Final Minutes
Collection Council
February 4, 2003
Present: , Jim Boydstun for B. Ogden, S. Calpestri, J. Carter, G. Ford
(recorder), J. Gordon, R. Green, P. Iannuzzi (Chair), S. Khanaka, J.
McKenzie, M. Phillips, M. Rancer, C. Wanat, Beth Weil Absent: P. Janes, L.
McLane
I. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
* Patty mentioned that the campus is currently reviewing five new
initiatives being undertaken as part of the Strategic Academic Plan, to be
funded from enrollment growth funds: nanotechnology, metropolitan studies,
new media, biocomputing, and the environment. The proposals will go through
a multi-part review: by external deans and provosts; by UC Berkeley
high-level administrators; and by external experts in these fields.
Action Item: Patty will talk with Tom about how best to get funding for
library collections into the discussion of resources needed for these
initiatives.
The Library has contributed to the "New Media" proposal by offering to
partner in the creation of a multi-media technology suite for students. The
formal review process described above will determine whether this proposal
goes forward as submitted.
* The Academic Senate Committee on Libraries has submitted a proposal to
the campus that a library impact statement be submitted for every new
program launched on campus.
Action Item: Patty will talk with Tom about expressing our support for this
proposal.
II. UPDATES FROM THE COUNCILS
All three councils have had preliminary discussions about criteria for
exceptions to canceling Elsevier print. Several questions have come up
since from the Sciences; Jean, Beth, and Camille will attempt to answer
these at the next Sciences Council meeting.
Patty reported that Jody (Technical Services) is working closely with Terry
Vrable to straighten out discrepancies between what we are paying for some
Elsevier titles, and what CDL thinks we are paying per contract. Jim Gordon
predicts that there will be several months of adjustments to get this
straightened out.
III. MODELS FOR CALCULATING TARGET CUTS FOR EACH FUND
Patty presented a series of four spreadsheets that Jim Gordon prepared on
possible methods for appropriating cuts once the Elsevier funds had been
centralized:
Worksheet 1: documents adjustments to base budgets that occurred when
Elsevier print and online costs were centralized. This worksheet also
documents that, of the total $700,000 that we need to cut, as much as
$337,433 will come from canceling Elsevier print.
The next 3 worksheets show possible ways to appropriate the rest of the
needed cut ($362,567)
Worksheet 2: shows target amounts if the cuts are determined solely on the
adjusted base from worksheet #1.
Worksheet 3: shows target amounts if the cuts are based on base (less
Elsevier) + inflation.
Worksheet 4: shows target amounts it the cuts are based 1/2 on the
base-less-Elsevier (worksheet 2) and 1/2 on the base + inflation (worksheet 3).
The group discussed the pros and cons of using the targets as calculated on
worksheets 2, 3, or 4. It was noted that there is very little dollar
difference for any given fund. This small difference is seen as a result of
taking Elsevier off the top, and applying the 8.2% inflation rate across
the board. In future years, without an off-the-top action, and with
possible variable inflation rates, the dollar amounts would vary more.
Since this is the case, Collections Council recommends that we use the
targets as calculated on worksheet 4, as a precedent that will hold for
future years better than the other two models.
The group agreed that cuts will be taken, as they have been in the past, in
monographs funds. As selectors cancel subscriptions, their monograph funds
will be credited with their cancellation.
Action Item: at Council representative requests, Patty will contact the
chairs of the Arts & Humanities Council and the Social Sciences Council
will talk members through these four spreadsheets.
Action Item: Patty and Jim will create a 5th document that shows each fund
and its target for quick reference. Jim will distribute these 5 documents
to all selectors via email.
Action Item: Patty (at A&H Council and SS Council) and the Science reps (at
Science Council) should discuss with council members
1) Who will pay for exceptions to Elsevier print cancellations?
Possibilities include
a) The selector who requests the exception will pay out of his/her
after-allocation budget
b) Costs to be spread equally - exceptions go to reduce the phase 1
savings, thereby increasing phase 2 cut total.
2) when meeting target cuts it's not enough just to cut monographs - due to
the higher rate of inflation on serials, cutting monograph expenses now is
not equivalent to cutting serials expenses. This said, there will be cases
when there are good reasons for selectors to shift the ratios between their
funds. The Councils should talk about possible ways to ensure that
individual selectors make cuts that are "within range" vis a vis monographs
vs. serials ratios.
3) as individual selectors propose titles to meet their target cuts, we
will collect lists onto the website. Is this sufficient for prompting
discussion about titles that the selector wants to drop, but that are of
importance to a selector in a related field. What process/procedures should
we consider for discussion and decision-making on this? One criterion for
keeping a title might be "use", in this case campus-wide use, rather than
the more restricted "use by faculty in the x department." Use can be
documented by some libraries (Sciences and Music) based on journal use
study results.
IV. PUBLIC COLLECTIONS WEBSITE AND FAQ
Patty walked members through the home page and navigation bar for the
public collections website. Patty mentioned that this site is intended to
serve several functions:
* give some details about upcoming budget actions
* put these budget actions into the larger context of long-term budget
expectations vs. expected inflation
* add information about the larger issues raised by changes in scholarly
publishing, as a preliminary step in getting faculty more involved
* providing liaisons with language and philosophy they can reinforce in
conversations with their constituents.
Our hope is to make this public on Friday February 7.
Action Item in two parts:
1. CC members to review the document A.Ritch's document at
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/AboutLibrary/Staff/CDP/chanccvr.pdf and make
recommendations to Patty:
2. Patty will send to CC members a few "astute" comments she has received
from faculty
Patty would like to hear CC recommendation on how to handle the report
and/or comments:
a) post this to the public site
b) post this to a UCBonly site, or
c) don't post comments that are attributed to individual faculty on the web.
Action Item: CC members to review the web pages
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/~gford/Collections and send comments to Gail
(with a copy to Patty) by 10am Thursday.
Patty also asked for input on her draft of the FAQ. CC members made many
useful comments that will be incorporated into the version that goes up on
the web
V. ITEMS FOR FUTURE FOLLOW UP (VARIOUS):
* Gail and Patty to review ways to shorten the library liaison web page
* CC to discuss results of discussions with councils on how individual
selectors meet target cuts (3 issues, above)
* Administrative Services Council members are supposed to be contacting
Subject Councils for input on public printers. CC members were asked to be
sure that concerns about public printers, given a move to electronic
Elsevier etc., be represented in these discussions.
VI. NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, February 18, 2003, 10am noon, Room 303
--=====================_28655031==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Final Minutes
Collection Council
February 4, 2003
Present: , Jim Boydstun for B. Ogden, S. Calpestri, J. Carter, G.
Ford (recorder), J. Gordon, R. Green, P. Iannuzzi (Chair), S. Khanaka, J.
McKenzie, M. Phillips, M. Rancer, C. Wanat, Beth Weil Absent: P. Janes,
L. McLane
I. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
* Patty mentioned that the campus is currently reviewing five new
initiatives being undertaken as part of the Strategic Academic Plan, to
be funded from enrollment growth funds: nanotechnology, metropolitan
studies, new media, biocomputing, and the environment. The proposals will
go through a multi-part review: by external deans and provosts; by UC
Berkeley high-level administrators; and by external experts in these
fields.
Action Item: Patty will talk with Tom about how best to get funding for
library collections into the discussion of resources needed for these
initiatives.
The Library has contributed to the "New Media" proposal by
offering to partner in the creation of a multi-media technology suite for
students. The formal review process described above will determine
whether this proposal goes forward as submitted.
* The Academic Senate Committee on Libraries has submitted a proposal to
the campus that a library impact statement be submitted for every new
program launched on campus.
Action Item: Patty will talk with Tom about expressing our support for
this proposal.
II. UPDATES FROM THE COUNCILS
All three councils have had preliminary discussions about criteria for
exceptions to canceling Elsevier print. Several questions have come up
since from the Sciences; Jean, Beth, and Camille will attempt to answer
these at the next Sciences Council meeting.
Patty reported that Jody (Technical Services) is working closely with
Terry Vrable to straighten out discrepancies between what we are paying
for some Elsevier titles, and what CDL thinks we are paying per contract.
Jim Gordon predicts that there will be several months of adjustments to
get this straightened out.
III. MODELS FOR CALCULATING TARGET CUTS FOR EACH FUND
Patty presented a series of four spreadsheets that Jim Gordon prepared on
possible methods for appropriating cuts once the Elsevier funds had been
centralized:
Worksheet 1: documents adjustments to base budgets that occurred when
Elsevier print and online costs were centralized. This worksheet also
documents that, of the total $700,000 that we need to cut, as much as
$337,433 will come from canceling Elsevier print.
The next 3 worksheets show possible ways to appropriate the rest of the
needed cut ($362,567)
Worksheet 2: shows target amounts if the cuts are determined solely on
the adjusted base from worksheet #1.
Worksheet 3: shows target amounts if the cuts are based on base (less
Elsevier) + inflation.
Worksheet 4: shows target amounts it the cuts are based 1/2 on the
base-less-Elsevier (worksheet 2) and 1/2 on the base + inflation
(worksheet 3).
The group discussed the pros and cons of using the targets as calculated
on worksheets 2, 3, or 4. It was noted that there is very little dollar
difference for any given fund. This small difference is seen as a result
of taking Elsevier off the top, and applying the 8.2% inflation rate
across the board. In future years, without an off-the-top action, and
with possible variable inflation rates, the dollar amounts would vary
more. Since this is the case, Collections Council recommends that we use
the targets as calculated on worksheet 4, as a precedent that will hold
for future years better than the other two models.
The group agreed that cuts will be taken, as they have been in the past,
in monographs funds. As selectors cancel subscriptions, their monograph
funds will be credited with their cancellation.
Action Item: at Council representative requests, Patty will contact the
chairs of the Arts & Humanities Council and the Social Sciences
Council will talk members through these four spreadsheets.
Action Item: Patty and Jim will create a 5th document that shows each
fund and its target for quick reference. Jim will distribute these 5
documents to all selectors via email.
Action Item: Patty (at A&H Council and SS Council) and the Science
reps (at Science Council) should discuss with council members
1) Who will pay for exceptions to Elsevier print cancellations?
Possibilities include
a) The selector who requests the exception will pay out of his/her
after-allocation budget
b) Costs to be spread equally - exceptions go to reduce the phase 1
savings, thereby increasing phase 2 cut total.
2) when meeting target cuts it's not enough just to cut monographs - due
to the higher rate of inflation on serials, cutting monograph expenses
now is not equivalent to cutting serials expenses. This said, there will
be cases when there are good reasons for selectors to shift the ratios
between their funds. The Councils should talk about possible ways to
ensure that individual selectors make cuts that are "within
range" vis a vis monographs vs. serials ratios.
3) as individual selectors propose titles to meet their target cuts, we
will collect lists onto the website. Is this sufficient for prompting
discussion about titles that the selector wants to drop, but that are of
importance to a selector in a related field. What process/procedures
should we consider for discussion and decision-making on this? One
criterion for keeping a title might be "use", in this case
campus-wide use, rather than the more restricted "use by faculty in
the x department." Use can be documented by some libraries (Sciences
and Music) based on journal use study results.
IV. PUBLIC COLLECTIONS WEBSITE AND FAQ
Patty walked members through the home page and navigation bar for the
public collections website. Patty mentioned that this site is intended to
serve several functions:
* give some details about upcoming budget actions
* put these budget actions into the larger context of long-term budget
expectations vs. expected inflation
* add information about the larger issues raised by changes in scholarly
publishing, as a preliminary step in getting faculty more involved
* providing liaisons with language and philosophy they can reinforce in
conversations with their constituents.
Our hope is to make this public on Friday February 7.
Action Item in two parts:
1. CC members to review the document A.Ritch's document at
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/AboutLibrary/Staff/CDP/chanccvr.pdf
and make recommendations to Patty:
2. Patty will send to CC members a few "astute" comments she has received from faculty
Patty would like to hear CC recommendation on how to handle the report and/or comments:
a) post this to the public site
b) post this to a UCBonly site, or
c) don't post comments that are attributed to individual faculty on the web.
Action Item: CC members to review the web pages http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/~gford/Collections and send comments to Gail (with a copy to Patty) by 10am Thursday.
Patty also asked for input on her draft of the FAQ. CC members made many useful comments that will be incorporated into the version that goes up on the web
V. ITEMS FOR FUTURE FOLLOW UP (VARIOUS):
* Gail and Patty to review ways to shorten the library liaison web page
* CC to discuss results of discussions with councils on how individual selectors meet target cuts (3 issues, above)
* Administrative Services Council members are supposed to be contacting Subject Councils for input on public printers. CC members were asked to be sure that concerns about public printers, given a move to electronic Elsevier etc., be represented in these discussions.
VI. NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, February 18, 2003, 10am noon, Room 303
--=====================_28655031==_.ALT--