Maine Shared Collections Cooperative Collections and Operations Committee
May 15, 2017
Colby College, Miller Library, Conference Room
2:00 PM – 4:00 PM
Attendees: Deb Rollins, Matthew Revitt, Joan Campbell, Ana Noriega, Evelyn Greenlaw, Patrick Layne, Jenna Mayotte, Krystie Wilfong, Kathy Woodside
Absent: Peggy O’Kane
1. Welcome new Committee members
The Committee welcomed Jenna Mayotte from Portland Public Library who has replaced Brian Damien on the Committee, Krystie Wilfong from Bates College is Becky Albitz’s replacement, and Kathy Woodside (Collection Manager at Jesup Memorial Library in Bar Harbor) who has been appointed to the Committee to represent the growing number of smaller libraries joining MSCC, particularly from the Minerva consortium.
Departing the Committee is Cynthia Young from Eastern Maine Community College.
2. Retention commitment removal and transfer policy & procedures
A standing agenda item for the Committee is to discuss situations where Maine Shared Collections libraries are seeking to remove commitments on large numbers of titles and/or if there are specific category of titles members would like the Committee to discuss as not requiring retention commitments.
The grant analysis included 3 million titles across the nine institution’s collections and the retention rules resulted in 1.4 million titles receiving a retention commitment. It wasn’t possible to carry out title by titles reviews to decide if a title wasn’t appropriate for retention, so since the grant libraries are finding relatively small numbers of titles that really don’t need to be retained. Matthew commented that it’s important that the Committee maintain the balance of not undermining confidence in the commitments with the need for some common sense and leaving libraries with some flexibility to make decisions based on their professional expertise and local collection needs.
a. USM Franco Collection withdrawals update
The University of Southern Maine wish to withdraw MSCC titles in their Franco collection that don’t fit their mission and collection scope. Janet Roberts from USM attended the Committee’s last meeting and went over their concerns. Janet had agreed to send the Committee a spreadsheet of MSCC designated Franco titles that had been flagged for withdrawal with two different categories: 1) those titles which are held elsewhere in URSUS and 2) those titles which held by other MSCC libraries based on MaineCat holdings data. Matthew reported that Janet hadn’t produced the list yet. Evelyn commented that Janet is also leaving USM at the end of May and there are no plans as far as she is aware to replace her. Evelyn was unsure the size of the Franco collection and explained that the collection is managed separately to the other USM libraries and has its own board rather than reporting to USM director David Nutty.
The Committee expressed concern that this material may simply be weeded. Ana commented that some of these titles may be of interest to other MSCC members for example, University of Maine Fort Kent. The Northern Maine Community College and Maine State Library may also be interested in some of the material. Deb wondered whether there was any work Matthew could do in Sierra to identify the group of titles at risk. Matthew responded he could easily identify what titles in the Franco collection has a retention commitment, but he wouldn’t be able to identify which of these titles USM want to withdraw.
Matthew agreed to speak to Janet again and also contact David Nutty about the issue.
b. PPL children’s publishers
The Committee had discussed at their last meeting space issues Portland Public Library (PPL) were experiencing, which the Library felt could be partly alleviated if they were able to weed the works of specific children’s publishers. Brian Damien had mentioned this issue and was going to work on a list of publishers whose works PPL would like to withdraw.
Jenna reported that PPL would like to withdraw non-fiction titles (most of which are part of series) that were once popular, but are now outdated. In many cases these titles have been replaced by newer editions, but the old editions have been retained because they have a MSCC retention commitment and there was some uncertainty regarding what the policies are for removing commitments.
Jenna circulated a list of publishers which the youth librarian at PPL had produced. The list had been shared with Patrick and colleagues at Bangor Public Library (BPL) who agreed that the works of the publishers didn’t need to be continued to be retained for MSCC. Kathy commented that Jesup weeds works by publishers on the list.
Ana understood why PPL wouldn’t want to retain the material, but wondered whether any other shared print programs are keeping these sorts of titles. Matthew commented that other unlike MSCC other shared print programs only include academic institutions who won’t generally be collecting the type of material under discussion. Patrick commented that as the only two public libraries in the original grant analysis both Bangor and Portland had taken on large commitments of this sort of material.
Jenna confirmed for Deb that when they weed titles they won’t be running reports based on publisher, but knowing that works by these publishers can be weeded will assist them in the process.
The Committee agreed that Portland Public Library’s request met the criteria of the MSCC Policy on Retention Commitment Changes, specifically that it is acceptable to remove commitments on titles “not in keeping with library collection policy (e.g. outdated health, legal, consumer information)”. Therefore both Portland and Bangor public libraries are permitted to weed works by publishers on the list Jenna presented at the meeting.
Matthew confirmed for Jenna that she doesn’t need to provide the Committee with a list of MSCC titles weeded, but staff at PPL do need to ensure the retention statements are removed both in their local ILS and in OCLC WorldCat. Instructions for removing commitments are available on the MSCC website. Matthew also asked Jenna to send him a list of the publishers presented at the meeting so he can add them to a list of publishers whose works won’t be included in the scope of the 2019 analysis.
The Committee moved on to discuss the process for seeking to transfer a MSCC commitment to another library. In February, Krystie had sent a couple of titles that Bates had wanted to weed. Krystie had followed the MSCC procedure and emailed MSCC contacts (which Matthew had provided). Deb had indicated in the document that UMaine would add a retention commitment for one of the titles.
Matthew asked the Committee whether they would consider following the Eastern Academic Scholars’ example and instead of requiring libraries to seek out replacements themselves on an individual ad-hoc basis, instead there will be a semi-annual schedule of retention transfers. The libraries would be expected to submit their transfer requests to Matthew by a set deadline and he would centrally manage the process of identifying which MSCC libraries could potentially take on the commitment. Matthew confirmed for Deb that it would be easier to do the reallocation work manually rather than run reports because it would only be for a small amount of titles (also Matthew don’t have access to all the different MSCC ILSs). The Committee felt that January and June were good times for the transfers to happen.
Matthew agreed to work on a draft procedure for the transfers that he will share with the Committee for approval.
c. Bowdoin encyclopedia question
Joan had emailed Deb and Matthew with a question regarding whether encyclopedias were in scope for MSCC retention commitments. This was in response to Bowdoin identifying a 1995 Collier’s encyclopedia they would like to withdraw, but it had a MSCC commitment.
Matthew checked and reference sets like encyclopedias were in-scope for MSCS, so if they met the retention criteria they would have received a commitment. However, Matthew commented that looking at the Collier he could see why this category of material, particularly where it’s also “Library use only” might be questioned as warranting a commitment.
A discussion then ensued regarding an idea of Barbara McDade (Director of Bangor Public) of having a centralized Maine reference set. The Committee would also like to come back to discuss whether “library use only” (which might only be a temporary designation) and titles in special collections locations (where a lot Maine related material is housed) should be included in the scope for the 2019 analysis. The Committee also discussed that while locally it might be possible to rely on digital copies of material, when considering whether to retain the hard copy; it’s not something MSCC could rely on as a group because of DRM the material wouldn’t be available outside of the purchasing library.
The Committee agreed that Bowdoin could weed the Collier title.
d. Issues to report
Evelyn had spoken to Matthew regarding whether it was acceptable for USM to withdraw their outdated AOTA guidelines which had MSCC commitments. Matthew had given Evelyn the okay to withdraw this material and commented that this was a good example of a title that per MSCC policy it’s acceptable to weed because it contains outdated health information.
Matthew reminded the Committee that to avoid such issues as this in the 2019 analysis they should add names of publishers to the document “Publisher reversal list for 2019 review”.
3. 2019 group collection analysis planning – feedback from members & communications with SCS & EC
MSCC members will carry out another round of group collection analysis in 2019, which will be five years after the last group analysis during the MSCS grant. The scope of the analysis would be titles added to MSCC collections between 2003 and 2008, which were out of scope for the original group analysis. The purpose of this analysis is to identify titles that should be retained and protected within the state of Maine.
Matthew confirmed for the Committee that the scope of titles will include titles either publisher OR added to collections from 2003-2008, but is dependent on what data is available in the ILS. Kathy commented that at Jesup she works away on a backlog of unprocessed materials which means older titles might not be added to the system until much later.
Member survey
In the fall Matthew sent a survey to new MSCC members (i.e. post-MSCS) to identify which libraries were interested in participating in the 2019 analysis. Of the 27 new member libraries only 3 indicated that they weren’t interested in participating: Belfast, Eastern Maine Community College, and Kennebunk. Both Belfast and Kennebunk felt they had gotten what they needed out of the first analysis.
For those libraries that were interested, their commitment would obviously be dependent on the cost of the analysis. Matthew made it clear to the libraries that their retention allocations would be significantly higher than the amounts they committed following their individual analysis.
Sustainable Collection Services’ quote
Having gathered the above information from the survey, along with the holdings estimates for MSCC libraries for titles added between 2003 and 2008 (which adds up to approximately 700,000 titles across MSCC) Matthew approached OCLC Sustainable Collection Services (SCS) for a quote for collection analysis services using their group analysis tool GreenGlass. MSCS had contracted with SCS for collection analysis services during the grant analysis from 2013 to 2014. Since then SCS had developed their GreenGlass web based tool, which Matthew and Ana had been impressed with during their work on the Eastern Academic Scholars’ Trust project.
Matthew received a proposal from SCS in March which he had discussed with the MSCC Executive Committee (EC). There is still some work to be done before both parties can agree on the terms. The EC would like SCS to treat each ILS as a single extract with a single instance of GreenGlass. SCS had already agreed to do this for Minerva, but the EC would like SCS to do the same for CBB and URSUS. Matthew hopes to have a revised proposal in late summer time and will update the Committee on progress.
Another option Matthew has explored is having Sara Amato (MSCC Systems Librarian) perform data comparisons similarly to what she produces for the individual MSCC collection analysis service. Matthew went over some potential barriers to this work, including restrictions on the use of the OCLC API Sara uses to run holdings comparisons.
4. Shared print for audio-visual materials
Deb discussed whether MSCC should be looking to collaborate on retaining rare audio-visual materials (as opposed to popular movies) that like print monographs need to be protected to ensure they remain accessible. Deb wasn’t envisaging that libraries would be transferring this material offsite for storage (which can be expensive), but retain it in-situ. Krystie discussed how at Bates audio-visual materials are frequently lost or stolen. Matthew wondered whether libraries as part of the retention agreement would be expected to take on a commitment to ensure the content is still accessible as many audio-visuals materials are on formats which become obsolete. Matthew also wasn’t sure how possible it would be to include this type of material in the scope of the collection analysis.
5. Project updates
a. New Executive Committee appointments
Maine Shared Collections has an Executive Committee which is composed of 5 members of the Maine InfoNet Board who represent constituencies that are participants in the Cooperative. Joyce Rumery, Dean of University of Maine libraries and David Nutty, director of the University of Maine represents public universities, state librarian Jamie Ritter represents the State Library, and public libraries are represented by Barbara McDade. Clem Guthro who departed Colby in March has been replaced as the representative for private non-profit libraries, by Marjorie Hassen the director of Bowdoin College library.
The EC meet twice annually and are responsible for approving new member requests and working on approving plans for the 2019 collection analysis. Matthew confirmed for the Committee that to date only one library’s membership request hadn’t been approved and that was because they weren’t able to disclose their retention commitments in a shared ILS.
b. MSCC collection analysis update
The MSCC collection analysis service consists of providing Maine libraries with spreadsheet lists of titles they own locally that have a MSCC commitment at another library. The spreadsheets also include additional data such as usage that libraries can use to focus on which titles are likely candidates for weeding. These spreadsheets are produced by Sara Amato who is an independent library consultant who worked with MSCS during the grant and had formerly worked for Bowdoin College.
The libraries that work with Sara and Matthew are also provided with lists of titles they own that are rare (according to OCLC) which Matthew reviews and makes recommendations regarding which titles he feels they should retain on behalf of Maine Shared Collections. Libraries are charged a fee to cover the costs of Sara producing the spreadsheets of either $350 or $420, depending on their collection size.
Since the Committee’s last meeting Sara and Matthew have worked with Thomas Memorial Library in Cape Elizabeth, Husson University in Bangor, and the University of Maine at Machias. Matthew is also currently working with Brewer Public Library on identifying titles they own which are Maine related and should be committed to retain. So far 40 libraries have gone through the collection analysis process which the Committee agreed was an impressive amount.
Due to retirements, Matthew’s work with Lewiston and Boothbay Harbor libraries has been placed on hold.
c. New MSCC member libraries update
The Cooperative now has 27 member libraries, with the new (and smaller) libraries committed to retain approximately 1,700 titles all together. This emphasizes the point Matthew made above that these new libraries can expect to see their allocated retention commitments rise significantly following the 2019 analysis when it won’t just be Maine related titles they are asked to retain, but other categories of titles that meet MSCC’s retention criteria. Matthew commented that the Committee will need to consider that what counts as high usage at the original MSCC libraries will differ from the small public libraries and how this should be factored into the eventual retention model.
Most of the titles being retained are Maine related, but institutions like UMaine at Fort Kent with their Acadian collection, Unity College with land management, and St Josephs with their religious programs have committed to retain more widely scholarly titles.
Matthew confirmed for Deb that some of the libraries that went through the MSCC analysis haven’t signed off on their membership. The delays are often caused by library directors needing to get approval from their board or town manager or because the libraries are making sure the titles they have been asked to retain are actually on the shelf before they agree to join MSCC and make the retention commitments. Matthew won’t record the retention commitments in an ILS until the MOU (which includes the terms and conditions of the retention commitment) has been signed. Of the libraries Matthew has worked with only Kennebec Valley Community College have so far confirmed they aren’t willing to join the Cooperative.
d. 583 issues – MaineCat display issues
There is an issue with MSCC commitments from the University of Maine at Farmington that aren’t flowing from URSUS to MaineCat. Another issue seen with University of Maine at Augusta and Augusta-Bangor is that the retention commitment note does flow to MaineCat, but instead of being the abbreviated “MSCC” link it displays the full URL. Matthew has reported both issues to Maine InfoNet and asked the Committee to let him know if any of their institution’s records commitments are not displaying correctly. Matthew confirmed for Deb that the commitments for Farmington and Bangor had been added a couple of years back, so shouldn’t have been affected by any recent Sierra updates. Also, in 2016 all URSUS commitments were updated simultaneously to ensure the retention information flowed correctly to MaineCat, so Matthew couldn’t understand why only Farmington and Bangor seemed to be affected.
e. Update on new OCLC retention commitment registration service
OCLC plans to change how shared print retention commitments are recorded in WorldCat, moving away from requiring the second shared print symbol to a shared print holding type. This model will include a new service for how libraries register retention commitments in WorldCat and also functionality that will hopefully improve the discoverability of commitments and facilitate comparisons both within shared print groups and across programs. OCLC also plan on providing libraries with a way to get retention information out of OCLC that can be used to load the commitments into local ILSs.
Matthew reported that the release of the new service had been delayed until July. Matthew is looking forward to seeing how the new service will work in practice and what the exact costs will be. However, from what Matthew has seen so far the costs would be far higher than the $2,700 MSCS paid during the grant to batchload its 1.4 million retention commitments; therefore he is not confident that MSCC libraries would be willing to pay to record new commitments made as a result of the 2019 analysis in WorldCat.
OCLC have informed Matthew that they are willing to move MSCC’s current 1.4 million retention commitments to the new model for free, but there’s no clear timeline for when this will happen, or if it would be in the best interest of MSCC libraries to move to the new model.
f. EAST & HathiTrust project updates
EAST
Matthew provided an update on the Eastern Academic Scholars’ Trust, a shared print program similar to MSCC (but only for academic libraries) that extends from Maine all the way down to Florida. Together the first EAST cohort, which Colby is a member of, made retention commitments to approximately 6 million titles. The “EAST” retention note appears in CBBCat and MaineCat for Colby’s retained titles. Ana confirmed that Colby’s MSCC committed to retain titles were out of scope for EAST, so no title should have both a MSCC and EAST commitment. However, many of Colby’s EAST retained titles will also be retained for HathiTrust, so they will have notes for both programs in the record.
A second cohort of EAST libraries will shortly begin a set of collection analyses with SCS and make additional retention commitments. The EAST Cohort 2 takes EAST up to 59 members and includes large institutions like New York University and the University of Pittsburgh. Bowdoin had considered joining Cohort 2, but after careful consideration decided they were not willing to make additional retention commitments on top of what they already retain for MSCC.
EAST recently received approval from Mellon for a no cost extension of a further 12 months which means funding will continue through June 2018. EAST is also about to start analyzing serial and journal titles with the support of data services from the Center for Research Libraries (CRL).
As part of EAST’s grant to Mellon it committed to investigate opportunities for collaboration with other shared print programs, like MSCC, around collection analysis, retention modelling, and also shared lending. Matthew will be a part of these discussions with both his EAST and MSCC hats on.
HathiTrust
One of the other growing shared print projects is HathiTrust’s project which Colby is also a member of. As of last week their 46 participating libraries had submitted shared print retention proposals totaling more than 15.4 million volumes. HathiTrust will be going through a collection analysis to refine these commitments. Members are retaining physical copies of titles where there is a corresponding digital copy in the HathiTrust.
6. AOB
Matthew currently uses Dropbox to manage MSCC files from the grant and for the collection analysis, but the subscription for this service expires on Monday May 22nd and instead MSCC will be using Box which UMaine has recently purchased a corporate account for. Later in the week Matthew is going to be moving the files to Box, so the Dropbox links he had previously sent to files, such as the original retention lists from the grant analysis, will likely not work. Matthew asked the Committee to let him know if they would like him to resend the new Box links. Joan commented that she looked at MSCS documents recently so asked Matthew to send her the Box link.
7. Next meeting date
The Committee’s next meeting will be in November 2017; Matthew will send a Doodle Poll closer to.