CAG Minutes, 7/16/97

Collections Advisory Group
July 16, 1997

Present: M. Burnette, D. Fortner (recorder), B. Glendenning, A. Urbanic (chair)

Guests: A. Bliss, C. Campbell, C. Faulhaber, B. Hardwick, L. Jones, B.
Kornstein, L. Leighton, B. Ogden, C. Olen, J. Spohrer, E. Woods


1.	There were no announcements.

2.	The minutes of July 2, 1997, were approved as written.  

The minutes of June 18, 1997, were approved as corrected.  4(b) should
read that funds were done on a 3-year average of allocations.  Section 3
should read that a description of technical processing procedures would be
written by L. Leighton, not E. Woods.  In the line about the automatic
cancellation of 2-year old orders, change Order Division to Processing
Unit. 

3.	Library Recovery Plan

B. Ogden reported on how Conservation might work with CAG to identify
materials for salvage in case of a large scale disaster, as per 7-15-97
e-mail distributed message.  Another question arising from F. Yasaki's
Library Recover Plan is how Conservation itself might get up and running
in such a disaster, which Conservation is considering.  A. Urbanic
distributed the skeleton of Appendix L from the plan.  There are salvage
plans for each unit library, but the question is what if several units or
all, go down at once.  It was agreed to choose to set priorities or
guidelines based on urgency. 

For campus, a likely scenario for large-scale catastrophe is an earthquake
on the Hayward fault.  Many buildings could be full of water after the
quake. 

The conservation work on water-damaged books is a two-step process, where,
first, materials are frozen to stabilize them and secondly, materials are
dried and returned to service.  The priorities below involve the first
part of recovery.  Wet books can sit only about 36-48 hours before mold
develops.  It was advised that materials for high priority recovery in a
large-scale disaster were: 1 ) UC-produced bibliographic and finding aids
only in paper; 2) library business records in paper, e.g., records of
donations of gifts or records of legal documents essential to service and
not duplicated elsewhere; 3) irreplaceable or unique materials; 

4) high-use materials essential to recovery of services; and, 5) the
remainder of collections, the normal value collections. 

Concern was expressed about the need to delineate library business
records, e.g., with emphasis on the collection more important than PAF
forms.  W. Kim is checking into manual circulation records for
Conservation.  B. Hardwick envisioned guidelines on catastrophe, with each
library indexed.  The project began as an appendix to F. Yasaki's
document, but it was agreed that this would be a good outcome.  Finding
aids including catalogs were discussed, with emphasis that it may be more
important to save materials than a catalog to the materials, as a catalog
is derived from materials.  It was stated that we were probably not
talking about large numbers of such finding aids, and a survey might be
useful.  "Paper" was defined as any non-digital material, and
irreplaceable materials were identified mainly as manuscripts and
photographic materials.  It was agreed that there is a need to identify
the general locations of irreplaceable materials, which is in part known
from the existing floor plans and priority lists of all library units.    
  	  
The UC Berkeley Library is 1 team among 9 campuses.  Conservation teams
would come to the library from southern California, in the event of a
large scale emergency.  B. Ogden reported that Berkeley has a very large
supply of onsite salvage materials, with enough to do 100,000 volumes 
before commercial deliveries arrive.  

It was agreed that the 4 points in F. Yasaki's original memo to CAG had
been mostly addressed. A. Urbanic and B. Ogden will be drafting a formal
document for inclusion in the Library Disaster Recovery Plan based on
these comments. 

4.	Conservation Treatment Staffing Deployment

A Conservation repair technician position was discussed, and it was agreed
to recommend to LPG that this position be filled. 

5.	1997/98 Collection Budget

New documentation was distributed by E. Woods and J. Spohrer: a summary
sheet entitled "Estimated Budget Anatomy for 1997/98 Planning", "Base
Allocations for FY 98", calculations regarding the 85% Equalization
Factor, other various spreadsheets, and a cover-memo to selectors.  

A question was asked regarding the 85% equalization factor.  Several CAG
members were under the impression that all reimbursements for funds below
the 85% mark were to come from the AUL reserves fund.  J. Spohrer
clarified that the AUL reserves fund was only used to make-up the
"difference" after all individual funds spent above the 85% delimiter were
docked the applicable dollar difference between 85% and whatever
percentage spent above 85%.  The $143,087 listed on the summary sheet is
this amount and came out of the AUL reserve fund.  This meant previous CAG
minutes (July 2, June 18) were ambiguous.  It was asked why the final
figures were different on the 85% handout from the previous 85% handout
distributed at the recent Early Bird.  E. Woods said the original 1996/97
base allocations had been changed for many funds and recalculations done. 
Selectors are advised to consult with their respective AUL's regarding
special funding considerations and relief regarding the 85% factor. 

6.	Moffitt Collections Policy Statement

Discussion will be continued next week.

7.	A motion was made and passed to change future CAG meetings to 1:30 -
3:00 pm. 

---

Copyright (C) 1997 by the Library, University of California,Berkeley. All rights reserved.
Document maintained on server: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/ by dfortner@library.berkeley.edu
Last update Thu Aug 7 10:41:03 1997 .
Server manager: webman@library.berkeley.edu