Maine Shared Collections Cooperative Collections and Operations Committee

November 30, 2023

10:00 am – 11:00 am

Attendees: Jeff Eastman, Meg Gray, Patrick Layne, Tim Morton, Ana Noriega, Shiloh Parker, Matthew Revitt, Deb Rollins, Sarah Skawinski, Krystie Wilfong

1. Review of Existing MSCC 

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 (although some didn’t respond to all questions). 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. 

• Question 4: respondents were first asked about the importance of different MSCC objectives to their library. Matthew was pleased to see that overall members see the goals of MSCC as important to their libraries, apart from some of the serials and journals work perhaps not all members were aware of as only the founding members participated in this work. 

Matthew was pleasantly surprised that participating in shared at the national level was seen as important as it was, especially considering only Bowdoin and Colby currently participate in other shared print programs. Matthew and Tim confirmed for Ana that Bowdoin have joined EAST and have extended their MSCC commitment to the EAST program.

• Question 5 asked respondents about the same MSCC goals from the perspective of how well they thought MSCC is doing in achieving each of them. Again, responses were largely positive for this question, but worryingly there were 3 “not well” and 13 “not applicable” responses for space reclamation across monographs and serials and journals. 
• Question 6: The most likely scenario for their library after 2028, when the existing MSCC retention agreements end. Matthew commented that this was the most important question in the survey:
  • 16 libraries would continue retention commitment for all or most MSCC-designated titles
  • 11 libraries would continue retention commitment for some MSCC-designated titles
  • 3 libraries would not continue retention commitments for any MSCC-designated titles. 
  • 1 Don’t know
  • 2 Other.

There were some interesting comments regarding the importance of tailoring commitments to local collection priorities from the Maine State Library, lessening the retention burden from Bangor PL, one library commented on not having space issues, and another used retention commitments to get support for preservation work.

Portland Public Library was one of the three libraries who indicated they wouldn’t extend their commitments. Sarah Skawinski commented that her new director, Sarah Moore, is also in agreement that Portland PL will not be extending its MSCC commitments because MSCC adds so much work to their thinly stretched staff (especially during weeding projects) and eats into their budget enough to be more of a burden than a benefit. Also, Sarah S. questioned whether public libraries should be expected to retain materials, especially as there are so many titles at PPL that they would like to weed but can’t because of a MSCC commitment. Sarah S. confirmed that Portland PL is willing to keep its commitments in place until the expiration date, but just not extend them beyond that. One possible option being discussed by Sarah Moore and Lori Fisher is to transfer commitment to the Maine State Library. 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. 

In response to a question from Jeff regarding procedures for transferring items from a library departing MSCC, Matthew reported that when Thomas Memorial Library and Witherle had departed MSCC work had been done looking at overlap with other MSCC libraries, but this was not at the scale of work that would be required for PPL, who have far more commitments. 

Meg shared that Bangor PL also shares many of the same space constraints that Portland PL do and lack of flexibility in weeding materials (particularly those with zero circs), but remain committed to MSCC. Matthew will speak with the MSCC Executive Committee and Sarah Moore about how Portland not extending their commitments can be best arranged so as not to place too much of a burden on Bangor PL and MSL in particular. 

There might be options to speak with other shared programs, like EAST, to see if their libraries would be willing to take on commitments for titles MSCC decides are no longer needed. 

• Question 7: In terms of reasons why libraries might not extend their commitments:
  • Needing more local flexibility over collection management decisions came out top, with 12 responses
  • Followed by space concerns, with 11 responses
  • And then cost (4 responses), followed by lack of staff (3 responses) and no further benefits envisioned (3 responses)
  • There was 1 response for other programs met local needs

For others: Juvenile material came up as a concern, as it did in other places in the survey.There was push back about some materials not worth retaining, including those with zero circs. And not considering the completeness of a series.

• Question 8: For factors that might increase the likelihood of extending MSCC commitments beyond 2028.
  • Beyond not applicable (9 responses), only being asked to retain Maine specific holdings came out top (4 responses)
  • Followed by titles that have circed at their library (3 responses)
  • And reducing the number of copies being asked to retain (1 response)
• Question 9: Suggestions for categories of material respondents felt should have MSCC commitments removed on them included:
  • Non-circulating items (including special collections) came out top (9 responses)
  • Followed by juvenile non-fiction (5 responses) and then juvenile fiction (4 responses)
  • Others (5 responses) for manuals and reference material and outdated material like celebrity cookbooks and nursing texts.
• Question 10: For ways libraries have used either their own retention commitments or those of other MSCC member libraries, Matthew commented that he was really pleased to see that:
  • Almost half of the respondents had used commitments in deaccessioning work (22 responses)
  • Followed by transferring materials to another location (12 responses)
  • Purchasing for the collection (7 responses)
  • And then informing stakeholders of collection changes and library policy change (4 responses each)
  • Two others were: not purchasing for the collection and freed up from keeping marginal copies.
• Question 11: Which resource libraries check first to identify MSCC retention commitments made by other libraries.
  • Most libraries check their local ILS first (18 responses)
  • Followed by MaineCat (8 responses)
  • Only 1 respondent checking OCLC FirstSearch / WorldCat Discovery 
  • 2 responses for the MSCC database
  • And no one responded that they check OCLC subscription products and PAPR. Matthew commented that a takeaway from the survey was making more libraries aware of MSCC’s serials and journals work and that these commitments which are recorded in PAPR can be factored into local withdrawal decision-making. 
• Question 12: How likely a library would be to participate in future MSCC collection analyses to identify potential future commitments.
  • 14 libraries were very likely to participate in future MSCC collection analyzes to identify potential future commitments
  • 7 were somewhat likely to participate
  • 2 were somewhat unlikely
  • 4 were unlikely (including UMaine & Bates)
  • 2 were don’t know

Krystie confirmed that Bates can’t participate in any collection analysis at this time. Matthew felt it was concerning to see two of the larger libraries unlikely to participate in future analysis, but that there wouldn’t be any plans for a collection analysis of newer titles until the review of existing commitments had been completed.

• Question 13: What factor(s) would prevent a library from participating in future MSCC collection analyses.
  • Upfront costs of the collection analysis tool came out top as the reason (16 responses)
  • Staff time required for the process (13 responses)
  • Inability to take on additional retention commitments (7 responses)
  • Staff shortages (4 responses)
  • Other (2 responses)
  • Community/administration buy-in (1 response)
• Question 14: Willingness to make additional MSCC commitments to monograph titles acquired after 2012.
  • 13 willing to make additional MSCC commitments to monograph titles acquired after 2012 based on future MSCC collection analysis.
  • 9 unsure.
  • 3 willing to make future commitments, but only in specific subject areas important to their library.
  • 3 no 

Comments from Deb that UMaine probably only commit materials that have a higher use rate than past MSCC commitments tagged. And Jeff commented on MSL wanting commitments to be biased towards their own collections priorities. Plus, again, if digital copies are accessible online, we would feel less urgency to retain paper copies.

• Question 15: To what extent MSCC is factored into local decision making around withdrawals. 

Matthew was surprised that 4 respondents said that commitments from other libraries in their consortium didn’t impact their decision-making around withdrawals. And it seemed like commitments outside of the local consortium overall had more of an impact. Matthew felt that the diversity of the MSCC membership was evident in responses to factoring other shared print programs and digital collections as most MSCC public libraries would not have full access to these collections.

 

• Question 16: What approach(es) to future MSCC collection analysis libraries would prefer. There was a split in responses to this question:
  • Self-nomination of titles by institutions based on local collection strengths (13 responses).
  • Group collection analysis project every approximately 10-years (12 responses)
  • Group collection analysis project every approximately 5-years (10 responses)
  • Two others, regarding the extensive work already done to preserve legacy print materials, but that not everything ever printed is worth retaining forever. And that future efforts may need to focus on collective preservation of born-digital content, which will be a much different problem.
• Question 17: When determining a future monograph retention model for MSCC, libraries indicate the importance of the different criteria. The number of copies held within the group and usage history came out top. Matthew commented that as MSCC reviews existing commitments it was interesting to see commitments from other shared print programs rank as high as it did.

• Question 18: What additional formats/materials should MSCC consider as part of future retention efforts?
  • Cartographic material (maps, atlases) (11 responses)
  • Gov docs (10 responses)
  • Video recordings (all physical formats) (9 responses)
  • No Additional formats (9 responses)
  • Newspapers (8 responses)
  • Sound recordings (all physical formats) (7 responses)
  • Scores / sheet music (3 responses) 
  • 3 other responses:
    • Regarding fears that committing to retaining certain materials (sound, video) in all formats would overwhelm individual libraries if they lacked the ability to deaccession them.
    • And being in favor adding commitments to other materials if format was not part specified, i.e. okay to commit to keeping a newspaper title on paper OR film OR digital.
    • Two of the others were in favor of considering the retention of regional newspapers and 1 for also popular magazines.
  • Printed copies of materials published only in digital form (e.g. Open Access E-books) had 1 response.
• Question 19: Whether MSCC provides proactive, useful communications to the members.
  • 25 yes MSCC provides proactive, useful communications to members.
  • 0 for no.
  • 2 unsure.
  • 2 comments:
    • They just want the program to be in place and work as it is designed to do. Not needing or want a lot of communication.
    • Sometimes. Still learning.
• Question 20: Indicate the value of the different types of communication currently provided by MSCC. Matthew commented that he was pleased with the results of the previous two questions as it seemed to suggest the frequency of communications is sufficient to meet member needs. The responses to the usefulness of committee meetings need the caveat that most respondents are not members of a MSCC committee. 

• Question 21: Feedback on how MSCC can improve the usefulness of these documents for members.
  • One comment about making the list of reasons that a library can revoke/terminate a retention commitment should be made very visible on the web site to help with explaining this flexibility to people who say, “I need to leave the project because I can’t retain these things.”
• Question 22: Ways MSCC can improve its communication with members. The following comments were received:
  • “It would be great if there were PR materials to explain to non-participants and staff members WHY this is super important. During a meeting with an unnamed public library, I was shocked that they dominated the conversation with negative comments. They clearly did not understand why we are doing this and how they could make it work. It is unfortunate that former staff members still do not see the relevancy of this important undertaking.”
  • “We only think about it when it benefits us: a patron wants something not held locally, our copy is damaged.”
  • Communications going to multiple staff members at each library was another suggestion. 
  • “I know when I see an email from MSCC I should read it–unlike some other organizations that send so much you don’t know what is important and what is junk.”

Matthew commented that he can incorporate this feedback into future MSCC communications and updates to the MSCC website. 

• Question 23: Overall, how satisfied, or dissatisfied are libraries with MSCC:
  • 18 very satisfied
  • 5 neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
  • 4 slightly satisfied
  • 1 extremely dissatisfied

 

• Question 24: Barriers libraries encountered regarding participation or potential participation in MSCC.
  • 11 lack of space for retaining committed volumes
  • 10 no challenges in participating.
  • 3 local reluctance to participate
  • 2 insufficient local resources 
  • 2 submitting data for analysis or disclosure
  • Comments echoed earlier themes:
    • Regarding juvenile material. There needs to be a middle ground between retaining all the juvenile material (except for board books and superseded editions and the publisher list).
    • Subsequently finding retained items in poor condition.
    • Some staff are not aware/trained about the program preservation challenges in our environment.
    • Requirement to maintain random books in series that do not circulate locally but are still MSCC.

Matthew explained that the issue of libraries being asked to retain one off titles in a series when they want to weed out other titles in the series and/or only holds a couple of the titles in a given series and there are other libraries with a deeper run has come up before. But that it would be difficult to assign responsibility for series based on local needs and holdings depth at scale. Krystie commented that it may be something that would have to be decided on a case by case basis.

• Question 25: Anything MSCC could be doing or doing differently to achieve its mission. Comments included:
  • Again the issue with juvenile fiction and needing a clear vision of what we’re trying to retain in the juvenile realm, and we might even need to make that something where we frame positively what we do want to keep rather than framing negatively those few categories of juvenile literature that we *don’t* want to retain.
  • Positive PR on MELIBS?
  • A comment from Deb about not being able to replace items locally, due to both staffing and funding constraints. UMaine has thousands of MSCC retention titles that are no longer held, but most are unimportant to us in terms of using limited funds to buy more copies due solely to the MSCC designation. Deb wondered if a collective review could or should be performed on non-replaced MSCC items, to determine whether members can sanction non-replacement and removal of the retention commitment, or recommend that the group does desire replacement even if not important at the holding institution. (The other option being, wait until the retention period expires, and remove designations then).
  • Perhaps provide education on preservation techniques, challenges and solutions.
  • Check in more often about series titles and try to keep MSCC commitments to the same library as a whole.
  • We should periodically analyze the retained collection and refine our parameters. Like all things, we need to be sustainable and efficient.
• Question 26: How shared print generally and MSCC specifically figure in your strategic and operational planning. Comments included:
  • That “MSCC is somewhat of a burden, but it is a burden that moves in the same direction we are moving anyway. MSCC is also liberating, in a way, the same way ILL is liberating. There is comfort and space in knowing that other libraries will not only obtain but retain certain titles and that those titles will be available in the future. It frees us to acquire and deaccession more freely (except, obviously, for the titles we are committed to retaining).”
  • “We know that we’re going to have to continue to maintain an offsite storage facility at significant expense to us, and that we can’t weed our way out of that situation, nor can we redevelop that property for other purposes without finding another site to store this material.”
  • “MSCC is fantastic for weeding. I feel more confident removing titles.”
  • “MSCC has allowed some relief in knowing that when we withdraw certain materials, they have not been flagged by our local Maine state collective as critical to keep on behalf of our community. Thus MSCC helps to some extent with planning for space planning. Our collections librarian has noted MSCC commitments at other libraries have allowed the library to withdraw materials in small, targeted parts of the collection when needed. However, our own MSCC commitments to some non- or low-circulation materials we’d rather have the option to withdraw has hampered the same projects.”

Matthew felt this response really gets at both the positive and negative impact of MSCC on libraries.

• There were a couple of comments that MSCC doesn’t really effect us.
• One comment that “MSCC helps supplement contracting budget”.
• “We strive to acquire and retain local publications, our commitments to MSCC sustain this goal. We are challenged to provide a safe environment to preserve our collection, our commitments to MSCC bolster our argument for resources. When one of our items is damaged, we refer to MSCC to whether to replace it.”
• “It is not documented as a priority in our collection development policy or in our recent strategic planning results.” 
• “Space is very limited at this library, so MSCC has to be in strategic and operational planning documents so that it’s value is understood by all stakeholders.”
• “We consider MSCC designations during weeding projects.”

• Question 27: Additional feedback regarding: MSCC goals, MSCC membership, retention commitments, future library commitments and impacts, future growth of the MSCC collective collection, and communications?
  • “Bangor Public Library is generally very happy to be a part of MSCC and the leadership team wants to see the project succeed. There are some parts of our collection and our retention policies that we should take a harder look at before 2028, though.”
  • Another comment, “I am happy to help promote MSCC.”
  • “Perhaps an occasional reminder message that we should be mindful to fulfill our material retention commitments as part of the MSCC would be useful. It would remind administrators to remind their staff!”
  • “I don’t know if MSCC should take a lead role statewide in publicizing the challenges of preserving print resources in the age of climate change; but I would like to see more statewide initiatives and support for this increasing challenge.”
  • “While I believe in the mission and goals of MSCC, as a medium-size public library we place emphasis on usage first and foremost. It’s not working to our advantage locally to be committed to keeping titles that are no longer used, and we have little staff time to go through the process of deaccessioning (particularly for juvenile materials). Librarianship requires buy-in and support of bigger picture initiatives and values, but not at the cost of local control and usage. For us, the return on investment isn’t delivering.”
  • We had a very detailed comment that suggested that staff changes meant that MSCC was no longer a priority for them. And issues with being asked to retain out of date material and juvenile material. Another issue is staff time in checking each title to ensure it is on the shelf and if so what is the condition of the item. (short notice and required a significant amount of time.). 

In wrapping up, Matthew felt the survey showed that, except for 1 or 2 libraries, most members remain committed to MSCC and the principle of print preservation and are willing to extend some (but not all) of their commitments. But there has been a shift in thinking that we really can’t retain materials at the levels we are currently. And instead there is a demand that commitments be removed 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. So what is needed is more work to eliminate out of scope material to lessen the burden on libraries. 

There was general consensus that Matthew’s assessment of the survey results was correct. Deb commented that rather than the original goal of preserving materials there seemed to be more use of MSCC commitments to focus on withdrawing titles. 

Action Items: At their next meeting Matthew will have the Committee confirm categories of material it feels shouldn’t have their commitments extended. 

Matthew noted that some of these categories are easier to remove than others for instance eliminating special collections and other non-circulating materials from having their commitments renewed will be easy to do. So is juvenile material to a certain extent, but to Ben’s comment Matthew felt the Committee should have a conversation about goals with retaining this material and how extensive we want to be in removing commitments.

Matthew plans to write up the results of the survey in a report that can be shared with the Executive Committee, the full membership, and wider shared print community.

2. Possibility of Using EAST Tips Document

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 doc from EAST libraries has been good. 

Matthew asked for the Committees thoughts on exporting commitment lists for a sample of say 4 or 5 MSCC libraries representing different sizes and types and see if he can use the document to identify titles that can have their MSCC commitments removed and lessen the burden on libraries. 

Matthew confirmed for Deb that the document had not been used by EAST libraries to retroactively remove commitments, but instead new members had used it to reject titles from their retention proposals. However, EAST had done work to retroactively remove commitments for titles that would subsequently meet EAST’s definition of “ephemera”.

The feedback from the Committee was positive towards a pilot using the list. Krystie, Meg, Ana, Sarah, and Tim all expressed support and willingness to help with the work. Krystie commented that Alma Analytics should be able to help with this. 

Action Items: Matthew will reach out to Krystie regarding how Alma Analytics might be able to be used for this work. Matthew will then work on which libraries could be included in the pilot.  

 

3. HathiTrust Maine Collection Removed 

Deb reported in reviewing Fogler’s databases she noticed that the Maine Collection in the HathiTrust (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/mb?a=listcs;colltype=my-collections) was no longer showing. Deb wasn’t sure if this was a result of UMaine no longer being a member of the HathiTrust after the MSCS IMLS grant had ended. Deb wanted to let the Committee know in-case anyone else was using it. Deb wasn’t sure if the collection had been a snapshot in time because if it was that would likely mean it’s outdated by now. There is still the possibility of saving a canned search of anything with Maine in the subject, but it’s not the same as a collection that can be linked to. Deb confirmed for Matthew that other collections were still in there.

Action Items: Ana volunteered to look into this as Colby is still a member of the HathiTrust and might be something they could take over/update. 

4. Partnership for Shared Book Collections & Rosemont merger 

Didn’t get to in the meeting, but conversations are still ongoing regarding a merger between the two shared print federations Rosemont Shared Print Alliance and the Partnership for Shared Book Collections regarding a merger to form a single shared print federation for the US and Canada. 

5. Partnership/Rosemont guidance on recording commitments

Didn’t get to in the meeting, but a joint Partnership and Rosemont task force is reviewing the current metadata requirements for recording retention commitments and developing recommendations for changes to these guidelines. 

6. Next Meeting

The Committee is due to meet next in February. Matthew will send a Doodle Poll.