6/6/00
M. Burnette, C. Delgado, L. Diamond, G. Ford, R. Green, R. Liu, S.
McMahon (recorder)
B. Ogden, M. Rancer, A. Ritch (chair), C. Wanat, B. Weil
Agenda:
1. Approval of minutes for 5/16/00 meeting
2. Announcements
3. Review of 1999-2000 Collections Budget
4. Review of 2000-2001 Collections Budget
5. Planning a report on use of Chancellor's Initiative Funds
6. Other business
____________________________________________________________________
1. Approval of minutes for 5/16/00 meeting
The minutes were discussed and approved.
Action Item: B. Ogden will issue the minutes to allusers and mount them on the CC web archive
2. Announcements
R. Green announced the New Serials list will be complete by the
next Collections Council meeting.
A. Ritch announced that Gale has a new representative who's put together
a package deal for Berkeley with apparent savings of about $200,000. But
a number of the titles in the package duplicate titles already in the
collection.
Action Item: A. Ritch will
request that selectors look closely at the material offered in the
package for their subject areas to make sure that the titles don't
already exist in the collection.
If a large group purchase is called for, he will contact Gale.
Following up on the discussion of DILIB funds from the
previous meeting A. Ritch clarified the Library would honor its earlier
commitment to the purchase of EEBO, both texts and MARC records, would
continue to be honored, by an appropriate mix of ONE-TIME DILIB funds and
selector funds.
3. and 4. Review of 1999-2000 Collections Budget and Review of
2000-2001 Collections Budget
B.Liu distributed five handouts:
*"Collections Summary/Reserves FY 1999-2005 (draft)"
*"Appropriations for FY2000"
*"FY2000 Collections Budget"
*"FY 2001 Collections Budget"
*"Y-Funds Year-to-Date Expenditures (as of May 30, 2000)"
Each handout was discussed in order:
*"Collections Summary/Reserves draft"
Under FY 2000 the $186,000 carryforward is uncommitted funds
rather than unexpended funds. The $200,000 permanent augmentation to
serials base is the money already allocated to "m" funds to cover
anticipated expenditures for new serials (serials inflation was already
figured into the serials base).
This handout summarizes current allocations and projects future needs.
Even in FY2001 the effect of inflation starts to become evident. From FY
2002-FY 2005 the campus has no plan in place for regular augmentations to
the collections budget so that inflation, particularly of serials, will
produce a deeper and deeper deficit in the budget.
*"Appropriations for FY2000"
This handout presents 19900 information for the FY2000 collections
budget. G. Ford adjusted the figures slightly to get rid of the $6000
deficit that showed on the Collections Summary/Reserves for FY2000. The
total for selectors funds doesn't include the $500,000 for Digital
Superfund (which shows in the off-the-top funds).
*"FY2000 Collections Budget"
This handout shows this year's base allocations (including any
permanent augmentations to base) for monographs, serials, and continuations.
The AUL discretionary funds have not yet been distributed. Discussion
confirmed that these funds will be distributed according to the AUL's
judgement and that Collections Council, acting in it's advisory capacity,
can offer comments on proposals at the AUL's request.
G. Ford raised the question of how to account for new serials in the
FY2000 budget. Historically we've acted on the assumption that serials
cancellations and ceased serials have kept the serials budget in a steady
state after making allowance for inflation. Previously, a new serial
subscription was deducted for the first year from the selector's
monograph fund. That action had no effect on the serials budget, but was
a mild deterrent to selectors from adding serials without considering the
cost.
This year $200,000 was built in to the budget to augment the serials
base. This augmentation was based on selector's special requests for
money for new serials. The money went into selectors' monograph funds.
Council needs to see the final New Serials list before deciding how to
handle deductions from monograph funds to cover the cost of new serials
this year, so that we will know the total new cost. We will not be able
to compare the cost of new serials to savings from cancellations or
ceased serials because we have not kept data this year for cancellations
and ceases. Also we need to distinguish between new serials and old
serials in new formats. (B. Weil pointed out that printing of electronic
journals is undependable because our online environment doesn't support
the latest version of Acrobat.) Even though we have a record of new
serial costs, the lack of data on cancellations, ceases, format changes,
etc. made the Council lean towards a one-time deduction from selector's
monograph funds for new serials titles this year. That solution leaves
unresolved the question of the $200,000 already allocated especially to
cover new serial costs and it leaves unresolved the question of whether
ceases, cancellations, etc. cancel out the cost of new serials.
Future Agenda: The question
of whether this year's deduction for new serials from the monograph funds
will be one-time or permanent will be revisited at the next CC meeting
when R. Green will have the complete New Serials list for FY 2000.
*"FY2001 Collection Budget"
This handout doesn't include inflation rates for FY2001. M.
Rancer will have figures for inflation rates
by the end of this month. A. Ritch asked what calendar we've followed
for distribution of new funding. Augmentation for rates of inflation
have been decided by late summer, with other permanent augmentations
decided by late fall (this year decisions were made by mid-spring).
Since we are starting the planning process early this year we may be able
to push the calendar forward in this allocation cycle. A call for
augmentation requests could go out after we know the year-end numbers for
FY2000. CC has to decide on how to evaluate requests. Will requests
come directly to CC or should we use the subject council structure as we
did in the last cycle? The subject council structure worked well for the
sciences but got mixed reviews from Humanities and from Social Sciences.
Future Agenda: Discuss and
decide on a calendar and process for allocating new funding.
*"Y-Funds Year-to-Date Expenditures (as of May 30, 2000)"
Some selectors haven't yet expended their "y" funds from the
Chancellor's initiative. A. Ritch asked if this was a sign of
overfunding or underspending in some areas. If funds aren't expended
this will make it hard to make a case for new funding. CC selectors
pointed out the selectors only received most of the supplemental funding
in the spring and haven't had time to spend it. Some selectors are
holding money for special purchases. Some selectors have placed orders
that haven't been keyed into Innopac yet. R. Green said they have about
a one-month backlog right now. M. Rancer said that at any one time about
10% of the funds are tied up in processing. A. Ritch would like to know
why some selectors have spent most of their "y" fund money and others
haven't.
Action Item: A. Ritch will
contact selectors to try to get a better idea of why some "y"
funds are still mostly unexpended.
5. Planning a report on use of Chancellor's Initiative Funds
Item 5 was deferred till the next meeting.
Action item: Come to the next meeting with suggestions for the best way
to make a case to the campus for more collections money based on how
we've spent the money we currently have. Come up with ideas in these
three categories:
*Data that can be generated by automated systems
*Surveys (concentrate on Faculty; how do they think they've benefited
from collections augmentations)
*Anecdotes (some should arise from surveys)
6. Other items
There were no other items.