Maine Shared Collections Strategy Project Team
August 14, 2013
Fogler Library Conference Room
2:00 – 4:00 PM
Attendees: Sara Amato (phone), Clem Guthro, James Jackson Sanborn, Barbara McDade, Matthew Revitt, Deb Rollins
1. Project Updates
a. Collections Analysis
i. Review multi-copy circulating vs. special collections copies questions
An outstanding issue from the July 30th MSCS Collection Development Committee meeting is the extent to which MSCS libraries want to commit to retain both a title-holding’s special collections and circulating (if there were any) copies. Deb included in the meeting outcomes document (which Matthew shared with the MSCS Project Team and Collection Development Committee) some very specific examples with questions as to whether MSCS meant CTR in each case. Below are the questions and responses from the document:
1. Bowdoin holds 2 copies of “History of the First Parish Church: founded 1633, Dover, New Hampshire” (2002), one in SpecColl, one Circ. They are the only MSCS holder. Are we saying they must retain both copies?
[Joan=yes]
2. Bowdoin holds 2 copies of “Crusading liberal: Paul H. Douglas of Illinois” (2002), one in SpecColl, one Circ. They and Bates are the only 2 MSCS holders; Bates has 1 circulating copy. Are we saying that Bowdoin AND Bates must retain their circulating copies? Or that Bowdoin retains its two copies? Or that Bowdoin is required to retain only its Spec Coll copy, and Bates must retain its Circ copy?
[Joan=Both retain, since these are held by only 1 or 2 libs in MSCS and fewer than 10 in OCLC]
3. Bowdoin and the Maine State Library both own Spec Coll and Circ copies of “Captain Abby and Captain John” (2002 edition). Do both need to retain all copies? Does only one need to retain a Circ copy, in addition to the Bowdoin and MSL SpecColl copies being retained?
[Joan=Retain all, since these are held by only 1 or 2 libs in MSCS and fewer than 10 in OCLC]
In all of these examples would we still keep a circulating copy, even if it was in the NFE category? And even if it had zero circulations?
[Joan=if it is held by 10+ in OCLC, probably not]
Or, does it make sense to leave the Commitment to Retain 583 statements on only the Special Collection copies?
[Deb thought it was sufficient. Most MSCS libraries will not be withdrawing second, circulating copies of Special Collections titles, unless for condition reasons]
[Joan=seems useful to put the statement on all retained copies. Then it will be clear and our successors will have guidance]
Matthew reported that Becky Albitz (Bates) agreed with the group consensus (although only Joan had responded to Deb’s questions) about having circulation copies retained along with special collections copies. She also agrees with Joan that a NFE copy should not be retained if held by ten or more other libraries, and that MSCS should add the 583 statement to Special Collections copies, in order to be consistent.
Deb commented that although she would have liked to have seen more responses from the Collection Development Committee representatives she is OK to go along with Joan’s and Becky’s decisions.
The Project Team agreed that in cases where libraries have committed to retain special collections copies and there are additional circulating copies of the same title that ALL of the circulating copies will be committed to retained at ALL of the holding libraries (in scenario one it will only be 1 or 2 libraries). This means that copies which may previously have been in the Needs Further Examination (NFE) category because of zero circulations WILL now also be retained.
The Project Team agreed that asking SCS to break down the lists and produce separate NFE lists for circulating copies of title-holdings held by 10+ libraries in OCLC would only lead to confusion. Therefore, even in cases where title-holdings are held by 10+ libraries in OCLC and there both special collections and circulating copies ALL copies will still be retained.
Matthew will request from SCS a new list for CTR multi-copy items that includes circulating items which were previously in the NFE category.
Matthew commented that he was surprised, in light of the concerns expressed at the July 30 MSCS Collection Development Committee meeting about MSCS committing to retain some unnecessary titles, that MSCS would be committing to retain more copies than originally planned. Clem responded that he was not surprised at this decision because MSCS libraries would have intentionally chosen to have both circulating and special collections copies.
ii. Multi-volume copies lists review update
Matthew sent all MSCS libraries their spreadsheet lists for CTR multi-volume sets. After reviewing their lists, so far Deb and Becky are for not committing to retain multi-volume sets. Joan is for committing to retain Bowdoin’s multi-volume sets. Matthew reported that he plans on finalizing this decision at the next MSCS Collection Development Committee meeting on August 29th, but that he would like to hear the Project Team’s opinion and, as a group, how consistent should MSCS be? Could the MSCS group say we aren’t going to commit, but allow Bowdoin and any other libraries who want to commit to do so?
Clem asked Deb why she wanted to treat multi-volume sets differently to single-copy and multi-copy title-holdings. Deb outlined her research into multi-volume sets which looking at a sample of 19 from 1834 volumes with supposedly <10 OCLC (of 20,191 total multi-volumes), she concluded that based on the sample of supposedly rarely held subset of multi-volume title-sets on Orono’s list, most of the multi-volume title sets are either widely held, low circulation, preserved in HathiTrust, available in numerous printings or publishers, or a combination of these factors. Deb observed that had MSCS libraries conducted further analysis of the single-item title-holdings, then libraries probably would have come to some of the same conclusions, which is why MSCS have asked Sustainable Collection Services (SCS) for lists of those titles to review (see below).
The Project Team agreed that a final decision would be made on the retention of multi-volume sets at the August 29th MSCS Collection Development Committee meeting.
iii. Committed To Retain: Title-holdings Reversal Request Procedure – review draft
CTR lists for review
Andy Breeding (SCS) has sent Matthew a spreadsheet list of CTR single-item title-holdings for libraries to review. SCS needed to send new lists because the ones Sara and the MSCS Technical Services Committee were using to add 583s did not contain the fields which would help libraries in their analysis of deciding which titles do NOT need to have commitments. Therefore, Matthew asked Andy to send him the new lists which include data fields that were used for reviewing CTR multi-volumes and the NFE lists. There is one huge spreadsheet for all the libraries, but it can be filtered by location. The spreadsheet will allow libraries to look at their individual collections, and allow the Project Team to look at the bigger picture and get an idea of the volume of material libraries are likely want to reverse the retention decision on.
Deb commented that she is not sure whether it’s the Project Team’s role to look at the lists, or whether the libraries themselves should be responsible for reviewing them. Matthew responded that he doubts that the MSCS libraries will have a lot of time to look at the lists, so if the Project Team looks at the lists it can hopefully make recommendations for what categories of titles the libraries might want to consider not committing to retain (for example, outdated and superseded textbooks) which will hopefully expedite the review process.
Matthew reported that in looking at the current CTR lists one issue that keeps on being raised is the amount of multiple editions MSCS are committing to retain. Also, as Deb identified in her analysis of multi-volume (see above) that unique in OCLC might not actually be that unique when you take into consideration factors such as multiple editions. Therefore in order to help MSCS identify editions/publisher variations SCS have added to the lists they sent Matthew FRBR numbers. Matthew presented the group with an example spreadsheet he received from Andy for another shared print project SCS worked with. The Project Team agreed that FRBR numbers should help MSCS identify some editions which libraries may choose not to commit to retain.
Andy had commented in the cover email of the spreadsheet that to put the question of CTR titles listed as having < 10 US Holdings in perspective, that most of these titles would have been marked CTR for another reason, in most cases because they circulated. The number of CTR titles that were marked that way only because they had < 10 US holdings is 27K or ~3% of the number of titles in included in this list. Out of this number, 7K (or ~1% of the total) have > 50 US Holdings (any edition) and could thus be regarded as “less unique.”
Sara commented that FRBR was something that SCS had said they would do for us all along. Matthew responded that the good news is that SCS now support FRBR-off/FRBR-on capability when a title is held by more than 20 libraries in the US, which originally they were not able to do.
Procedures
At the July 30th MSCS Collection Development Committee meeting the Committee agreed that MSCS needed a set of procedures to allow libraries to reverse retention commitments allocated to them. Matthew produced a draft set of procedures which he circulated to Project Team last week and had received some comments back. Matthew asked the Project Team to review the document, make suggested changes, so he can present a version the Project Team are happy with to the MSCS Collection Development Committee for review.
Matthew reported that he had included in the procedures a deadline of December 31st, 2013 because he wanted libraries to have a window of opportunity for submitting commitments. Clem had commented in the document that the deadline would make it very difficult for Colby because they will not have worked their way through the Bangor Theological (BTS) collection by then. The Project Team agreed that NO commitments would be disclosed for BTS CTR items until Colby have had chance to review the collection. Therefore the procedures do not apply to the BTS collection.
Clem commented that MSCS should be making and disclosing retention commitments in different stages. The Project Team agreed that the procedures should ONLY apply to the MSCS Retention Scenario One first round of commitments and that a different set of procedures might be needed in the future. Deb commented that she hopes MSCS will learn lessons from Scenario One and head off future reversal decisions, so fewer reversals will be required in future rounds of commitments. The Project Team agreed that because the procedures are for Scenario One items the deadline for submitting reversal requests should be changed from December 31, 2013 to October 1st, 2013.
Deb reported that she intends to review UMaine’s CTR lists now in order for MSCS to be able to at least have some commitments disclosed in OCLC before the end of the year. Deb felt this would make for good reporting for MSCS, particularly in presentations. Deb asked Sara whether it would be possible for UMaine’s commitments to be added to OCLC before November. Sara replied that it would be possible (see below for more detail).
Clem was also not happy with the wording in the section on “Ingestion by Collection Builders” because, although there needs to be mechanism to share information between libraries, no one will agree to offer all discards to a collection builder. Also, at this point MSCS haven’t identified who or what a collection builder really is. Clem commented that there would need to be a common infrastructure if lists did get sent out to libraries to decide whether they want to ingest. The scale would be a lot greater than the lists that go out on MELIBS. Matthew wondered whether MSCS libraries could compile a list of subjects they were interested in collecting which could be run against the lists of items MSCS libraries don’t want to commit to retain. Deb thought the procedures should just be for libraries to use to reverse commit to retain, but that didn’t mean there would necessarily be any withdrawing done as a result of this. The Project Team agreed that to avoid confusion the section on collection builders should be removed.
Matthew expressed concern that potentially the procedures could be abused, which would undermine MSCS retention commitments and the MOU. Deb responded that the procedures should be seen as just a refinement of the commitments and as such she does not envisage wide-spread reversals. James commented that he understood Matthew’s concerns and the potential for abuse. The Project Team agreed that libraries do need the chance to reverse commitments and that there should be an ongoing process to allow libraries to reverse commitments.
The Project Team agreed that MSCS libraries should use batch criteria to identify items they want to reverse commitments on and not at this pick out individual examples for removing. Therefore the criteria for reversals should NOT include physical condition. Identifying individual examples should be done post this process.
Matthew asked the Project Team whether there were any more criteria they wanted added to the document. Clem responded that reference books should be added which libraries could analyze by looking at locations. Barbara mentioned the title example that came up at the July 30 MSCS Collection Development Committee meeting Brave Irene as a “cheap” Perma-Bound edition and whether MSCS libraries really want to keep either a Perma Bound book or a mass market paperback—if there are already other copies of better editions in the collection. Matthew responded that he hopes the FRBR lists will help MSCS to identify such examples.
The Project Team agreed that there will be both local and group decisions made regarding what is included in the criteria.
Matthew will make the requested changes to the procedures and send the Project Team a revised version to review. Once Matthew has approval from the Project Team he will send the MSCS Collection Development Committee a copy in time to review in time for them to discuss (and hopefully approve) it at their August 29th meeting.
iv. Plans for next Collection Development meeting – widely held titles
Matthew reported that in terms of attendance for the August 29th MSCS Collection Development Committee meeting at Colby the only person he knows will definitely not be attending is Brian Damien (Portland Public) who is on vacation, but he said he would send Matthew the library’s thoughts on multi-volume sets prior to the meeting.
Barbara was unsure whether either both she and Christine Coombs (Bangor Public) would be attending.
Matthew and Deb found out that MSCS Collection Development representative Peggy O’Kane (Maine State Library) was no longer receiving emails at the address they had down for her. Matthew sent her an update email covering MSCS events over the last two months.
Matthew spoke to Rick Lugg (SCS) last week about the August 29th meeting which he will be attending in-person, and Andy will either be there in-person, or on the phone. Matthew updated Rick on the outcomes of the July 30th meeting and the likely impact on looking at more widely held titles for Retention Scenario Two. Matthew explained that he will probably have to start the meeting looking at some the remaining Scenario One questions. But that he hopes the majority of the meeting will be spent on developing a criteria for the more widely held titles.
Rick agreed with Matthew that next time around MSCS need to have higher thresholds for circulation rates, especially as the vast majority of the titles being reviewed are held by more than 200 libraries in OCLC. MSCS have already discussed these titles and ideas were added to a Google document Matthew sent out in June. Matthew commented that the document can be used as a starting point for discussions.
Matthew and Rick agreed that MSCS would be satisfied with having agreed another set of retention criteria and so would not touch allocation issues at this meeting.
Deb asked whether one needed to decide allocation in order for SCS to produce retention lists. Matthew responded that SCS would first need to apply the developed criteria to the data to generate lists of CTR and NFE titles and only then would allocation discussions begin.
v. Journal analysis update – comparisons with publishers or aggregators
Deb and Joan Campbell (Bowdoin) have provided Sara with journal title lists to compare with MSCS holdings.
Sara hopes to have the comparisons completed in time to present at the August 29th MSCS Collection Development Committee meeting. Sara asked whether this was the complete lists of titles she needed to compare. Matthew and Deb responded that it was because the deadline for adding to the lists had passed today. Sara will be compare MSCS title holdings with title lists from Proquest, Portico and JSTOR. 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. Finally, Sara will compare the remaining titles with OCLC holdings to compare overlap in the MSCS group and U.S.
vi. OCLC WorldCat Collection Evaluation tool – proposal update
Matthew sent a reminder to Meghan Hopkins at OCLC regarding MSCS’s requested proposal changes. So far he has not heard anything back from her.
vii. Access to SCS database
Sara reported that she had not yet received the database from SCS containing MSCS holdings data. Sara will contact Andy again about the database.
Sara commented that there was still the issue of there not being a hosting environment for the database. James responded that Maine InfoNet still doesn’t have a subscription to PostgreSQL (which was one option for hosting the database) and that the biggest issue with it is that there is no one at Maine InfoNet who has the administrator experience to manage it. Sara responded that with web space so cheap there must be a number of options out there.
Sara and James will investigate different hosting options and report back to the Project Team on their findings.
b. Loading & display of retention information in catalogs
i. Recording in a note “reviewed, but not committed to retain” titles – Technical Services Committee opposition
Although at the July 30 MSCS Collection Development Committee meeting the Committee had agreed that MSCS should record in a note field (not in the 583) in local catalogs (not publicly displayed) that the title was ‘Not selected for MSCC retention 2013’. Sara brought this issue up at the July 5th MSCS Technical Services Committee meeting. The Committee was unanimous in their opposition to adding the note. They felt it would require a great deal of work for not much additional information. Consensus was that a lack of a retention statement on older material already indicated that it had been considered and did not required retention.
Barbara asked Sara whether the note couldn’t just be added using rapid update. Sara responded that it could but lists would still need to be compiled first. Deb asked whether it would be Sara anyway who would be completing the work for this. Sara responded it would in the short-term, but that the MSCS Technical Services representatives would be expected to complete the work in the future. Matthew and Sara went on to comment that another concern that certain Committee members had expressed was that adding this note would just be another field which had no benefit and complicate the record.
The Project Team had no objections to reversing this decision as long as the Collection Development Committee approved it. Matthew and Deb commented that the Collection Development Committee was fairly indifferent to having the note in the first place. Sara commented that in Matthew’s meeting summary for the Collection Development Committee meeting they appeared to think there is “no harm doing it”, but the Technical Services Committee felt there was definite “harm” in doing so.
Matthew will contact the MSCS Collection Development Committee members and ask them to vote on whether they see value in adding the field, or whether (in light of the Technical Service Committee opposition) they agree to reverse their decision and NOT require MSCS libraries record in a local note field that a title was ‘Not selected for MSCC retention 2013’.
ii. Title-holdings Pro-active Add Process
At the July 30th MSCS Collection Development Committee meeting, the Committee agreed that there needs to be another set of procedures for MSCS libraries to make retention commitments on title-holdings they haven’t been allocated to retain, but actually want to make a commitment to retain. For example, this might apply when adding a gift of a rare, non-digitized volume to one’s collection.
Deb had suggested in the meeting outcome summary that if materials are going to be identified in batches from SCS spreadsheets for Sara to add CTR before the end of grant; this should be coordinated among group so she can do it efficiently all at once. She might give guidance on how libraries should identify such holdings. But for individual titles, during or post-grant, each library should be able to add at will.
Sara commented that she would be concerned if the libraries were adding local CTR disclosures that it could result in complications when she completes the batch loading for OCLC.
Deb commented that each library should develop their own local procedures rather there being a group MSCS procedure. Matthew commented that he doubts there will be a big demand to add additional retention commitments.
Sara agreed to email the MSCS Technical Services & Collection Development Committees with some guidance regarding proactively adding commitments.
iii. Local Catalog – single copy loading updates
Sara reported that so far 780,000 CTR statements have been loaded in the MARC 583 field of MSCS library local catalogs. Sara is working with Maine InfoNet on the public display of the commitments in URSUS. She has also been discussing with Colby, Bowdoin, and Bates their public displays. So far Sara has not got an answer from Portland Public Library on their public display. Deb asked Sara to send her examples of the public display for UMaine to review before they go live.
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. Sara is going through those lists this week and will get them out to the libraries once she has finished.
iv. OCLC WorldCat – Linking of shared print symbols, batch loading LHRs & decision whether to disclosure until after reversals completed
Matthew asked the Project Team for their thoughts on whether to delay disclosing MSCS retention commitments in OCLC until the reversal procedure has been completed.
Deb agreed to complete her review of UMaine’s CTR’s and reverse any commitments (that meet the criteria for not being necessary) before the October 1st deadline. The Project Team agreed that 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. Sara commented that Bill Carney (OCLC) had recommended that before updating the LHRs, MSCS is sure that the commitments will last. Bill had also asked Sara for estimates of commitments likely to be added, so he can add the figures to his monthly reports.
Sara has spoken to Bill Carney, Constance Malpas, and Lizanne Payne about multi copy sets, and applying the retention statement to ALL copies in the local catalog, and adding a 583 subfield x (Nonpublic note) with something like “Multi Copy Set, Retention required on single copy”. MSCS would create only 1 LHR in OCLC. Bill had reported that he and Constance were confused about which library would contribute the LHR for the entire set and how that would relate to the other copies. Constance is going to arrange a phone call to discuss this further with Bill, Sara and Matthew.
MSCS have decided that where there are special collection CTR copies libraries should also retain circulating copies (if there are any). This would need to be made clear in the subfield, to ensure both the special collections and circulating copies are retained.
v. MaineCat
Until Innovative Interface, Inc. (III) produce their fix to the 583 display issues, Sara still intends 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.
James reported that III representatives had not spoken to him about the fix when they came to Maine last month.
vi. CRL PAPR database – register MSCS
Matthew spoke to Marie Waltz at Center for Research Libraries (CRL) about the process for adding MSCS retention commitments to the PAPR database. MSCS now has an entry in their directory: http://papr.crl.edu/program/56/maine-shared-collections-strategy-mscs. Matthew commented that the retention period listed for MSCS is still confusing, as it appears to say MSCS are committing to retain items for 10 years (rather than the 15 we are actually committing to), but Marie informed Matthew that it was designed as a pull down box with either 10 or 25 but no 15! So, for now she will return this to unspecified and hope people will read the description.
MSCS have 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!
Marie informed Matthew that they would need some example 583’s for committed to retain serials and journals to make sure all the information they need is there. Sara will follow up with Marie when MSCS have some example serial commitments to show her.
c. HathiTrust/Google Books
i. Implementation investigations – loading records into SOLAR and review examples of display in MaineCat
Sara presented an example MaineCat record with HathiTrust, Google Book and ILL links.
Sara (and Matthew) showed that clicking on the “Read Online from HathiTrust” link will take a user to the HathiTrust website where they can view a copy of the item. Included on the HathiTrust website are options for downloading a copy of the book. Users can also download a copy either on page by page basis, or the whole book if they are a patron of a HathiTrust partner library.
Sara also included a link titled “Download from Google Books” which takes a user to the Google Books website where they can download a copy. Sara commented that unfortunately HathiTrust don’t record in the metadata that an item was Google digitized, so she has to use the Google Books API to look it up instead.
Sara commented that she might have to massage HathiTrust data before the links go up. James agreed with Sara that the data should be pre-processed.
The third link was titled “Borrow a Print Copy” which takes a user to a MaineCat page where they request a print copy of the item from their home library (MSCC libraries only). Selecting Bowdoin as the library takes the user to their ILL page.
A discussion this ensued regarding Print-On-Demand (POD). Clem commented that the original intention of MSCS was to identify materials that could be got rid of because they are available in the HathiTrust and if a patron wanted a hard copy they could submit a request for a POD copy.
Matthew commented that he is not sure how much use a POD service would receive and whether the service would actually benefit libraries or their patrons. Matthew thought it more likely that users would use the “Buy a Copy” link in HathiTrust which takes them to Amazon.com.
Barbara expressed some concern at giving up an in-house solution using UMaine Printing Services in favor of Amazon. Barbara went on to say that she thought one of the goals of POD was for libraries themselves to be able to provide print copies of frequently requested titles to patrons and then the POD copies could become part of a libraries’ collection. The Project Team agreed that there is always the danger of someone abusing the POD system especially if MSCS chose a model where ownership of the title is transferred to the requester.
Clem commented that before a decision is made on POD the Project Team needs to review the language of the IMLS grant application to see what it says MSCS committed to deliver for POD services. Matthew read to the Project Team what the narrative document said which was as follows:
“The partner libraries will develop a service delivery model for POD and EOD titles to complement the physical delivery service. The model will do the following.
• An Espresso print-on-demand machine will be purchased and housed at one of the member libraries that has agreed to operate it on behalf of the partners.
• A request mechanism for print on demand will be implemented in MaineCat for digital titles that can be printed using the Espresso print-on-demand station.
• Requests for POD titles will be managed by this partner and will be delivered through a method to be determined by the project, or through same–service. day
• A cost model for POD service will be developed and tested.
• In year two, the POD service will become available to all Maine libraries using the developed cost model.
• A request mechanism for EOD service will be implemented in MaineCat for digital titles that can be downloaded in the Open E-book standard.
• A cost model for POD and EOD services for subscription-based digital titles will be developed and tested.”
Matthew commented that one can substitute “Espress” book machine for “UMaine Printing Services”. Clem commented that potentially Amazon could count as the chosen business model. However, the Project Team agreed that MSCS first needs to explore having a POD service using the UMaine Printing Services.
Sara reported that she had checked with the University of Michigan and they couldn’t integrate their Espresso Book Machine catalog with their catalog.
The Project Team agreed that there does NOT need to be a “Buy a copy” option, as users can simply use the “Buy a Copy” link in HathiTrust.
The Project Team agreed that the third option “Borrow a copy” will allow patrons of MSCS libraries to request a POD copy. The request will be routed to the University of Maine who will fulfill the request using the University of Maine’s Printing Services. So for example, if a Colby patron submits a POD request a copy will be sent to Colby by the University of Maine. MSCS will use grant funds to test the demand for the POD service. Rather than testing certain categories of material all records will get the links.
In addition to the three links available print copies will also be displayed which users can request as opposed to needing a POD copy.
The Project Team were impressed with the links presented to them. Sara will have more record examples in time to be presented at the MSCS Director’s Council on August 30th.
Sara reported that she had been looking at using OCLC’s WorldShare Metadata Collection Manager product as a way to get the HathiTrust records, as she thinks it would be more sustainable than the harvester. The service is available for free to any institution with a full cataloging subscription. Sara asked James whether Maine InfoNet belonged to OCLC? James responded that Maine InfoNet did not have a full cataloguing subscription, so she would have to use another partner’s subscription (if MSCS used this service). Sara confirmed that if you grab it, it doesn’t include the holdings and that she has been told by OCLC that there isn’t a cost. Deb asked Sara to notify Sharon if she used UMaine’s login. Clem responded that he would be happy for Sara to use Colby’s login, but he would like Sara to confirm with OCLC billing that their cataloging subscription won’t be affected if they downloaded one million records!
ii. Membership investigations update
Matthew commented that the news from HathiTrust that they are not willing to except the Maine Shared Collections Cooperative (MSCC) as a partner library consortium with single holdings is hugely frustrating. Matthew expects the MSCS Directors to decide whether they want to become members at the August 30th Directors’ Council meeting. Matthew commented that even if only two libraries join, MSCS would still be committing the $26,000 included in the revised budget.
Clem responded that Colby still wants to become a member. James commented that should UMaine still want to join, Shibboleth is almost ready to go.
d. Print On Demand
i. Clarify vision and ideas for practical delivery
See above.
e. Budget
i. Update on partner contributions towards SCS costs
Matthew received Colby’s and Bates’ payment for their contributions to contracting with SCS, which means all libraries have now paid their contributions.
ii. Budget vs. actual spending update
Prior to the meeting Matthew had sent to the Project Team details of MSCS spending compared to what was budgeted for in his revised budget.
Matthew reported that although MSCS is currently under spending in the budget line for the MSCS contracted Systems Librarian (Sara Amato) he had spoken to Sara about her hours and she said in the future as MSCS demands on her increases and once the schools are back she will be able to commit more hours to MSCS. Between now and the end of the grant she guesstimates that she could commit to 1200 hours, which would be a massive leap from how many hours she has billed for thus far.
Another large sum MSCS had budgeted is the $15,000 for III, which now appears won’t be needed. Add to this the total amount of misc. under spending (not including Sara’s) and it comes to approximately $24,000. Matthew asked the Project Team whether they had any suggestions for grant related expenditure.
The Project Team discussed the possibility of using unspent grant funds to pay to keep MSCS Program Manager Matthew Revitt beyond the end of his contract (May 30, 2014) to coordinate activities such as the end of project event (see below). MSCS would not be asking for additional funds, just more time to do more with same amount.
James recommended that Matthew speaks to Andrew Ines from the UMaine Office of Research & Sponsored Programs (ORSP) about the options available to MSCS for using unspent funds, including beyond the grant period. Should MSCS continue beyond the grant period it would still meet its cost sharing match by virtue of library staff’s time working on grant activities.
Matthew will speak to Andrew Ines and report back to the Project Team.
f. MSCC Sustainability
i. MOU – update on submission of signed copies
Matthew received a signed copy of the MOU from Bowdoin last week and from Colby today, so the only signed copies he is still waiting for are from Bangor and Portland public libraries. Barbara reported that the MOU had been approved by her board, but still hasn’t be signed.
ii. Bob Kieft’s suggestions – Teaching document for shared print, agenda for future activity & national invitation event
National invitation event
Matthew circulated his idea last week of having an end of project two hour session at ALA Annual Conference 2014 to present the results of the project. Matthew commented that his idea was a bit different to Bob’s in that he was just proposing a two hour session rather than the day-long event Bob had suggested.
Matthew had received feedback from some of the Project Team and obviously the sticking point is the costs because having it at ALA Annual 2014 would mean it is post-grant, which could lead to all sort of complications (see above). But any earlier and MSCS would probably still be working on the nitty gritty of the grant work.
The Project Team agreed such an event of project even would be an excellent way for MSCS to contribute to the national dialogue on shared print. Clem commented that he rather than just a two hour session it should be an all-day event, similar to the example Bob gave in his email of Aberdeen Woods. Perhaps, as Bob suggested, it could be part of an extended Print Archive Network (PAN) event at ALA. A discussion then ensued regarding whether PAN events are on the ALA schedule and whether MSCS could just a book meeting space at ALA, but not actually be on the schedule. Clem suggested that perhaps the event could be extended to international groups such as the White Rose Consortium and UKRR Research Reserve.
The Project Team agreed that before any planning can take place Matthew needs to speak to Andrew Ines from UMaine ORSP about using grant funds beyond the grant period (see above).
Teaching document for shared print
Unfortunately, due to time constraints this item was not discussed.
Agenda for future activity
Unfortunately, due to time constraints this item was not discussed.
iii. Future staffing of MSCC
Unfortunately, due to time constraints this item was not discussed.
Matthew recommended that because there is a lot to cover at each meeting more decisions should be made via email and perhaps additional phone conference meetings are required.
iv. Website – hosting, WordPress & content beyond MSCS
Unfortunately, due to time constraints this item was not discussed.
g. Marketing
i. UMaine promotion
Matthew’s Maine Policy Review article was published in the Bangor Daily News.
ii. Publish through ALCTS
MSCS have still got the option to publish through ALCTS.
2. Conferences & Meetings
a. Planned MSCS presentations & reports
i. IFLA Conference, Singapore, August 19, 2013
Clem and Matthew travel to Singapore for the IFLA Conference this week. Their presentation slides and script are complete. They also have an e-handout which Matthew added to the MSCS website (which will hopefully give MSCS lots of hits). The presentation is on Monday August 19th.
ii. NELA Conference, Portland, October 21, 2013
Matthew and Deb have submitted their speaker registration forms for NELA. They both received complimentary registration and one meal on the day of the presentation (Monday October 21).
b. Proposed MSCS papers
i. Charleston Conference – MSCS paper update
Deb and Becky are still waiting to hear whether or not their paper was accepted by the Charleston Conference.
3. Upcoming meetings
a. August 29, Collection Development Meeting, Miller Library
b. August 30, Director’s Council Meeting, Miller Library
c. September 11, Project Team Meeting, Fogler Library