Special meeting for “selector reps” only.
Attended by: Elizabeth Byrne, Chuck Eckman (Chair), Gail Ford (recorder), Mary Ann Mahoney, Gary Peete, Margaret Phillips, Theresa Salazar, Beth Weil, Jill Woolums, Kathryn Wayne. Absent: Susan Xue
1. Acquisition Head Questions
2. Desiderata Proposals
3. Budget Request Review
4. DILIB Review Process
5. New Faculty Startup Requests
° Based on today’s discussion, Chuck will send out a draft list of questions for CC to put to the candidates interviewing for Head of Acquisitions.
° Chuck will ask Lee Leighton for an electronic copy of the resumes for the two candidates.
° Chuck will send an email to selectors describing the 3-step review process for annual budget requests
° Margaret will send out the DILIB spreadsheet; selectors can offer suggestions about titles we might drop
° Gail will post both MRC proposals to the Desiderata wiki.
1. Acquisition Head Questions
The group discussed the shape and content for our interview of the Head of Acquisitions.
2. Desiderata Proposals
CC suggested that one new desiderata proposal for preserving materials on non-print formats that are deteriorating be expanded to a library-wide proposal. The proposal will be posted to the desiderata wiki as-is. Chuck will speak with Barclay about surveying units about their needs in this regard.
Chuck will ask selectors not using the desiderata form to resubmit their proposals so that CC has all of the information they need to review the proposals.
CC accepted one proposal from MRC to license commercial video content for on-demand delivery to UCB clients. Gail will post this to the desiderata wiki.
3. Budget Request Review
The group looked at the detail and summary spreadsheets showing all non-serials funds together with annual income, mfund base, and requests from selectors for increments to mfund base, for one-time collections and/or for replacement funds. Chuck reminded the group that we are under an obligation to Admin to strategically spend our endowment funds in a good faith response to both the campus infusion of funds, and to ADMIN’s reallotment of non-collections one-time funds to collections purposes.
The review groups will provide rankings of the requests they were given, and be prepared to report back to CC what these rankings are, whether there was agreement or disagreement within a group about rankings, what issues and principles were used in developing the rankings. Chuck believes this is an important first step, in that it is likely to help surface the different priorities that may exist across disciplines. The initial review and rankings are not the final word in allocations – these will be informed by the next two levels of review: discussion in the larger cross-disciplinary venue of CC itself, and the final step of matching priorities to available funds.
Note: after the meeting Chuck sent this to the reviewers:
Dear Colleagues,
I would ask that in your review of the budget requests you pay attention to the mission of the UCB collections program as articulated in the last collection development policy statement and placed in prominence on the new Collections at Berkeley website. Your priorities should reflect and affirm them:
1. To identify, acquire, organize and disseminate all forms of recorded information which are pertinent to existing research and instructional programs; and
2. After research and instructional needs are met, to collect and organize a broad range of materials, in order that the Library may be prepared to support new or changing programs as these emerge.
4. DILIB Review Process
Chuck noted that DILIB titles were centralized in the past and are not regularly monitored – an oversight that we should correct. Margaret has kept records on DILIB and will provide a copy of the 120+ titles to the group for consideration. We need to do two things a) establish a better process for routine review of these resources and b) determine if any titles can be cancelled now (or returned to individual selectors for management). .Because of a number of upcoming deadlines, the feeling was that we would start to examine DILIB in earnest after the beginning of the year. In the meantime, Margaret will send out the list and CC members can start thinking about any titles we might consider dropping from DILIB. We will continue to talk about the best process to put in place.
5. New Faculty Startup Requests
Gail is compiling new faculty requests; eleven have been received, with notice of two more. A complete list will be distributed at the Oct 9 meeting.
Go to Collections Council minutes
Copyright © 2008 The Regents of the University of California.
All rights reserved.
Server manager contact