Maine Shared Collections Cooperative Collections and Operations Committee
September 12, 2016
Colby College, Miller Library, Conference Room
1:00 PM – 3:00 PM
Attendees: Deb Rollins, Matthew Revitt, Joan Campbell, Peggy O’Kane, Brian Damien, Ana Noriega, Evelyn Greenlaw, Susan MacArthur, Janet Roberts
Absentees: Patrick Layne, Cynthia Young
1. New Bates committee representative
Becky Albitz has left Bates College; Susan MacArthur will act as the interim Bates representative on the Committee until Becky’s successor is appointed.
Cynthia Young is willing to step down as the community college representative on the Committee. Matthew will speak with the Executive Committee about whether a replacement is required.
2. Retention commitment removal and transfer policy & procedures
a. Bates government documents withdrawals
Bates have decided to no longer be a regional repository for Maine State Documents. Sharon Saunders (Bates College) flagged titles which have MSCC retention commitments while identifying what Maine State Documents Bates owned. Since government documents were out of scope for MSCS Matthew informed Sharon that it was fine for Bates to withdrawal these titles and for the commitments to be removed. Bates is currently working with the Maine State Library on withdrawal options. Peggy reported that the Maine State Library is working on making Maine State Documents digitally accessible. Matthew will send Susan and Sharon guidance for removing MSCC commitments from OCLC Local Holding Records.
Joan asked Matthew to send her guidance for adding MSCC commitments in OCLC.
b. USM Franco Collection withdrawals
Janet attended the meeting to discuss an issue at University of Southern Maine regarding their Franco Collection. Janet reported the previous coordinator of the Franco Collection had pulled a fairly large pile of published works from the collection that didn’t really fit their mission and scope, hoping to eventually deaccession them. Although all of these titles have retention commitments some of these titles would only have received a commitment by virtue of them having a special collections location. A volunteer at USM looked up all those works in URSUS and noted their MSCC status at other libraries. Many of the titles are duplicated at other MSCC libraries, but Janet had not been aware that Minerva libraries are also members of MSCC, so it might be possible to have the commitments transferred to them.
The Committee discussed how the scale of the MSCS analysis had meant it hadn’t been feasible to carry out “quality control” of the titles being committed to retain, so all MSCS libraries had examples of titles they didn’t feel warranted a commitment.
The Committee agreed that Janet should send them a spreadsheet of MSCC designated Franco titles they want to discard.
Peggy reminded Janet that the Maine State Library will likely be willing to have any Maine related materials transferred to them. For any remaining titles where transfers can’t be agreed within URSUS and for those titles not owned by URSUS libraries Janet should use MaineCat to identify whether other MSCC libraries hold the titles. A spreadsheet of these titles should be sent to MSCC libraries to see if they would be willing to have the MSCC commitment transferred to them (Matthew can provide contact information). Peggy gave an example where MSCC member Northern Maine Community College could potentially be interested in some of the architectural titles USM is looking to withdraw. The Committee will review any remaining titles that commitment transfers can’t be agreed for.
c. Issues to report
Brian would like more children’s publishers added to the list of publishers whose works MSCC wouldn’t commit to retain. Portland Public have serious space issues that mean they need to start withdrawing titles before 2019. Brian discussed some examples of the types of titles they (and likely Bangor Public) would like to weed; Deb felt that Portland Public should be given a pass to weed such titles that are not in keeping with Portland’s collection management policy.
Brian agreed to work with staff at Portland Public on adding publishers to the following spreadsheet on the MSCC Google folder. The Committee agreed to review the list of publishers so Portland Public can begin withdrawing titles ASAP.
Matthew reported that one of lessons from his work on EAST is that MSCC will need to look at alternative spellings of publishers to capture the ones the Committee wants to exclude from receiving commitments.
The Committee discussed IT guides and consumer health titles as good examples of categories of titles that don’t warrant a retention commitment.
3. Review of existing retention commitments & 2019 group collection analysis planning
In preparation for the next round of MSCC group analysis in 2019 Matthew worked with technical services and systems staff at member libraries and Maine InfoNet to identify the number of titles likely to be included in the analysis.
The holdings numbers for print monograph items added greater than 12-31-2002 and less than 01-01-2009.
• Portland Public – 61,126 items
• CBB – 204,448 items
• URSUS – 280,000 items
• Minerva – 175,000 items (this was done on pub date, not acquisition because of data issues)
• TOTAL – 659,448 items
Matthew’s figures didn’t include the holdings of the three MSCC libraries that use Koha ILS (because Matthew doesn’t have access to the systems), but their holdings would only have a minimal effect on the total. The 2019 analysis will be on a much smaller scale than the MSCS grant analysis, so it might be possible to carry out more detailed reviews of the retention lists to flag titles that don’t warrant a long-term commitment. Matthew confirmed for Deb that for Portland Public, CBB, and URSUS the holding numbers will not change because MSCC will only be looking at titles added from 2003 to 2008. However, the figure for Minerva will increase as new libraries join MSCC.
The holdings data will also allow Matthew to get a better sense of the costs of collection analysis support. Matthew has asked Sara Amato to produce a cost estimate for collection analysis support which he hopes to have in time to discuss with the MSCC Executive Committee at their meeting in October. Matthew also used cost estimate data SCS provided for Eastern Academic Scholars’ Trust (EAST) work to estimate a ballpark figure for working with SCS which he will discuss with the Executive Committee. Deb questioned whether SCS would charge the per library fee if MSCC had extracted the data for them. Matthew believed SCS would charge the fee because the per library fee covers the costs of providing each library with access to their GreenGlass tool. SCS fees also cover the costs of data extract, normalization, holdings lookups, and data load into GreenGlass.
Another collection analysis tool on the market is Colorado Alliance’s Gold Rush. However for this product to be a viable option for MSCC it would need further development to include the ability to use OCLC holdings data and local usage data. Matthew will keep the Committee updated on discussions regarding collection analysis tools.
Matthew reviewed the preliminary decisions agreed at the Committee’s last meeting for the 2019 group analysis:
• Only include in the analysis titles published or added from 2003 to 2008.
• Print monographs only.
• Exclude specific publishers from the analysis.
• Exclude government documents.
• Consider raising the circulation threshold that triggered a retention commitment particularly because of differences between academic and public libraries on what is considered significant use.
• Rarity (based on OCLC holdings overlap data) will likely be factored into the retention criteria.
• Two holding commitments across the group might be sufficient.
• Unlikely to be willing to rely on digital surrogates from the HathiTrust.
• Couldn’t conceive a general rule that MSCC would be willing to rely on commitments from EAST.
Matthew clarified that MSCC libraries are only required to retain one copy of a title they have been allocated a commitment to retain. However, some titles are committed to retain at multiple MSCC libraries. There are also situations where different editions of a title are committed to retain. Deb felt there could be situations where it might be necessary to retain all holdings of a title, for example, Maine related titles.
Matthew confirmed for Peggy that post-grant MSCC libraries might be willing to take on a higher proportion of commitments in 2019, but it wouldn’t be possible to retrospectively reassign existing MSCC commitments.
The Committee discussed whether special collections locations should be excluded from the 2019 analysis. Ana commented on the barriers a special collections location would have on the ability for patrons of other libraries to access the material (e.g. in-house use only and limited opening hours) which would make it more difficult for libraries to rely on for access than for circulating materials. Matthew commented that EAST had decided to exclude special collections locations from the scope of their collection analysis because of the access issue. Peggy felt that having a retention rule for Maine related titles would mean many titles in special collections would receive a commitment anyway. An option for MSCC in 2019 is to not automatically assign retention commitments to special collections locations, but instead treat them like any other location and only retain titles stored there which meet the eventual MSCC retention model. Deb wondered whether collections like the Franco Collection and Osher Map Library should be excluded from the analysis because of issues seen with the existing commitments in these collections. The Committee agreed to revisit the question of including special collections locations in the 2019 collection analysis.
The Committee discussed relying on retention commitments from other shared print initiatives, particularly EAST. Joan commented that the MSCC commitments were made to protect the print legacy of Maine. Also, material retained by academic and research libraries outside of Maine would not be easily accessible to Maine public libraries. The consensus was that MSCC would not be willing to rely on commitments outside of Maine because of access restrictions and there not being a shared catalog.
The Committee didn’t believe it would be possible for MSCC to rely as a general rule on digital surrogates of titles in the HathiTrust primarily because only partner libraries have full download rights to titles in the digital collection. However, for one-off examples it might be possible to rely on a digital surrogate. Peggy commented on work the Digital Public Library of America (DPLA) are doing on opening up access to digital material. A discussion then ensued regarding UMaine’s decision to leave the HathiTrust which was primarily a result of budgetary considerations.
The Committee felt that they can’t envisage MSCC being able to rely on e-books as surrogates for the print copy. However, Joan felt the situation in 2019 could be totally different, so MSCC would need to look again at e-books as it begins the collection analysis. The next round of collection analysis will cover a period where libraries purchased fewer physical copies and more e-books, Deb felt it might be interesting to know the effect this had on the collective collection. Matthew commented that SCS’s GreenGlass tool now offers the ability to compare overlap between print and purchased electronic titles. Peggy reported that the Maine State Library will soon begin adding electronic titles to its Digital Commons site.
4. Project updates
a. MSCC collection analysis update
The MSCC collection analysis service is going well, 36 libraries have so far gone through the analysis process, with a total of 1,130,021 monograph titles being included in the analysis. There are also a handful of other Minerva libraries who Matthew hopes to work with over next few months, including Lewiston Public Library, which as one of the largest public libraries in the state Matthew was keen to recruit.
The overlap with Maine Shared Collections still remains high, on average 37% of the print monograph collections of the libraries Matthew has worked with have a MSCC retention commitment (including commitments from newer member libraries). On average 6,045 of those titles have 2 or fewer local circulations, so there’s been of plenty of weeding candidates for libraries. Matthew confirmed for Joan that the main benefit libraries saw in participating was being provided with a list of titles they could withdraw safe in the knowledge that they being retained by another Maine library. Also, librarians like to be seen doing their part preserving titles and being part of a group like MSCC.
The number of retention commitment candidates remains low. On average only 0.96% of a library’s collections have no Maine holdings in OCLC and 0.62% percentage of titles have 10 or fewer holdings in OCLC. MSCC has improved the accuracy of its matching so there have been fewer false unique hits which means the averages for uniqueness have decreased. Issues with the quality of holdings data remain; Sara has to find correct OCLC and ISBN numbers. Libraries are grateful that MSCC provides them with spreadsheets containing corrected numbers. Matthew still hopes that Minerva will take a system-wide approach to the data cleanup because individual libraries lack the resources to correct the records.
Matthew confirmed for Deb that libraries are charged a one-time fee to cover the costs of the collection analysis, but there are no membership fees.
b. New MSCC member libraries update
Of the 36 libraries that have gone through the analysis, 26 have so far joined MSCC and have collectively agreed to retain approximately 1,500 titles. Most of the titles being retained are local histories and fiction with local settings. Kennebec County Community College are the only library that have gone through the analysis process, but have indicated they are unable to join MSCC. However, some libraries are yet to agree their retention commitments or have the MSCC MOU signed.
c. 583 issues – MaineCat display implementation & Colby EAST commitments
Innovative setup the flow of retention information in the MARC 583 Field from local catalogs to MaineCat which means all Maine Shared Collections retention commitment “MSCC” notes are now displayed in MaineCat (example). Matthew thanked technical services and systems staff at Colby, Bates, and Bowdoin and Portland Public for their work on updating the retention statement so the retention note displayed correctly. Matthew (with support from Maine InfoNet) made the necessary record updates in URSUS and Minerva. Issues remain with some of the Portland Public notes which show the full retention commitment URL rather than the “MSCC” note.
Matthew showed an example of the display in MaineCat of one of Colby’s EAST retention commitments.
d. Update on new OCLC retention commitment registration
The Maine Shared Collections retention commitments remain disclosed in OCLC using the second shared print symbol. But OCLC are replacing the need for the second symbol and replacing it with a shared print holding type. OCLC have agreed to move MSCC commitments from the old discovery method to the new free of charge. Matthew has been speaking to OCLC about the new process for registering commitments which MSCC will need to follow once it replaces the previous batch loading process. Matthew outlined two concerns he and others involved in shared print have with the new process. One is that although the disclosure of retention commitments can (if on schedule) begin in late 2016, the discovery of these commitments in OCLC will not be available until spring 2017. The other issue is that the final pricing model for the new registration service has not been released, so it’s still unclear whether or not it will be feasible for MSCC to use the service. Matthew will continue to work with OCLC on requirements for the registration process and will keep the Committee updated on the affects it will have for MSCC.
e. Reporting on MSCS/MSCC –NETSL & ACRL/NEC presentation & ALA monograph
Maine Shared Collections remains of interest to other libraries. Matthew has delivered presentations at both the NETSL and ACRL/NEC conferences and a chapter on Maine Shared Collections featured in a ALA published monograph entitled “Shared Collections”.
f. EAST project update – MR role, final retention model & validation results & cohort 2 outreach
In August, after a three month period of intensive collection analysis the Eastern Academic Scholars’ Trust (EAST) successfully agreed its final retention model on deadline. EAST eventually decided that they couldn’t rely on MSCS commitments without there being a formal agreement between EAST and MSCC. The Committee discussed the fact that Colby’s retained MSCC holdings were not included as part of Colby’s holdings in the EAST collection analysis, which means no Colby holdings will have both an EAST and MSCC retention commitment.
Point of clarification, there were no restrictions on another EAST library making commitments to the titles Colby retained for MSCC if they owned them and the titles met the EAST retention criteria.
The final EAST retention model had 3 major components:
• The first requires that for all titles EAST will retain one holding.
• Additionally, the second component requires retention of ALL existing holdings for titles that are scarcely held in the US (fewer than 40), in EAST (fewer than 5), and in the region.
• The third component requires retention of up to five holdings for all titles that have had significant use within EAST (more than 30 aggregate uses).
Recently published and non-scholarly content were excluded from the model (using a version of the MSCC publisher’s exclusion list). This model resulted in just over 6 million title-holdings receiving an EAST commitment.
Matthew discussed how EAST will be establishing a practice of free lending amongst its members. Matthew confirmed for the Committee that access to retained EAST materials will remain accessible to libraries outside of EAST whom EAST members might have existing borrowing agreements with.
EAST is now looking to recruit a second cohort of academic and research libraries to go through a collection analysis with SCS and make additional retention commitments. The collection analysis will be heavily subsidized using available EAST funds. There is an EAST member meeting in Boston on October 14th which UMaine, USM, Bates, and Bowdoin will be invited to attend and learn more about the project. Colby, who is already member, will be sending representatives.
g. On-demand services – UMaine leaving HathiTrust, update of “Maine Collection” & record move to URSUS
Primarily due to budgetary issues UMaine have decided to not renew their HathiTrust membership. UMaine leaving HathiTrust will affect the Print-On-Demand service in MaineCat because the service relies on the ability for UMaine staff to use their HathiTrust member login to download items in full and then have them printed by the UMaine Printing Service. Matthew will be discussing the POD service with the MSCC Executive Committee at their meeting in October including whether Colby as the only remaining HathiTrust member in the state wants to take on responsibility for the service. Ana commented that one obstacle to this happening is that Colby doesn’t have a printing and mailing service that could bind the books. Matthew commented that the POD service is so infrequently used that it’s not part of staff’s regular workflow, so requests can take a disproportionate amount of time to process.
Maine InfoNet will need to remove (or edit if Colby take on the service) the POD request link from the on-demand records template and do this before they are finally loaded into URSUS and then contributed to MaineCat. The links to HathiTrust and GoogleBooks will remain for those users who want to view the titles online.
HathiTrust have begun their own shared print initiative and Colby as a partner library have been asked if they would be willing to self-nominate titles they would commit to retain on behalf of HathiTrust. These are titles available both digitally in HathiTrust and that have already been committed to retain as part of EAST. Both Clem and Matthew are on the advisory committee for the HathiTrust project, so can keep the Committee updated on its progress.
5. Next meeting date
The Committee’s next meeting will be in March 2017.