← Previous Summary
Next Summary →

Summary of Collection Development Subcommittee Meeting, July 12, 2012

Maine Shared Collections Strategy Collection Management Subcommittee
July 12, 2012
Colby College, Miller Library Conference Room
1-3 pm

Attending: Joan Campbell, Christie Coombs, Brian Damien, Valerie Glenn, Tom Hayward,
Toni Katz, Lanny Lumbert, Susan MacArthur, Peggy Menchen, Deb Rollins

Updates following the June meeting

Valerie updated the group on the following items:

HathiTrust public domain titles
Valerie confirmed with Constance that the report of public domain titles was run against the libraries’ May 2012 OCLC holdings. Sara has gathered circulation data for the URSUS libraries’ titles – a large percentage of these items have zero total checkouts.  Circulation data for the CBB libraries and Portland Public still needs to be gathered. Instead of continuing to ask those libraries for various reports of item-level data, we will ask everyone to export their circulation data and will use that corpus to run additional reports such as the Hathi comparison.  Valerie and Sara will send information about what to export, when, etc.

Documenting retention decisions using the 583 field
There has been some discussion about setting up a task force to apply the guidelines for recording retention decisions that are outlined in the April report of the OCLC Print Archives Disclosure Pilot (https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1iM86_QRG0vBXqlRwezIA2pOANJdIqmlAnSS_t31WgNU) to monographs. Some testing has been done, but more needs to be done in order to figure out how the information can be displayed in MaineCat.

Project Timeline / Progress

The project has not gone according to the plan as laid out in the original proposal. After reviewing year one activities and determining what still needs to be done, Valerie drafted a list of goals she would like to accomplish prior to September 1st and December 1st.  They are:

Prior to September 1st:

  • have a draft MOU
  • have access to item-level data for all libraries, compared to WorldCat and HathiTrust
  • have a draft workflow for batch-loading of retention decisions for “unique to WorldCat” items
  • make a recommendation to the Directors Council regarding how to handle public domain HathiTrust items
  • make a recommendation regarding the project retention period and withdrawal notification period
  • submit a revised budget, with additional documentation for new project staff, to IMLS

Prior to December 1st:

  • have the MOU approved by the Directors Council
  • have implemented a workflow for batch-loading retention decisions
  • have an approved retention policy on the number of copies, as well as print vs. electronic copies

Memorandum of Understanding

In the original project plan, development of the MOU was scheduled for year three of the project; however due to a variety of factors it’s been decided that we need to develop one sooner. The MOU will also serve as a way for us to determine which policies and guidelines we will need to develop along the way. Prior to the meeting, Valerie sent the group copies of agreements currently in place for three print archiving projects.

The group embarked on a discussion about the length of the commitment. After indicating that all of the other agreements have a review clause, and a statement for withdrawing from the commitment, how important is the “number?”

Twenty-five years is too long, five years isn’t enough time. It could also depend on the material that’s being retained – when is that going to be decided? Something in a special collection is different than, for example, an item in open stacks that’s been digitized and is publicly available via HathiTrust.

What does this mean for public libraries?  Brian mentioned that Portland Public has most likely withdrawn material acquired prior to 2005 (if its usage is low). This was in response to the decision made at the last meeting, to include items acquired prior to 2005 in the collection analysis.

A concern about public relations was mentioned – is ten or fifteen years too short? Will campus constituencies be alarmed that libraries are agreeing to retain items for ONLY ten or fifteen years?

After much discussion, it was decided that fifteen years, with a review of the agreement and its implications at least once every five years, is an acceptable retention commitment.  Some statement of justification should be included, so that approving bodies understand why the number was chosen.

Following this discussion, it was noted that it’s much easier to respond to text than to create it among a committee.  Valerie will draft a document and share with the group no later than July 19th. The group will have a conference call to discuss the draft on July 26th at 10 am. The revised document will then be sent to the project team for review during its working session on August 1st.