COLLECTIONS ADVISORY GROUP Minutes of meeting, Wednesday April 1, 1998, 1:30-3:00 pm, 250 Moffitt Library Present: P. Bischof, D. Fortner, B.Glendenning, J. Roberts (recorder), A. Urbanic (chair), B. Weil; ex officio K. Fromberg, L. Leighton, J. Spohrer, E. Woods 1. The minutes of the meeting on March 18, 1998 were approved with one minor change. 2. Electronic journals There was some preliminary discussion of the need for a better way to inform users and staff about what e-journals are currently available through the Library. It has become difficult for selectors to maintain links to all such publications on their Web pages, which in any case provide a very scattered sort of access. Catalog records are being created on request for many e-journals, but there is as yet no reliable way of pulling these resources together in searching. It is not clear whether ProQuest will allow access at the journal level; J. Spohrer will find out. This topic will be revisited at greater length in May. 3. Replacements The committee discussed a draft document entitled "Policies and Procedures for Expending Replacement Funds." The primary points, on which there was general agreement, are (1) that this year's"x" funds will be carried forward into the next fiscal year, and (2) that as of May 1, 1998, when a replacement is ordered as an out-of-print search funds will be incumbered equal to the cost of a photocopy replacement of that item. This procedure will be applied regardless of the type of fund involved. Replacement orders placed without encumbrances prior to May 1 will not be affected. The document will be put into final form through e-mail consultation and made available shortly. 4. Reduction in the number of Innopac funds Michael Rancer has proposed eliminating "star" funds at the end of this fiscal year and adding all previous years' encumbrances to the appropriate monograph fund. He would also like to stop making allocations to "a" funds, instead running negative balances to keep track of expenditures that would in fact be covered by the corresponding "m" funds. Selector representatives reported no strong objection to either proposal in their resource groups, but the committee identified some unresolved issues regarding how these negative "a" funds would work. (For example, encumbrances made against "a" funds would need to be transferred to "m" funds at the end of the fiscal year, but this would partly defeat the purpose of keeping track of approval plan spending.) Unable to resolve these difficulties, the committee decided it would be best to leave "a" funds as they are for another fiscal year but to go ahead and eliminate the "star" funds. Money backing previous year's encumbrances must, however, continue to be listed separately from new allocations in the spreadsheet explaining the budget at the start of the fiscal year.
![[ HELP/FAQ ]](http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/Images/help.gif)
![[ CATALOGS ]](http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/Images/catalogs.gif)
![[ COMMENTS ]](http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/Images/comments.gif)
![[ HOME ]](http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/Images/home.gif)