Collections Advisory Group--Minutes 26 March 1997

MINUTES 3/26/97 MEETING--FOR YOUR REVIEW

COLLECTIONS ADVISORY GROUP--DRAFT MINUTES

Meeting: Wednesday, March 26, 1997 1:30 - 3:00 pm, 303 Doe

Present: P. Bischof (recorder), M. Burnette, B. Glendenning, E. Sibley,
A Urbanic (chair), B. Weil  Absent: V. Roumani-Denn
Ex-officio: D. Farrell, L. Leighton, J. Spohrer ; Guests: G. Ford, E. Woods

Minutes of meeting 3/19/95 were approved.

REDUCTION TARGET ESTIMATES

J. Spohrer discussed a Budget Anatomy for 1997/98 Planning. Although
projections are at present necessarily based upon estimated costs of
serials in the current fiscal year, M. Rancer has settled on an estimated
inflation rate of 11.5% for SERIALS for al l funds. An average inflation
rate of 8.9% or 9% is the estimate for the entire base budget, which
includes both BOOKS AND SERIALS. Spohrer stated that it is intended that
exchange costs (for materials sent by this library to exchange partners)
be cut 9%, as well as NCAP. Peter Lyman has indicated that we will
continue with RLG and Committee for Preservation and Access memberships,
however these monies will not be drawn from the book budget. An AUL
Reserve and Contingency Fund of $480,000 IN FY 1998 is in tended for such
purposes as paying off star fund overages and to cover serials costs in
excess of planned amounts. Any remainder would be AUL reserve funds to
spend for such high-priority needs as CD travel and special opportunity
purchases. The reduction s that we may have to make are larger than
required just for projected inflationary increases because we must deal
with priorities and with the residue of previous years accounting
practices which have left us with a sizable deficit in the present fiscal
year. The Budget Anatomy figures cover only 19900 money; excluded are
endowments, gift funds, revenues from the sale of duplicates (about
$50,000), $250,000 BILREP revenues, etc. 

A. Urbanic stated as goals of this meeting to come up with ESTIMATED
targets for serial reduction. On June 1, selectors should have turned in
one/half of these [estimated] reduction targets for cancellation. After
fiscal close we will have real numbers an d ACTUAL cancellation targets.
G. Ford remarked that she cannot utilize work sheets used to establish
previous reduction targets. According to her figures, the figure of 8.9%
reflects serials inflation, and 5.6% is the figure for both monographic
and cont inuation inflation figures. In fact, 11.5%, the estimated
inflation figure does not represent our shortfall; the difference between
11.5 and 14.2% is due to an accounting practice error in the last fiscal
year. Requiring a budget, the bottom line of which is $4.990,960.for
serials expenditures, how do we apportion this sum to the funds? If your
total this year is 5% of the serials fund, then your figure ought to be 5%
of the new figure as well. 

CAG has discussed three Options for cuts; A; B; C. One issue is whether
funds of low inflation should deflate due to inflation in other areas. An
axiom on which the committee agreed unanimously is that the amount between
the likely 9% figure for inflatio n to bring the figure up to the 14.2%
projected shortfall NEEDS TO BE SHARED EQUALLY BY ALL FUNDS. 

Option A: after adding the inflation factor to last year's base all funds
are reduced by an averaged inflation figure
Option B: after adding the inflation factor to last year's base all funds
are reduced by a factor relative to the inflation for that particular
fund. The percentage of reduction will vary from fund to fund
Option C - a combination of Option A and Option B 

J. Spohrer presented the following projected scenarios for several
different categories of funds: 

FOR FUNDS WITH A LOW PROPORTION OF SERIALS VS. MONOGRAPHS AND EXPERIENCING
LOW INFLATION: 
Option A. would raise the % of cut
Option B. would reflect the TRUE inflation rate
Option C. would make a small serials fund pay LESS of a % than true inflation

FOR FUNDS WITH HIGH CONCENTRATION OF SERIALS AND HIGH INFLATION:
Option A. lowers the probable effect and distributes the real cost among more funds
Option B. makes that fund responsible for every bit of the inflation in
the book trade utilized by that selector Option C. Does something of
Option B, but not to the same degree

FOR FUNDS WITH MEDIUM SIZED RELIANCE ON SERIALS AND AVERAGE INFLATION
Option A. May have to bear somewhat marginally higher cost of inflation
Option B. Bears its own share of inflation
Option C. Would pay marginally more than its own cost, but less than in
Option A

D. Farrell remarked that at CU the sciences have remained very stable in
terms of the % of the budget spent for their collections. In the last
serials cancellation project the percentage of monies devoted to the
sciences decreased by .5%. 

In terms of Cluster Group voting, the Social Sciences and the Sciences
favor Option C, while the Humanities/Area Studies Group favors Option A.
The Chair emphasized that any adverse effects to funds resulting from
Option C should be brought into balance t hrough AUL application of the
contingency fund. No individual fund ought to suffer disproportionately. 

B. Weil suggests that CAG meet next Wednesday to review the targets to be
prepared by G. Ford, and requested that if possible CAG receive the
paperwork inadvance of that meeting in order to review it. 

G. Ford has input the inflation percentages sent out by D.Farrell. This
will result in some overall percentage of serials that is larger than
11.5%. The relationships among funds will remain the same. 

CAG requests that LPG provide selectors with explicit and very lucid
explanation of the derivation of the 14.2% cut while inflation figures
cited in the literature are 8.9% for serials and 5.6% for both monographs
and continuations. Early discussions with faculty have elicited grave
concern on their part with this project in terms of the effect on their
research and teaching. J.Spohrer stated that several reasons exist for the
higher reduction We are able to do more sophisticated calculation now, and
in addition, the amount we cut is based on several factors. These include
average inflation, pro-rated sharing of an accumulated debt of the library
over several fiscal years when we simply rolled forward expenditures as if
they did not require reflection ac curately in each year's fiscal
accounting, and finally the need to create a buffer or contingency fund. 

NEWSPAPER ADVISORY GROUP

Chair E. Sibley reported on the progress of this subcommittee formed in
January. Also serving are C. Delgado and Ann Swartzell. The charge of the
group is to review the serials list for newspapers, which had last been
reviewed in 1993. Previously the libr ary had committed to the maintenance
of a core baseline newspaper collection, with anything outside that core
to be assigned to area [or other] selectors.  In our most recent serials
reductions, however, $19,000-$20,000 cuts were instituted. NAG has concl
uded that if we cannot guarantee a baseline research collection of
newspapers, then we ought to return newspaper titles to individual
selectors and their funds. These selectors are best positioned to
determine priorities for the protection of essential titles. This action
will require the transfer of titles and of fund codes from a central
newspaper fund to individual funds. These changes will need to be 
accomplished prior to deadlines for cuts in the current reduction exercise.

It is the hope of the former USA/COMM group that individual USA selectors
will be able to share in the credit which will redound from any
cancellationsundertaken in this effort. J. Spohrer stated that such credit
would not bea problem.  

---

Copyright (C) 1997 by the Library, University of California,Berkeley. All rights reserved.
Document maintained on server: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/ by pbischof@library.berkeley.edu
Last update Thu Apr 10 16:32:23 1997.
Server manager: webman@library.berkeley.edu