CAG Minutes of 12/4/96

Collections Advisory Group
Minutes - 12/4/95

Present: A. Urbanic (chair), B. Glendenning (recorder), B. Sibley, V.
Roumani, M. Burnette, B. Weil

Ex-officio: D. Farrell, L. Leighton

Guests: M. Rancer, M. McCormick, B. Kornstein, J. Spohrer

1. Minutes of the 20 November meeting were approved and will be posted
on the Web.
Announcements:
J. Spohrer: AUL's have completed their individual rankings of special
collections requests but have not completed overall rankings.
Completed rankings will be available for CAG discussion by the January 
meeting. Some discretionary funds may be needed for serials, there may
not be sufficient funding for all special requests. 

L. Leighton: YBP has announced a GOBI enhancement which means orders
placed through their system will be available for loading into local
acquisitions systems. Academic Book Center and OCLC have announced a
pilot program to make books shelf-ready. We will participate in the
trial program which will run through May 1997. Cost for the Academic
program will be $.75 per item. There was discussion regarding various
processing fees, such as Promptcat and OCLC search charges. The
Academic charges and Promptcat charges are paid out of individual
collections budgets, while LC and OCLC charges are paid "off the top"
of the collections budget. Concerns were expressed that limited
collections monies were being spent on what are essentially library
operations work. B. Weil suggested that vendors might be asked to
present processing fees as a separate billing line from the actual
payment for the materials. In order to determine the scope of this
problem L. Leighton was asked to bring CAG a count of the total number
of volumes Promptcatted and to maintain a count of the Academic shelf-
ready items received. A. Urbanic noted that we should be fully aware
of this kind of expenditure out of the collections budget in order to
be accountable to faculty. 

2. Discussion of budget issues with Mike Rancer:
CAG sent M. Rancer a series of discussion questions regarding the
overall Library budget and the collections budget as preparation for
this meeting. M. Rancer offered information regarding each question.

Q: What steps are being taken to bring the library ledger (collections
spending) in line with the Innopac reports upon which the selectors
rely to balance their individual funds?
A: This is one of the more complicated issues M.R. has faced. The
Library uses multiple systems which have no interface or an
ineffective interface. He intends to bring in a process engineering
consultant to examine our workflows and to identify problems and
blockages which affect accuracy and timeliness.  Regular fund
reporting to selectors is in place again - if any selector is not
receiving the reports let M.R. know. He noted that Innopac reporting
systems have serious flaws which may be corrected in future releases.
B. Weil asked why previously we received weekly Innopac fund reports
and now receive them much more frequently. M.R. believes that Innopac
requirements are now such that the system must be cleared more
frequently (and thus reports printed as they cannot be retrieved once
cleared), or that formerly the work was being batched.

Q: Is or will a system be in place early enough to release the $200,00
reserve for distribution to collections priorities during this fiscal
year? How's the "burn rate" for collections this year?
A: M.R. doesn't know yet. They are now producing a monthly summary
report to spot key trends in expenditures, and he hopes this will give
enough information to decide about distributions. At this point in the
year we are "burning" at a high rate. For this FY we carried over
$500,000 in collections bills.  M.R. doesn't know if this is a normal
amount; D.Farrell indicated it is somewhat above normal. D.Farrell
indicated he is unsure if we have reserved enough funding for the
serials base, and noted that last year Access Services budget savings
were used to pay for collections overages but this year there will be
no salary savings for that use.
 
Q: How can the selectors work more efficiently with the LBO to resolve
fund accounting matters? When do AULS, the Head of Tech Services, etc.
need to be involved? Is there a structure in place or quidelines that
selectors can follow to resolve these technical matters efficiently?
A: M.R. has met with both individual selectors and groups of selectors
to discuss issues. He believes the accounting problems are occurring
in a variety of places along the Innopac workflow, and not primarily
with the Business Office. He expects the consultant will help resolve
these problems, and asked any selector contact him regarding problems.
AULs are currently involved with selection issues on a regular basis.
M.R. suggested any selector could bring questions or problems to him
and he would "work backwards" to determine where the question should
go.

Q: There was a big problem last year with direct selector ordering on
vendor systems. These problems included, though not exclusively, books
ordered without liens on the local system, defaults overriding
selector decisions, lack of adequate reporting of items ordered by
selector/fund causing mixups in routing books and paying for them on
the appropriate fund, etc. What steps are being taken to improve
things in these areas?
A: L.Leighton responded to these questions: believes the upcoming GOBI
and Academic Book projects will aid in resolving these problems. It is
likely that selectors will be asked to stop using the online systems
for acquiring books from January onwards, and instead firm order with
Order Division. Concerns were expressed about tech services staffing
levels and timeliness of firm order placements given last year's
mandate to use the online systems for acquisitions. L.L. assured CAG
that Order Division had adequate staffing to handle firm orders in the
second half of the year. M.R. reiterated his expectation that the
consultant will help us clarify and improve workflow and reporting via
improvements in systems and processes.

Q: How does the library budget look with repect to staffing,
equipment, and other operational expenses which will have an impact on
collections? Will there be further cuts in support of these areas? Is
there any likelihood of increases?
A: M.R. passed out a packet of charts with both overall budget and
collections budget information. (Note: these were to be posted on the
Library Web effective 12/5, can be found at the end of "Strategic
Planning for Library Collections: Three Year Scenario".) M.R.
indicated that our budget is very tight, he expects no further cuts
from the campus but a continued pressure to reallocate our resources.
U.C. Regents budget plan shows library budgets to be flat, which
essentially means cuts due to inflation. M.R. noted the charts show
88% of our operations budget is staff salaries and thus fixed, which
gives us little flexibility.

In response to questions about the proposed consultant M.R. indicated 
the consultant will be asked to map out the collection process from
the point of collection decision to its final bill payment function;
to examine the process for backlogs and discontinuities; and to track 
workflow and identify problems.

J. Spohrer asked about the Bill-Rep. fund balance, and the possibility
of use of some of the funds to replace missing items not billed. D.
Farrell noted use of the fund is an AUL decision, and that the fund is
comprised of both book replacement costs and the CARS processing
charge and the campus is unable to report the separate amounts to us.
D.F. indicated that the fund grows by approximately $8-10,000 per
month. Currently the balance about $300,000; with $100,000 allotted
for special purchases and $200,000 to contingency collections funds.

4. Collections funds currently approaching their budget limits.
A.Urbanic noted that some funds may not have received their
allocations as yet and would account for overspent funds. D. Farrell
agreed and indicated fund allocations should be completed by the end
of December and selectors should work with AULs to ensure balances are
correct. L.L. noted that Order Division would place any rush or
reserves orders even if fund balances reflected overspent.

Next meeting: December 18. Discussion of when we move to using firm
order placement only; begin discussion of overall collections cutting.

---

Copyright (C) 1995 by the Library, University of California,Berkeley. All rights reserved.
Document maintained on server: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/ by bglenden@library.berkeley.edu
Last update Wed Dec 18 16:43:27 1996 .
Server manager: webman@library.berkeley.edu