Present: Michaelyn Burnette, Lucia Diamond (recorder), Gail Ford, Jim
Gordon, Rebecca Green, Mary Ann Mahoney, Barclay Ogden, Michael Rancer,
Alan Ritch (chair), Andrea Sevetson, Beth Sibley, Allan Urbanic, Camille
Wanat.
Agenda:
1. Minutes for Sept. 19 meeting approved.
2. Announcements.
3. Collection budget anatomy revisited.
4. Collection budget update.
5. Prepayment alternatives.
6. Binding flags.
7. Report on collection budget increase.
8. Mass Deacidification.
9. Doe-Moffitt Selectors Meeting report.
1. Minutes of September 19th meeting.
The minutes of the meeting of 19 September were approved by
e-mail and distributed.
2. Announcements.
Beth Sibley is attending a CARL Pre-Conference on Ebooks and
will report back to us.
Allan Urbanic is experimenting with document delivery from the
Russian State Library. It has worked very well with requests for
scientific articles.
Collections Council will not meet on October 17 due to
scheduling conflicts. The next meeting will be on October 31.
3. Collection budget anatomy revisited.
Gail Ford reviewed the historical budget allocation process.
The one-page budget anatomy, entitled Appropriations for the fiscal
year, that she produced was the road map for allocation decisions of the
Collections Council (and its predecessors). She started with the prior
year’s base amounts for serials, continuations, and monographs and then
added appropriate amounts for inflation. She then inserted lump sums as
decided by the Council for specific allocations, e.g., digital funds,
binding, document delivery, journal prepayments, consortial resource
sharing, exchange program, and postage. She then allocated the new
money that came from the Chancellor, according to the decisions of the
Council. In future, all allocations will be made in the innopac by the
Innopac Management Unit, part of the Technical Service Department’s
Order Division. They will also produce the budget anatomy starting this
fiscal year.
ACTION: Budget Subcommittee will consider whether all categories of
off-the-top items should continue to be handled this way and make
recommendations to the Collections Council. (See also item 4 below.)
4. Collection budget update.
Jim Gordon was thanked for his excellent work in taking over
the substantial tasks of updating the allocations spreadsheets during a
challenging transitional period.
Mike Rancer has confirmed inflation factors of 3.7 % for
monographs and continuations and 9.2 % for serials and these will be
used across the board. Jim Gordon will enter base allocations into
innopac once some discrepancies have been resolved. Serials numbers are
being revised from an earlier handout to use actual expenses. Standard
inflation rates are being used across-the-board to keep the data
manageable. A call for special cases, including, e.g., a need for
differential inflation rates, will go out to selectors from the
Collections Council at a later date. The one-time transfer to the
monograph funds to cover serials will also be handled separately. In
future, this transfer will occur at the close of the fiscal year, rather
than in the following fiscal year.
Mike Rancer’s forecast for Collections allocations begins to
show negative numbers next year if we continue as we are. During the
next several weeks, he and Alan Ritch will develop a budget request
which will deal with this anticipated deficit.
ACTION: Budget Subcommittee will review the budget allocation
spreadsheets and draft recommendations on appropriations to the
Collections Council.
5. Prepayment alternatives.
We have received good prepayment offers from Nijhoff (6.5 %
reduction) and Harrassowitz (5 %) reduction. Council endorsed these
prepayments.
6. Report on collection budget increase.
Tom Leonard’s letter to the Chancellor on the benefit of the
latter’s additional funds for collections and Alan Ritch’s supporting
summary and faculty and selector comments have all been delivered to
Chancellor Berdahl.
ACTION: Alan RITCH, with Tom Leonard’s permission, will distribute the
summary report to selectors and will have this and the other documents
mounted on the web. Selectors and faculty seeing these documents may
wish to send additional comments to Alan.
7. Binding flags.
Although there is a budget allocation for binding, two
categories of items have no cap on their expenditures. These are
newly-received materials that otherwise are not shelvable and
high-demand materials in need of repair. Binding has not gone far over
budget in the past year because some units have not used all of their
allocations. There is however potential increased demand as more money
is spent on monographs, and there has been a misconception that the
binding slips used by Doe-Moffitt selectors could be stored for future
use. Binding slips, like the quotas given to other units, must be used
within a given fiscal year or lost. This creates workflow problems,
particularly toward the end of a given fiscal year, when decisions made
by a selector in one fiscal year may not get to binding preparation
until the next fiscal year.
It was noted that replacing print with digital resources means
not only a savings in storage but can also mean a savings in binding
costs.
ACTION: Budget Subcommittee will review allocation to binding and the
need for an increase that reflects additions to monograph funds.
ACTION: Andrea SEVETSON will review the binding task force report and
clarify the binding issue in light of the needs for some selective
methodology and inventory control.
8. Mass Deacidification.
The UC Preservation Advisory Group has been charged with
developing a proposal to spend $177,000/year the University receives in
funding earmarked for systemwide preservation. Barclay Ogden requested
our input for the PAG. Three suggestions have been raised: 1) a mass
deacidification project, 2) a preservation of digital information
project [to move these issues to a front burner], 3) a last paper copy
project [UCSB is leading an initiative with Mellon money; the project is
dealing with issues of best copy, ownership, lending].
Mass deacidification works out to about $15 per normal volume,
extends the life of the paper three times what it was, and leaves no
visible change to the book. Likely candidates are items that have an
artifactual need for the original and items that are never likely to be
digitized. Suggestions for materials include ephemera, posters,
newspaper runs, architectural plans, publications of developing
countries, and multiple editions of a single title.
ACTION: Barclay OGDEN will send a message to the selectors alerting them
to this deliberation.
9. Doe-Moffitt Selectors Meeting report.
A summary of their meeting has been prepared by P. Iannuzzi.
There are issues of coverage and collaboration that also apply to a
number of the subject libraries that may have interdisciplinary subjects
in common with Doe-Moffitt. A directory of who does what will be
useful.
ACTION: Alan RITCH will continue to work with P. Iannuzzi on developing
a survey to clarify selector roles and responsibilities, not simply in
Doe-Moffitt, but also in the subject libraries and affiliated libraries.
NEXT MEETING: October 31, 2000 [Costumes not required.]
Recorder: Michaelyn Burnette
ACTION: Alan RITCH will schedule the next meeting of the Budget
Subcommittee.