Collections Advisory Group Meeting Minutes, August 5, 1998 Present: P. Abell, P. Bischof, S. Calpestri, D. Fortner (recorder), K. Frohmberg, B. Glendenning, B. Kornstein, J.Spohrer, B. Weil (Chair) Guests: M. Burnette, G. Ford, B. Hurley, L. Leighton, M. Rancer, E. Woods 1. Revised draft minutes for the last meeting (July 15) were distributed and tabled for later review. 2. M. Rancer gave a budget update. FY 1998: remaining balance of $342,000 in state funds (operations plus collections). If we factor in previous year's budget deficit, if we had spent all we had budgeted, we would have finished the year about $1 mil in the red. If we then factor in actual fiscal year savings, the $1 mil is reduced to only $469,000 in the red. Good news; we cut the deficit. LBO has compiled a list of all book endowment funds and will be contacting all selectors responsible for endowments this year. In total, there is about $2.3 mil available in endowments. LBO will also tabulate non-endowed gift funds. The Chancellor's Library Initiative is a 3-year investment. For the first year of the initiative, The Library will still receive the $940,000 bridge monies. 1st year, 1999: $10.20 mil in Grand Total Collections monies (FY 1998 = $8.59 mil) 2nd year, 2000: $60,000 "new" monies (allowing for loss of bridge monies) 3rd year, 2001: $400,000 "new" collections monies, beyond inflation. The Library will be receiving an inflation supplement separately each year, plus "rebuilding"monies. In total, The Library will receive $3.67 mill new monies, $2.21 to hold base steady, and $1.46 to rebuild. P. Abell reported on a California legislative initiative directed toward UC, which may mean an extra $1 mil in one-time funds for the collections budget. In addition, the legislature is considering direct funding for UC library acquisition increases of 6 to 8% per year for three years, starting in FY 2000. We need to organize our efforts, our thinking and planning; consult broadly, and proceed in close consultation with the Senate Library Committee. 3. B. Hurley reported on the Collection Allocation Analysis and modeling that he and G.Ford have been doing. The study is an attempt to plot by academic programs what appears to be going-on quantitatively in collections allocations and to see patterns or identify inequities. The model uses weighted population, usage (circulation, sweeps), and relative price data to calculate a SIN (Substantive Inequity Notifier) factor for each academic department and then correlates these with 19900 allocations. In addition to correlations, the project also provides a regression analysis that plots the data and allows for the identification of "outliers" that may represent inequities. Initial results have shown very high correlations between the Sin factors and fund allocations assigned to academic departments. Accordingly, these compilations would indicate that The Library has been "reasonable" in past support. 4. P. Abell noted that the first audience for this report and related charts will be the new Senate Library Committee, which will meet August 21, 1998. CAG will organize an Early Bird meeting for selectors on collections budgets updates, possibly for next week, 14 August. 5. L. Leighton presented a memo dated July 9, 1998, addressed to CAG and M. Rancer regarding a review of prepayment plans offered by The Library's large serials and monograph vendors. Largest savings would come from prepayments to serials vendors, Blackwell, Nijhoff, EBSCO, and Harrassowitz. EBSCO will be contacted again about increasing the percentage of savings. Rowecom, the other major serials vendor, does not offer a traditional prepayment plan, although there is considerable savings through a deposit account. Our largest book vendors (Yankee and Academic) also offer no prepayment plans, but we receive substantial discount rates by maintaining deposit accounts (17% with Yankee and 21% Academic). 6. K. Frohmberg distributed handouts on 3-months of Silver-Platter usage data. 7. B. Weil stated that, for the next meeting, we need to consider "priorities" for allocating budget. How are we going to do it this year? What is the actual process of creating a budget? P. Abell noted 3 issues: 1) allocation of base budget as we know it; 2) usage of new funding that comes to us this year, and, incorporating issue 2 into 3; 3) What are our strategic options? We could decide that all funds will at least have this fiscal year what they had last. The next step is to try to display the pieces, to identify what's flowing "in". Beyond that, what are additional possibilities? Common ground?
![[ 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)