Attended by: Phyllis Bischof, Gail Ford (recorder), Jim Gordon, Rebecca
Green, Bernie Hurley (chair), Ann Jensen, Norma Kobzina, Barclay Ogden,
Margaret Phillips, John Roberts.
Absent: Marlene Harmon, Gary Peete, David Sullivan.
Guests: Armanda Barone, Lee Leighton, Sheila Wekselbaum.
Action Items
* Bernie and Lee will incorporate CC's ideas regarding the Library
Technical Services review. To help cue respondents to the level of
granularity wanted, they will incorporate into the "call for ideas" a list
of those services/functions that TS now provides which are open for comment.
* Bernie will refer the issues of "prioritizing the Library's priorities"
to Tom for thought.
* Bernie will adopt the practice of showing "parking lot" issues on each CC
agenda.
* Bernie and Gail will identify chart strings for Phase 1 access projects.
* Gail will arrange for a shared drive that all selectors can view, and
project managers can update.
* Gail will draft letters to project proponents; subject council reps will
review for content; Bernie will send these out.
* Gail will make appointments with Phase I project managers to go over the
project management reporting sheet.
* Gail will modify the new webpage concerning Blackwell and Springer print
cancellations per CC's suggestions; she will then announce the new pages to
selectors.
Agenda
I. Technical Services Review - CC advice on process
II. One-time Access Projects
III. Next Meeting
IV. Announcements
V. Sage Update
Meeting Content
I. Technical Services Review - CC advice on process
Bernie and Lee reminded CC that the desire for a Technical Services Review
was announced by Tom to allstaff in an email late 2004. Since then Bernie,
Lee, and Tom have developed a draft process for this review, which Bernie
and Lee are presenting to the councils. Their proposal is comprised of
* Phase 1: work with stakeholders to identify user's highest priorities for
Technical Services as they receive and process new incoming materials.The
goal is to receive very specific operational priorities. (Note: backlogs
are being addressed via the 1-time access projects, and will not be the
focus of this review.) Included in Phase 1 will be the identification of
priorities and principles to select those projects for which we have energy
and resources. Phase 1 will include coming back to the community to ensure
that there is buy-in on those projects selected.
* Phase 2: implement short-term projects to ease current obstacles, and
begin compiling information
pertinent to developing specifications for an Integrated Library System.
Portions of phase 1 and phase 2 will use a consultant(s). Bernie & Lee
already have 5 or 6 possible candidates. The hope is that Phase 1 will be
complete by the end of Spring semester.
CC approved the process in concept and offered some suggestions:
* any call should be sure to elicit comments on 1) how best to communicate
when changes in procedures are made, 2) what kinds of records T.S. should
be keeping, e.g., vendor files; donor files, etc.
* in order to help cue respondents to the level of granularity wanted, it
would be helpful to incorporate a list of those services/functions that TS
now provides which are open for comment, and perhaps a map or other
indication of process workflows.
CC raised the issue that the Library's priorities and Collections
priorities, together, are so general that without further "prioritizing the
priorities" they are not very helpful in directing decision-making. Bernie
will take this comment back to Tom.
II. One-time Access Projects
* Bernie confirmed our progress to date: $1.1 million has been set aside
for monographic access projects; $300,000 is being set aside to handle
serials projects; $500,000 is being set aside as a co-payment towards an
Integrated Library System.
* Bernie reported that as we look more closely at projects we are aware
that a) although we are hopeful that outsourcing will work on many of these
projects, that we should proceed with care, and b) estimated costs were
"ballpark" figures and we are not sure how accurate they will turn out to
be. Given these, Bernie described and CC accepted a phased approach to
implementing access projects. Various emails will be drafted to explain the
concepts and next steps to project proponents.
* Bernie and Gail will be identifying chart strings to use in tracking
project expenses; Gail will meet with each Phase I project manager. CC
reviewed and made suggestions on a Project Management log that will be used
(and modified as needed) to track projects.
III. Next Meeting
The Feb 2 meeting is cancelled. Our next meeting will be the regularly
scheduled Feb 15, 10am - noon.
IV. Announcements
* The Blackwell and Springer contracts have not yet been signed.
* There is a possibility of a Taylor and Francis package.
* CDL will pursue an interim arrangement to receive those Duke University
titles dropped from MUSE, with a longer term package to be negotiated in
the future.
* Margaret updated CC: the UC Berkeley Faculty Conference on Scholarly
Publishing (by and for faculty, with Library staff support) is scheduled
for March 31. RSVP's are arriving slowly.
* Bernie announced that the ULs are considering a May forum for ULs, some
members of SOPAG, CDC, and select Scholarly Communication officers on the
topic of UC's strategic hopes for scholarly communication: are we looking
to build a more sustainable model of scholarly publishing and/or are we
looking for ways to control costs in the long run?
V. Sage Update
Margaret reported on discussions between CDL and SAGE for cross access to
SAGE publications.