Maine Shared Collections Strategy Project Team

September 11, 2013

Fogler Library Conference Room

2:00 – 4:00 PM

Attendees: Sara Amato (called in), Clem Guthro, James Jackson Sanborn, Barbara McDade, Matthew Revitt, Deb Rollins

1.    Project Updates

a.    Collection Analysis

i.    Retention Scenario One – review publisher’s list for CTR Reversal Request Process & agree on comparison approach and whether still need October 1st deadline

Matthew reported that judging by the positive response to Clem’s list of publishers to remove from the CTR list it appears the MSCS Collection Development Committee think it is a good approach to take. Matthew had not received this level of response since the development of the local protection rules.

The deadline for adding to the list of publishers is tomorrow (September 12th), so Matthew asked the Project Team’s approval of the list as it currently stands.

Matthew asked the Project Team whether they were happy for all the work of those publishers on the list to have their Commit To Retain (CTR) removed.

The Project Team discussed whether certain publishers should be included, but decided in the end to approve the contents of the list as it currently stood. The Project Team recognized that Sara will need to be careful to make sure that publisher names are not mixed up for example, the paperback publisher Berkeley is on the list, but the University of California Berkeley is not. Deb had suggested in the publishers list that some names must be searched for elimination as a phrase (in quotes or however that can be accomplished). E.g. “mcgraw hill” and “mcgraw-hill” but NOT “hill”.

Sara commented that identifying the correct publisher might be tough. Clem suggested that Sara starts with ‘difficult’ publishers, and pull out a list of them for the Project Team to review and confirm that they are happy with the results, before Sara begins reversing CTRs. In terms of the actual reversing of commitments in the catalogs Sara confirmed for Deb that she intends to start off with little bits and then work her way up to en masse.

Clem commented that removing commitments from this material will mean that the libraries will not have to replace missing items.

Matthew reported that in all likelihood MSCS’s approach to reversing CTRs now means that libraries will no longer need to submit reversal requests before the October 1st deadline because after the publishers list has been agreed Sara will already have all the information she needs to batch reverse the commitments. This also means that although UMaine can still act as a test case for batch loading the OCLC LHRs, Deb won’t need to complete any additional review of UMaine’s CTR lists because by using the agreed criteria the reversals will be done together in batch.

However, Matthew left the October 1st deadline in the procedures to give the Collection Development Committee chance to review their CTR lists to identify batch categories (not individual) of title-holdings which were mistakenly included in the analysis. Matthew also wanted to still give the Committee the chance to identify additional criteria which can be applied in batch, but that would need to be agreed by the Project Team and the Committee. Matthew commented that he doesn’t think this likely, but he didn’t want to rule out the possibility.

Sara and Deb have produced guidance for reversing and pro-actively adding CTR disclosures during this period of refining retention commitments. The Project Team reviewed the guidance and agreed that the refining period will end on December 31st, 2013 even if the commitments haven’t been disclosed in OCLC. After this date, items with retention statements should not be deleted from local catalogs nor should the retention statements be removed. Items can be marked lost, missing or withdrawn. The terms of the MOU and any “appeals” process that might be developed will guide whether materials must be replaced or are allowed to be removed.

The Project Team agreed that after Sara makes the agreed revisions she should send it to the MSCS Collection Development Committee. A copy of the guidance can be found here.

ii.    Retention Scenario Two – progress of SCS data reports & possible confusion of using ‘scenario’

Progress of SCS data reports

Following the August 29th Collection Development Committee meeting Matthew and Deb spoke with Andy Breeding (SCS) to confirm MSCS’s work request. Matthew presented a copy of the SCS “to do” list and asked if the Project Team had any questions and/or wanted any changes made.

Clem asked Matthew why it said “title-sets with zero aggregate circulations will be pulled out of this group to ensure they can never be given a CTR assignment (Clem’s request)”. Matthew responded that he and Deb had explained in a phone conversation with Andy that MSCS wanted to review these titles separately and that MSCS were not ruling out the possibility that some may eventually be given a CTR assignment. Matthew had also corrected Andy that although MSCS wants title-sets in the HathiTrust Public Domain category pulled out of for review it doesn’t mean they will never be given a CTR assignment. The language “to ensure they can never be given a CTR assignment” should be changed to or read as “and added to a Needs Further Examination group.”

Clem asked Matthew why under the heading “Title-Holdings to be marked as Commit to Retain” it said “Added 2003 or later”. Matthew responded that this was a confusing issue which should have been made clearer from the outset. Matthew confirmed that title-sets that were published post-2003 are out scope, but that any individual copies (of titles published pre-2003) added by libraries after 2003 were marked as CTR.

Clem asked whether the lists MSCS receives back from MSCS will have had the publishers identified in Retention Scenario One (see above) already removed. Deb and Matthew responded that MSCS won’t be providing us with lists back, only revised slides with data totals, because MSCS as yet haven’t agreed on the final criteria to be applied to the data. But that Andy had said in his message to Matthew and Deb that “We (SCS) will investigate options for supporting your request to identify titles from specific publishers that can be exempted from their current Commit-to-Retain status – and report back.” Clem responded that this work should be done before MSCS gets the data back because it could significantly change the numbers. Matthew will contact Andy to remind him about this work.

Matthew should receive the reports and lists from Andy by the end of this week. Matthew has sent out a Doodle Poll to the Collection Development Committee for them to vote on the date and time of their next meeting. This meeting will be a chance for the Committee to review the data reports received back from SCS.

Possible confusion of using ‘scenario’

Matthew reported that saying ‘Retention Scenario One and ‘Retention Scenario Two’ could make it seem like MSCS are taking about different options when actually it is just describing different stages. Matthew commented that it would take a bit of work to change the terms on the MSCS website. Also ‘scenario’ had already been used in various articles and presentations. However, in the long-term it might make more sense to call it ‘stages’ or ‘steps’ especially when presenting to an external audience.

The Project Team agreed that the use of ‘scenario’ could be potentially misleading, but that ‘scenario’ had been used widely by MSCS. Therefore, the Project Team agreed to keep ‘scenario’ but add ‘step’ so from this point on ‘Retention Scenario One’ will be now known as ‘Retention Scenario Step One’.

iii.    Retention of reference books

In Retention Scenario Step One, MSCS agreed that anything with zero circulations and that did not meet the retention criteria would not receive a CTR. This meant that a lot of reference material will not have received CTRs. Deb commented that Scenario Step Two only applied to circulating copies.

Matthew asked the Project Team whether they thought reference material be treated differently because it doesn’t circulate.

Clem responded that the MSCC Collections and Operations Committee (to be formed) would investigate in the future the retention of reference material. Clem and Barbara had previously spoken about Bangor housing a comprehensive and circulating State of Maine reference collection. The context for this is that libraries like Colby and Bates are getting rid of physical reference material in favor of electronic copies. However, these electronic copies are not always available to patrons of other libraries. MSCS libraries could chose to be Collection Builders for reference material which would mean agreeing to ingest and validate retained materials. Deb suggested that if Bangor Public are interested in housing reference material, Barbara should contact Bates (who have withdrawn reference material) and Bowdoin (who are going through withdrawals currently) and ask for lists of withdrawn material to see if they want to ingest it before it goes. Clem commented that Bates had been good at making withdrawn material available on the Maine libraries listserve MELIBS.

The Project Team agreed that a separate retention decision does not need to be made regarding reference material.

iv.    Journal analysis update – local protection titles, special collection titles, rare in OCLC titles and comparisons with publishers or aggregators

Sara updated the Project Team on her collection analysis comparison work looking at local protected, special collection and unique in OCLC serial titles.

Sara presented the database she created, which allows a search for MSCS serial titles available in JSTOR, HathiTrust Public Doman, Portico, Periodicals Archive Online, Proquest American Periodicals and Proquest British Periodicals. The database also allows users to search for titles which are in the local protected category (originally developed for monographs). The ‘Protected’ tab is ready to generate downloadable spreadsheet reports that can be sent to the Collection Development Committee for review.

Sara commented that some titles probably shouldn’t be on the serials list but got caught in it because they have a location of periodical. Sara also had some difficulty in identifying which titles are stored in special collections because she suspected that she didn’t have all the location codes used by libraries for special collections. Sara confirmed with SCS which location codes had been considered special collection codes for the monograph analysis and added additional ones to her special collections flag. Sara is going to look again at special collection codes for URSUS before generating lists.

Sara’s comparisons between MSCS serial/journal titles with the large collections above (not including HathiTrust) showed there was an overlap of 4,400 titles. Sara reminded the Project Team that this overlap is based only on title matching, not on years or volumes held in the libraries and the online collections.

Sara reported that after looking at the series data she realized that it was not exactly what MSCS were after and so she needed to re-pull a cleaner version of the data. Back in January, Sara was getting monographic series included with SCS data and not duplicating it for HathiTrust. As a result the HathiTrust files don’t include many things that she thought they should for the journal work. Sara has been going back to the catalogs and re-pulling data, using a much simpler search strategy (basically things that are bib level ‘s’ and rec type ‘a’ – print). Sara had to use trial and error for getting the right search for the series *print, non gov doc* material.

The Project Team agreed that Sara should identify MSCS titles for which there are fewer than 50 holdings in OCLC. Sara reported that there are approximately 5,000 MSCS titles for which there are fewer than 50 holdings in OCLC, are not in the above large digitized collections (excluding HathiTrust), and also are not in the local protected category. Sara confirmed that the 5,000 total includes book series which accounts for what seemed to the Project Team a high figure.

Clem commented that he thought 5,000 was actually a low figure especially because more than half of these were probably continuations, not journals. Clem went on to say that MSCS needs to pull out journals because the MSCS grant application said the project would look at them, not continuations. Clem felt the contiunations should be dealt with separately.

The Project Team discussed how the collection analysis of journals will be more granular than for more monographs. Gene Wiemers (Bates) had commented at the last MSCS Director’s Council meeting that he doesn’t want blanket commitments without first looking title by title at what the libraries would be expected to retain. Deb commented that the Collection Development Committee should have the chance to review lists of journal titles and agree what should receive CTRs.

Matthew commented that the Collection Development Committee were more likely to respond to comparison reports than having to use the database to run searches themselves. Sara confirmed that her database was just a means to an end of generating comparison reports and not for the Collection Development Committee to use themselves.

Sara reported that adding retention statements on serial/journal holdings is going to be a more manual and labor-intensive process than it was for monographs and simple items, which have been rather straightforward to batch. But for the series, retention statements will need to have the holdings data, and perhaps be in the checkin record. Sara thinks that this will be a manual process, since they will all be different and that making generic title level commitments would be misleading because libraries may have only part of a series. Sara noted the display in the catalogs will also be less straightforward, but, on the up side, if LHRs are created then the commitments will display in MaineCat, so perhaps that will suffice.

v.    OCLC WorldCat Collection Evaluation tool – proposal update

Matthew had nothing new to report on this, but kept it on the agenda as a reminder that he still awaiting a response from Meghan Hopkins (OCLC) regarding MSCS requested changes to their proposal for deferred access to OCLC’s WorldCat Collection Evaluation tool.

vi.    Access to SCS database

Albie Dunn (Maine InfoNet) has given Sara a database to use for the text file she received from SCS containing all of the MSCS data that SCS had originally received from the MSCS libraries (and additional data added) to generate their reports and analysis. 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.

Sara reported that since MSCS did not get the database structure along with the data she needs to spend some time creating a structure that will work for MSCS needs.

The Project Team agreed that the database work is relatively low priority and that Sara should continue to work on getting the serial/journal work and CTR statements completed.

b.    Loading & display of retention information in catalogs

i.    Local Catalog – single copy & multi-item loading updates

At the time of the meeting 812,993 commitments had been disclosed in MSCS library local catalogs (across all eight libraries).

The Project Team agreed that Sara should wait until the CTR lists for the multi-item bibs have been filtered of reversed CTRs first before disclosing commitments in local catalogs.

At the last Director’s Council Meeting, Deb had proposed removing the word ‘retention’ from the publically displayed MSCC retention statement to read “MSCS Copy”. Matthew asked the Project Team whether they agreed with this proposed change because he wanted MSCS libraries to be consistent in the wording. After reviewing an example of the display in Bates’ public display, the Project Team agreed that the statement should not be near the table with the item information because patrons could think item is unavailable. The Project Team discussed that a possible solution is having it displayed down in the bib record, or, if it is near the item, it needs to not use the word ‘retention’. Matthew commented that Gene had mentioned at the last Director’s Council meeting that based on Bates’ experience of having the message displayed the confusion would only last a couple of weeks.

Matthew asked Sara to explain the reason why the message is where it is currently. Sara responded that they had used Sharon Saunders’ (Bates) instructions to transfer a list of barcodes into an item list. Sara went on to say that in hindsight public service staff at the libraries should have also been consulted. Sara confirmed for Deb that the message can also be a link to guidance explaining what the statement refers to.

Clem suggested that even though it would take up more real estate just displaying “Maine Shared Collection Cooperative’ might work.

James commented that the use of the word ‘copy’ might make patrons think they are getting a different MSCC copy not the ‘regular’ copy.

The Project Team agreed that MSCS libraries should be as consistent as possible with both the wording and where the message is displayed. Sara responded that there will be a certain level of consistency anyway because with the creation of the shared Colby, Bates and Bowdoin (CBB) catalog there will only be three different local catalogs used by MSCS libraries (CBB, URSUS and Portland Public).

The Project Team agreed that to avoid any confusion and to save real estate space the linked text should simply read “MSCC”.

ii.    OCLC WorldCat – batch loading LHRs & recording multiple copy works

Nothing to report.

iii.    MaineCat

Nothing to report.

iv.    Pro-actively adding Commitments To Retain

Covered above.

c.    HathiTrust/Google Books

i.    Loading records into SOLAR & displaying links in MaineCat – loading update, custom collections & hiding URL’s

Matthew commented that it was nice to hear that the Directors at their August 30th meeting were pleased with the work Sara has done with the links to HathiTrust and Google Books. Their only requested change was to hide the link URL in the record. James has spoken to Albie Dunn (Maine InfoNet) about whether it could be hidden. Albie at first thought this would be a straightforward process using web option, but he realized that because of some oddities with MaineCat that it could be done, but with JavaScript instead, which is unfortunate because the web option works better.

Matthew asked Sara whether she was still thought she would get the massaging and loading of HathiTrust records into SOLAR by October. Sara responded that it is still a realistic deadline; all she will need to do is grab the records when she has them from OCLC. Following discussion at the last Project Team meeting,Sara had checked with OCLC and found that using their Collection Management tool to get HathiTrust records from WorldCat Knowledge Base is a no-cost feature, does not automatically set holdings on the titles, and will not increase one’s cataloging subscription fee. Sara is currently waiting for her account to be setup so she can start using the Collection Management tool. Sara confirmed that she had spoken to Alisia Revitt (Maine InfoNet) about setting up a location/branch in SOLAR to hold HathiTrust records.

James and Sara discussed which field and subfields she is using for the URL and text (856 $z and $r respectively).

Custom collections

After conducting some initial research Sara thought that creating custom HathiTrust collections was going to be a manual process. But after contacting Jeremy York (HathiTrust) about this he pointed her to the following guidance.

After looking at this guidance Sara felt it was actually something that can be done as a list (not manually) which meant it was going to be a lot easier process than she first thought. Sara is going to try it out with the collection guidelines Deb provided.

ii.    Membership update – communications with Jeremy York & coordinating membership questions

Following the August 30th Director’s Council meeting Matthew informed Jeremy York (HathiTrust) of Colby’s and UMaine’s decision to become individual partners of the HathiTrust. Jeremy has sent through contracts for signing and partnership checklists which Matthew shared with Clem, Joyce, James and Deb. Deb noted that the initial agreement is for three years, renewable by one-year terms after that.

Deb has spoken to Joyce Rumery, Dean of University of Maine Libraries and Joyce is happy to sign it.

Clem confirmed that he is going to take care of meeting HathiTrust’s requirements at Colby’s end and will speak to Jeremy about working through the checklist and signing the contract.

Prior to the meeting James, had asked Matthew to forward to Jeremy some questions he had regarding Shibboleth. James wanted to know whether there is a document, form, or place for him to submit any information about connecting to the UMaine Shibboleth service, or listing of settings they should verify on his so HathiTrust can make the connection. Jeremy responded that HathiTrust require membership in InCommon in order to set institutions up with Shibboleth. Once you are releasing the required attributes to InCommon, they just need to know that and will get all of the information from InCommon. At that point, they will need the IP address of one or more workstations from which staff will be testing the connection. HathiTrust will allow those IP addresses to access their development environment to test. Matthew asked James whether Jeremy’s response had answered his questions. James said they already knew they needed InCommon and he would prefer to have a form to work through and was still unsure how HathiTrust verify the connection, but that perhaps that comes after the contract and contact information is submitted. Matthew commented that Jeremy had mentioned about IP addresses for testing. James responded that this was about testing whether the user login worked. James confirmed that he is willing to be the technical contact for UMaine and assist Joyce.

Jeremy has informed Matthew that the holdings data HathiTrust have currently for Colby and the University of Maine only includes OCLC numbers, so they will need another submission of holdings data that includes additionally, at a minimum, local bibliographic system numbers.

Matthew has spoken to Sara about this work and after looking at the specifications she confirmed that she could go ahead and do it, but because HathiTrust require full updates of the holding data at least annually she wondered whether this should be done instead by someone at the libraries who will be taking up the HathiTrust torch after the grant. Matthew commented that he thought Sara should do the work as MSCS have the funds to pay her and she can document strategies for the libraries to do it next round. James responded that in URSUS that as long as the query was given a name and saved, it could be used next time round. Clem responded that a complication at Colby is that the moving to the new CBB shared catalog will mean there will be all new bib numbers. Sara responded that if the barcode number isn’t present she uses the item number to add CTR’s, so this will need to be done before the merge happens. Clem confirmed that although the CBB merged catalog will be going live in February 2014, in December, 2013 they will have the merged bibs and items database. Deb commented that the old numbers will need to be saved. Clem responded that the libraries will to know they need to do this to prevent the numbers being lost. Clem will speak to Jeremy York about how HathiTrust deal with changed bib numbers.

Matthew reported that when he had spoken to Jeremy in the past about price quotes he had been told that if another data pull was performed it would slightly change the pricing quote because more members would have joined since the original pull. Matthew will confirm with Jeremy whether the price quoted in the agreement is likely to change.

d.    Print On Demand

i.    Business model & workflow discussions – ‘low tech’ solution for requests, contacting UMaine printing services & deciding where to ship book to

Matthew, James, Sara and Greg Curtis from UMaine ILL met last to discuss the workflow for Print On Demand requests. They agreed that because demand will probably be low and to ensure MSCS have POD up and working in the grant period a ‘low tech’ solution of a simple request email would be the best plan for now. A print request link in the HathiTrust MaineCat record will allow users to request a POD copy. The request will generate an email which will come to Deb and Greg, who will review the request, and submit the order to UMaine printing services, who will send the printed copy back to Fogler Library ILL for shipping. Matthew commented that he will need to get back in contact with the UMaine printing service once MSCS have agreed the process to check there are no issues with them fulfilling orders. Deb responded that she doesn’t think fulfilling what is likely to be a small volume of requests will be an issue for the printing service.

At the Director’s Council meeting it was clear the libraries themselves didn’t want to retain the printed copy. Matthew asked whether this also meant that the POD copy should be sent directly to the requester, not the library, to avoid the need for yet another manual process at the receiving library. Matthew went on to ask whether any authentication was required to verify the requestor is a) a resident of Maine and b) a patron of a Maine library.

The Project Team agreed that the printed copy should be sent directly to the requester. The Project Team also agreed that requesters should also be required to enter the name of the Maine library they are a patron of and their library card barcode number. Deb commented that she and Greg will monitor requests to identify any potential abuses. The requester must have a Maine postal address that the book can be sent to. A discussion then ensued regarding how library users without a library would submit a request and that technically they should go via the Maine State Library.

Matthew asked for the Project Team’s thoughts on who should pay for POD once the grant funds end. Clem responded that MSCS first needs to test the demand before making that decision.

e.    Budget

i.    Travel claims

Matthew processed and submitted for payment MSCS library’s travel claims for the 1st quarter of 2014. Included in the claims were Matthew’s and Clem’s claims for IFLA, which were less than Matthew had originally budgeted for when requesting permission from IMLS to use grant funds to pay for attendance.

ii.    Budget vs. actual spending update

Matthew commented that MSCS continue to have under-spent grant funds including for Sara’s systems and programming work and for categories previously mentioned at MSCS meetings such as the III data work. The travel claims haven’t hit the MSCS account yet, but once they have, Matthew will provide the Project Team with an update on budget vs. actual spending for travel.

iii.    Grant extension update

Since the last Project Team meeting Matthew reviewed guidance about the grant extension process from IMLS and the University of Maine’s Office of Research & Sponsored Programs (ORSP). The ORSP guidance made it clear that extensions are not usually granted solely because a project wants to spend remaining funds. IMLS in their guidance say that they don’t typically extend a grant more than once. The Project Team agreed that the change to the MSCS start date was not an extension, it was just a request to delay the start of the grant period because MSCS hadn’t hired a Program Manager to manage the project.

Deb and Matthew will submit a request via the University of Maine’s Proposal Approval Routing System (PARS). ORSP will then they review the request and submit it to IMLS on MSCS’s behalf. Matthew commented that although MSCS don’t have an immediate deadline for submitting this request he wants it submitted ASAP and he will chase the request to ensure it doesn’t get delayed.

Matthew presented a copy of the PARS form to the Project Team and directed their attention to the sections where he and Deb are expected to provide detailed reasons for why MSCS need an extension and what MSCS’s plan is for unobligated funds. Matthew reported that having spoken to Deb about this he intended on saying that MSCS want to use the funds to present the results of the project, emphasizing that the largest professional library conference occurs soon after the grant has ended and that it is MSCS’s best means of disseminating and sharing final findings in a forum with other libraries and groups engaged in similar projects. Clem suggested that Matthew include the following in the request, “sharing results and building shared print expertise in the library community” and what MSCS have learnt during the project. Matthew responded that to go alongside the national event (and another Bob Kieft suggestion) was MSCS producing a shared print teaching document for others to learn from the project’s work including lessons learned. Matthew commented that he envisaged that such a document would complement the content of the national event and that the extended time would be used to finish it.

Clem also suggested that Matthew include in the request that MSCS will use this extended time to investigate further what is a sustainable business model for shared print and best practices for the larger community. He commented that sustainability is easier with formal structures, but less so in places like Maine where agreements are often done on handshakes, but that perhaps Maine InfoNet could establish a more formal structure.

Matthew commented the extended time could also be used to manage the transition from MSCS to MSCC, forming committees and hopefully seeing other libraries join. James commented that MSCS are not asking for an extension to finish initial set of grant activities, but instead to do more with the same funds.

Clem asked what would happen to under-spent funds if the grant extension request was rejected. Matthew responded that he didn’t know the answer to this, but would speak to ORSP about it, but for the time being he wants to be positive and concentrate on the getting the extension approved.

f.    MSCC Sustainability

i.    MOU – update on submission of signed copies

Barbara submitted to Matthew Bangor Public Library’s signed copy of the MSCC MOU. Matthew is now only waiting for a signed copy from Portland Public Library.

ii.    Bob Kieft’s suggestions – teaching document for shared print & agenda for future activity

Covered above.

iii.    Post-grant activities – staffing of MSCC & extending beyond partners

Matthew commented that before getting on to the details of what is required for staffing and the costs of post-grant activities he wanted to hear the Project Team’s thoughts on what it is they want MSCS to do after the grant because that will hopefully help them plan for what work will be involved.

Clem responded that he sees the issue of sustainability as concerning what will required for other libraries to replicate the work of MSCS. In particular Sara’s work, which the Project Team agreed was vital to making the work of MSCS happen, will not be able to be duplicated by most libraries. Smaller libraries (without grant funded support) would struggle to have the resources to pay for a systems librarian to do the necessarily work to facilitate collections analysis. So for example, how would smaller Minerva libraries be expected to join MSCC?

Matthew asked the Project Team their thoughts on what work will be required of current members–would they need to go through a similar process again in the future? Barbara responded that as years go by the original MSCS libraries would want to analyze and make retention decisions on material published/added after 2003 that were not in scope as part of MSCS.

Matthew asked the Project Team in practical terms what plans MSCS could make for sustainability. Matthew commented that the grant application contained top level actions, but was not specific.

Clem responded that MSCS needs to produce a list of recommended activities and an estimate for the cost to partners and what it would take for others to join and pay for it.

g.    Marketing

i.    Publish through ALCTS

Matthew commented that he left this on the agenda as a reminder that MSCS can publish through ALCTS. The ‘real work’ has taken precedent recently, but the opportunity is still there.

2.    Conferences, Events & Meetings

a.    Planned MSCS presentations & reports

i.    NELA Conference, Portland, October 21, 2013

Mathew commented that he and Deb will need to meet soon to discuss their 45 minute session at the New England Library Association Annual conference in Portland.

ii.    Charleston Conference, November 8, 2013

Deb’s and Becky Albitz’s Charleston Conference presentation titled “Data to Decisions: Shared Print Retention in Maine” has been scheduled for the afternoon of Friday November 8th from 2:15 – 3:00 PM.

b.    Proposed MSCS papers

i.    IFLA Paper publication

Julia Gelfand, who organized the IFLA Acquisitions & Collection Development Section’s Open Session that Clem and Matthew presented at, will be informing the presenters at that session soon which paper they decided to recommend to be published in the IFLA Review. Julie also confirmed that Emerald can publish additional papers and that Clem and Matthew may be contacted by one of those editors over the next few months.

c.    National end of project event planning

Matthew commented that he was pleased the Directors were supportive of MSCS organizing a national end of project event at ALA Annual Conference 2014. Matthew asked the Project Team whether they wanted him to wait to see if the grant had been extended first (see above) before starting to plan the event. Matthew went on to ask the Project Team what they thought having the event as part of an extended Print Archive Network (PAN) event (one of Bob Kieft’s suggestions).

Clem responded that organizing an event such as this would take a lot of logistical work so MSCS need plenty of the time to plan. If MSCS did decide to go the PAN route then Matthew would need to speak to Bob Kieft and representatives from CRL (who organize PAN) regarding having the event as an extended afternoon session of PAN (which is usually on the Friday morning). Clem recommended that Matthew initially contacts the MSCS Advisory Board and asks for their opinion on the event and whether they think PAN was a suitable venue.

d.    OCLC shared print webcast – MSCS attendance

Matthew and Deb have registered to remotely attend the October 15th OCLC webcast “Getting off the Island: Collaborating to Create Boundless Collections” which Bob Kieft and representatives from shared print projects and OCLC are presenting at. Matthew will send information about the webcast to other MSCS committee members.

3.    Upcoming meetings

a.    October 10, Project Team Meeting, Fogler Library

Matthew reminded the Project Team that their next meeting has been rescheduled and will take place Thursday October 10th from 2-4PM.