Questions? Just contact us!

Login

Username

Password

Remember Login

Forgot your password?

CDMC-Minutes-060308

CDMC Steering Committee Meeting

Wednesday - 3/8/06

WSU Vancouver Campus

 

CDMC SC, 9:00 a.m. Session:

 

In attendance:  Lynn Chmelir, Carol McCulley, Sarah Beasley, Jane Starnes, Mark Watson, Cindy Cunningham, Pat McLaughlin; on the telephone: Linda DiBiase, Mary Jane Cedar Face, Donna Packer

 

The CDMC SC met one hour before the plenary session (Executive Committee and all Alliance Steering Committees) to discuss the draft Memorandum of Understanding and the survey template for the distributed print repository (DPR). Mark agreed to be the recorder for the day.

 

MOU:  Linda explained that the document distributed prior to the meeting was taken from the contract that CRL has used with several other institutions in the creation of its JSTOR archive. Each Alliance library that agreed to participate in the DPR would need to agree to and sign this document. One of the issues that the group needs to consider is whether it still wants to create both dim and dark archives. The latter type of archive is already planned by other institutions and may be redundant for the Northwest. It is also debatable as to whether Alliance libraries will be able to satisfy the environmental conditions demanded by a dark archive. Additionally, there are questions to be resolved about access and borrowing policies. The ensuing discussion raised the following issues, questions, ideas, etc.:

 

  • There is a need to know which consortium members have access to the ACS and JSTOR packages; a question should be added to the survey.
  • Do the ACS journals come as a collection or can libraries subscribe to the e-journals separately?
  • Will libraries be called upon to circulate the DPR journals at no cost? This would be a change in Alliance policy.
  • Should libraries without access to the electronic collections be charged for the use of the DPR volumes?
  • It seems reasonable to expect that the circulation of the print volumes would be low.
  • How easy will it be to create two journal runs instead of just one? The survey data will tell.
  • The current draft seems overly complicated and might be overkill for our purposes.
  • Should each participating library hold the complete journal title run(s) to which it is assigned? (Yes, this would be preferred.) Would other libraries be willing to transfer volumes in order to complete these runs? (Hopefully.)
  • Ownership by the Consortium will remain a thorny issue best sidestepped at this point.

 

Action item: Linda, Mary Jane, Donna and Mark agreed to continue work on the MOU.

 

Survey Template: Mark distributed the results of the group’s work (also sent via e-mail). He explained that the title families had now been grouped and color-coded. The following points were raised during the discussion:

 

  • Will a library be expected to continue a current subscription into the future? Could a central war chest pay for continuing subscriptions to the print?
  • Once the data is tabulated, we will want to involve as many as libraries as possible, starting with the smaller libraries before moving to the larger ones (perhaps we should move up in terms of overall collection size).
  • Libraries should be instructed to use either a formula for determining the percentage of their print run (# of volumes held divided by total # of volumes covered by ACS or JSTOR) or a “best-guesstimate.”
  • The surveys will be compiled into one master spreadsheet that can be sorted by percentage.
  • Libraries should supply a date in the final column, “Last year of print subscription.”
  • Should title families be ordered ascendingly (i.e., earliest to latest)? (Yes.)
  • Council has already approved this project, so CDMC will continue to move forward unless it hears otherwise.
  • The group will distribute the survey in early April with a deadline for return of June 1, 2006.

 

Action items:  Mark and Cindy will finalize the template and the instructions for the group’s review. Lynn will draft the cover memo to accompany the survey that will be sent to both library directors and CDMC members.

 

CDMC SC, ER SC Joint Meeting, 1:30 p.m. Session:

 

Tim Jewell convened the session and opened the discussion of how the two groups could work together to conduct a joint membership meeting in the fall. Three ER members have volunteered to work on a planning committee, and three members from CDMC should join them. Sarah has already volunteered to be the liaison from the CDMC SC to the planning group. The following agreements were reached as part of the discussion:

 

  • Alliance staff should select a location for 60-70 people in the Portland area.
  • The location should accommodate spaces for both plenary sessions and smaller, breakout groups.
  • Mid- to late-September would be the best time for the joint meeting.
  • Possible agenda items for the meeting include:
    • Print archiving: the DPR; consortially held print subscriptions (e.g., Springer deal)
    • Electronic archiving & LOCKSS, CLOCKSS and Portico
    • E-Books
    • E-Journal issues: joining a package deal late; cataloging journals in an e-package; renting versus ownership; de-briefing completed deals (Wiley, Elsevier, etc.).
    • Funding models for shared print runs, print archiving, e-book purchases, etc.
    • Tools for collaborative selection.
    • Communication between the two committees: are the listservs adequate? How can technology help us?
    • Usage statistics
  • The meeting should be a mix of presentations and information sharing leading to consensus around important issues.

 

Action items: Tim and Lynn will draft a charge for the planning group. CDMC SC will select two additional members to participate.

 

CDMC SC, 2:30 p.m. Session:

 

In attendance:  Lynn Chmelir, Carol McCulley, Sarah Beasley, Jane Starnes, Pat McLaughlin, Mark Watson

 

Survey Template & MOU Follow-up:  Lynn told John Helmer that the group was going to proceed with distribution of the survey unless it was told to wait. John seemed to think the group had “a green light” to move ahead. Other decisions about the template and MOU include:

 

  • No column will be added to indicate the total number of volumes covered by ACS/JSTOR; however, the instructions will indicate that the person filling out the survey can use either a formula or an estimate for determining the percentage of the print run held by the library.
  • A question about whether or not the library subscribes to the ACS/JSTOR packages will be added to the template.
  • The group decided it was important to retain the goal of completing two comprehensive runs of both the ACS and JSTOR titles.
  • Instead of using the terms “dim” and “dark,” the group decided it would be better to use “circulating” and “non-circulating.”
  • Separate MOUs should be written for the two different archives.
  • In the end, the group will need to bring the MOU for the RLSC and the MOUs for the DPRs together into one package.
  • The MOU should be re-written with the goal of greatly simplifying the language.
  • Participating libraries should be expected to store the print runs in the RLSC upon its completion.

 

Action Item: Lynn, Jane and Mark will re-write the MOUs for the two archives and share them with the working group.

 

Presentation of Annual Report to Alliance Council: Sarah reported on her presentation of the CDMC annual report at the Council’s last meeting. She noted that there were a lot of questions about the OCLC collection analysis product and wondered if this indicated more interest than CDMC SC had originally ascertained. Given the current workload, the group decided it would be hesitant to put this back on the table unless explicitly asked to do so. Sarah also said that responses to the report indicated just how important it is that participation in collaborative collection development projects is optional.

 

Shared Projects Inventory: Sarah told the group she had been fighting with the data from the survey and was wondering where to go next. She noted that it is important for the group to consider the audience for this information and what it might hope to get out of the final product. Sarah also observed that the projects were unremarkable in terms of funding but did demonstrate a high degree of cooperation over the years among a mixed group of partners. Some federal funding, a lot of Meyer money and the creation of PORTALs had all infused energy into collaborative projects. Many of the projects lack copious documentation and rely more on pieces of memory. Records might be available in Summit for many of the resources that had been purchased (e.g., NAPCU microfilm project).

 

Action Item: Sarah, Joni and Carol will work on this some more and consider the creation of a document that organizes the data chronologically, noting resources, key players and links where appropriate. It might also be possible to include a web form for the ongoing submission of projects.

 

Vendor Survey Results: Lynn compiled the results into a spreadsheet and distributed the data prior to the meeting. She also passed out a handout of the comments that had been received. Some of the initial results include:

 

  • The consortium has about $10 million to spend on monographs. 

· The consortium uses a variety of monograph vendors but there may be enough Blackwell and Yankee customers to warrant a selection pod for each.

· Generally speaking, librarians are very involved in the selection process at their respective institutions.

· A majority of libraries indicated an interest in pursuing a consortium-level vendor contract; this probably warrants further investigation into the creation of a RFP.

 

Action Item:  Lynn will do some more analysis and report back to the group.

 

Work Plan for 2006:  Lynn reviewed possible projects for the coming year:

 

  • Perform an examination of ILL Requests.
  • Create best practices for using Summit as a selection tool.
  • Develop recommendation for centrally funding a war chest for consortial purchases.
  • Develop a criterion for a recommended number of copies in Summit.
  • Extract more collection from Inn-Reach.
  • Develop a last copy policy (it would need to acknowledge the “editions issue”).

 

Action Items:  Joni agreed to investigate and report back on the last copy issue at the July meeting. Carol agreed to perform some research into the topic of recommended number of copies for Summit. Sarah can advance the centrally funded war chest issue as a topic for the joint ER/CDMC meeting in the fall.

 

Additional Members for the Joint Meeting Planning Group:  After Lynn and Tim draft the charge to the Planning Group, Lynn will send it to the SC and members will respond with names of people that we can persuade to take on this responsibility.

 

SC Liaisons to CDMC Libraries: Lynn noted that other SCs had established liaison relationships with member libraries. Does the CDMC SC want to do this? Lynn asked that SC members examine the CDMC membership list and get back to her with the names of people with whom they have regular contact or communicate with for other reasons. Lynn will assign each SC member as a liaison to a group of libraries. The personal touch will help facilitate communication and project based problem solving.

 

The meeting then adjourned. The SC meeting will be in July 2006, unless a conference call is deemed to be necessary in the meantime.