, and it will a major cultural change. Weber will do a presentation on RDA for LRC and the Library Catalog Committee (LCC) in January.

M. B. Weber has been invited to join the CIC Heads of Cataloging Group.

7. Distributed Technical Services Report-G. Smulewitz

There is 88% duplication in serials with UMDNJ according to aggregators. More information from UMDNJ is being requested.

G. Smulewitz said the advancement of Web-scale discovery and the UMDNJ integration has made a shift in the DTS goals. The timeline for Web-scale discovery has been accelerated. G. Springs commented that it was difficult to make evaluations of the product in the Web-scale discovery presentations-in part because it is difficult to distinguish between the presentation skills of the sales representatives and the substantive qualities of the tools themselves.

G. Smulewitz reported that RUL has renewed most of its subscriptions.

8. Discussion of Selector Lines-All

K. Mulcahy presented a Selector Template Draft for discussion. Several suggested edits to the language were provided. J. Still pointed to work done by the Core Competencies Task Force that was relevant. K. Mulcahy will come back to LRC with another draft.

9. HathiTrust-J. Pilch

J. Pilch framed the discussion of HathiTrust as a continuation of the LRC examination of it earlier in the year. At that time, for reasons of pending copyright litigation and budget concerns, the choice was made to hold off on joining HathiTrust. Following a ruling on October 10, 2012 which was very much in favor of HathiTrust, J. Pilch sees more of a green light for joining. The ruling permitted HathiTrust to provide full text searching and make full text available for persons with disabilities. J. Pilch described how the World Blind Unit has been working on an international treaty since 1985. Currently, less than 5% of all works are made available to visually impaired people. J. Pilch recommended that joining HathiTrust be discussed further, and also recommend that RUL develop a statement for disabled users in 2013. She mentioned Melissa Just's revitalization of the Advisory Committee on Library Services for Persons with Disabilities and that collaboration with Clarence (Skip) Shive (Assistant Dean in the Office of Services for Students with Disabilities) could benefit RUL's disabled users. J.Pilch noted that many new members are joining HathiTrust since the favorable ruling in the litigation.

T. Izbicki said joining HathiTrust will open new doors for RUL in the digital development of the collection and in providing digital services.

B. Lipinski said that in a presentation by HathiTrust last March in Chicago, changes in both the management and membership structure were said to be forthcoming. J. Pilch said that HathiTrust no longer has different categories of members. K. Mulcahy said that there is the expectation that each member provide something unique from its collection to the digital stage. RUL, for instance, may have unique Special Collections materials, documents in New Jersey history that it can bring to HathiTrust.

10. Follow-up on LRC Objectives: Next Steps-K. Mulcahy

The committee reviewed each of its seven objectives, noting what has been done and what still needs to be accomplished. R. Marker asked if the selectors would like a list of reports that can be done for collection development analysis. G. Smulewitz said that selector training will help with this; report structures can then be developed. J. Pilch said that from her experience when she was an Acquisitions Librarian at the University of Illinois and was part of a task force working in this area, it is difficult to develop a structure for reports. Training, she said, needs to be precise. T. Izbicki said logically generated reports would help. He added that he is interested in how much more RUL could do if it were differently funded.

11. Agenda for January 17, 2013

Possible items include Policies & Procedures for Faculty or Departmental Donations, a Collection Development Strategies Document, further discussion of the (revised) selector template, and a report on Special Collections issues.

Respectfully submitted,
Barry Lipinski

URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/lrc/minutes/lrc_12_12_20.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy
© Copyright 1997-, Rutgers University Libraries