ERC-ST- 061211

Electronic Resources Committee-Steering Team

December 11 2006

Conference call meeting

Members attending by teleconference:

Joanna Haney, Lewis and Clark College, Chair

Teresa Hazen, Mt. Hood Community College

Diane Carroll, Oregon Health Sciences University

Carrie Fry, Seattle Pacific University

Donna Packer, Western Washington University

Lee Keene, Whitman College

Greg Doyle, Alliance Staff

1. ACS Subscription: current cost distribution

Discussion:  there was considerable discussion of the complexities of this contract.  Among the anomalies, one library, which has no subscriptions, has the benefit of the contract.  Those libraries which subscribe to the full ACS package, gain no benefit  from the Alliance agreement.  It is likely that the subscribing Oregon libraries have a different contract from the Washington State CLP libraries, which subscribed separately for a time.   The terms of the contract have apparently changed over time.  The cancellation understanding on ACS’s part is also somewhat at odds with what libraries can agree to.

The terms are set for 2007 and cannot be changed.  There is some possibility that ACS may price according to a different model for 2008, but this is not certain.  Greg wishes for guidance from the ER Committee as to how he might negotiate for next year.

Decision: Greg Doyle will contact Alan Diehlmann of ACS concerning ACS plans and possible terms for the 2008 renewal.  He may form a sub-group to work on this after this discussion. 

2. Results of Survey on topics to be explored by the ER Team

Discussion. The group determined level of importance of survey results by combining the “High Interest” and “Medium Interest” responses.  Discussion and disposition of individual survey questions:

1.  What is your level of interest in a study of the impact of e-journal packages on staff time? Interest: 87%.  Discussion centered around the difficulties for individual libraries in trying to quantify the changes, and relate them to new tasks and tasks no longer performed.  At the next meeting we will discuss plans for a panel focusing on different “back end” solutions and their implications for staff time for the Spring ER meeting.  At that time we will ask for volunteers to be responsible for this part of the spring program.

2. What is your level of interest in an investigation of audio/visual download purchases?  Interest: 74%.  The steering team members were not entirely clear on the meaning of this question.  An effort will be made to find someone to do a brief informational presentation at the spring meeting.

3.  What is your level of interest in exploring how print archiving projects are affected by the purchase of electronic backfile collections?  Interest: 59%.  The CDMC committee is already discussing this.  Since the interest level is relatively low, the Steering Team decided not to pursue this further at this time.

4-5.  What is your level of interest in a consortial pay-per-view agreement with one or more publishers?  If interested, which publishers are of interest.  Interest: 75%.  Arrangements with science publishers were of most interest.  Greg noted that members participating in the ScienceDirect agreement already have a pay-per-view agreement with Elsevier. There was a question whether at this point in time libraries need articles rather than journals.  Greg will contact Ingenta and perhaps one or two of the other mentioned publishers to see if they are willing to discuss pay-per-view arrangements on a consortial basis.

6-7.  Will you be attending the April OLA meeting? If not, would you be interested in seeing a panel on federated search engines at the ER spring meeting? Attending OLA meeting: 17% of respondents (i.e. 4 persons).  Interest in a panel: 95%.  Joanna will arrange for a panel at the ER spring meeting, which will represent library experiences with major federated search engines.  It is hoped that OSU’s “Library Find”, currently in beta testing, can also be presented.

8. What is your level of interest in the development of standardized language for consortial licenses? Interest: 96%.  Greg noted his experience to date is that publishers will insist on their own license language.  However, a checklist he can use as to what terms consortium members consistently want to see addressed in the agreements would be very helpful to him.  Diane already has a checklist she uses.  She and Greg will begin work on this.  Donna also offered to help.  The draft checklist will come back to the Steering Team and the ER Committee as a whole for comment and suggestions.

9. – 11.   The meeting time came to an end.  These questions will be reviewed at the January Steering Team telephone meeting.

Next meeting:  January 15, 1 PM. 

Minutes prepared by:  Donna Packer, 12 December 2006.