Maine Shared Collections Cooperative Collections and Operations Committee
April 10, 2025
3:00pm – 4:00pm
Attendees: Jeff Eastman, Patrick Layne, Tim Morton, Shiloh Parker, Matthew Revitt, Deb Rollins, Krystie Wilfong, Meg Gray, Ana Noriega, Sarah Skawinski
1. Updates on Migration of MSCC commitments from Sierra to Alma & Polaris (Dirigo Libraries)
Cason Snow, the principal cataloguer for the UMS, has completed a reclamation project to correct the MSCC statements following the migration from Sierra to Alma.
The Dirigo Libraries worked with Maine Infonet on migrating retention data from Sierra to Polaris. Committee members from Dirigo Libraries were unsure how that process had gone.
Action Item: Matthew will check with Maine InfoNet and representatives from the Dirigo Libraries on the status of the project to migrate MSCC retention data to Polaris.
2. Issue with MSCC commitments not flowing from Alma to MaineCat – Example 1 Title
The MSCC retention information isn’t flowing from Alma to MaineCat. Matthew has submitted a ticket to Maine InfoNet (and let Cason know) about the issue.
3. Issues with the display of CBB MSCC commitments in MaineCat – Example 2 Title
While the Colby, Bates, and Bowdoin commitments are flowing to MaineCat from Alma, the full retention note is not displaying in the way MSCC had previously agreed they should be. Matthew has submitted a ticket to Maine InfoNet about this issue and let Summer Unsinn (Bowdoin) and Cason (UMaine) know about it too. In response, Summer had let Matthew know that Alma item records do not support MARC fields – instead, each record utilizes MARC21 holdings, and item records in Alma mainly hold the barcode and any individual volume description (mostly used for serials and multi volume sets). When the CBB libraries send holdings to MaineCat, the 583 gets sent in the bib record, and the item information is sent in a 990 field in a separate process.
The only way the migration team could figure out to display the bib 583 is in that separate line in the Copies section. This is less than ideal, because:
- It’s confusing to look
- They use the 583 at their libraries for other legitimate purposes, like documentation of preservation actions and commitments to retain for other groups they’re members of.
Summer has asked if the CBB libraries could send *just* the 583 subfields u and z with our MaineCat data loads, as the MSCC 583s are the only ones that use them, but she hasn’t got a clear answer back from MIN. That would mean that that extra line would have only the clickable MSCC link, and 583 info that CBB wanted to remain local-only would not get sent out.
Summer also didn’t know if there’s any way to add MSCC information to the 990 item field and if that would replicate how MSCC notes look coming from Sierra libraries.
Matthew confirmed for Krystie the following: while the example he showed was from Bates the display issue was also happening with Colby and Bowdoin record; to date he’d only been speaking to Summer about the issues, not Sharon Saunders (Bates) and Colby staff; and that the issue was not a new one. Krystie was happy for Summer to remain the CBB representative for these discussions.
Action Item: Matthew will arrange a meeting with Maine InfoNet and with Summer to discuss solutions to the display issue.
Krystie and Ana will check with colleagues to learn more about the display issues and what work has been done to date. (Update: this is being resolved).
4. Reminder to Update MSCC Data in OCLC
Matthew reminded the Committee that when their libraries make changes to MSCC commitments, either adding or removing them, to please also update their holdings in OCLC.
Matthew confirmed for Patrick that if a book is withdrawn and the holdings removed from OCLC then that would take care of the retention statement. But in situations where only the MSCC commitment is removed, but the book is still kept in the library’s collection (so the OCLC holding will remain) then there is a process to remove the commitment information from OCLC which Matthew can send the instructions for.
5. Status of Review of MSCC Commitments & Next Steps
In preparation for the initial expiration of MSCC commitments in 2028, Matthew has worked with Bangor Public, Bates College, Minerva libraries, and the UMaine System libraries (except for UMaine Orono) on reviewing their commitments. Matthew wanted to make sure that other libraries get to a place where they feel comfortable with the titles they are extending commitments to.
Matthew thought it would be useful to take the temperature of the Committee to see where they were with reviewing MSCC commitments.
Starting with Krystie (Bates) and Meg and Patrick (BPL), Matthew asked if more work needed to be done before they’d feel comfortable renewing their MSCC commitments. Krystie would like for MSCC to consider how many copies are retained in the state and also have the flexibility to review their commitments title-by-title before deciding whether or not to retain. Bates also has a summer weeding project in the sciences that they hope to wrap up by the fall.
Meg reported that she’d not assessed MSCC commitments beyond the first big list and that BPL have about 26,000 commitments remaining. Some of BPL’s retained titles are in poor physical condition, but Meg would find it hard to imagine assessing physical condition title-by-title. With the ILS migration, MSCC just hasn’t been at the forefront of staff’s minds at BPL.
Similarly at the Maine State Library (MSL), Jeff reported that the ILS migration has been the priority, as have the effects of the recent funding cuts that resulted in staff layoffs, and the move back into the cultural building. The MSL is planning on doing some weeding this summer. Jeff is finding that often times when books are flagged to be outdated and in poor condition they are being kept because of a MSCC commitment. Jeff is maintaining a list of a couple of thousand titles that MSL would let go. Jeff emphasized that he believes in the goals of MSCC and expects that MSL will extend commitments on most of their titles.
Colby has not begun reviewing its commitments yet, but Ana would like Colby to no longer be the library of record. Colby retaining everything is not functional and they have the issue of overfull shelving. Ana would like to start the weeding on where there is overlap with what’s now of scope for MSCC. There is a planned weeding project at Colby next summer. Ana will be in touch with Matthew and the Committee about their weeding plans.
Tim confirmed that he’d like to review Bowdoin’s commitments and that he’s keeping a spreadsheet of titles he’d like to withdraw in 2028. Kystie asked that Committee members share information on what they are withdrawing so everyone can remove it.
The University of Southern Maine has not begun to review its commitments yet. Shiloh hasn’t got access to Alma Analytics yet, but using Krystie’s query other Alma libraries could produce the same report to flag out of scope material.
Action Item: Matthew and Krystie will work on ensuring that the query for flagging out of scope MSCC material can be shared and they will do a refresher on how it can be used.
Deb’s successor at the University of Maine can decide how they’d like to go about reviewing MSCC’s commitments.
Similarly to BPL and MSL, Portland Public Library’s main focus has been on the ILS migration. They’d hoped to remove titles before the migration. Staff are still very busy with the migration, but Sarah would like to review PPL’s commitments to flag out of scope material.
Action Item: Matthew will reach out to Sarah again in a few months for a list of titles with MSCC commitments (most likely this will be done in Sierra as more familiar to staff) that he will review and use to flag material that no longer needs to be retained for MSCC.
6. DR Retirement
Matthew and the Committee thanked Deb for her support of MSCC over the years and wished her a happy retirement.