IN ATTENDANCE: Beth Sibley, Beth Weil, Camille Wanat, Michaelyn Burnette,
Carlos Delgado, Elise Woods (for Mike Rancer), Jim Spohrer (chair,
recorder), Barclay Ogden, Lee Leighton.
1. ANNOUNCEMENTS
AUL Kornstein has retired, but she will return to her AUL Doe/Moffitt
position on a half time beginning in October.
Bill Whitson has assumed the responsibility for collecting the full array
of linguistics materials, including linguistic tools.
2. MEETING OF CC TO DISCUSS AUL/COLLECTIONS CANDIDATES
Collections Council will meet Thursday, September 9th at 11am to discuss
the AUL/Collections candidates and prepare a recommendation for UL Lowell.
Spohrer will not be present at the discussion.
3. REVIEWING NEW SERIALS ORDERS
Collections Council will review new serial orders each month using a
report generated by the Order Division to keep track of the number and
cost of new titles.
As of July 1, 1999, the Library is introducing a change in the bookkeeping
procedures for placing new serials orders and tracking cancellations and
cessations of old orders. Selectors are no longer required to pay for the
first year of new serial subscription costs from their monographic funds.
In addition, cancellation or cessation of serial titles will no longer
produce corresponding credits to monographic funds. This change will
reduce the administrative overhead involved in transferring large numbers
of charges from monographs to serials funds and in crediting monographic
funds when serials are cancelled or cease.
The AUL/Collections will monitor selectors' serials funds and be prepared
to step in if new serials costs for specific funds are excessive.
Collections Council members suggested several additions for future new
serials charges reports, including adding totals at the bottom of each
column, providing one entry for each C and S fund, and providing an
average cost/title column for each fund. Spohrer agreed to consult with
Order Division to request the changes.
4. PROPOSED METHODOLOGY FOR ALLOCATING FY 2000 COLLECTIONS FUNDS
Spohrer proposed three steps in getting the FY 2000 collections
allocations under way:
1. In order to put as much of the FY 2000 Chancellor's Initiative Funding
in selectors' hands as quickly as possible, and to make most effective use
of the work done in analyzing our historical budget allocation models by
CAG in FY 1999, I propose that we allocate this year's CIF money in the
following ways:
a. After Mike Rancer's staff determines an average annual inflationary
factor for books and serials (across all Library funds), I propose we use
that as an across the board adjustment to all funds.
b. The remaining CIF funds for FY 2000 would then be subdivided among
Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities funds on a ONE YEAR basis just as
in the second half of CIF funding in FY 1999: one third for each subject
grouping.
c. The subject councils for each discipline would then have until the end
of September 1999 to suballocate to its preferred mix of specific funds
and/or specific projects.
2. As you remember, the bulk of FY 1999 CIF was allocated on a one-time
basis to the old resource groups, which then suballocated them to specific
funds or projects (or a combination of both) with the RGs. I propose that
we renew these one-time allocations of FY 1999 CIFs to the new subject
councils in the same proportions as last year. The individual subject
councils would then meet in September to decide collectively how each
would like to suballocate the funds.
3. The third proposal concerns endowments under the control of the
AUL/Collections. I've asked Elise Woods for an update on these endowments
and I will bring specific budgets for Sciences, Social Sciences and
Humanities based on the endowments' restrictions. I'll then call for
proposals in September from selectors in each subject grouping for major
purchase items (non-serial, one time only, digital or print, minimum cost
$5,000). The proposals will then be evaluated by the appropriate subject
councils and the funding allocated based on their recommendations.
Selectors would be required to purchase the proposed items immediately
upon receipt of the authorization to use these endowment funds.
Comments on the appended proposals:
1a: Mike Rancer will determine an average annual inflationary factor for
M,S, and C funds. Selectors will be given one week to respond to the
proposed inflationary factors, as in FY 1999. If selectors propose
alternative inflation rates, Mike will review them and make an additional
recommendation to Collections Council. We will aim to establish the final
inflationary adjustment by early October.
1b: Collections Council will wait until we have a collections budget
anatomy (September 21 meeting) before deciding on continuing as proposed
to make one-time allocations of Chancellor's Initiative funds for FY 2000.
1c: Within the subject councils, each fund should only appear in one
place. Funds which cut across major disciplinary lines will be assigned to
one or another of the major subject groupings.
At this point in the discussion of these proposals, Collections Council
decided to defer the debate on the remainder of the document until a
clearer picture of the total collections resources available emerges from
a revised collections budget anatomy document. (In revising these minutes,
Collections Council pointed out that the correct ratio of permanent to
one-time allocations in FY 1999 is: two thirds for permanent and one third
for one time allocations.)
5. COLLECTIONS BUDGET UPDATE
Regarding the question of whether the Library should keep some
Chancellor's Initiative funding in reserve to pay for anticipated
inflation in the year following the expiration of CI funds, Carlos Delgado
reported that the Academic Senate Committee on Library recommends that the
Library allocate all the Chancellor's Initiative funds in 3 years, rather
than to hold back funds for inflation in a fourth year.
Elise Woods reported that we are on a reasonable annual spending cycle for
collections to date. Expenditures for August were higher than anticipated,
but can be explained by the presence of FY 1999 invoices carried forward
to FY 2000 for payment. As a result, this year we appear to be spending at
a faster rate than last year, but that situation should even out in the
coming months.
Collections Council members raised an important question: should the
Library we set aside a contingency fund for the new AUL/Collections? After
discussion, council members recommended that no contingency fund be
specifically set aside for the new AUL/Collections in FY 2000.
6. PRESERVATION PROJECTS FOR COMMERCIAL MICROFORM REPLACEMENTS AND HIGH
CIRCULATION PAPERBACKS
Two Preservation projects were proposed by Barclay Ogden to Collections
Council as subjects for funding from FY 2000 collections resources:
1. Continuation of the "high circulation paperbacks" binding project to
bind heavily circulating paperbacks now at risk because they were added to
the collection in past years without binding. During several years in the
mid-90s binding funds were too few to bind the great majority of
paperbacks. In FY99 we spent $50,000 to begin to redress the problem. I
propose a one-time allocation of at least $100,000 in FY00 to continue to
bind our backlog of heavily circulating paperbacks.
2. Microform replacements for newsprint. For the past several years, the
Preservation Department has been filming all titles in our collection that
are not available elsewhere on microfilm and listing them with other
microfilm masters in the national register; this goal is likely to be
reached within the next couple years. Meanwhile, titles that are
commercially available in microform have been referred to the
AUL-Collections for possible replacement, estimated at $285,000
altogether. Additionally, in many instances our newsprint copies have had
to be discarded without replacement because the 9th tier of Doe Annex is
being converted to Bancroft uses. I propose we undertake a one-time
purchase of all the titles we wish to continue to own while we have the
fiscal opportunity and the commercial films still are available.
Collections Council debated these two proposals and concluded that it is
desirable to identify heavily circulating materials and bind them before
they are damaged in circulation (as we did in last year's project).
In addition, given that we need $285,000 to cover the cost of the
newspaper microfilming project to clear out the newsprint backlogs on Tier
8 of the Annex, this project is a prime candidate for endowment money.
AUL Spohrer indicated that we need not fund the entire project in a single
year, but that in one way or another the funds for the project would have
to be found.
7. FUTURE AGENDAS:
Review "function council" documentation to determine if visitors (other
than those invited by the CC) are permitted to attend Collections Council
meetings.