Maine Shared Collections Strategy Project Team
February 6, 2014
Fogler Library Conference Room
10:00 AM – 12:00 PM
Attendees: Clem Guthro, Barbara McDade, Matthew Revitt, Deb Rollins
Absentees: Sara Amato, James Jackson Sanborn
1. Project Updates
a. HathiTrust/Google Books & POD
i. Loading records into Solar update – reloads, merging records issue & finding new home for records
Sara has completed loading all HathiTrust records. Matthew used this as an opportunity to send another message about the Print-On-Demand and Ebook-On-Demand services on the MELIBS, URSUS and Maine Academic Librarians listservs. Matthew also tweeted about it, which resulted in retweets and positive comments from Lizanne Payne and Lorcan Dempsey (OCLC) amongst others. Matthew also posted the news on the MSCS website and had Gretchen Gfeller post it on the UMaine Fogler Library Facebook page.
Deb commented that Sara needs to document the load process for when Maine InfoNet take over responsibility for it. Matthew responded that Sara already had this on her to do list, but that the process will likely change once Solar has been replaced and the records have a new home. Deb reported that she had recently met with Richard Hollinger, UMaine head of Special Collections who mentioned that he’d really like to get records for public domain HathiTrust Maine-related titles into URSUS (see below). A Project Team discussion then ensued regarding how URSUS could potentially be the future home of all the records and whether users prefer to search for items in local catalogs or MaineCat.
Sara has been tying up some loose ends with the load, including reloading some of the earlier HathiTrust records to get title level tracking. Sara ran into an issue in MaineCat where approx. 5,000 HathiTrust records merged (not overridden) on 020/022 fields with an existing record. See examples one and two. Sara noted that a lot of the titles affected are journals with older holdings in HathiTrust. Also, lots of gov docs; see example. James had commented to Matthew that he wasn’t concerned about this happening and it would go away when Solar does. Matthew asked the Project Team whether they actually saw this as an issue, or whether it could be useful for users to see in one record both the print and e-copies available and have a choice which one to request.
The Project Team agreed that the records merging is actually a positive occurrence. Matthew will speak to Sara and James about whether once Solar has been replaced as the record’s home it will be possible to recreate the mergers and have everything display this way, or whether it just for journals.
ii. Figures for EOD/POD hits
Matthew presented the latest Google Analytics data for clicks to the HathiTrust, Google Books and POD Request form links in MaineCat:
Matthew has asked Tim Pellett (Maine InfoNet) to filter his IP address and Sara’s from the figures, as it’s obvious that MSCS internal traffic had distorted the results, particularly the title level tracking.
iii. POD requests update – increase in requests & survey responses
Since the last Project Team meeting, Matthew (via Deb) received five POD requests for an interesting range of titles.
● ‘The Christian Defence’
● ‘The steamboats of lake George, 1817 to 1932’
Post-announcement on MELIBS, etc. on Jan 29 MSCS received three other requests:
● ‘Broom-corn and brooms : A treatise on raising broom-corn and making brooms, on a small or large scale’
● ‘Barefoot days’
● ‘The reverend doctor and his doctor daughter’
Four of the five requests were all HathiTrust partner-only downloads, with no Google Books copies available, so Matthew had to go through Colby. The titles didn’t have links in HathiTrust to purchase a copy, but Matthew checked and there were copies on Amazon for all except the book on Lake George. There were also copies available at other libraries outside of Maine, which you could see in HathiTrust using the find in library option.
MSCS also received a request for:
● ‘The Life and Times of Sir Peter Carew’ which was available to download in Google Books, but Matthew couldn’t find a copy of in Amazon. Matthew commented that this title had a good example of a ‘Google fingers’ image.
It took a bit longer than anticipated for the UMaine Printing Service to deliver the printed copies; it was over a week, not the 3-4 working days predicted. This is likely a result of them being currently short-staffed. Matthew has spoken to them about billing and it should happen in the next few days; they don’t currently have an automated system.
The Project Team agreed that the amount of POD requests received so far was reasonable. Deb asked Matthew whether there was a mechanism in place that will turn off the service once the grant funds for the service are exhausted. Matthew responded that no such mechanism exists, but that removing the word ‘free’ from the request form and guidance would go part of the way, along with adding a financial transaction option on the request form. Clem commented that MSCS needs to develop a business model for the service to ensure it is sustainable.
A discussion then ensued regarding different business model options (which aren’t mutually exclusive) including:
● Directing patrons to ILL options and patrons and libraries to copies available for purchase from commercial sellers like Amazon. POD requests would be limited to only those titles not available in print through ILL or purchase.
Clem commented that getting smaller libraries’ opinions on the service might make more sense, as larger libraries are more likely to just purchase an item when one of its patrons wants it, but smaller libraries don’t have that option, so POD might be of more value to smaller libraries.
Clem commented that a difficulty with the POD process is that requests may be irregular in frequency, which makes them difficult to plan for in workflow.
● Rather than POD copies being sent directly to the requester the POD copies are first sent to Maine libraries who add the item to their collection so the title is available to borrow. Matthew commented that he doubted whether libraries would want to add to their collections the titles requested thus far and that some of the MSCS Directors had been against having to house the title, especially as some of them saw MSCS as way to de-accession titles–not accession more.
Deb responded that unless the service is free then the copies should be added to a library’s collection and that some of the titles requested so far she would have added to UMaine’s collection and then made them available for ILL. Matthew responded that there might be legal issues with libraries adding POD copies to their collection. Also, Jeremy York had warned that Google Books might not approve of the ILL of POD Google digitized copies. Although Matthew got the impression that this hadn’t been tested with Google Books, he didn’t want MSCS to be the one to do the testing. Clem commented that in the current business model the requester is required to retain the copy, but they might just want to borrow it.
● Who would pay for the POD service? Options discussed included:
o MSCS libraries contribute to the cost of the service (for a trial period of one year), so that it stays free of charge, which is more in line with the ethos of Maine libraries.
o One library administers and pays for the service.
o ARRC libraries pay for the service.
o Require requesters to pay for the cost of printing and shipping to recover costs, which would require a financial transaction that could go through the ‘middle man’ of University of Maine Fogler Library, or be directly handled by the UMaine Printing and Mailing Services. Deb was unsure whether the Printing and Mailing Services would want to deal with these requests directly.
o Adding fees on top of cost recovery was also discussed to assist the library to administer the service. Matthew commented that Jeremy York had mentioned that Google Books only approved of providing POD copies of their digitized copies, if the fees involved were solely for cost recovery.
Matthew agreed to speak to Joyce Rumery (Dean of Libraries, University of Maine) regarding whether UMaine would be interested in continuing to pay for and/or process POD requests beyond the grant test period. Matthew will also speak to the MSCS Directors’ Council about the different business model options.
Matthew sent the MSCS POD feedback survey to those requesters who had received their books and he will continue to do this on a monthly basis for new requesters. Matthew had some interesting feedback:
● The first request had been submitted directly by a library patron, but another was from Millinocket Library who thought it was going to be delivered via ILL so requested it on behalf of a patron, but when it arrived they didn’t know why it was there until Matthew sent the survey out. Matthew commented that he had put an address label on the envelope to show it came from Fogler, but in the future he will also insert a note with the book explaining why the item has been delivered.
● Both requesters preferred to read books in print and had made the request for recreational reading.
● One requester had identified some mis-scanned pages, but both were pleased with the overall print quality.
● If the service was no longer free both requesters would have preferred to request a library copy via MaineCat or Interlibrary Loan from their local library. Matthew commented that this was interesting because the titles were available via ILL from libraries outside of Maine. Clem commented that even from only two responses he believes there will be a trend toward library solutions.
● Neither requester would have been willing to pay more for a copy with print coloring, which Matthew commented was not surprising because the costs were significantly higher ($52 vs. $26 for a 200 page book)
● One responder had commented that MSCS should get an extended grant from Google to continue the service and that they would be willing to pay a reasonable fee to obtain an out of print limited edition from their local library.
iv. Building HathiTrust custom collections
Jeremy York has created a test HathiTrust Maine collection for existing items (MSCS libraries haven’t added their own items yet) that should have been based on criteria that Deb had sent him, but Deb reported that she was concerned that he had excluded “(Me.)“ in the subject and author fields from the search criteria. Jeremy said it was because they had too many false hits, but Deb found only a small number of false hits results from its inclusion, and its removal results in up to 2,100 items being omitted from the collection, which is a relatively large number considering the collection is currently only 6,042 titles.
Matthew commented that another issue with the test collection is that the search functionality does not work. This may be due to its test status, however.
Clem asked whether creating collections was something MSCS could do themselves. Deb and Matthew responded that yes, titles can be added individually to a collection, but in order to add a thousands of titles we need a batch process of some sort, with a method of regularly updating newly added HathiTrust titles as well. Sara had started the process using HathiTrust’s API, but she had run into technical issues which is why she had contacted Jeremy for assistance. Clem commented that other libraries must want to create their own collections in a similar manner. Deb responded that MSCS were pushing the barrier, since unlike other HathiTrust collection creators, MSCS were trying to create the collection of records as a batch, rather than adding titles to a collection one-by-one.
Deb has asked Sara to get back in contact with Jeremy to explain their concerns.
v. Membership update – UMaine’s progress
Matthew had received good news from James that after he and Joyce had spoken to Dick Thompson (UMaine CIO), UMaine IT and HathiTrust had begun discussing the testing required for scope elements that represent UMaine.
b. Budget
i. Budget vs. actual spending update
Matthew reported that not too much had changed since the last Project Team meeting. There had been an issue with Sara’s October payment not going through, so that only came out in January, but the January payment hadn’t gone through yet.
Other spending since the last meeting: $298 which is the part of Sara’s travel costs to the OCLC Developer House that MSCS agreed to pay. Also included is registration and flights for Alisia Revitt (Maine InfoNet) to attend WebWise. And for ALA Annual there is Deb’s registration and Sara’s flights. Matthew submitted his claims for ALA Midwinter and advance Annual costs, but they haven’t gone through yet. Matthew also removed the expenses for Timberline because unfortunately Sara’s paper didn’t get accepted, so that put $436 back into the unallocated balance, which leaves MSCS with balance of $2,232.68 that remains unallocated which Matthew commented is such a relatively small number it might get eaten up by unanticipated expenses between now and the end of the grant.
MSCS still haven’t been billed for the OCLC batch loading, nor for RainStorm’s yearly service plan.
ii. National end of project event planning – agenda, location, registration, promotion & costs
Agenda & registration
Matthew reported that things have been progressing well with planning for MSCS’s ALA session. The agenda and session description have been approved by the Center for Research Libraries (CRL). Matthew added them to the MSCS website complete with a registration form, see here. So far there are approx. 25 registrants (including presenters and MSCS attendees), which Matthew thought was good and he was pleased to see some registrants hadn’t previously attended PAN forums. Matthew hoped that closer to the event and after he sent out further reminders more people would register and he anticipated drop-ins as well.
In terms of presenters, Matthew still needs to confirm the HathiTrust presenter, as he is waiting for the chair of their shared print initiative to be appointed. He is also waiting for Ben Bunnell from Google Books to get back to him regarding who from their team is available to present. Emily Stambaugh has agreed to be the keynote and was grateful for the stipend MSCS will be providing.
Matthew commented that although only Clem from MSCS will be presenting at the session he still wanted some MSCS involvement. So he thought it might be good if the Project Team introduced the presenters:
● Barbara – “Panel discussion: Multitype, Regional, National Approaches to Shared Print Collections”
● Sara – “How can digital collections support shared print initiatives?”
● Deb – “Group Discussion: To retain, or not retain, that is the question”
● James – “Keynote: Moving shared print to the network level”
The Project Team agreed to introduce the presenters at the event.
Matthew added a link to the session description detailing MSCS achievements. Matthew asked the Project Team to send him any edits.
Location
Matthew is waiting to hear back from ALA Housing after he submitted a request for meeting space. Once Matthew has the exact location confirmed, he will update the webpage and send an update to registrants. Matthew spoke to representatives from Housing at ALA Midwinter and they didn’t think he would have a problem with having the request approved. Matthew has contacted UNLV and told them MSCS were no longer interested in using their meeting space.
Clem commented that location will be very important to potential registrants.
Promotion
Matthew spoke about the session at the PAN forum and sent a message on their listserv about it, which resulted in a number of registrations. Matthew also mentioned the event in the posts he submitted to the MELIBS, URSUS & Academic Library listservs regarding EOD & POD. Matthew also tweeted about the event and added posts to the MSCS website and Fogler’s Facebook page. Matthew sent messages to various ALA interest groups and the Library Journal’s information docket. CRL are going to include details of the session in the message they send out about pre-ALA conferences.
Clem will also post information about the session on college listservs.
Matthew spoke to Marie Waltz about some of the logistical issues of the session and they agreed it would be best if CRL pay for the breakfast (because of IMLS rules regarding food) and MSCS pay for the room and AV equipment. There were a couple of lessons learned from Midwinter as the refreshments didn’t arrive and there were technical issues regarding the AV equipment.
c. MSCS remaining activities
A lot of MSCS’s current activities are coming to an end in terms of library staff‘s involvement. Sara will still have a lot of work to do including with filtering selected publishers from the Step 2 CTR lists and working on the disclosure of the retention commitments. But as Matthew mentioned at the January 14th Collection Development Commitee meeting MSCS have time between now and August to look at some issues that had previously been identified as post-grant activities. For the Collection Development Committee this will include:
● Develop guidelines that help MSCC member libraries determine whether they actually need to replace a missing CTR title; whether a new edition of a CTR title means a transfer of a CTR or an additional CTR, etc. (Deb has examples and will outline for the next collection meeting)
● For post-OCLC batch load period, develop procedures to add, transfer, and remove CTRs, either one-by-one or as a batch load, both in local catalogs and in OCLC
● Review Sara’s DIY collection analysis tool for possible applications post-grant (when MSCS no longer have the support of SCS)
● Use subject strengths data from SCS to look at collection building opportunities.
● ARRCs to look together at more consistent management of Maine-related magazines and newspapers that appear in the local protection category.
● Review reference material and whether MSCS would apply different rules to it; consider whether MSCS or ARRCs would create a comprehensive reference collection for Maine.
Clem said that now is a good time to disband the MSCS Collection Development Committee and form the MSCC Collections and Operations Committee to look at the sorts of issues detailed above and the transition to the post-grant period of MSCC. A discussion then ensued about how this group would need to be small to facilitate decisions, but that perhaps in the short-term there should still be a representative from each of the eight MSCS libraries as that’s not many people for a committee.
The Project Team agreed that Matthew should send an official request to Joyce asking her to call for the Maine InfoNet Board Executive Committee to appoint a Board of Directors of the Maine Shared Collections Cooperative whose first task would be to appoint a Collections and Operations Committee.
Matthew also asked if there were tasks the Project Team still think need to be looked at, or things they wanted to get out of the grant which they don’t think have been looked at based on their understanding of the grant’s objectives, or just areas of the project they would like to build upon:
● One possible suggestion is digitizing rare titles for resource sharing and preservation purposes. MSCS would need to define what is rare, e.g. titles where there are less than 10 library holding in OCLC (bearing in mind that this data is edition specific) and/or local protected titles.
Deb responded that she had been talking to Richard Hollinger, UMaineHead of Special Collections about digitizing a small subset of non-digitized Maine related items that are available in the public domain and adding them to the future Maine HathiTrust collection. Clem commented they will need to meet HathiTrust’s high digitization standards.
● Also, based on the MSCS work have libraries identified some titles which need to be removed from open stacks to closed collections e.g. special collections?
Deb commented that perhaps Sara could provide lists of titles that are rare in OCLC (less than 10 or even 30) that are in the stacks as Deb has already identified some items that should not be in open stacks. The list should also be run against the HathiTrust and only give titles not already digitized.
Clem commented that MSCS had achieved more than they had set out to do in the grant application. But both he and Barbara agreed that MSCS needs to now work on how MSCC is going to operate post-grant and attract new members.
d. MSCC Sustainability
i. Post-grant activities – review draft storage needs survey
The Project Team had asked Matthew at their last meeting to produce a survey to send out to Maine libraries to get data on their storage needs. Matthew produced a draft which he asked the Project Team to review.
The Project Team debated the purpose of the survey whether it was about storage needs as the current name suggests, or in fact was more about finding out whether libraries would be interested in joining the Maine Shared Collection Cooperative (MSCC). The Project Team agreed it should be more about the latter.
Matthew agreed to change the title of the survey to “Cooperative Collection Management”.
The Project Team discussed MSCC coordinating collection analysis activities across non-MSCS libraries in Maine and the potential for this to be supported by grant funds. Grant funds were seen as important because most Maine libraries would be not willing (or able) to fund this themselves and MSCS libraries would not be willing to cover the costs.
A discussion then ensued regarding whether, rather than conducting one-off library collection analyses, these should instead should be coordinated at the district level. Sara could be contracted to run reports to compare the districts’ libraries’ collections with MSCS commitments. The Project Team agreed that there is likely a lot of material within Maine which is not held by MSCS libraries but which should be retained and preserved.
Matthew agreed to add the question, “Do you see value in ARRC district-wide cooperative collection management?”
The Project Team discussed how there needs to be a mechanism for other libraries to join MSCC and concrete projects for them to be a part of, like collection analysis. Clem commented that perhaps MSCC activities could be one of the services libraries get and pay for when they join Maine InfoNet.
Clem commented that currently the survey implies that libraries are only interested in de-accessioning items when some might actually want to grow their collection.
Matthew agreed to add a question about whether libraries want to grow their collection.
e. Collection Analysis
i. Final allocation figures from SCS
The MSCS Collection Development Committee signed off on the retention allocation factors (for step 2 titles) that Matthew presented at the last Project Team meeting. Matthew spoke to Andy Breeding (Sustainable Collection Services) after the meeting to confirm what the Committee had agreed; particularly clarifying that MSCS weren’t going to apply special rules to the HathiTrust public domain titles. Andy has submitted the work request to his colleague Eric Breeding, who will run the rules for real on the step 2 titles. Eric is tied up with a couple of big jobs at the moment, but he hopes to provide Matthew with the final numbers and library lists for Sara to do her filtering and adding 583s by the end of February. Matthew mentioned to Andy that it would be good for MSCS to have the lists by the Directors’ meeting on February 24.
ii. Adding/removing retention statements guidance
Sara has produced and shared guidance for MSCS libraries to add and remove retention statements until the OCLC batch loading process has been completed. Matthew will be discussing with the Collection Development Committee at their next meeting developing a process for adding, transferring, and removing statements post the OCLC batch load. Deb will put together some examples for the meeting.
iii. USM de-accessioning surplus copies of CTR titles
Lanny Lumbert (USM) asked Sara and Matthew whether it was OK for USM to de-accession and remove retention commitments on surplus copies of CTR titles that were water damaged in their flood at Gorham. After reviewing the list of proposed items to be weeded Sara and Matthew gave Lanny the OK to weed the copies and remove the commitments in the local catalog as long as one copy was still retained. Matthew commented that he believes this is the first time a MSCS library has used the retention commitments to help them weed their collection, and it is a good example of one reason and one way MSCS commitments can be used for additional decision making on collections.
iv. Journal/serial/series analysis – filtered CTR lists update
Matthew has spreadsheet lists of received reviewed and filtered journal/serial/series titles that URSUS and Portland Public Library had to review.
Matthew only had one requested change to Deb’s merged ‘not in vendor set’ list from Joan Campbell (Bowdoin) who asked for the title ‘New Monthly Magazine’ to be removed as it is in the British Periodicals. Sara removed this from the list and Matthew has asked her to treat the list as the final version. Sara was surprised that the ‘New Monthly Magazine’ was in the list anyway because she had filtered it out of British Periodicals titles, but because it was just on ISSN comparison and there was no ISSN in the the Bowdoin record, so it slipped through.
The merged local protection list was signed off at the MSCS Collection Development meeting, so Sara can use it to start adding retention commitments in catalogs.
v. Access to SCS database
Nothing to report on this.
vi. Deferred access to OCLC Collection Evaluation update
Matthew spoke with Sara Randall, product manager for the OCLC Collection Evaluation tool, and Andy Noonan, a programmer at OCLC, about MSCS functional requirements for group access. Matthew used what MSCS had done with Sustainable Collection Services as the basis and mentioned that MSCS would want to use the tool in post-grant activities to compare MSCS commitments and holdings with other Maine libraries. Both Sara and Andy said it had been useful to hear MSCS requirements.
Matthew also discussed with Sara and Andy the consulting support SCS had provided MSCS, which of course OCLC would not be providing. Sara asked whether Matthew thought MSCS could have achieved what they had without SCS’s support. Matthew felt MSCS would not have been able to achieve what it had done in the grant period without SCS’s support. Matthew asked the Project Team for their thoughts. Deb agreed that MSCS would not have been able to do all the different data wrangling and reporting without SCS. Clem commented that it also helped that SCS had the experience of working with other shared print projects.
Sara informed Matthew that group functionality is likely to be fully available in the 3rd or 4th quarter of 2014. Matthew asked Sara to make the changes MSCS wanted made to the deferred access proposal Matthew had been sent by Sara’s predecessor Meghan Hopkins, so MSCS could have something in writing regarding the agreement for deferred access.
f. Loading & display of retention information in catalogs
i. Local Catalog – loading updates, review URSUS serials example & public display
Nothing to report on monographs until Matthew receives the Step 2 lists from SCS. But Sara has been working on adding retention statements for UMaine CTR journal/serial/series titles in URSUS which Matthew presented to the Project Team.
Matthew, Sara, Deb, and Sharon have been discussing the display and whether it could seem like there is a separate MSCC copy in an additional location somewhere. They had also discussed the fixed date range display and the possibility of libraries making commitments to new issues, which is a subject Matthew will bring up at the next MSCS Collection Development meeting.
Option 1:
Option 2:
Deb supported having ‘MSCS’ in the identity field (second option) because she felt it looked cleaner and because in reality, if a library has slated a title’s holdings as of 2014 for MSCC, they are probably going to continue to retain volumes received after that. Deb also felt it didn’t give the impression that a library has two runs of the stated volumes. However, Sharon felt that If libraries are only committed to holdings through 2013 and in some active record instances they will continue to build holdings that are not CTR, then to be fully accurate MSCS should use option one.
Clem suggested that Sara speak to WEST about what they had decided on for the display.
The Project Team agreed that the display options should be brought up at both the next URSUS Catalogers and MSCS Technical Services meetings.
ii. OCLC WorldCat – batch loading process update
Sara hasn’t heard anything from OCLC regarding her batch loading request.
iii. MaineCat – communications with III
James received a request from Innovative Interfaces, Inc. about MSCS’s proposed uses of the 583 field which Sara, Deb, and Clem had responded to.
g. Website
i. Increase in hits
On Monday 27th January after Matthew had sent out the messages about the MSCS ALA event and EOD/POD services, he saw the most hits he had seen to the MSCS website, 127 visits.
ii. Annual RainStorm support plan due
Matthew was surprised that he still hadn’t received an invoice from RainStorm for their annual support plan.
2. Conferences, Events & Meetings
a. MSCS presentations & reports
i. Charleston Conference paper publication
Deb has received a message from the Charleston Conference proceedings that the 2013 conference proceedings is not expected to be published until October 2014.
ii. Potential for IFLA paper publication
Matthew still hasn’t heard from Julia Gelfand about whether the IFLA Acquisitions and Collection Development Committee has decided which 2013 conference paper they will put forward to be published in the IFLA Journal.
iii. Timberline Conference – MSCS paper not accepted
Unfortunately Sara’s presentation paper for Timberline was not accepted.
b. Northeast Regional Print Management Project – MR & CG updates
The Journals & Serials Working Group (which Matthew is a member of) spoke last week to discuss phase 2 of the project which involves recommending governance and business model ideas which is interesting because it touches upon some of the issues MSCS have discussed for sustainability, cost factors, and post-grant activities. So far the Group are just looking at what other models are out there. The Group are waiting to hear from the Steering Committee regarding the recommendations made in phase 1.There is another meeting next week which Matthew will miss because of WebWise (see below), but he will be attending an in-person meeting in Boston on February 24th.
c. PAN Meeting, Philadelphia, January 23, 2014
Matthew gave short description of the MSCS ALA Annual session at the end of the PAN session.
There was a regional spotlight on California and project updates from the SCELC, CUS and CDL projects. And short updates on the FLARE project in Florida, Lyrasis and details of the planned CIC journals project which included some interesting work on subject analysis and resource sharing. They also promoted the CIC/OCLC event Clem is presenting at in March (see below).
Roger Schofield of Ithaka and Amy Wood from CRL had some interesting data on shared print agreements and the spread of commitments in PAPR by LC class. LC classes Q and T had the most commitments.
d. OCLC Developer House, Dublin, OH, February 3 – 7, 2014
Sara is currently attending the OCLC Developer House which is similar to a hacker’s camp, looking at coding and OCLC project ideas.
e. WebWise Conference, Baltimore, MD, February 10 – 12, 2014
Matthew and Alisia Revitt (Maine InfoNet) will be attending the WebWise conference next week (February 10 – 12) in Baltimore.
f. OCLC/CIC Regional Print Management event, Dublin, OH, March 27 – 28, 2014
Clem will be presenting at this OCLC/CIC Regional Print Management event in March.
3. Upcoming meetings
a. February 24, Directors’ Council Meeting, Miller Library
b. February 27, Collection Development Committee Meeting, Miller Library
Barbara will represent Bangor Public Library at the meeting. Clem will not be able to attend, but he booked the conference room for Matthew at Colby’s Miller Library.
c. March 12, Project Team Meeting, Fogler Library (Computer Lab)
Matthew reminded the Project Team that their next meeting will be in the computer lab not the conference room.