Maine Shared Collections Strategy Directors Council
May 23, 2013
Colby College, Roberts Union, Robbins Room
10 – 11:30 AM
Attendees: Clem Guthro, James Jackson Sanborn, Linda Lord, Judy Montgomery, Barbara McDade, David Nutty, Sarah Campbell, Deb Rollins, Joyce Rumery, Gene Wiemers, Matthew Revitt, Sara Amato (on phone), Lizanne Payne, Bob Kieft, Jeremy York, Rick Lugg
Absentees: Steve Podgajny (Sarah Campbell represented Portland Public Library), Constance Malpas
1. Advisory Board & Jeremy York visit
a. Welcome & introductions – Advisory Board update report
The Directors Council were joined at the meeting by the Advisory Board members: Bob Kieft, College Librarian at Occidental College who helped established the Print Archive Network forum for libraries interested in shared print projects. Lizanne Payne, shared library collections consultant who has worked with a number of shared projects including ReCap in New York and WEST, consulted with OCLC and worked at Washington Research Library Consortium. Constance Malpas, Program Officer at OCLC specializing in print conversion and shared print projects was due to attend, but unfortunately transportation issues had delayed her arrival in Maine.
All three of the Advisory Board have written numerous articles and reports on shared print which have helped shape the work of MSCS and other projects.
The appointment of the Advisory Board was included in the original MSCS grant application. The Board provides evaluative oversight and external review and feedback of the project, advice on best practices and standards, offers guidance, and will ensure that the proposed strategy interfaces with other related national initiatives.
MSCS had agreed with the Advisory Board that they would receive six month update reports. Matthew had circulated the latest report (period December 2012 – May 2013) prior to the meeting and the report is now available on the MSCS website.
Also in attendance were: Jeremy York from the HathiTrust who had been invited by the Project Team to present on the institutional uses of the HathiTrust and also be on hand to answer any questions the Directors had regarding HathiTrust membership (see below). Rick Lugg partner at Sustainable Collection Services who MSCS contracted with to deliver collections analysis services was invited because it would be useful for the Directors to meet Rick and ask him any questions regarding the collections analysis work conducted. MSCS Systems Librarian Sara Amato who phoned in to the meeting will present her investigative work concerning disclosing retention commitments and loading HathiTrust records.
b. Schedule for visit – MSCS meetings & presentations, meal & Maine InfoNet E-Collections Summit
Matthew went over the schedule for the Advisory Board visit including the: start and end times of meetings/presentations and the time and location of the evening meal with the Advisory Board and Jeremy York. Also that Constance and Jeremy will be presenting at the Maine InfoNet Collection summit the next day (May 24).
2. Project Updates
a. Collections Analysis
i. SCS – Collection summaries, scenario development meeting feedback, working scenario one & additional scenario development
Matthew (with input from Rick Lugg) presented the collection summaries provided by Sustainable Collection Services (SCS). The collections summaries are a categorical overview of MSCS collection data and include the holdings look ups requested for OCLC WorldCat, HathiTrust & Internet Archive overlap. The summaries were generated from the catalog data pulled for SCS which they then had to manipulate based on what MSCS had requested to see.
The slides presented were only examples taken from the collection summaries summary sheet. Even the summaries are very detailed, so Matthew only briefly covered each slide, drawing attention to particular points of interest. The slides are available on Slideshare.
Slide 1: Showed circulation counts, internal uses, and reserve activity as evidence of usage. Zero circulation percentages are lower than SCS usually see because of the inclusion of public libraries.
Slide 2: Showed overlap in OCLC WorldCat within both the US and Maine. The caveat on this data is that most libraries in Maine are not OCLC members.
Slide 3: Showed MSCS group overlap. There is a high proportion of unique holdings within the MSCS group. SCS commented that had this been a de-accessioning project there would only have been limited opportunities to weed. The Directors also expressed surprise at the uniqueness of MSCS library collections.
Slide 4: Showed the application of the local protection rules for those items which libraries will retain even if they fall into any of the potential withdrawal categories.
Slide 5: Showed the overlap of MSCS holding in HathiTrust & Internet Archive. There was only a 6% overlap for HathiTrust Public Domain titles. Clem expressed surprise at the lack of overlap considering the historical collections of Colby, Bates and Bowdoin colleges. Gene responded that he was less surprised at the lack of overlap because in the 19th Century Bates had only been only a small institution which had not been collecting as much material when compared with Colby and Bowdoin, so would not house as many PD titles from that time period. Jeremy responded that he was not surprised at the lower overlap because it is in line with what Constance found, which was a lower rate of overlap in general for public domain materials than for in copyright materials.
Lizanne commented that the overlap will increase overtime as HathiTrust adds more material to its collection.
Jeremy was asked whether HathiTrust collection selection is targeted. Jeremy responded that except for Harvard selection is not targeted and some partners like the University of Michigan digitized shelf-by-shelf rate rather than by topical or chronological criteria.
A suggestion was made to speak with Constance regarding the overlap of HathiTrust PD items in OCLC WorldCat, which might show MSCS overlap is less ‘weird’.
Matthew commented that the process of comparing overlap between MSCS and the Internet Archive was a first for SCS. Sarah Campbell commented that there was a closer match for public libraries with the Internet Archive.
Matthew reported that Lanny and David from USM had identified a significant discrepancy between the overlap numbers provided by Jeremy for the HathiTrust consortial membership quote and SCS’s figures. The details of the discrepancies were presented in Slide 6. The most likely cause for the discrepancy is the differences in what SCS & HathiTrust count as Public Domain: HathiTrust includes: pd (public domain), pdus (public domain when viewed in the US only), ic-world (in-copyright and permitted as world viewable by the copyright holder), and cc* (Creative Commons Attribution and not und-world or icus). SCS is more restrictive and only includes “pd” or “pdus”. Rick reported that the SCS team had agreed to pick up additional HathiTrust copyright categories. However, this does not account for the size of the discrepancy. Both Hathi and SCS use OCLC number and 019 fields for matching, though Jeremy also mentioned doing some FRBR type matching. Sara, SCS and Jeremy will continue their investigations into the source of the discrepancies.
Slide 7: Showed an example of the MSCS collection grouped by subject. Another first for SCS is that MSCS asked that any data reports provided are in Dewey for the publics and Library of Congress for the academics. However, MSCS also required an augmented version of data reports in order to make group comparisons across both LC & DDC.
Scenario development meeting feedback
The MSCS Project Team and Collections Development representatives met with Rick and Andy from SCS on April 8th to use the collection summaries to develop retention scenarios.
Matthew commented that at first everyone felt a little overwhelmed with the volume of data being provided and where to start with the analysis of 3 million items. However, this is where SCS’s experience and consulting skills were invaluable. Using the graph in Slide 8, MSCS focused on a those titles held by only 1-2 partners, for which there is a higher than expected proportion. This universe consists of just under 1.5 million title-holdings (approximately 1.6 million items) and constitutes 50% of all title-holdings in the MSCS data-set.
Working scenario one
Slide 9: At the scenario development meeting, the following criteria for making decisions on those titles held by only 1-2 partners were developed:
• Analyze and take action only on pre-2003 copies
• Retain the copies if any circulation or internal use
• Retain material that falls into local protection categories (Specific Maine items) even if no circulation
• Retain Special Collections/Archives copies even if no circulation
• Retain materials on course reserves even if no circulation
• Retain unique in OCLC (only 0-9 copies in OCLC) even if no circulation
• Compare remaining 0 circulation copies with both HathiTrust and Internet Archive
SCS ran the scenario agreed and produced corresponding retention counts for each library shown in Slide 10:
The set of resulting “Commitment to Retain” titles contained just over a million title-holdings or 73% of the eligible universe of titles. MSCS libraries will be committing to retaining at least two copies between two different institutions for 15 years.
Bob asked why MSCS chose to retain two copies between two different institutions and decided on a retention period of 15 years. Clem responded that MSCS has taken into consideration geographical factors as well as the likelihood of wear and tear of copies. The 15 year period was decided because libraries were unwilling to agree to the longer 25 year period.
Matthew reported that in reviewing this table it becomes apparent when you compare the titles and items columns that this scenario would mean retaining multiple copies of the same title. For example, if Bangor Public were the only library to have a copy of Pride & Prejudice, but had 10 copies currently all 10 copies would have 15 year retention commitments associated with them. Andy from SCS has looked into the issue and has identified approximately 87,549 items (or 7% of items on the retention list) left over that could be exempted from a retention designation.
Matthew asked the Directors for their thoughts on this issue because once this is resolved; MSCS can request lists from SCS to begin the process of adding 583s and OCLC shared print symbols. Clem responded that MSCS libraries are committing to retain “titles”. The retention is at the title level. A library may decide to keep all 10 copies or discard all but 1 — that is an individual library decision. As longs as the library keeps one then they have met the retention decision. What shows in OCLC and in MaineCat is the title level. Decisions regarding how multiple copies should be handled should be left to individual libraries.
Lizanne commented that perhaps the 583 should be at the bib level in OCLC. James responded that this would not work for consortial shared bibs because then everyone would get the same bib and you couldn’t distinguish between commitments.
The Directors agreed that it is more likely that the public libraries would have multiple copies than the academics. Also that some of the duplicates might be in special collections.
A discussion then ensued regarding the difficulty of deciding which copy should have the 583 commitment associated with it. One suggestion was that it should be the copy in the best physical condition, but the Directors agreed that this is not feasible with the scale of items MSCS is looking at.
The Directors agreed to ask SCS to remove the titles with multiple items from the “Commitment to Retain” category for further review. This meant splitting the Commitment to Retain Lists (1,076,188 titles/1,258,195 items) into two parts: Titles with a single item record per bib record (about 91% of the titles and 78% of the items). Titles with multiple item records per bib record (about 9% of the titles and 22% of the items) and divide these further into multi-volume sets and multiple copies.
Slide 11: Showed how using scenario 1 this left just under 400,000 title-holdings, or 27%, available as “Needs Further Examination” for those items with 0 circulations, but are available in digitally in the HathiTrust and/or Internet Archive. Matthew commented that at the afternoon’s meeting with the MSCS Collections Development and Technical Service representatives they would discuss whether libraries will choose to rely on digital surrogates if the item has zero circulations.
Additional scenario development
The afternoon meeting with the MSCS Collections Development and Technical Service representatives will be where the more difficult collections analysis decisions will need to be looked at with the remaining 50% of the MSCS collection, where items are held by 3 or more libraries. As shown in Slide 12 attendees will be looking at factors such as: circulation rates, available storage space, subject strengths, and loan periods to develop retention scenarios and assign retention commitments.
ii. OCLC WorldCat Collections Analysis tool – proposal update
Meghan Hopkins at OCLC had produced a proposal for MSCS to receive deferred access to the OCLC analytics tool once group functionality is available in late 2013/early 2014. The Project Team are currently reviewing the proposal and Matthew will inform Meghan of any changes they decide needs to be made. A few required changes have already been identified, including correcting the OCLC Symbols listed.
b. OCLC Shared Print Symbol & 583/856 MARC Fields testing
i. 583 testing – Loading & display of retention information in catalogs & target link for retention copies
Loading & display of retention information in catalogs
Matthew reported that having provisionally agreed retention commitments for just over one million items, Sara and the Technical Services committee will soon have actual retention commitments to work on displaying in both local and union catalogs, in the MARC Subfield 583, and in OCLC WorldCat using both 583 and the OCLC Shared Print Symbol. SCS will provide MSCS spreadsheets containing lists of those items each library are committing to retain.
Sara presented the results of her investigations showing first the display of retention decisions in OCLC.
Slide 13 showed an example of the Local Holding Record for a committed to retain item with the MARC Subfields 561, 583 and 852. Sara has been discussing with OCLC the loading of retention information into OCLC (LHRs), which can be done via the LHR batchloading services. Libraries will use their Shared Print symbol login, and need to make sure to mark as a recurring project. There is a $355 onetime fee per institution for this service ($2,840 across all 8 libraries) which will be paid for using grant funds. Bill Carney (the shared print coordinator) and Kathy Kie (support services and batch load liaison) are working on determining the best practice for MSCS submitting batch load service requests, as all of the data/spreadsheets are likely to be in the same format.
Slide 14 showed an example of the display of the Bowdoin College OCLC Shared Print Symbol and the main symbol in WorldCat.org. As a result of MSCS Library Director opposition to the ILL fees associated with using the OCLC Shared Print Symbol in both ILLiad and WorldCat Resource Sharing, MSCS have decided that until a more acceptable model can be developed to use two symbols on the records in OCLC, both the main symbol which will remain requestable and the Shared Print Symbol which will be a non-supplier. MSCS have already been testing the ILL implications of the shared print symbol using Bowdoin (BBHSP) and Bangor (BYNSP), and have now ordered shared print symbols for the remaining MSCS partner libraries.
Sara commented that the main implication of having the two symbols on records in OCLC is that it looks like there are two copies, which could lead to issues with collections analysis. Matthew commented that this had already been an issue with the OCLC WorldCat Collections Analysis tool proposal and whether or not to include Shared Print Symbols in the analysis.
Matthew confirmed for Lizanne that the OCLC Shared Print Symbol is a non-supplier. OCLC users wishing to request a shared print item will simply use the existing main symbol.
The Directors and Advisory Board agreed that two symbols on records is not the ideal solution for display, but until OCLC (and ILLiad) develops an alternative solution (recognizing that the symbol would only be used for display purposes and not denoting a separate ILL policy), MSCS had no choice to go this route.
Lizanne reported that MSCS would be the first shared print group loading 583 statements and Shared Print Symbols for monographs, so it is a massive achievement.
Sara next showed in Slide 15 an example of the display of the 583 retention statement in the central union catalog MaineCat. Sara reported that MSCS had encountered issues with the display and transfer of 583 to the central union catalog, MaineCat. The only field that will display is the ‘n’ note field, but only the first note.
As a work around, Maine InfoNet staff and Sara have managed in the MaineCat OPAC to use the OCLC WorldCat API and JavaScript to perform a check for when an item is in shared print. With the API, MSCS is achieving a big portion of what is required–basically retained items will have a note saying that they are retained and by whom, with a link to MSCS retention policy information. Sara and James both commented this method appears to work: there is a quick turn over in response time and it gets around the issue of what will transfer. There is a maximum of 50,000 calls a day, which originally Sara thought might be an issue depending on MaineCat traffic. However, Maine InfoNet has confirmed that the average (May 11-20, 2013) MaineCat activity was 6,472 daily searches. Since the API will only be called on the bib record display, not the browse screens, Sara reported that it looks like the calls will stay well under the 50,000 limit. James reported that the results will be displayed in the title page, but that the API will not allow MSCS to see the retention on a brief results display list, or get the retention commitment end date–the API will only grab and display the information on the full results page for a single item.
MSCS have been told by Innovative Interfaces, Inc. that an enhancement and/or individual programming is required to fix the issue. James and Clem intend to bring up this issue again when they meet with III representatives later this month in Chicago and during meetings in June. They will also raise the issue alongside shared print representatives from Connect New York and at MELCAT.
Sara showed in Slide 16 the target link (on the MSCS website) from the 583 subfield explaining what is meant by retention copies. Sara commented that as commitments are made in the future the date may be changed, but it will remain June 30, 2028 for the foreseeable future.
Sara showed in Slide 17 the display of the retention commitment in the local INN-Reach Millennium systems which will be added using global update. As a result of variances in how 583 is displayed in local catalogs, MSCS have decided to allow each member institution/group/consortium decide the how (webpub.def or OPAC message) and where to display the retention commitments themselves as long as they use common language provided by the MSCS Project Team. Sara commented that she is willing to assist libraries with the display.
MSCS are still working with III on enhancements to resolve display issues including with the webpub.def mechanism that were unable to show a reasonable display.
The current method to pull up retention statements is searching the io: index in Connextion. Lizanne reported that OCLC will be indexing the 583 subfield ‘f’ in the future (which has the project name – in MSCS case Maine SC).
Judy, referring to Slide 10, commented on the importance of load balancing when looking at future retention allocation, taking into account the spread of retention commitments across the partner libraries in scenario one. So as Bowdoin were committing to retain 161,498 titles in scenario one perhaps this would mean their overall commitment in the next scenario would be relatively less than the other partners. Bob commented that a similar issue had been raised during the Michigan Shared Print Initiative (MI-SPI) project with Wayne State University’s retention allocation. Rick confirmed that Wayne State had de-accessioned some of their unique items. Clem commented that he thinks geographical considerations will be a factor in retention allocation. Also Colby’s additional storage facility may mean they commit to retaining a higher proportion of titles.
Linda asked what the ‘page’ symbol in the held formats column shown on Slide 15 signified. The general consensus was that it meant the copy was in print format.
Deb reported that in scenario one, the ‘Commitment to Retain’ titles had not been compared with the holdings of the HathiTrust and Internet Archive. Gene commented that membership of the HathiTrust was still an uncertainty (see below).
ii. Communications with OCLC – Two symbols on holdings decision, Batchloading LHRs & costs, symbol request & shared print questionnaire
Two symbols on holdings decision
Matthew confirmed that he had contacted Bill Carney (OCLC) to inform him of MSCS’s decision to implement two symbols on single records. Bill sent a response saying he understood the MSCS decision, and that he is pleased MSCS are disclosing retention commitments, even if we are not totally following OCLC recommended practice, and again he emphasized the fact that it will double MSCS library holdings for those with commitments. Bill had shown through his work with Sara that he was still committed to supporting MSCS.
Slide 18 showed the proposed MSCS library’s OCLC Shared Print Symbols.
Batchloading LHRs & costs
See above in item b.i.
Symbol request
See above in item b.i.
Shared print questionnaire
OCLC had sent out a shared print questionnaire which some of the MSCS Directors had received. The questionnaire contains general information about why OCLC are working on shared print and recommendations for OCLC. Matthew sent Judy some suggested subjects to mention, particularly regarding the shared print symbol ILL fees. Matthew commented that it was a good chance to let OCLC know their thoughts on issues MSCS have experienced with displaying retention decisions. Barbara asked Judy if she could share Bowdoin’s responses to the questionnaire.
Bill Carney has also sent a message regarding the questionnaire to the PAN Listserv. Matthew will send a link to the questionnaire to those Directors who have not received a copy.
iii. Scheduled meetings with III
See above in item b.i.
c. HathiTrust
i. Implementation investigations
Sara reported that the Project Team had decided that rather than loading HathiTrust records directly into MSCS library catalogs, they would instead be loaded into SOLAR. This will still allow the records to be discoverable in MaineCat and facilitate the delivery of E-book-On-Demand (EOD) and Print-On-Demand (POD) services. James will take the request to load HathiTrust records into SOLAR to the Maine InfoNet Board for approval.
Sara has been discussing with Kent State University (KSU) the loading of HathiTrust records. KSU completed authority work before they loaded the HathiTrust records into their catalog, but the Project Team have agreed that this is not required for MSCS and that the records will be accepted as is into SOLAR.
A discussion ensued regarding contributing material to MaineCat and whether it is for the benefit of all users or just for institution patrons.
Sara confirmed that thus far she and Maine InfoNet had only been loading and testing links to HathiTrust PD titles. The Directors agreed that this work should be conducted while MSCS libraries still have access to Sara’s services.
ii. Consortial membership & authentication issues
Slide 19 showed the consortial membership pricing quote proposal that Jeremy had sent MSCS and which the Directors had reviewed at the previous MSCS Directors Council meeting on March 28th. Although the Directors had agreed that consortial membership made better economic sense then individual membership they still had questions regarding what membership meant in terms of accessibility of materials. Following the meeting, Matthew circulated more information regarding what access patrons would get to HathiTrust items if MSCS libraries became consortial members. Matthew asked the Directors whether they wanted to review the issue of accessibility again, or move on to other questions regarding membership.
The Directors asked Jeremy to confirm what access patrons would get to in-copyright items. Jeremy responded that HathiTrust for in-copyright material provides members with full-text searches, but not access to view or download the entire work. The exception is where copies of the works held currently or previously by member institutions fall under Section 108 conditions: where the print copies of the works are damaged, deteriorating, lost or stolen, and a copy is not available on the market at a fair price.
Through a designated Proxy (individual representative of the library), patrons with a print disability (such as a visual impairment, learning disability physical disability, or other disability–-that impedes a person’s ability to access print in the standard way) can receive special access to in-copyright materials in the HathiTrust. The proxy can download a copy and send it to the user. The materials must be held currently, or have been held previously, by the Supporting Institution’s library, as indicated through print holdings information submitted to HathiTrust. For more information see: http://www.hathitrust.org/accessibility. Jeremy explained how disabled users must first be certified by the partner institution as having a print disability or as being a proxy for a person with a print disability. In order for proxies to see what materials are available to them and users at their institution (materials in HathiTrust that are held by institution’s library), they must log in to HathiTrust using their local institutional account.
Linda asked Jeremy if HathiTrust had worked with the Library of Congress’ National Library Service for Blind and Physically Handicapped when looking at disability access. Jeremy responded that HathiTrust had been exploring options with them. Jeremy then clarified that HathiTrust had been in touch with the NFB (National Federation of the Blind). They are also exploring options of offering broader access with the NFB.
Linda went on to ask Jeremy whether the broader access discussed would be only for the blind or include other print disabilities. Jeremy answered that it would include other print disabilities.
Jeremy discussed the impact of preservation that HathiTrust offers long-term preservation (including bit level preservation and migration) of deposited materials.
Gene asked Jeremy how generous Section 108 conditions are for example, it is just something you have withdrawn, but wish you still had. Jeremy reinitiated that this is where the print copies of the works are damaged, deteriorating, lost or stolen, and a copy is not available on the market at a fair price. Jeremy commented that thus far there have been no legal questions regarding this condition.
Jeremy confirmed that libraries can choose whether their own digital collections added to the HathiTrust are considered as individual institutional collections and/or as part of a consortium. Judy questioned whether individual collections would benefit the State.
Matthew commented that the major obstacle to HathiTrust consortial membership had so far been the authentication requirement to implement Shibboleth. Of the MSCS partners only Colby and Bates have implemented Shibboleth, but Bates has not installed InCommon. Depending on what was decided at the meeting Judy commented that Bowdoin were ready to start implementing Shibboleth next week. Joyce and James reported that little progress had been regarding Shibboleth at the University of Maine since the last Directors Council meeting. Joyce agreed that she would again speak to Dick Thompson the UMaine Chief Information Officer about the progress of Shibboleth. James also commented that the publics and State Library would not be able to join unless they implement Shibboleth. Jeremy confirmed that this was indeed the case as HathiTrust only work with InCommon and Shibboleth. Judy commented that in her opinion the authentication requirements were overkill.
Matthew commented for the purposes of the grant the Directors need to make a decision today regarding how to proceed with membership.
Jeremy confirmed that HathiTrust would require a single point of contact and for the consortium to coordinate as one body. Each member’s Shibboleth connection would be tested by HathiTrust. Institutional IP addresses should also be sent to HathiTrust.
James explained how Shibboleth is a community of trust and that it’s not the technical requirement to install Shibboleth that is the hurdle, but the verification of trust which publics cannot provide. A discussion then ensued regarding the reasons why public libraries would not been able to vouch for the identity of their patrons. However, the academic libraries could become members and ILL downloadable copies for patrons of non-member libraries.
The academic libraries agreed to join HathiTrust as a consortium and split the costs of membership equally. Additionally, at the suggestion of Judy the Directors agreed that for approximately an extra $1,000 cost for the academics, it made sense for Bangor & Portland Public Libraries and The Maine State Library to also be part of the consortium, so their collections would also be accessible, and preserved. The academic libraries agreed that they would cover the membership costs of the publics and State Library, which was a popular decision, particularly with The State Library.
d. Budget
i. SCS payment paid
MSCS had paid the remaining 50% of what was owed to Sustainable Collection Services for collections analysis services.
ii. Partner contributions towards SCS costs
Matthew thanked those Directors who had submitted their payments for partner contributions towards SCS costs. He has received nearly all of the payments for libraries who wanted to be billed in the current fiscal year and he will send Colby and Bates invoices on July 1st.
iii. 4th Quarter travel claims due May 31st
Matthew will be sending an email reminder that the 4th quarter travel claims are due May 31st. For Directors, this will include claims for today’s meeting and the March 28th Directors Council meeting.
e. IMLS Reporting
i. New IMLS Officer
Kathy Mitchell has replaced Chuck Thomas as the MSCS IMLS Officer. Other than sending her the request to use grant fees to pay for the LHR batchloading process (see above) Matthew has not had any contact with her.
f. MOU
i. Approval of updates to governance & duration content
Clem reported that both the MSCS Directors and Maine InfoNet Board had agreed that the language concerning the Executive Committee was too vague and could potentially result in smaller libraries being overrepresented in the Maine Shared Collections Cooperative. Clem had previously presented the revised MOU to both the Maine InfoNet Board and Project Team and they liked the language. The Project Team were presenting this revised version included in attendee’s packs for approval, so it can be submitted to the Director’s respective provosts and boards.
Barbara asked whether the Maine Shared Collection Cooperative Board of Directors should be selected by the Maine InfoNet Executive Board, or the whole Board. The Directors agreed that it should remain the Executive Board because it would streamline the decision-making process.
Also included in the revised version being presented was a change to the wording from “Libraries agree to retain material through December 31, 2027” to “Libraries agree to retain material from 15 years of date of signing”. This is to make the period less time sensitive because expiration dates will change when commitments are made in the future.
The Directors approved this version of the MOU on the proviso that a ‘clean’ version (without mention of draft or track changes) is created and that a place for signatures is added. Once Matthew has done this he will send the final version to the Directors for them to get it signed.
Gene commented that the MOU should be signed by at least one institution before retention commitments are disclosed. The Directors agreed that the disclosure should be delayed until this is done.
g. Marketing
i. Articles – Maine Policy Review & Bowdoin Sun
The Maine Policy Review featuring the MSCS sidebar had been published Matthew also thanked Judy for sending him a copy of a nice article on MSCS in the Bowdoin Sun publication.
ii. MSCS inclusion in ACRL Environmental Scan
MSCS was included in ACRL environmental scan section “Radical Collaboration in Large Regional Print Repositories” alongside some pretty illustrious company.
iii. Library Journal mentions & monitoring
MSCS was included in a Library Journal editorial piece on shared print and in the LJ Info Docket, which included a link to the SCS Preliminary Analysis slides. Matthew commented that this shows LJ is monitoring MSCS activities. Most of the MSCS mentions in various news feeds probably originate from the original LJ article.
iv. Increased website traffic & Slideshare views
MSCS publication features have resulted in an increase in MSCS website hits and views of MSCS representative presentations on SlideShare.
3. Conferences & Events
a. Maine Larger Libraries meeting – Clem update presentation feedback
Clem gave an update on MSCS activities at the Maine Larger Libraries meeting.
b. Timberline Conference, Mt. Hood, May 19th, 2013 – Sara presentation feedback
Sara presented on the work of MSCS at the Timberline Conference.
c. Planned MSCS presentations & reports
i. Library Journal Data Series Webcast, June 6th, 2013 – Matthew presenting
Matthew is part of a LJ webcast panel concerning library data analysis on June 6th. He has submitted slides for his presentation tilted “Using data in collaboration: Experiences from the Maine Shared Collections Strategy”. Matthew will be discussing how MSCS have used data in collections analysis work with SCS. Also on the panel are two other presenters who are discussing their use of the product Collection HQ. Sarah Campbell commented that Collection HQ is used by public libraries. Matthew responded that, looking at the slides from his fellow presenters. it appears to be used in individual library collections analysis rather than group.
ii. ALA Annual ALCTS Preconference, Chicago, June 27th, 2013 – Clem, Matthew & Sara presenting
Matthew, Clem and Sara will be presenting at the ALA Annual ALCTS Preconference being organized by Rick Lugg.
iii. ALA Annual Print Archive Network, Chicago, June 28th, 2013 – Clem presenting & submit MSCS update report
Matthew reported that Bob Kieft has asked Clem to report on MSCS work as part of the New England Region along with (Margaret Maes (LIPA/NELLCO), Ken Peterson (Harvard) and Jay Schafer (UMass Amherst) at the Print Archive Network (PAN) session.
Matthew will also submit an adapted version of the Advisory Board report to PAN for the MSCS update report.
iv. IFLA Annual Conference Acquisitions & Collection Development Section, Singapore, August 19, 2013 – Paper submitted
Matthew submitted his and Clem’s IFLA paper in time to meet the May 1st translation deadline.
v. NELA Annual Conference, Portland, October 21st, 2013 – Submitted session plan
Matthew reported that he had submitted his and Deb’s session plan for their NELA presentation.
d. Proposed MSCS papers
i. Charleston Conference – Deb/Matthew to submit paper
The Charleston Conference has announced their call for papers for their 2013 Conference with the deadline in July. Matthew and Deb will submit a paper for consideration.
e. Date of next Directors Council Meeting
Matthew will send around a Doodle Poll for choices for the date and time of the next MSCS Directors Council Meeting.
The Directors and Advisory Board thanked Matthew for ensuring MSCS is such a well-documented and publicized project.