Collections Advisory Group Minutes 3/19/97

COLLECTIONS ADVISORY GROUP

Meeting: Wednesday, March 19, 1997 1-3pm, 303 Doe

Present: B. Glendenning, B. Weil, P. Bishchof, M. Burnette, B.
Sibley (recorder), A. Urbanic (chair)
 
Ex-officio: K. Frohmberg, D.Farrell, J. Spohrer

Announcements:

L. Mansur is requesting feedback from CAG regarding reports that
would be sent to selectors for books generating a certain number of
holds. Send any comments to her.

L. Leighton was not at the meeting but he is updating the policy on
the use of endowment money to fund serials. The general principle
was endorsed in the last CAG meeting. He will forward to CAG for
final review.

As B. Kornstein was unable to attend the meeting, the discussion on
CARS money will be postponed until the next meeting.

A. Urbanic will not be here the week of March 31st. Instead CAG
will meet next Wed. the 26th at 1:30pm. CAG needs to review a draft
on target cut figures so these can be distributed to selectors by
April 1st.

D.Farrell gave a SilverPlatter WebSpirs update. UCB will soon be
switching to Webspirs for the databases mentioned on a previously
distributed list.  Other UCs may be do the same for selected
titles. The CSU campuses are starting their own WEbSpirs trial
beginning in April. They will not join the UC consortium. Galenet
web databases are now being tested in the Library.

The Librarian's Office is working on a timeline management plan
which should be in operation in early April.

Minutes from 3/5 meeting were approved.

Collection Budget Issues

J. Spohrer summarized LPG discussions on collection budget issues.
The Library has in excess of $250,000 in bill replacement funds
even after subtraction of the $110,000 needed to compensate Access
Services for its reduction at the beginning of FY 1997. Roughly
$20,000 has already been spent and the question is how to best
spend the balance. Several options are available: a) offset the
balance in the star funds for fiscal 1997 though much of this cost
has already been absorbed, perhaps only $15-30,000 balance left;b)
use for encumbrances in fiscal 1998; c) allocate this money to the
resource groups; d) use for its original intention--replacement of
billed materials though this could be expanded to include all
missing/lost items.  Some committee members favored using some of
the money this year and the rest for next. For example, it could be
used to increase the per cent of funds available to spend this year
or to help fund the "off the top" categories of the collection
budget. There was a discussion on why the fund had grown so large.
Many agreed that the policy on the use of bilrp was too restrictive
and that it should cover all missing items. Some members believed
using this fund to replace any missing item would not be wise
without greater oversight and suggested that additional money be
allocated to individual monographic funds so selectors could use it
for replacements or new materials depending on the specific
priorities of the academic discipline. J. Spohrer will report these
ideas to LPG.

Another issue LPG discussed was the suballocation of collection
funds for next year. As this is a very labor intensive process  and
the allocations change very little, the AULs decided that they will
make the allocations as was the practice last year. A practical
benefit is that it removes a large amount of work from CAG who can
then focus on other issues. Of course, the AULS will seek
advice/input from selectors. They will try to address inequities
and align the budget with campus programs. 

Inflation Rates by Fund/Target Calculations

D.Farrell discussed his memo previously distributed listing 1997/98
cost/price increase projections. He based the percentages on a
standard set of published sources, vendor reports, and his own
judgment based on historical trends and current year expenditures.
The projections will be used to determine collection reduction
targets and to estimate the budget needed to maintain current
collecting levels. If selectors have additional information they
can forward this documentation to him for reconsideration of the
percentages. Eight to nine selectors have already sent him further
information about price increases in their subject areas. It was
noted that the percentages were lower than what M. Rancer had
estimated. D. Farrell said that M.Rancer didnt have subject
specific numbers. J.Spohrer stated that the figures did not reflect
the fluctuation of the dollar against foreign currencies. The
committee agreed that the memo should be forwarded to selectors
with a deadline of Tues. March 25th for comments. G.Ford can
proceed to use these figures in a spreadsheet of selector funds.
Six per cent of total collection budget will be held back. A.
Urbanic will contact G.Ford about getting the serials figures.

Processing Cost Charges from Collection Funds

M.Burnette and Beth Weil drafted a CAG memo to LPG regarding
processing costs recommending that either they be shifted to the
operations budget since they are replacing tasks formerly performed
by operations staff or that these costs be taken off the top of the
budget. It was reported that the total processing costs from Yankee
and Academic amounts to $22,000 a year. J.Spohrer stated that we
had to account for these costs somehow and that it was not out of
place to put into the materials budget. It was suggested that it
was fairer to take the costs off the top like the binding
expenditures. Yankee and Academic could be asked to separate the
processing from the book costs and bill in a different way.
However, we do not want to generate a lot more paperwork. M.
Burnette will get back to L.Leighton with the feasibilty of some of
these ideas.

Off-the-top Part of the Budget Anatomy

The committee reviewed this year's "off-the-top" categories of the
collection budget. P. Bischof discussed NCAP which is an LC
acquisition program covering 44 countries in five regions of the
world. She stated that it was often the most effective and
frequently the most cost-effective method of acquisition for many
area studies materials. Purchase from LC means that we pay only a
fraction of what these materials would cost via other modes of
acquisition. In addition, serials received on the various LC plans
tend to be absolutely reliable in terms of completeness of runs
(something quite foreign in terms of most other means of
acquisition of such materials).

For example, H. Mahamedi estimates, that for items in Islamica for
which the Library pays $20,000 we would have to pay $70,000 if
ordered direct or through other vendors. In addition, our receipt
of these materials would be far from certain.  All items come
according to a profile that is reviewed and returned to LC each
year. Serials were reviewed and were part of the Library's last 
cancellation project. CAG was divided on terms of whether these
items which benefit many campus library units and collections
should be protected from reductions as they have been historically
until the last round of cuts. There was, however, a consensus that
the NCAP funds should continue to be paid off-the-top, as opposed
to being folded into the various area selectors' funds.

Exchange cut thirty per cent last year so its costs should
decrease. OCLC costs are $250,000. L. Leighton will be asked about
OCLC charges.If the OCLC bill is going down then the off-the-top
costs should be reduced. RLG costs have already been reduced. There
do not seem to be any big savings that can be realized in these
categories. The AULS will be asked how much they want in reserves.

Next meeting: Wed., March 26 at 1:30pm.

---

Copyright (C) 1995 by the Library, University of California,Berkeley. All rights reserved.
Document maintained on server: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/ by esibley@library.berkeley/edu
Last update Tue Apr 1 15:48:05 1997 .
Server manager: webman@library.berkeley.edu