Present: M. Burnette, L. Florea (for L. Diamond), G. Ford, R. Green, R.
Liu, M. Mahoney, B. Ogden, A. Ritch (chair), A. Sevetson, A. Urbanic, C.
Wanat (recorder)
Agenda:
1. Approval of Minutes for June 20th meeting.
2. Announcements
3. Replacement Work Group selector survey: preliminary results
4. Draft survey on collection budget increase
5. Continued discussion on special initiatives for 2000-2001 budget
6. Review of role of Collections Council
New members Mary Ann Mahoney, Andrea Sevetson, and Allan Urbanic were
welcomed to the council.
1. Minutes of June 20th meeting.
The minutes were amended and approved for distribution. It was noted that
the requirement (discussed on 6/20) that A. Ritch be notified of any large
collection purchases (defined as $2000 or greater) will need to be
incorporated into the Collection Development Policies & Procedures website.
Recorders for the next 3 meetings are M. Mahoney, A. Sevetson, and A.
Urbanic - in that (alphabetic) order.
2. Announcements
R. Liu announced that there are some minor changes yet to be done with
regard to carry-forwards in the Innopac fund accounts. They are being
worked on now.
Agenda item # 5 will be deferred until the library budget is further along.
A. Ritch outlined some discussions he had at ALA with vendors, specifically
with Bell & Howell about the Early English Books Online and with
NetLibrary. He also noted that CDL-JSC has established an eBook Task
Force; Milt Ternberg (UCB) is on the task force.
Issues surrounding the establishment of new approval plans were briefly
discussed, in particular with regard to workflow implications. A. Ritch
will follow-up on the inquiry from a vendor that triggered this discussion.
A. Sevetson announced that Statistical Universe will be introducing some
new features (specifically, Power Tables) shortly.
3. Replacement Work Group selector survey: preliminary results
A. Ritch distributed results of the survey and summarized the major
findings. Highlights include: a strong consensus among selectors that
prior investment in missing materials justifies replacement (assuming
content remains important) and that they are not reluctant to replace
missing materials; neither funds nor fund reports appear to be a major
issue for selectors when it comes to replacements; likewise, neither
shelving backlogs nor mis-shelving appear to play a large role in
selectors' atttitudes about replacements; strong agreement that the longer
one waits the harder it is to find replacements; acknowledgement that many
missing materials turn up eventually; and strong belief that more timely
action and more staffing could improve the process. Council discussed the
pros and cons of a printout of all currently missing materials,
particularly for Doe/Moffitt, as a means of dealing with the retrospective
missing problem. The Workgroup will be meeting soon to continue their work
on ways to streamline and improve the replacement process and
recommendations will be reviewed at an upcoming Collections Council
meeting. A selector early bird, possibly in September, on this topic will
present findings. [NOTE: Subsequent to this Council meeting, A. Ritch
distributed the summary findings to all selectors.]
4. Draft survey on collection budget increase
A. Ritch drafted a survey to gather information from selectors on how The
Library used the recent collection budget increases, the results of which
can be used to strengthen the case for continuation of a healthy
collections budget. Council discussed the draft and a few suggestions were
made. A. Ritch will distribute it to selectors with appropriate deadlines.
5. Continued discussion on special initiatives for 2000-2001 budget
Deferred to a later meeting
6. Review of role of Collections Council
As part of the library-wide review of the Council structure introduced last
year, Collections Council discussed its role and functioning. The
following major points were made:
-- Collections Council may need less review than the other councils because
it is structurally similar to its predecessor committees (Collections
Advisory Group being the most recent) and hence has a long history of
participative decision-making. Its membership is more formal and
restricted than that of the subject councils. Its agendas tend to focus on
the theory, practice, policy and procedures of collection development.
-- Collection Council's relationship with the subject councils may need to
be examined. Of particular concern are the interface among the councils
and the way collection funds are delegated to the subject councils for
sub-allocation.
-- The library has so many active groups, all with regular meetings, that
multiple, overlapping memberships and schedule challenges are inevitable.
A. Ritch noted that neither last year's nor this year's Collection Council
had social sciences or arts/humanities representatives from beyond
Doe/Moffitt, perhaps due to the difficulty of thin staffing of public
service points in the smaller subject libraries; science representatives,
on the other hand, inevitably come from subject libraries. It is not clear
whether this pattern undermines usefully representative balance.
-- Collections Council lacks a formal charge. A. Ritch agreed to try to
draft one. Along with the charge, Collections Council will develop some
specific goals for the coming year.
Next Meeting: August 1, 2000
Recorder: M. Mahoney