Present: P. Iannuzzi (Chair), J. Boydston (for B. Ogden), J. Carter, J.
Gordon, R. Green, P. Janes, S. Khanaka, J. McKenzie, C. Wanat (Recorder),
B. Weil
1. One-time funding proposals
Discussion of these is deferred till the 12/3 Collections Council meeting;
clarification of some proposals is still being pursued. It was decided
that subject council representatives will review the proposals from their
council members before the 12/3 meeting.
Action: by the end of this week, Patty will send all selectors a
spreadsheet outlining the proposals so that she can ensure that none were
missed.
Action: Prior to the 12/3 meeting, Patty will send the full requests to
the appropriate subject council representatives so that they can be
prepared to discuss them.
2. AUL-CD search
As announced earlier, the search was unsuccessful. Patty has agreed to
continue to serve as Interim Director of Collections; ways to alleviate the
workload for the AULs who have taken on extra duties in the interim are
being explored. The Search & Screen Committee will be determining next
steps in the search.
3. Meeting with the Academic Senate Library Committee
Patty reported on the discussion at the Library Committee meeting regarding
the collection budget strategy. Discussion points included the need for
future inflation funding, the need to reduce duplicate subscriptions to
journals acquired in both print and electronic formats so that some savings
can be realized without loss of content, development of a web site for
faculty on the budget reduction process, library infrastructure concerns
(ie, printing and public pc's), the need for comparison data on
serial/monograph budget ratios and print/electronic budget ratios,
e-journal bundles and centralization of funds, the issue of
selector/faculty communication in collection matters and the need for
selector/faculty input into decisions about individual titles, and how the
Committee could assist in the process.
4. Comments re: Selector Meeting
Action: Camille agreed to draft a list of the comments and questions
raised at this morning's Selector meeting for review by Collections Council.
5. Centralized funds for CDL packages
The need to centralize funding for the large CDL packages was discussed,
along with the matter of handling credits for cancelling print in these
packages. At issue are those CDL packages which have "flipped" [wherein
the primary charge is for the electronic version and the print is available
at a heavily discounted price -- rather than vice versa (hence the "flip")]
and for which UCB gets a single recharged bill for its portion of payment
for online access to all of a publisher's titles that currently range
across multiple selector funds [wherein the multiple individual funds would
make it impossible to manage administratively]. It was agreed that the
appropriation covering Elsevier titles would be moved from the individual
selector fund to the "AUL Serials fund" and that no cancellation credit
would be given to individual funds for cancelling print Elsevier titles.
However, the selector's base for calculation of cancellation targets will
be reduced by the cost of the Elsevier titles (by their movement to the
"AUL Serials fund"). It was also agreed that the policy of no cancellation
credit would apply only as packages met the conditions currently met by the
Elsevier/print archive arrangement.
Action: for the 12/3 Collections Council meeting, Patty will explore which
CDL packages have flipped or will soon flip.
6. Criteria and procedures for exceptions
Criteria were discussed first: under what circumstances should we keep a
duplicate print copy of an Elsevier title at UCB in addition to the print
archive copy at SRLF? The group identified a number of points as potential
reasons to retain print locally:
- faculty opinions/concerns
- patterns of use
- if the electronic version is substantially different from the print (in
terms of quality, completeness, graphics)
- high print usage (also look at cost/use of print)
- high impact factor
- location of archive; how quickly could one get a copy from SRLF?
- Review journals heavily used by undergraduates
Selectors might identify further reasons in making a case for an exception
to cancelling a print Elsevier title, but the above list should serve as a
starting point. More generally, with regard to reference-type titles,
consideration will also need to be given to determining the best location
(at a storage facility or a campus library).
The procedures for moving the Elsevier project along were discussed next.
Patty envisions communication with faculty on this issue to occur at a
number of levels: from the University Librarian, from the AULs (Patty &
Isabel) by meeting with Deans, and from the selectors in their role as
liaisons to specific departments. The need to get the Elsevier spreadsheet
to selectors as quickly as possible was stressed, so they could begin the
preliminary analysis prior to meeting with faculty.
Action: a preliminary list of Elsevier titles will be sent to selectors as
soon as possible.
The following procedures were agreed to:
- the spreadsheet would be sent to selectors, along with the above list of
generic criteria for exceptions
- selectors would make the case for exceptions first to their subject
councils; subject councils could work out the specifics of how this review
would work.
- The list of exception requests (titles and reasons) would come forward
from the subject councils to Collections Council for review.
7. Process for review of reference duplication
There were 2 categories of materials considered: those purchased on DILIB
and those on individual funds. A few ideas were raised on how to handle
the DILIB review, but it was agreed that Patty would further develop them
for future discussion by Collections Council.
As to reference materials purchased on individual funds, it was noted that
there was a need to facilitate review by all selectors since reference
materials are often used across a number of subject areas. It was decided
that selectors would be asked to post lists of their potential cuts and
that the lists should be categorized by broad category (journals,
databases, other reference) in order to facilitate the review of reference
materials. It was also decided that selectors would get credit for
cancelling duplicate format reference tools (in order to provide incentive).
Action: Patty will come back to Collections Council with recommendations
regarding the DILIB review.
Next Collections Council meeting: December 3rd
Next recorder: Beth Sibley