Maine Shared Collections Strategy Director’s Council

August 30, 2013

Colby College, Miller Library, Conference Room

1:00 – 3:00 PM

Attendees: Clem Guthro, James Jackson Sanborn, Linda Lord, Judy Montgomery, Marjorie Hassen, Barbara McDade, David Nutty, Steve Podgajny, Deb Rollins, Joyce Rumery, Gene Wiemers, Matthew Revitt

1.    Welcome Marjorie Hassen

Matthew welcomed the new Bowdoin College Library Director Marjorie Hassen to the MSCS Director’s Council.

2.    Project Updates

a.    Collections Analysis

i.    Retention Scenario One commitments – multi-copy and multi-volume sets retention decisions, issues raised by Collection Development/Technical Services Committees regarding commitments & opportunity for libraries to batch reverse certain commitments

Multi-copy and multi-volume sets retention decisions

At the last Director’s meeting on May 21st the Council agreed that for Scenario One titles (those held by either 1 or 2 MSCS libraries) MSCS would ask Sustainable Collection Services (SCS) to split titles with multiple items per bib (multiple copies or multi-volume sets) for further examination. Therefore, as things stand currently, only commitments for single item bibs have been disclosed in the local catalogs. At the time of the meeting, approximately 786,000 Committed To Retain (CTR) statements had been disclosed across all eight MSCS libraries.

Note: see here for up-to-date totals of commitments disclosed.

Matthew reported that the Collection Development Committee have now agreed that as a group MSCS will Commit to Retain ALL circulating copies in Scenario One that match ANY retained Special Collections copies (regardless of whether the circulation copies had any circulation). Bangor Public also wants to keep a circulating copy even if it had zero circulations and held by 10+ in OCLC. Barbara commented that this decision was probably made by Christy Coombs because Bangor Public is an ARCC library.

In cases where there are both a special collections and circulating copy the MSCS libraries will be committing to retain at the minimum both of two copies. However, in cases where there are just one or the other the libraries only need to commit to retain one copy. For ease of creation, all copies will receive the 583 statement. Sara and the Technical Services Committee are currently investigating how best to record in the 583 the amount of copies libraries are expected to retain to help libraries when weeding.

In terms of multi-volume sets, the Collection Development Committee have been discussing whether these should be treated differently primarily because of the real estate they consume. Matthew reported that at yesterday’s meeting, after much debate, the Committee had agreed that MSCS would be consistent and apply the same criteria used for single-item bibs to multi-volume sets.

Gene commented that he believes that the multi-volume sets retention decision may come back to haunt MSCS because of the physical commitment involved in retaining multi-volumes (many of which libraries would not choose to Commit To Retain if they looked item by item), which is different to committing to retain single item monographs.

Clem responded that to help remove from the Commit To Retain (CTR) titles (including multi-volume sets) which libraries would not want to CTR he had produced a list of reference and textbook publishers whose work would be removed en-masse from the CTR list. The MSCC Collections and Operations Committee (to be formed) would in the future review retention decisions and develop policies.

Steve commented that there may be some examples of textbooks that are worth keeping. Clem responded that all MSCS is saying is for these materials libraries aren’t going to be locked in to a CTR for 15 years and not have the freedom to weed, but they can still choose to retain the title. Matthew commented that libraries are also free to make additional CTR’s, so Portland Public could CTR travel guides, even if they haven’t been assigned this commitment. Sara will be sending guidance for how to do this to libraries.

Issues raised by Collection Development/Technical Services Committees regarding commitments

Matthew reported that some of the Directors may have heard concerns from their staff about some of the material libraries are being expected to retain for 15 years.

Applying retention criteria en-masse was always going mean some material would be retained which, if you examined it title by title, would not be chosen. However, after conducting some sampling of the retention lists there did appear to be some material which you could argue should not be committed to retain like superseded textbooks. Another issue identified during the adding of 583’s was that some of the titles that were supposed to get retention commitments were deleted because the titles had been weeded by the libraries, which was further evidence of unnecessary commitments to retain. Some materials with commitments were also found to be in poor physical condition, lost, or missing.

As a result of these concerns, the MSCS Project Team & Collection Development Committee agreed that a procedure was needed to allow libraries to reverse certain retention commitments. To help libraries identify categories of material for which they might want to reverse CTR’s, Matthew had sent the Collection Development Committee the complete MSCS CTR list with the ability to FRBR and filter the data in multiple ways. Matthew also sent the Committee a draft copy of the MSCS Retention Scenario One Title-holdings Reversal Request Procedure to review.

The procedures are to be used to reverse Retention Scenario One CTR’s only and libraries have until October 1st to submit their reversal requests. The deadline is to allow the process to be completed in time for Sara to be able to update 583’s and the Local Holding Record (LHR) in OCLC. Deb is working on reviewing UMaine’s lists and aims to have it done before the October 1st deadline for them to be used as a test case for the LHR process (see below).

Matthew reported that after reviewing the procedures at yesterday’s meeting, the Committee had agreed that the criteria for reversals should be:

●    Items which were deleted after SCS were provided with the data.
●    Items that are missing or lost.
●    Title holdings which were mistakenly included in the analysis.
●    Titles of specific publishers (which the Committee will create a list of).

At this stage, the Committee decided only to include batch criteria–not elements like poor physical condition, which cannot be applied in batch. Clem believed that the MSCC Collections and Operations Committee (to be formed) should focus post-grant on more granular collection issues such as looking at reference sets. This Committee would in reality be self-selecting and include representatives from the current MSCS libraries.

The Committee also agreed to not add any kind of FRBR to the criteria. Clem explained the reasoning behind this decision: that FRBR could not be applied uniformly across multiple collections because of cataloguing differences. Also, what counts as an edition is murky, particularly because it changes from the 19th to 20th century. Clem felt MSCS should protect 19th century edition differences, which can have important scholarly value, but he is less concerned with 20th century differences between editions in the age of mass print. Clem believed that the MSCC Collections and Operations Committee could look at FRBR and the issue of replacing old editions (an issue raised by Bates) after the grant item. Barbara asked Clem whether this would mean MSCS libraries still CTR perma-bounds and if so couldn’t they be removed from the CTR list. Clem and Deb both responded that it would be impossible to do this at scale and so would not be looked at in the current reversal process.

The Collection Development Committee has two weeks (until September 12th) to add to the lists of publishers Clem produced and flag any additional criteria they want added to the procedure. The criteria will then be applied be applied by Sara as a group not individually to the CTR items.

ii.    Retention Scenario Two – criteria development update

Rick Lugg and Andy Breeding Sustainable Collection Services (SCS) joined the MSCS Collection Development Committee yesterday (August 29th) to develop retention criteria for titles held by 3 or more MSCS libraries.

Matthew commented that to sum up what were very detailed discussions the Collection Development Committee agreed to Clem’s suggestion of considering title-sets with zero aggregate (any library) circulations separately from circulating title-sets because there appears to be little value in adding CTR’s to these titles. At Deb’s request, the Committee also agreed that title-sets in the HathiTrust Public Domain category will be pulled out of this group for further examination. The Committee also agreed that MSCS would CTR titles which are rare in OCLC (0-9 copies) even if they had zero circulations.

The Committee agreed to use the Scenario One criteria as a starting point, with the understanding that possible modifications may be required. By starting with criteria that MSCS are already familiar with, the Committee will be in a better position to think about modifications or departures from these CTR criteria. SCS will also run three variations of these numbers that correspond to minimum title-holding requirements of zero, one, and two title-holdings per title-set, respectively. Matthew commented that the general consensus seemed to be CTR a minimum of two title-holdings. Deb responded that the minimum amount still needs to be agreed by the Committee. However, Clem felt that adding CTR’s to two holdings would be consistent with what had been decided in Scenario One.

Matthew reported that Rick had made it clear to the Committee that although SCS are still committed to working with MSCS that they need to consider the level of work SCS are being asked to complete and that certain work (like the publisher list comparisons (see above)) should be done by MSCS themselves. Matthew commented that this seemed very reasonable and that MSCS had the funds available to pay Sara to do this work using the spreadsheet SCS had sent him.

Another issue Andy raised as a lesson learned from Scenario One is that it is not costly for them to run different sets of retention criteria and it is easier to change the criteria than to ask for CTR lists to be cut and re-cut. The Committee recognized that this had been an issue and that MSCS needs to spend longer ensuring the criteria are correct before requesting CTR lists. Deb commented that some of the lists that had been requested had not actually changed MSCS decisions. Matthew commented that SCS have almost been a victim of their own success because they have been able to provide the lists so promptly MSCS have thought nothing of asking for more lists to review.

Steve asked whether any additional investment would be required to pay SCS. Matthew responded that MSCS had already paid SCS a significant amount for their services and that no additional investment is required, but that MSCS needs to be careful to not make unreasonable demands on SCS’s time, particularly concerning the breakdown of data and production of lists.

iii.    Access to SCS database

James reported that Sara has received a massive text file of all of MSCS data that SCS had originally received from the MSCS libraries (and additional data added) to generate their reports and analysis. The data can be used long-term beyond the grant. Sara had expected the data to be in database structure, but because SCS had just dumped MSCS’s data from their client database into a text file it was not in normalized structure (with separate tables) and was more like a huge spreadsheet.

Steve asked whether MSCS’s contract with SCS included an agreement regarding the use of MSCS’s data by SCS. Matthew responded that the agreement did not specify usages of MSCS data, but that when SCS had used examples of data from other projects they had often anonymized the library name. Matthew went to say that the MSCS agreement with SCS states that “The MSCS data set will remain available for querying and analyzing for up to 24 months”.

Matthew reported that the text file is currently in the MSCS Dropbox account, but will eventually be transferred to the Maine InfoNet server once Sara has the login from Maine InfoNet to do this.

iv.    Journal analysis update – comparisons with publishers/aggregators & OCLC

Although monographs are the primary focus, the grant application says that MSCS would analyze and make retention commitments for journals. As with monographs, the Project Team and Collection Development Committee agreed on a strategy to focus on retention rather than weeding and filter down to those titles which should be committed to retain. SCS don’t work with journals so Sara has been working on a tool to help the Committee analyze these titles.

The MSCS academic partners (University of Maine, USM, Colby, Bates, and Bowdoin) agreed that they are willing to eliminate commitments for complete runs digitized by publishers or aggregators which are included in PORTICO, JSTOR, specific ProQuest titles, and American Antiquarian Society Historical Periodicals 1-5.

Sara will use collection data for serials (extracted for HathiTrust price quote) to identify and filter titles that fall into the local protected categories (that were developed for print monographs) and also titles stored in special collections. The Collection Development Committee will be provided with lists of titles that fall into these categories and will then make a decision as a group whether these titles are committed to retain.

Sara will then compare the remaining titles against the publishers and aggregators. Titles in these repositories will be taken out of consideration for retention because there are digital copies available and hard copies are being preserved elsewhere.

Sara will compare the remaining titles with OCLC holdings to compare overlap between the MSCS group and U.S. If at all possible the titles should also be compared with holdings available digitally for example, in the HathiTrust.

Sara has begun her comparison work and has produced a database which Deb and Matthew will test before sharing with the Collection Development Committee.

Gene commented that MSCS would not have received funding from IMLS if it were just looking at journals/serials. He does not want
MSCS libraries to auto-commit to retaining journals/serials (unlike monographs where the retention criteria is applied automatically en-masse). Gene does not want blanket commitments without first looking title by title at what the libraries would be expected to retain. Gene went on to say that just because a title is unique does not mean that they would want to CTR for 15 years, especially as Bates and other libraries are having to cancel subscriptions to serials/journals because of budget cuts and more and more titles are available and preserved electronically. David agreed with Gene’s assessment. Matthew commented that he hopes the MSCS strategy of filtering down to only those titles which actually do require CTR’s will mean only a small percentage of titles have commitments.

Clem commented that for MSCS, the fact that a journal title is being preserved by the Northeast Regional Library Print Management Project may mean MSCS libraries don’t need to CTR.

v.    OCLC WorldCat Collection Evaluation tool – proposal update

Matthew has submitted to Meghan Hopkins (OCLC) requested changes to their proposal for deferred access to OCLC’s Collection Evaluation tool and has since sent a reminder for a response. At the time of the meeting Matthew had not received a response from Meghan.

b.    Loading & display of retention information in catalogs

i.    Local Catalog – loading updates

Sara has been working with technical services staff at the MSCS libraries to add the 583 retention commitments in the various local catalogs. Sara is currently working through problem lists to clean up things that didn’t import correctly (bad or multiple barcodes) and also pulling and reviewing the data on things that have been deleted. She hopes to have this completed for all libraries by next week.

Matthew commented that a lesson learned from the first round of commitments added is to communicate better with libraries when commitments are being disclosed.

Sara has also been working on the public display of the commitments with Maine InfoNet for URSUS. She has also been discussing with CBB their public displays during which concerns were raised about how the “MSCC Retention copy” was displayed. Matthew presented examples of the public display of the CTR statement in Bates’ and Bowdoin’s (only a test) local catalogs.

Judy and Marjorie reported that Bowdoin were concerned about both the prominence of the message and that it could confuse patrons into thinking the item is not loanable. Judy questioned the need for the message to be displayed as she felt it was too much information and that the confusion for users would outweigh any benefits. Judy went on to report that Bowdoin also felt that disclosing the statement should be delayed until the new shared Colby, Bates and Bowdoin (CBB) catalog is up and working.

Gene commented that based on Bates experiences of disclosing the statement the confusion for users would only last two weeks and after that it would be OK. Also, the work involved with disclosing the statement was minimal. Sharon Saunders at Bates had changed the wording of the statement from “MSCS Retention copy” to “MSCC Retention copy” overnight.

A discussion then ensued regarding why, if the statement is displayed in MaineCat, it also needs to be displayed in local catalogs particularly URSUS. Clem commented that the statement will be displayed in URSUS so other libraries can see the commitment and weed their collections based on it. Clem went to say that not all libraries and staff use MaineCat.

Matthew reported that after discussing the subject at yesterday’s Collection Development Committee meeting, the Committee had agreed that how the statement is displayed does not need to be dictated by the MSCS group as long it is displayed. CBB have the freedom to decide for themselves how it actually appears. Judy commented that they will use this opportunity to make the display better meet their needs. Deb suggested that one option is to remove the word ‘retention’ from the statement. However, to be consistent this would need to be changed across MSCS libraries and need the Project Team’s approval.

ii.    OCLC WorldCat –UMaine to act as test case for batch loading Local Holding Records

Matthew reported that because of the potential for some retention commitments to be reversed, the Project Team had debated whether to delay disclosing commitments in OCLC until MSCS could be sure the commitments were going to last, so as to avoid potentially embarrassing situations where people would see libraries put commitments in there and take it out again. After all the work done with OCLC regarding the symbol and updating Local Holding Records the Project Team really didn’t want to delay disclosing commitments in OCLC.

Thankfully, Deb agreed to complete her review of UMaine’s CTR’s and reverse any commitments that meet the reversal procedure criteria (see above) before the October 1st deadline. UMaine’s CTR’s will be used as a test case for OCLC LHR batch loading before the other MSCS libraries are ready for their commitments to be disclosed (after October 1st). This will allow MSCS to actually have some commitments disclosed in OCLC which are unlikely to be reversed.

Judy asked Matthew whether the issues with the costs of the OCLC Shared Print Symbol remained. Matthew responded that as a result of MSCS opposition to the ILL fees associated with using the OCLC Shared Print Symbol in both ILLiad and WorldCat Resource Sharing, MSCS have decided until a more acceptable model can be developed, to use two symbols on the records in OCLC, both the main symbol (which will remain requestable) and the Shared Print Symbol (which will be a non-supplier). The only cost MSCS libraries will incur is for the LHR batchloading services ($355 onetime fee per institution for this service, $2,840 across all 8 libraries) which will be paid for using grant funds.

iii.    MaineCat – Short-term workaround & communications with III regarding long-term solution

At previous meetings, the Directors had discussed issues with getting the 583 commitment to display and transfer to the Innovative Interfaces, Inc. (III) Inn-Reach system MaineCat. As a short-term work around, Sara is going to use the OCLC API and JavaScript to perform a check of OCLC and display when an item is in shared print. As this is dependent on OCLC holding’s data the retention information will obviously need to be added to OCLC first (see above) before it can be displayed in MaineCat.

Matthew reported that in terms of the long-term solution, James and Clem had met with III representatives back in May and got agreement from them that they would fix the issues within the next 12 months. Clem commented that he believed III had seen the competitive advantage of having the problems fixed as more shared print projects such as Connect NY and the Michigan Shared Print Initiative (MI-SPI) want to disclose their retention commitments in a similar way to MSCS.

Matthew and James both commented that Sara’s solution was a very good work around and that MSCS will get a big portion of what is needed–basically retained items will have a note saying that they are retained and by whom, with a link to MSCS policy information, but that with the API what MSCS won’t get is the ability to see the retention on a brief results display list–the API will only grab and display the information on the full results page for a single item. MSCS also won’t have the ability to get the retention commitment end date.

iv.    CRL PAPR database – registered MSCS & adding journal retention commitments

The Center for Research Libraries (CRL) has a service titled the Print Archives Preservation Registry (PAPR) system which basically is a database containing information about titles, holdings, and archiving terms and conditions of print archiving programs such as the Western Regional Storage Trust (WEST). Currently, PAPR only contains information about journal retention commitments because they currently see OCLC as being the place to disclose retention commitments for monographs.

Matthew spoke to Marie Waltz at CRL (who also organizes the Print Archive Network meetings) about adding information about MSCS to the database. CRL have since added MSCS to their directory of shared print projects. MSCS have also been put on the waiting list to add holding information for committed to retain journals and serials. However, there is a significant waiting time; those libraries ready to make commitments in July 2013 would get their commitments added to PAPR next June at the earliest.

Matthew commented that disclosing retention commitments in CRL would further raise the profile of MSCS.

c.    HathiTrust & Google Books

i.    E-Book-On-Demand & Print-On-Demand (POD) implementation investigations – loading HathiTrust records into SOLAR, review examples of display in MaineCat & business model options for POD

E-Book-On-Demand

Before discussing membership of the HathiTrust, Matthew commented that he thought it would be useful to first see Sara’s work on the display of HathiTrust & Google Books links in a test HathiTrust Public Domain MaineCat record.

Matthew emphasized that the ability to have HathiTrust links in MaineCat is not dependent on MSCS membership efforts and the records are freely available from the HathiTrust. The only difference is that patrons of HathiTrust member libraries would have full download rights. Matthew showed how the “Read Online from HathiTrust” link takes a user to the HathiTrust online library where they can read a copy of the item and download a PDF copy (page by page for non-HathiTrust member patrons and full download for HathiTrust member patrons). Matthew also showed how the “Download from Google Books” link will take a user to the Google Books online library where anyone can freely download a full copy of the item. The Google Books link will only be in the record of Google digitized Public Domain items.

Matthew commented that in his opinion, HathiTrust membership did not greatly change the patron experience.

All HathiTrust Public Domain title records will be loaded into SOLAR to display in MaineCat. The records will be kept separate from the print record, so if a user conducts a title search they will see results for both the print and electronic records (if there are both).

In terms of local catalogs, libraries that have a discovery layer as their main search interface, e.g. Summon, can have the HathiTrust Public Domain titles turned on to be searchable. Marjorie and Judy commented that Bowdoin already do this. Clem commented that one of the reasons why the Project Team decided that the records should be loaded into SOLAR (rather than local catalogs) was that they didn’t want to overload local catalogs with a million plus new records. However, CBB could in the future choose to load HathiTrust records into their shared catalog.

Matthew confirmed that Sara’s work on Google Books links was independent of her work on the HathiTrust links.

The Directors were extremely pleased with the display and were excited about having the links in MaineCat. Matthew will speak to Sara’s about hiding the URL links and just have “Read Online from HathiTrust” and “Download from Google Books”.

Matthew reported that Sara hopes to have the loading completed by the beginning of October.

Print On Demand

In addition to looking at Ebook-On-Demand options, the Project Team have also been discussing using HathiTrust copies of titles to deliver Print On Demand (POD). Matthew commented that following the MSCS decision to not purchase an Espresso Book Machine, POD had not been in the forefront of grant activities and although the Project Team are not totally convinced on the level of usage a POD service would get, it was something that MSCS said it would investigate in the grant application. Matthew commented that after monitoring usage it may be that MSCS decides the demand is just not there and/or it is not cost effective. In this case libraries might point users towards the “buy a copy” option in HathiTrust which will take them to Amazon.com.

The Directors agreed that POD will probably not be a highly used service. A discussion then ensued regarding the evidence of low usage of the University of Michigan’s Espresso Book Machine which had been one of the drivers behind MSCS’s decision not to purchase a similar machine. Clem commented that the machine was not being used for what they thought it would be i.e. the back catalog of Espresso public domain titles. Instead it was being used mainly by authors wishing to self-publish.

The Project Team have agreed that MSCS would test a POD service and that ILL POD requests would be routed to UMaine, who would use the UMaine Printing Services to print a copy of a book and send it to the requester. Grant funds will be used to pay for testing the service and usage will be monitored.

Matthew, Sara, James, and Greg Curtis (UMaine) will meet on Tuesday September 3rd to discuss the workflow for delivering POD requests. James commented that thus far discussions have centered on ensuring that the process fits into existing workflows and not to create much overhead and/or confusion–especially if demand is slight. James thought requests could be handled by routing the request, via a webpage, email form through ILLiad, not through the normal requester routing. So a user would find a record in MaineCat, click ‘request print copy’, be taken to a webpage form that asks for information, then sends that information via email to ILLiad.

Matthew commented that MSCS needs to decide who keeps the POD copy the library or patron and also, after the grant funds are used, who pays for the copy. Gene responded that Bates would not want a POD copy of something they didn’t want in their collection in the first place, even if it receives multiple POD requests. But that a possible use case of POD is printing for genealogical purposes. Gene went on to say that at Bates they don’t charge for printing and after tracking the volume of printing demand was shown to be low. Judy commented that she remembered reading somewhere that libraries were not allowed to retain POD copies. Judy went on to say that she doesn’t think patrons will use the POD service. Clem responded that public library patrons might. James also thought it might be used by graduate students conducting research.

The Directors agreed that the patron should pay the printing costs and keep the printed copy.

ii.    Membership issues – agree who wants to join

Since the last Director’s Council Meeting Matthew had received the extremely disappointing news that HathiTrust is not willing to accept MSCC as a consortium partner with single holdings. Matthew commented that it was particularly disappointing because of the timing, at the last minute, after he had sent the contracts out for review, and hopefully signing. It was also disappointing because some MSCS libraries had gone through efforts to install Shibboleth and In-Commons to meet HathiTrust’s authentication requirements.

In his message to Matthew, Jeremy had said that HathiTrust would accept MSCC as a consortium, but libraries would still pay individually and not have Section 108 and print disability access to each other’s materials. Matthew commented that he was not sure how this would really be a consortium. If MSCS did go this route it would be $9,200 per institution, presuming all 8 institutions joined. This figure is a big leap from the $3,800 cost MSCS would have been charged in the original consortium. It is even bigger leap to what individual membership would cost each partner. Matthew showed the Directors the pricing quote he had received from Jeremy that included both consortial and individual costs.

Because of the costs of membership and the fact that the public libraries and state library would not as members be able to log in via IP address to download Google-digitized volumes and need their own installations of In-Common and Shibboleth, Matthew presumed that the State Library and Bangor and Portland Public would not be able to join. Barbara, Steve, and Linda confirmed that their institutions would unfortunately not be able to join until the authentication and consortial requirements were changed.

Included in Matthew’s revised MSCS budget was a matching cost sharing contribution of $26,000 for Colby to become an individual member of the HathiTrust in grant years 2 & 3. However, because of the investigations into consortial membership Colby had not joined. Therefore, now that MSCS is in year 3 of the grant (and based on the price quote) at least two libraries would need to join in the grant period to meet the $26,000 cost sharing contribution.

Matthew asked the academic MSCS Directors which of their institutions wanted to join as individual members of the HathiTrust:

Colby and the University of Maine agreed to join. Bates would not join at this time, but they would study the benefits that access to Section 108 material would bring, including looking at the membership experiences of Colby and UMaine. Bowdoin also decided not to join at this time. University of Southern Maine would not be joining because of budgetary issues and that their patrons would still have access to HathiTrust Public Domain titles via MaineCat.

Deb commented that for her the benefits of joining were the ability to conduct data mining and create a large custom collection, not access to additional materials because non-members can still download copies of Google digitized public domain titles (which the majority of HathiTrust Public Domain titles are) in Google Books and conduct full-text searches of in-copyright material in HathiTrust. Deb went on to say that she had asked Sara to look at large scale retrieval to create a custom ‘Maine collection’ using the HathiTrust API. This collection would be a subset of HathiTrust data which would be discoverable in the HathiTrust online collection.

Marjorie asked Matthew what the imperative was for deciding about membership at today’s meeting. Matthew responded that libraries could decide to join after the grant, but that he is concerned with meeting the budget requirements of the grant, which requires that two libraries join. For this process to be complete within the grant period a decision needed to be made today, while the Directors are together.

Linda had been asked by Peggy O’Kane at the State Library to speak to Matthew about the possibility of the Maine Library Outreach Services joining the HathiTrust. James responded that this would not be possible because of the membership requirement for installations of In-Common and Shibboleth. Although HathiTrust in principle welcome public libraries to join, their current authentication requirements means in reality only academic libraries can join.

Matthew commented that MSCS personnel will discuss the group’s efforts to become a consortial member at the various conferences they present at. Judy commented that she had been asked by other libraries about MSCS’s experiences and she recommended that they still pursue consortial membership.

d.    Budget

i.    Partner contributions towards SCS costs

Matthew thanked the Directors for submitting their institution’s cost sharing contributions for contracting with SCS. All the payments have now been received.

ii.    MSCS under-spending – potential solutions

Matthew reported that MSCS are still under-spending grant funds, in particular for Sara Amato’s work. Matthew has spoken to Sara about her billing and if the work is there for her she can increase her hours, so that should not be a problem. David asked how much MSCS had left allocated for Sara’s work. Matthew responded that although he didn’t have the exact amount to hand it was approximately the total amount she had billed in Years 1 & 2 just for Year 3. To meet this amount Sara would need to more than double her average monthly totals. Matthew confirmed that based on advice from the University of Maine’s Office of Research & Sponsored Programs (ORSP) changes to Sara’s billing rates was not recommended.

MSCS also have budgeted $15,000 for III to deliver data services, which now appears won’t be needed (see above). Add to this the total amount of misc. under-spending (not including Sara’s) and it comes to approximately $24,000.

The Project Team have discussed using some of the under-spent funds on organizing an end of project event to report on the results of MSCS beyond just an IMLS report. This was idea that Matthew had discussed with Bob Kieft during the Advisory Board visit in May and the Project Team supported at their last meeting on August 11th. The complication is that ALA Annual 2014 is probably the best venue for this event (possibly as part of extended PAN), but that falls after the grant period ends.

Matthew has contacted Andy Ines at the University of Maine’s Office of Research & Sponsored Programs (ORSP) about the options available to MSCS for using unspent funds, including beyond the grant period. Andrew informed Matthew that MSCS would need to obtain a no-cost extension from IMLS to extend the grant period of performance. This should not be done through the University of Maine’s Proposal Approval Routing System by the UMaine PI and then ORSP will make an official request to the Institute of Museum and Library Services. for a no cost extension. Andrew sent Matthew information and instruction for making the request through PARS. Although Deb (as UMaine PI) will need to go through this process on behalf of MSCS, Matthew will assist her.

Gene commented that as well as national event MSCS should consider presenting to a Maine audience.

The Directors agreed that MSCS should submit a request for an extension and believed that because no new funds were being requested IMLS would approve the request as they had MSCS’s previous extension request (although this was related to a different issue). The Directors also supported the idea of using the extension to employ Matthew until July 31st rather than his original May 31st end date. Matthew would be kept on to organize the reporting of MSCS results including the national event (see above) and oversee the transition period from Maine Shared Collections Strategy to the Maine Shared Collections Cooperative.

iii.    1st Quarter travel claims due August 30th

Because of today’s meeting and the Collection Development Committee meeting yesterday Matthew extended the travel claim deadline until next Friday September 6th. Matthew will send out a reminder on Monday.

e.    IMLS Reporting

i.    Next set of reports due 12/31/2013

The next set of Institute of Museum and Library Service reports are due at the end of this year–12/31/2013

f.    MSCC Sustainability

i.    MOU – update on submission of signed copies

Matthew thanked the Directors for submitting signed copies of the MSCC MOU. Matthew is only waiting for a couple more to be returned to him.

ii.    Beyond the grant – MSCS documentation & future staffing of MSCC

In this final grant year, the Project Team are discussing what happens beyond the grant.

Joyce (after hearing a presentation at ALA about the White House directive on access to federally funded research) wanted the Project Team to be aware that MSCS outputs could be included. Matthew reported that although IMLS are included as part of the directive there is not much information on their website regarding what this mean for grantees. But that MSCS should make sure final output plans include any required public access to data files, articles are open access and contributed to UMaine’s Digital Commons, etc. The MSCS website would probably be a central pointer to various sites including Slideshare where MSCS data resides.

Gene commented that Bates had used Digital Commons to store and make accessible project documentation, which although not perfect had worked.

MSCS will need to decide whether it maintains the MSCS website as an active or ‘zombie’ website. Judy commented that other libraries wanting to do similar projects could use MSCS documents as the basis of their work. Clem commented that there would still need to be active website for the work beyond the grant. Matthew asked James whether RainStorm’s services would still be required. James responded that they wouldn’t beyond the agreed grant period because Maine InfoNet could continue to host the website and would complete the WordPress updates (as they are doing for their own website).

Judy commented that MSCS needs to try and ensure that the knowledge of how to perform specific technical activities is not lost when the grant ends. Matthew responded that Sara will be producing guidance for libraries to allow them to add themselves retention commitments in the various catalogs used by MSCS libraries. James added that he hoped Maine InfoNet would have some funds (in addition to possible under-spent grant funds) to pay Sara for work post grant. James went on to say that Albie Dunn (Maine InfoNet) is working closely with Sara on the display of retention commitments in URSUS and HathiTrust/Google Books links in MaineCat to ensure that he understands the process.

Joyce has also asked the Project Team to think about what staffing would be needed for MSCC once the grant period ends and what type of work would be involved for example, what work Sara would still be needed for, hours needed, whether the work could be performed by professional or classified staff members. Generally, what will be required post-grant from the University of Maine?

Matthew commented that as MSCS nears its end and with so much to discuss at Project Team meetings about current work he may need to schedule separate time to look at this.

Steve asked Matthew whether the MSCS libraries need to think about the estimated costs of post-grant activities. Matthew responded that first the Project Team needs to decide what work will be required before costs can be estimated. Once these ideas are formulated Clem suggested taking them to the Maine Larger Libraries group for discussion. James commented that Maine InfoNet as a 501 (c) 3 entity and responsible for the administration of MSCC will have account for MSCC funds to be placed in.

g.    Marketing

i.    UMaine promotion – Bangor Daily News article

Matthew’s Maine Policy Review article was published in the August 9th edition of the Bangor Daily News. Matthew commented that it was nice local publicity to a non-library audience.

3.    Conferences & Events

a.    Library Journal Data Series Webcast, June 6th, 2013 – Matthew presented

Matthew was a panel member on the June 6th Library Journal Data Series titled “Data-Driven Libraries Part 1: Analyzing Data to Manage Print Collections”.

b.    ALA Annual ALCTS Preconference, Chicago, June 27th, 2013 – Clem, Matthew & Sara presented

Matthew, Clem, and Sara presented at the ALA Annual Conference ALCTS Preconference event which Rick Lugg (SCS) organized. Matthew commented that the presentations went well.

c.    ALA Annual Print Archive Network, Chicago, June 28th, 2013 – Clem presented & MSCS update report submitted

Clem also presented at the Print Archive Network (PAN) event at the ALA Annual Conference and Matthew submitted an MSCS update report.

d.    Northeast Regional Library Print Management Planning Project meeting, July 9th, 2013 – feedback

Some of the MSCS Director’s Council and Project Team attended the July 9th Northeast Regional Library Print Management Planning Project meeting. Matthew asked whether anybody had any feedback, particularly regarding how it will fit in with MSCS.

Gene commented that MSCS only works if part of a bigger pie. Joan commented that she was interested in discussions around discovery. Clem felt the value of membership would be around journals, and also the expanded resource sharing opportunities between partners, particularly if Harvard and Yale were to join.

e.    IFLA Annual Conference Acquisitions & Collection Development Section, Singapore, August 19th, 2013 – Clem & Matthew presented & paper published

Matthew and Clem presented at the IFLA World Library and Information Congress last week in Singapore. Matthew commented that the presentation went well and he and Clem had received good feedback from attendees. There is a chance the paper will be recommended by the Acquisitions & Collection Development Section for publication in the IFLA Journal, but if not it will be published by Emerald who have the first refusal after IFLA.

f.    Planned MSCS presentations & reports

i.    NELA Annual Conference, Portland, October 21st, 2013 – Deb & Matthew to present

Matthew and Deb are presenting at the New England Library Association Conference in Portland on the morning of October 21st. Matthew commented this would allow MSCS to present to a local audience.

ii.    Charleston Conference 2013 – Deb & Becky Albitz submitted paper

Deb and Becky Albitz’s presentation paper has been accepted by the Charleston Conference.

g.    Date of next Director’s Council Meeting

Matthew will send around a Doodle Poll to vote for the date of the next Director’s Council meeting.