MSCS website<\/a>.<\/p>\nBob Kieft had sent some comments\/questions regarding the report, which Matthew has tried to answer. Matthew asked the Project Team\u2019s opinion on Bob\u2019s following comments\/questions:<\/p>\n
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cRemains interesting that scarcity in ME is insufficient to retain\u201d<\/p>\n
Deb commented that MSCS had the data for this (from SCS), but it wasn\u2019t used in the retention criteria. Clem commented that because so few libraries in Maine are OCLC members it is not a true reflection of rarity. The Project Team agreed that because the MSCS libraries between them account for the a large percentage of the titles in Maine, when MSCS looked at rare titles in the MSCS group (1-2 titles held across the group) by default this also meant rare in Maine.<\/p>\n
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Why MSCS came to the decisions to use specific usage ranges to decide how many holdings to retain across the group in step two.<\/p>\n
\nMatthew asked if this was because MSCS equates usage with importance. James commented that past usage indicates that a title is more likely to have future usage. Barbara commented that if a title is used a lot it means more copies are needed across the group.<\/p>\n
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Regarding journals\/serials whether the AAS may have artifactual value.\n<\/p>\n
Clem responded that local copies of 19th century periodical titles the American Antiquarian Society Historical Periodicals has preserved digitally might indeed have artifactual value, and MSCS libraries may opt to CTR their AAS titles as a result – but MSCS will not require it. The Project Team agreed that most libraries would retain 19th century material anyway, even if it hadn\u2019t been assigned a CTR.<\/p>\n
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 And finally, whether the less than 50 holdings OCLC rule for journals\/serials is enough evidence? Or is it the right evidence given the notorious problems with holdings records in OCLC. Maybe use PAPR, WEST, ASERL?<\/p>\n
\nThe Project Team agreed that holdings information in OCLC is patchy because not all libraries add detailed information, but that comparing with OCLC had been a straightforward (and established) way of looking at duplication. Deb suggested that perhaps MSCS should look in more detail at the holdings information in OCLC.<\/em><\/p>\nThe Project Team discussed how both PAPR and WEST provide more explicit holding information.<\/p>\n
Matthew commented that one of the reasons MSCS had just looked at OCLC holdings was that after contracting with SCS for monograph collection analysis the project didn\u2019t have the significant financial resources required to contract with CRL to use their PAPR collection analysis tool for journals and serials, and as a result had to conduct more manual analysis<\/p>\n
The Project Team agreed that Sara should make some preliminary investigations into PAPR (including WEST retention commitment) and how easily comparisons could be made with MSCS titles.<\/em><\/p>\n ii. \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Stipends due in 2013<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/strong>Matthew proposes to pay the Advisory Board their stipends (for grant year 3) in January 2014.<\/p>\nc. \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0IMLS reports<\/strong><\/p>\n i. \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Reminder sent to ORPS re. financial report due<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/strong>Matthew sent a reminder to the UMaine\u2019s Office of Research & Sponsored Programs regarding the IMLS financial report due by the end of the year, but he had not received a response.<\/p>\nThe Project Team agreed that Matthew should send another reminder to ensure the report is submitted on time.<\/em><\/p>\n ii. \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Comments re. MR draft of IMLS Performance Report<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew had circulated prior to the meeting a draft copy of the IMLS Performance Report, he asked the Project Team to add any comments to the report by Friday December 13th because he wants to submit it to ORSP next week, so they have plenty of time to submit it to IMLS.<\/p>\n
Matthew commented that ideally the report should be 5 pages not the 6 it is currently, so he would welcome suggested reductions.<\/p>\n
d.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Budget<\/strong><\/p>\ni. \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Grant extension request update<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew received the good news last week that IMLS had approved MSCS\u2019s no-cost grant extension request. Matthew commented that Arlene Russell from ORSP had been very helpful in communicating with IMLS on behalf of MSCS.<\/p>\n
ii. \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Budget vs. actual spending update<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/strong>Matthew commented that now MSCS know the grant has been extended; it can now start planning in more earnest at how much funds are available in the extended period. Matthew reported that based on his current estimates for projected spending, MSCS we will have $3,019.09 remaining after taking out known expenditure, which includes the Facilities & Administrative (F&A) costs UMaine charges the grant. Matthew clarified some of the spending lines:<\/p>\n\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 There are funds encumbered for Sara Amato\u2019s systems work, which Matthew proposed should remain set aside. Based on current rates of spending the funds will last until approx. August 2014.<\/p>\n
The Project Team agreed that these funds should remain allocated to Sara\u2019s work. Sara confirmed that she is willing and able to work on MSCS until funds are exhausted.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Include in the projected expenditure were the costs of OCLC batch loading Local Holding Records which had been mistakenly excluded from previous estimates. Matthew had asked Bill Carney to ensure the bill was included as a separate invoice to UMaine who would then bill MSCS, but UMaine haven\u2019t received an invoice for this, so Deb has contacted OCLC to see whether this charge was billed to UMaine\u2019s OCLC account. Matthew commented that if UMaine hadn\u2019t been billed for the total amount it might instead have been divided and added to the other MSCS partner libraries\u2019 bills. Matthew asked the Project Team whether in this case he should initiate a process for the libraries to claim back the funds from MSCS.<\/p>\n
The Project Team agreed that if the batch loading fee was included as part of UMaine\u2019s bill then they should bill MSCS for the costs, but if it was split between the MSCS partners it would not be worth the effort to reimburse the libraries for such a small amount.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Also included in the projected expenditure were some (not all) ALA Annual Conference 2014 costs which includes: travel and expenses for Matthew, one hotel night for Barbara (MLA will pay other costs), and costs for organizing the shared print session (see below) which were based on prices from previous PAN sessions (from Marie Waltz). Matthew commented that based on an email he received from ORSP it appears that F&A costs doesn\u2019t apply to \u201coffsite facility rental\u201d, so hopefully ALA meeting room and audiovisual fees will be exempt, which would give MSCS an extra $800. Clem and James confirmed that they would not need to use grant funds to pay for their attendance at ALA. Matthew asked whether grant funds should be used to pay for the costs of Deb and Sara attending the conference–even if they are not presenting.<\/p>\n
The Project Team agreed that both Deb and Sara should attend ALA Annual 2014 and that grant funds will be used to cover their attendance costs.<\/em><\/p>\niii. \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0National end of project event planning \u2013 feedback from CRL re. prospectus, agenda & speakers and MSCS representative\u2019s attendance<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/strong>Matthew sent Marie Waltz from the Center for Research Libraries (CRL) the prospectus for the ALA Annual 2014 MSCS\/CRL shared print event. Marie sent Matthew some proposed changes which he presented to the Project Team. Marie wanted to make it clear that this event is not a PAN meeting but instead a meeting that is taking the place of PAN. CRL will hold a brief PAN meeting with some updates at the beginning of the meeting in order to have time for any recent news that informs the group. Marie also wanted to check that attendees can attend on the day without registering (like they do currently for PAN events) Matthew said he couldn\u2019t see this being a problem.<\/p>\nMatthew commented that the Project Team still needs to:<\/p>\n
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Decide how long the event should last?
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Turn the prospectus into an actual agenda
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Decide whom we want to speak, including a keynote?
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Whom from MSCS needs to attend and present?
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Whether we want vendor sponsors and if so who?
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Decide how to handle registration<\/p>\n
\nThe Project Team agreed that the event should start at 10 am (after a 15 minute break following the PAN session) and wrap up at 4 PM. There will be a one hour break for lunch, which won\u2019t be provided as part of the event. Clem commented that this was in keeping with most other pre-conference events. Therefore in total there would be five hours to fill in the agenda.<\/em><\/p>\nThe Project Team debated the importance of having a keynote speaker to attract attendees (regular PAN session approx. 100 attendees) and after debating a number of potential keynote presenters (and speaking fee costs) the Project Team agreed that Matthew should approach Emily Stambaugh (WEST Shared Print Manager) to be a presenter. Emily has shown herself to be an expert in the shared print universe and Matthew and Clem were impressed with her presentation at the recent OCLC webinar \u201cGetting off the Island: Collaborating to Create Boundless Collections\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/em>The Project Team debated what should be on the agenda (using the subject ideas in the prospectus as the basis):<\/p>\n\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Willingness of libraries to rely on digital surrogate copies
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Role of public libraries in shared print
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ability to compare apples with apples in systems data
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Development of retention policies at scale
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Development of sustainable business models
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Move from local projects to regional and national projects
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Collection analysis tools and approaches
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 National and international perspectives on shared print<\/p>\n
The Project Team debated the idea of having international speakers and vendor sponsors to cover event costs. Matthew commented that both international speakers and vendor sponsors would add extra complications to the event process and that CRL had already expressed concerns about turning the event into a vendor showcase, which the Project Team agreed they also wanted to avoid. The Project Team debated some of the potential vendors like OCLC, III, and SCS. Barbara commented that she doubted vendors like SCS would be willing to cover the costs of bringing in international speakers. Clem commented that he always finds it interesting to hear from the different perspectives of those working in different environments such as the UK (for example, Ben Showers from the National Monograph Strategy) and Canada (for example, COPPUL).<\/p>\n
The Project Team also discussed the importance of having subjects that would be of interest to attendees (using the experiences of lessons learned from MSCS), and for it not to be just a passive experience. One subject discussed was the involvement of public libraries in shared print. In terms of presenters the pool is pretty limited because only MSCS have included public libraries in their efforts. Clem commented that most consortiums are split with separate ones for academic and public libraries. Although MSCS representatives will be involved the Project Team are keen for the event not to be dominated by MSCS, which is in keeping with Advisory Board recommendations. Deb commented that Constance Malpas has data on the importance of including public libraries in shared print initiatives. The Project Team went on to discuss how from an audience perspective most attendees will be from academic libraries.<\/p>\n
The Project Team agreed to invite specific vendors to speak at event, but not have them sponsor the session. The Project Team also agreed to produce a draft agenda for their January 8th, 2015 meeting, in time for Matthew to discuss it with Marie Waltz (and potential speakers) at ALA Midwinter.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/em>e.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0MSCC Sustainability<\/strong><\/p>\n i. \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Post-grant activities \u2013 feedback from Directors\u2019 Council meeting & planning ideas<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/strong>Matthew commented that there had been some interesting discussions regarding post-grant activities at the November 21st MSCS Directors\u2019 Council meeting and that it seems to him that MSCS needs to think about the following:<\/p>\nA.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0What are current MSCS libraries going to get out of MSCC?<\/p>\n
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Funds from fees of other libraries joining.
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The common good of retention commitments of \u201cnew\u201d unique\/interesting CTR titles not in the collections of MSCS libraries
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Funds and new items from role as \u201cCollection Builder\u201d. We would need to decide why another library would pay e.g. Bangor to take items they don\u2019t want to store.
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Annual analysis of >10 year old items (1 year each time).
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Possible HathiTrust custom collections project (Clem suggestion).<\/p>\n
B.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0MSCC will provide these services:<\/p>\n
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Insurance of knowing MSCS are retaining a title. We will have to appeal to libraries\u2019 desire to \u2018do the right thing\u2019 as MSCS are already retaining the title and will continue to make it accessible via ILL.
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Collection analysis to identify overlap with current members.
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Collection analysis for usage.<\/p>\n
Therefore:<\/p>\n
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 List of CTR candidates
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 List of titles readably weedable because:<\/p>\n
\no\u00a0\u00a0 Already CTR by MSCS
\no\u00a0\u00a0 Not met MSCS retention criteria<\/p>\n
Barbara agreed with Linda Lord\u2019s comments (from the Directors\u2019 Council meeting) that she can\u2019t see most Maine public libraries being willing or able to pay even a small fee to join MSCC. Matthew agreed that he was struggling to see the incentive of other libraries to join with the current activities discussed.<\/p>\n
Barbara went on to discuss the importance of getting long-term State of Maine legislative support for collection builders. Barbara would also like to have a formula that can be used to assign retention responsibilities in post-grant collection analysis without needing the support of collection analysis vendor. Matthew responded that the MSCS retention criteria could be used again.<\/p>\n
Deb commented that she would not support conducting collections analysis on an annual basis\u2014more like 5 years. Clem commented that the MSCC Collections and Operations Committee (to be formed) would already have a lot of work to do looking at retention reversals.<\/p>\n
Clem discussed the importance of ensuring public libraries continue to hold titles, so they are not lost from the collective Maine collection, especially as MSCS libraries rely on access to these titles via ILL. Clem asked James if Maine InfoNet could provide statistics for MSCS libraries borrowing from non-partner libraries. James responded that he will speak to Alisia Revitt (Maine InfoNet) about getting this done, but he thought it might be hard to get the figures for URSUS because there are both MSCS partners and non-partners in URSUS (compared to Colby, Bates & Bowdoin who are all MSCS partners).<\/p>\n
Deb commented that there was nothing stopping libraries doing their own collection analysis using a contracted systems librarian. A discussion then ensued regarding Maine InfoNet\u2019s role in MSCC.<\/p>\n
Clem believes there are probably only ten other Maine libraries that would be willing and able to pay a fee to have the insurance that MSCC are retaining materials that they can still access. Matthew asked whether MSCC could still be sustainable with 18 members.\u00a0 Clem responded that it depends on what current members would pay. Deb and Matthew both commented that there needs to be services provided in return for fees which haven\u2019t been defined.<\/p>\n
f. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Collection Analysis<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/strong> i. \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Review allocation estimates from SCS<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew presented the estimates he received from Andy Breeding (Sustainable Collection Services) for retention responsibility allocation based on the Colby, Bates and Bowdoin rules discussed at the November 18th Collection Development Committee meeting.<\/p>\n
The first spreadsheet Matthew presented included the allocation estimates he reported on at the November 21st MSCS Directors\u2019 Council meeting for titles in Retention Step Two (titles held by 3 or more MSCS libraries) that met the following criteria:<\/p>\n
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Publication Year < 2003
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 MSCS Institutions holding > 2
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Circulating Titles only
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 No Special collections
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 No HathiTrust Public Domain
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 No title-sets with zero aggregate uses
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 10+ U.S. Holdings<\/p>\n
Of the approximately 97,000 title-sets that the policy is to keep one title-holding (low usage titles) 97% are held by CBB with 63% held by Colby (61,000 titles). Bates and Bowdoin are split between them approximately 33,000, and the remainder between the other MSCS libraries is only approximately 2,700. For the Bates & Bowdoin and remaining allocations SCS used their “equitable” algorithm, where equity is defined as maintaining a constant ratio of CTR allocations to NFE allocations among libraries (which is equivalent to a constant ratio of retention commitments to in-scope titles). Andy also included allocation figures for title-sets that the policy is to keep two title-holdings (higher usage titles).<\/p>\n
Clem asked why the figures for \u2018Needs Further Examination\u201d title-holdings were so high in this spreadsheet. Matthew explained that this spreadsheet only included titles that met the above criteria because MSCS, at the time of the meeting, had not made a definitive decision on un-circulated titles. However, since the meeting the Collection Development Committee have also agreed that to be consistent with the first step analysis:<\/p>\n
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Two title-holdings of all local protected category title-sets.
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 All title-holdings where the specific edition is held in nine or fewer libraries in the U.S. (according to OCLC).
\n\u2022\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 All special collections\/archives copies and at least one accompanying circulating copy.<\/p>\n
Matthew commented that these decisions meant that MSCS would be retaining title-sets with zero circulations. Clem asked why this was the case? Matthew responded that to be consistent with Step One the above criteria was applied to all title-sets even those with zero circulations. Clem asked which titles would not receive a CTR? Matthew responded that those title-sets with zero circulation and not in a protected category, archives or special collections location and held by 10 or more libraries in OCLC would not receive a CTR.<\/p>\n
Matthew asked Andy to produce a revised spreadsheet to extend the allocation algorithm to apply to all categories of titles MSCS have now made retention decisions on. Matthew commented that the only remaining retention decision to be made is whether to not CTR any titles available as public domain in the HathiTrust. Deb responded that she thought MSCS would be consistent with Step One and let the other criteria take precedence and decide CTR status, which means that titles available as public domain in the HathiTrust will appear in both the CTR and not-CTR categories. Matthew noted that the current allocation figures are just estimates as understandably SCS won\u2019t run the algorithm properly until MSCS have reached final agreement. But Andy informed Matthew that the numbers are reasonable close and should only vary 10-15%.<\/p>\n
Clem commented that he was still confused about the allocation figures, but that he hoped at the MSCS Collections Development Committee it might become clearer. Deb commented that it might be a good idea to get Andy to show the Committee the usage figures spreadsheet before the allocation ones. Deb and Matthew will discuss whether to show the Committee both allocation spreadsheets, or just the revised one (to avoid confusion).<\/p>\n
ii. \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Journal analysis update \u2013 status of reviewed lists<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/strong>The only remaining filtered lists of CTR journal\/serial titles he is waiting for is from Toni Katz at Colby who has been tied up with the CBB merger. Toni is also going to look at a list of Bangor Theological Seminary\u2019s serial\/journal titles. Matthew has asked Toni to try to submit the list by the end of the week.<\/p>\nMatthew asked Sara whether her work in creating the merged CTR list was dependent on receiving all of the filtered lists. Sara responded that it isn\u2019t and in fact she has already begun doing some of the normalization required.<\/p>\n
Deb reported that she will have her comparisons for the \u2018not in vendor sets\u2019 Commitment To Retain (CTR) lists (which all libraries have submitted) completed before the December 23rd MSCS Collection Development meeting.<\/p>\n
iii. \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Access to SCS database<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/strong>Nothing to report.<\/p>\ng.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Loading & display of retention information in catalogs<\/strong><\/p>\ni. \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Local Catalog \u2013 loading updates & public display<\/strong><\/p>\nSara has now completed the loading of retention information for titles from Retention Step One (titles held by 1-2 MSCS partners).<\/p>\n
The wording of the OPAC \u2018MSCC\u2019 description (on the MSCS website) has been changed to reflect suggestions made at the November 21st MSCS Directors\u2019 Council meeting.<\/p>\n
ii. \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0OCLC WorldCat \u2013 batch loading process update<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/strong>Sara has successfully submitted a batch loading request to OCLC Batchload Services for Local Holding Record creation for all CTR titles in Retention Step One. Sara received a response to from OCLC that the \u201cLocal Holdings Record Updating Service has limited staffing and although we make every effort to complete these projects within 90 days, this is not guaranteed.\u201d<\/p>\nMathew contacted Bill Carney (OCLC Shared Print Community Liaison) to see if he could speak to someone at Batchload Services and explain how significant the load of these monograph retention commitment will be for shared print efforts. Bill responded that he will contact Batchload Services, but that the 90-day timeframe is a standard response that the team provides. The Project Team were disappointed at this news as they hoped OCLC would\u00a0\u00a0 have this work done sooner. However, since Bill\u2019s message Sara has been contacted by Batchload Services request, which she hopes is a sign that it will be processed quicker than the 90 days. Sara commented that since the request is all in the same format and part of an \u201congoing project\u201d it should be quicker. Matthew commented that checking the “ongoing project” box in the OCLC batchload order form also ensures MSCS is only charged once for the batch loading work.<\/p>\n
iii. \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0MaineCat<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/strong>No progress, as dependent on commitments being loaded first into OCLC (see above).<\/p>\n2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Conferences, Events & Meetings<\/strong><\/p>\n\u00a0a. \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0MSCS presentations & reports<\/strong><\/p>\n\u00a0 i. \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Charleston Conference – paper to be published<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/strong>Becky Albitz (Bates) has produced a draft paper (to go alongside the presentation she and Deb delivered) for publication in the Charleston proceedings. Deb and Matthew made edits and the paper was submitted formally on Monday December 9th.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\nii. \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Potential for IFLA Paper publication<\/strong><\/p>\nClem and Matthew haven\u2019t heard whether their paper will be published in the IFLA Journal. Clem asked Matthew to contact Julia Gelfand (IFLA Acquisitions and Collection Development Committee) to check on the status.<\/p>\n
iii. \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Timberline Conference – MSCS paper<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/strong>Sara still intends to submit a paper (before the end of December deadline) on the subject of collection analysis on a shoestring.<\/p>\n iv. \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0WebWise Conference, Baltimore, February 10 – 13, 2014 \u2013 MSCS attendance<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/strong>Matthew asked whether anyone else from the Project Team wanted to attend the IMLS WebWise Conference because MSCS are required by IMLS to send two attendees (Matthew is already attending). None of the Project Team are able to attend the conference. Therefore Matthew suggested that Alisia Revitt who has expressed interest in attending and whose new role as at Maine InfoNet, Library Systems Manager was named in the grant application attend instead.<\/p>\nThe Project Team agreed to send Alisia Revitt to WebWise with the grant paying her travel costs.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/em>b.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Northeast Regional Print Management Project \u2013 MR & CG updates<\/strong><\/p>\nMatthew reported that the Northeast Regional Print Management Journals & Serials Working Group\u2019s report with initial recommendations is due this week. The draft recommendations are heavily based on the WEST business model.<\/p>\n
c. \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Clem\u2019s discussions with Sero Consulting<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/strong>Clem reported that he had spoken to Owen Stephens from Sero Consulting about MSCS and shared print in general. Sero have been commissioned by Innovative Interfaces, Inc. (who are working on shared print projects in the UK) to produce a white paper on the subject of shared print.<\/p>\n3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Upcoming meetings<\/strong><\/p>\na. \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0December 23, Collection Development Committee Meeting, Miller Library<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/strong>Due to the number of MSCS Collection Development Committee members who can no longer attend this meeting the Project Team asked Matthew to cancel it. Matthew will notify attendees and rearrange it for another date in early January (with a snow day built in).<\/p>\nb.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0January 8, Project Team Meeting, Fogler Library<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/strong>Matthew reminded attendees that the next Project Team meeting will be back at the regular time of 2 PM.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Maine Shared Collections Strategy Project Team December 11, 2013 Fogler Library Study Room 8:30 \u2013 10:30 AM Attendees: Sara Amato (Skyped in), Clem Guthro, James Jackson…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"parent":8,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2048","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2048","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2048"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2048\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2054,"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2048\/revisions\/2054"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2048"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}