Attending: I. Caparros, J. Consoli, H. Dess, E. Fabiano, M. Fetzer, R. Gardner, B. Hancock,
H. Hoffman, K. Mulcahy, P. Piermatti, H. Rusak,, J. Sloan, A. Tallau, L. Vazquez, M. Wilson,
R. Womack

1.  Agenda was approved.

2.  Minutes of the previous meeting were approved with the correction of one typographical error.

3.  Budget Overview.

Howard summarized the current budget picture and distributed a document listing projected cuts totaling $235,435 for New Brunswick. The group notes that while all institutions are facing similar cuts, Rutgers began these cuts at a much lower base line than its supposed peer or target libraries.

The group discussed the library administration’s three fold strategy: 1) progressively eliminate “lesser used” journals to compensate for inflationary increases in the prices of retained journals and to free funds for the acquisition of electronic sources.; 2) greatly expand electronic resources at RU via journal cuts and new funding requested by library administration; 3) introduce new and improved RUL subsidized document delivery.

Numerous reservations were voiced regarding this strategy.

The group notes that this strategy involves a progressive loss of control over collections for selectors.

This approach seems to call for a “core” collection only of journals, but can a core collection be adequate for a research library?  Has an adequate definition of such a core been articulated?  Is there a commitment to maintaining such a core?

Skepticism was voiced over whether repeated borrowing of inexpensive journals (mostly in the humanities and social sciences) and monographs was in face cost-effective.

There is a real need for clean and detailed data on ILL activity, including journal counts and the titles of current monographs being borrowed, before decisions are made.  There are already worries about RRS and ILL turn-around time–can the system handle additional business.

 Another concern is that with so great a proposed reliance on document delivery, ownership and control of collections passes out of the library’s hands, perhaps to profit-oriented delivery services.

The group objects to the current policy on reserves–that a book from one campus is put on semester reserve for another campus without an immediate purchase request being processed.

There is evidence that RUL is already borrowing, via ILL, materials owned (and paid for).