Maine Shared Collections Cooperative Executive Committee
December 21, 2023
1:00 pm – 2:00 pm
Attendees: Lori Fisher, Zachary Newell, Matthew Revitt, Kevin Smith, Ben Treat
Absent: Daisy Singh
- Takeaways from Program Assessment Survey
Matthew went over the results of the Program Assessment & Planning Survey that was distributed to MSCC libraries in the summer. Matthew was very pleased with the response rate: 33 out of 41 member libraries responded to the survey. Libraries that didn’t respond were: Eastern Maine Community College, Gardner PL, Lithgow PL, Patten Free PL, St Joseph’s College, Scarborough PL, and University of Maine at Presque Isle.
Overall, the goals of print preservation and ensuring access for local users of retained monograph titles remain important to MSCC members, even for those libraries who no longer feel able to continue retaining titles on behalf of MSCC themselves.
However, current record commitment levels are no longer sustainable. Most member libraries remain committed to MSCC and are willing to extend some (but not all) of their retention commitments. But there has been a shift in thinking that space and staffing constraints means that libraries can no longer retain materials at the levels they are currently at. Instead, there is a demand from most members that commitments not be renewed for certain categories of material that libraries are not willing to retain, predominantly: non-circulating materials, juvenile fiction and non-fiction, outdated materials, and those with little usage.
There is a need for greater flexibility in local collection management decision-making. Members stressed the need for more work on identifying and eliminating out-of-scope material to lessen the burden on libraries. This would allow for greater flexibility in local withdrawal projects that are an urgent priority for those libraries with space issues.
A positive from the survey is that MSCC commitments facilitate local withdrawal projects for monographs. The presence of a MSCC commitment for print monographs at another library has facilitated local deaccessioning work.
In terms of future work, more than half of the respondents indicated a willingness to participate in future MSCC collection analyses to identify potential future commitments. But two of the largest libraries were unlikely (UMaine & Bates). There was less support for libraries making additional MSCC commitments to monograph titles acquired after 2012 based on future MSCC collection analysis. 13 respondents were willing to make future commitments, but only in specific subject areas important to their library. 9 were unsure. And 3 were a no (Bates, Norway PL & Freeport PL).
Members overall are very satisfied with the MSCC program. But again, respondents were clear in their desire to remove retention commitments on certain categories of material was a strong theme throughout the survey.
There was consensus approval on the frequency and methods of member communication provided by MSCC.
Only 3 libraries would not continue retention commitments for any MSCC-designated titles. These were: Norway PL, Freeport PL, and Portland PL. Norway was not a surprise based on previous comments from their library and them having not reviewed their retention proposals before accepting them. Matthew was however surprised by Freeport’s response as they only have commitments to 51 titles and the vast majority of those are local Maine related titles.
In terms of next steps, Matthew plans to write up the results of the survey in a report that can be shared with the full membership and wider shared print community.
2. Potential Implications of PPL Not Renewing Commitments
Portland Public Library, as one of the founders of MSCC, and largest contributors of commitments (around 105,000 monograph titles and 700 serials and journals titles) not renewing any of the commitments would be the biggest challenge MSCC has faced to date, particularly for Bangor Public as the other largest public library.
Lori reported that she had briefly discussed Portland PL not renewing their commitments with Sarah Moore, the director of the library. Sarah had echoed comments in the survey from Sarah Skawinski that Portland (PPL) had space issues that MSCC exacerbated, and that PPL wanted greater flexibility when it comes to weeding. The EC commented on space issues at their own institutions. While Sarah and Lori had discussed the potential for the Maine State Library to take titles from PPL there hadn’t been a firm commitment from Lori for this happening. The MSL has its own local issues, with its renovations, that would make any potential move of materials problematic. Matthew commented that before any transfers work should be done first to remove commitments on titles that MSCC collectively agrees do not continue need to be retained, especially because so much of what PPL is retaining is not in the collection scope of MSL.
Kevin suggested that MSCC could consider looking at overlap with other shared print programs. Matthew confirmed this the Collections & Operations Committee have previously discussed running comparison between MSCC and other shared print programs to remove commitments on titles that are already widely committed. However, the ability to do this work is dependent on having access to the data from other programs and tools to support the analysis.
Ben commented that PPL leaving MSCC would likely have the greatest impact on Bangor PL (BPL), as the other large public library in MSCC, with a significant collection of fiction. As such Ben had spoken with Sarah Moore about the potential of PPL leaving MSCC and that Sarah had reported half of their MSCC commitments don’t circulate. PPL also had issues with the amount of juvenile fiction and non-fiction they are being asked to retain. Ben felt there were also some misunderstandings at PPL about the process of removing MSCC commitments, with staff not being aware of situations (e.g., when books are found to be out of scope and/or damaged beyond repair) when it’s fine to remove commitments. There seemed to be a misunderstanding (that was shared at BPL before Ben arrived) about staff not being able to remove commitments for any reason. Bangor have since worked with Matthew on clarifying when it’s acceptable to remove a commitment and have implemented this into their workflow.
Matthew asked the EC whether they should meet with Sarah Moore to discuss PPL decision to depart.
Ben felt there are some concrete steps MSCC could take, such as agreeing that commitments can be removed on non-circulating items, that might alleviate some of the concerns PPL has with MSCC. Lori agreed with Ben that before meeting with Sarah the EC needed to have specifics for her including deciding where to give. The EC would also need to decide whether the meeting would just be at the director’s level, or if other library staff should attend.
Action Item: Matthew will work on removing out of scope material for Bangor PL and present the results to the EC and Sarah Moore to highlight concrete steps that can be taken to remove material not appropriate for retention. The EC further agreed that the meeting with Sarah will be for directors only.
3. Plans for Reviewing Commitments
The Collections & Operations Committee has continued to have conversations around reviewing MSCC commitments in preparation for their initial expiration in five years. Primarily looking at what categories of material don’t need their commitments renewed.
There is consensus among the members of the Collections & Operations Committee that MSCC should not renew commitments for special collections and other non-circulating materials and those items that haven’t circulated. Removing commitments on these titles will be relatively straightforward.
Action Item: The EC approved that titles held in special collections locations will not have their MSCC commitments renewed as libraries will likely retain these titles regardless of a commitment.
The EC felt there needed to be more discussion/nuance regarding eliminating lower circulating titles from retention consideration. Ben commented on items that haven’t circulated in years coming back into popularity and demand again. Kevin felt Colby would look at the era of the circulating items first as well. Ben went on to discuss the potential of shrinking MSCC for only specific territories of collections, but recognized doing this in practice would be difficult.
Kevin reported that a frustration for Colby was commitments to print journals that take up significant amounts of space. But overall, Kevin was not sure of the effect of MSCC on Colby’s space issues.
In terms of removing commitments on outdated materials and manuals and guides with commitments, Matthew in his work for the EAST program developed a tips document for libraries reviewing their retention proposals to identify and eliminate out of scope material.
The document includes certain terms like “introduction to” that commonly feature in the titles of guides and manuals, subject classes like for IT (need to translate to Dewey) for materials that quickly become dated, and some publishers whose works are frequently out of scope. It’s not going to help MSCC with fiction which is more subjective. But feedback on the document from EAST libraries has been good.
Using the Tips Document to review Bates commitments had resulted in18,482 items being identified as not retention worthy, about 9% of their total commitments. Although the process was extremely labor intensive, Matthew reported that he’d learned important lessons from the Bates review that will make it easier next time around. Also, Krystie Wilfong at Bates is going to use the work to run some more look ups in Alma Analytics, including for Bowdoin and Colby which will hopefully make the process run a lot smoother.
Action Item: Matthew will run similar comparisons for Bangor Public Library & Windham Public Library to identify material that isn’t appropriate for MSCC retention.
4. Partnership for Shared Book Collections & Rosemont merger
Conversations are still ongoing regarding a merger between the two shared print federations the Rosemont Shared Print Alliance and Partnership for Shared Book Collections to form a single shared print federation for the US and Canada.
The Center for Research Libraries recently hired a consultant to support the design of the new organization. Initial steps include finalizing a project plan and timeline and defining immediate next steps for the Merger Implementation Task Force work. A proposal for creating a new, merged organization to coordinate shared print retention activities will be finalized in the summer of 2024.