Collections Council Minutes: October 22, 2002
Present: Patty Iannuzzi (chair), Jim, Gordon, Jody Bussell (for Rebecca
Green), Beth Sibley, Mike Rancer, Beth Weil, Camille Wanat, Jan Carter,
Jean McKenzie, Shayee Khanaka, Phoebe Janes (recorder)
Absent: Suzanne Calpestri, Barclay Ogden
The following documents were distributed at the meeting:
A. University Library Forecast: FY 1999-FY 2002
Collections Summary
B. CDC Document: Shared Print Journal Collection: Issues (by Cecily Johns)
C. CDC Document: Letter to John Tanno, SOPAG (from Christine Bunting, CDC)
D. Potential Savings for UC Print Subscriptions CMI Publishers with 2002
Contract Terms Applied
E. 2002 Publisher Business Models for Journal Packages Licensed by CDL
F. 2002 UC Print Subscriptions to Science Direct Titles
G. Science Direct and Academic Title Changes for UCB for 2003
H. CMI Interim Use Data Oct -Dec. 2001
I. Comparison of Base Appropriations in Three Groupings: All Funds;
Serial/Continuation Funds; Serial Funds
Desired Meeting Outcomes:
1. CC members understand budget and are empowered to discuss implications
with colleagues
2. Agreement on target reductions
3. Determine special plan for Elsevier and ACM
4. Brainstorm list of general budget reduction strategies
Announcements:
CC meetings will be scheduled on the 1st and 3rd Tuesdays until further
notice-
two hour meetings all.
Agenda:
1. Latest Budget Review:
Although we are still planning to use one time AUL reserves and endowments
to make up for lack of inflation increase from campus, we cannot make
permanent commitments against these funds since they are one time carry
forward monies. If we do not receive inflation funding from the campus in
the next two years, we will have a continued deficit and will need to
initiatiate a budget reduction strategy now that will take effect during
the 2003-04 budget cycle.
Patty wants each member of CC to understand the budget implications and to
be able to explain them to colleagues. A great deal of time was spent going
over the handout A and reviewing and clarifying the following information.
Current inflation rates: 2% monographs; 8.2 serials. The annual deficit
calculated by the difference between the continuing obligations and the
recurring funding is about $700,000., which is 10% of the serials budget or
approximately 6% of the overall budget. This assumes that the annual yield
of all the AUL endowments will be applied against continuations.
ACTION ITEM: Group agreed with the necessity to reduce complexity of line
items on handout A. Patty will extract the most relevant information to
present in a simple way.
ACTION ITEM: Group agreed to a target figure of $700,000.
for cancellation of continuing obligations.
2. Review of CDC UC Libraries print archive proposal to SOPAG
Three separate committees (separate charges, similar task) are working on
developing ways to share a UC print collection by to creating a print
archive. These groups, which include two SLASIAC committees, CMPG and SIP,
and the CDC, have generated many documents that require input from
librarywide groups. Cecily Johns, Collection Management Planning, was asked
to synthesize the issues and to create a background document (handout B)
for the Collection Management Planning Group. The document was used to
stimulate a CDC discussion on the subject. Components of her report
include: Potential Sources of Print Journals; Physical location of the
collection; Processing, bibliographic control and conservation; Access;
Ownership; Funding; Redundancy. After the CDC discussion, a letter to SOPAG
(Christine Bunting, Chair, CDC to John Tanno, Chair, SOPAG; handout C)
recommends specific action to establish this shared archive.
ACTION ITEM: Patty will share this letter with selectors.
3. Potential Savings for Print Cancellations:
The aggregators Elsevier and ACM (Association for Computer Machinery) were
selected because they provide UC with a print copy as part of their license
agreement.
This project will lock us into a commitment to purchase the print archive
off the top, thus enabling each campus to make individual cancellation
decisions. With no UC archive there was an impediment to making local
decisions. All agree that big savings are to be ours if we can cancel the
print components of these subscriptions. This project is viewed as a model
for future UC Library Collections.
Eight UC campuses are currently planning cancellation projects. Each
institution is canceling 5-10% of serials. Methodology differs from campus
to campus, but UCLA offers some favorable examples of how to proceed. UCLA
has set up a task force charged to define and establish a cancellation
process. A website has been developed with a cancellation toolkit,
including significant documents needed to monitor the process, including
for example, CMI data and title lists. It was noted that currently many
documents of use to us are available on the CDL website but that they are
difficult to locate, so an important service to all would be to pull the
relevant documents together to make them more accessible.
ACTION ITEM: Further discussion about useful documents for selectors was
deferred until our next meeting when we discuss communication with
selectors and faculty.
4. Elsevier and ACM titles--recommend a strategy
Implications of CMI data (handout D)
Elsevier title list (handout E)
Using Elsevier as a model for other aggregates. What data is needed further?
ACTION ITEM: Title lists for all packages would be useful.
2002 UC Print Subscriptions to Science Direct Titles; Science Direct title
list (handouts F & G)
Patty distributed the list of UCB Elsevier titles and the corrections made
by Technical Services. These will be needed as we identify selectors
responsible for Elsevier titles.
ACTION: we need to identify information that can be generated here and
information that we can get from CDL.
ACTION ITEM: Jody and Jim are working on a list that includes selector
initial and fund codes for the Elsevier titles.
ACTION ITEM: Jody will contact CDL to see if they are preparing lists for
other CDL packages.
5. Brainstorming Session: Collections Council formed three groups to
brainstorm budget reduction strategies. The breakout groups will report at
our next meeting, where the budget reduction strategy discussion will
continue and include specifics on communication with selectors and faculty,
and a timeline.