Collections Advisory Group Minutes - February 5, 1997

Collections Advisory Group
Rev. Minutes - 2/5/97

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

Ex-officio:     Present: L. Leighton, J. Spohrer.
                Absent: K. Frohmberg, D. Farrell

Guests:         B. Kornstein, M. Rancer

1. Minutes of the 29 January meeting were approved as amended and
will be posted on the Web.

2. Continuing discussions on planning process for FY 1997/98 Collection
Budget Shortfall.
Much discussion revolved around the summary of status of discussions
to date that A.Urbanic distributed prior to meeting.
Target will be calculated upon the base allocations using the same norms
as appeared on the October finalized budget allocation, with the excep-
tion of the serials allocation which is based on expenditures. That is
to say we will use the base of the previous year. B. Weil pointed out
that we will need someone to calculate the numbers with inflation and
without to see which is the better option. The Committee will ask Gail
Ford to assist it in this work since she worked on the preparation of
spread sheets for the preparation of last year's collection budget.

M. Burnette recommends to examine the figures expended on varied segments
of our collections across disciplines over the past several years.
According to M. Rancer, over the last four or five years our science
serials went from a position of aabout 65% to 70%) of science budgets;
(we spend in toto about 45% on Science and about 55% on other disciplines,
with a gradual movement toward higher percentage expenditures on the
sciences over time. The Library needs to ascertain what is the "right"
split? On what do we base it?

Last year the Library received a grant from the Mellon Foundation, a
chief part of which is to ascertain appropriate measures for allocating
resources to collections. M. Rancer pointed out that last year the
sciences received 45.5% of collections funding, while this year the
figure is 45%. He also reported that EBSCO has provided figures for
over 2,000 titles over the past 4 years. If we go with cuts caused by
inflation, the sciences will be hit the hardest; if we do not do this,
then almost everything else will be ultimately crowded out!

E. Sibley asked whether we can continue to afford a duplicative Moffitt
collection when we are unable to acquire unique titles? Moffitt's
mission is under discussion at present by LPG. The Moffitt budget
includes reserves which are at about $15,000, and overall it is at
$60,000 for serials and $120,000 for monographs. S. Shair is Moffitt's
current selector.

Many world areas do not have book trade inflationary statistics readily
available; these figures tend to be inexact. We shall ask selectors
to provide figures as they are able.

LPG discussion recently has suggested an option of permitting UCB and
Davis to partner a serials cut in particular areas. The two would agree
on a target list of savings which they might share, providing document
delivery from NRLF for both campuses. B. Weil believes that due to
faculty's need to browse titles putting journals there would be highly
problematic. She argues it would be far preferable  for journals to be
at one of the campuses so that at least one set of faculty could profit
from direct access to them. With respect to arguments in favor of taking
a higher cut this year of 26% in order to preserve greater buying power
over the 3 year period, many unknowns prevail:
a. Data from journal use studies only now being launched which would
permit the least damaging cuts to our collections is not yet available.
b. Issues of which titles will become available on the Web;
c. Their cost?
d. Finally, to meet faculty research needs, we need document delivery
in place when we implement cuts.

3. Preparation for Selector Earlybird
A.Urbanic will write a handout with a summary of CAG discussions and
recommendations to date, and he will ask Gail Ford to prepare figures
for it.

B. Weil believes that at Early Bird on budget we need to provide
selectors some idea of what their target cuts are, and until we have that
information it would be better to postpone the Early Bird. J. Spohrer
responded that in his view it is important to meet even if this information
is not yet ready in order to stress the three-year gravity of the problem.
The Committee determined to assemble an Early Bird meeting for selectors on
Wednesday 12th February 8:30 to 10:00 am, Morrison Room.

4. FY 1996/97 Collections Budget Burn Rate: M. Rancer
M. Rancer pointed out that serials occupied 64% of the collections
budget in 1992/93 and 69% in 1996/97. At present due to our having
expended more than was available in the budget in paying for encumbrances
carried over, we are at approximately $600,000 overexpended. Thus he
recommends the suspension of placement of any new monographic orders
for 60 days commencing with 14 February. Special request reserve money
is not available this FY. B. Weil inquired whether CARS money [approx-
imately $100,000] could be used for this? The big question is where
the money will come from to pay for last year's encumbrances (in truth
the accumulated amount of the past six years). In only one of these
years (198 ) did we fail to produce a carry-over of encumbrance monies.

M.Rancer hopes to find a way to indicate the status of star funds at
the same time fund reports are provided to selectors for A/M, and S funds.
All agreed that we require more timely fiscal information.

Two members of the committee urged taking one/half [$300,000] of the
$600,000 encumbrance deficit in the current FY and the other half in our
next FY.

A special CAG meeting will be convened Monday morning 10 February from 9:00
to 10:00 am in Room 303.

---

Copyright (C) 1995 by the Library, University of California,Berkeley. All rights reserved.
Document maintained on server: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/ by aurbanic@library.berkeley.edu
Last update Fri Feb 21 14:03:24 1997 .
Server manager: webman@library.berkeley.edu