From: rkenselaar_at_nypl.org
ALCTS
Chief Collection Development Officers of Large Research Libraries
Discussion Group
8:30 - 11:30 AM
Joint meeting with the Collection Development Librarians of Academic
Libraries Discussion Group
11:30 - 12:30 PM
Saturday, February 15, 1997
Renaissance Washington
Congressional Hall A
Washington, D.C.
Agenda
Heike Kordish (NYPL), Chair
Gay Dannelly (Ohio State), Secretary, chair-elect
1. Introduction and Announcements
2. Budget Survey (Bob Sewell)
A report on a comparison of our respective 1996/97 materials budgets.
3. Outsourcing and collection development (David Farrell)
Technical processing departments are implementing new "outsourced"
services from vendors and utilities. What are these services? Who
provides them? What are their strengths and weaknesses? What is their
impact on collection development?
4. Model licensing agreements (Ann Okerson)
What can be done to eliminate the need to negotiate licenses on a
one-by-one basis? What do research libraries need to tackle the problems
that licensing presents? What might be done to meet those needs?
5. National principles for licensing information (Brian Schottlaender)
Update on the progress of the ARL/SLC Licensing Working Group on
crafting a set of national principles, based, in part, on "Principles
for Acquiring and Licensing Information in Digital Formats" (aka the
"California Principles," http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/
Info/principles.html).
6. Getting State Support (Gay Dannelly).
Who among us has been successful at persuading state legislatures to put
money into research libraries? What methods were used to achieve this
end? Where did the leadership for such an effort originate? Did such
action entail the inclusion of non-research library constituencies
(e.g., K-12) in the plan? What has been the role, if any, of the state
library in this process? What advice can those who have been successful
provide the rest of us?
7. LC proofslips and non-mainstream U.S. materials (Ross Atkinson)
LC has decided to continue its CDS Alert Service ("LC proof
slips")--however, in the discussion that was generated by that decision,
it did become clear that many fewer research libraries now use such slips
for selection than was the case in the past. One main use of the LC
slips has traditionally been as a means of locating non-mainstream
domestic publications. Is the lower use of the LC slips an indication
that other, preferable sources are available to locate such publications
(and, if so, what are these sources?), or is this an indication that very
few of us are still regularly buying non-mainstream domestic
publications?
8. Collection management issues (Louis Pitschmann)
Large research libraries have traditionally devoted more staff and money
to "collection development" (adding to collections) than to "collection
management" (managing collections once they are in place). Do the size
of existing print collections and the long- and short-term potential for
digital storage call for a change in how research collections are
managed? How can we more efficiently manage existing collections
receiving increasingly lower use? Does collection management offer
better opportunities for cooperative programs than does collection
development?
9. Faculty and copyright (David Farrell)
Scholars routinely sign away copyright permission to publishers; several
academic institutions are examining this practice and its impact on
serials pricing and collections budgets. What are universities and
scholarly organizations doing about it? What are the prospects for
improving services and relieving budgets if universities (or other
non-profit agencies) exerted more control over copyrights?
10. Use criteria for selection (Bob Sewell)
What sort of use studies are libraries doing related to journals, books,
electrons? How do we use this data? If we use data for
allocations/selection decisions are we being driven by short-term
"market forces" or are we making decision consisted with the values of
academia?
11. Subsidized access to canceled journals (Richard Ring)
The University of Kansas Libraries has provided unmediated access to
UnCover for about 18 months, with faculty and graduate student use
(document delivery) subsidized by the library. Meanwhile, over the last
two fiscal years KU has canceled $465,000 in serials, paying close
attention to the availability of canceled journals through UnCover. Data
through December 1996 indicate that KU has saved a considerable amount of
money by using UnCover. Is KU's experience a harbinger for other
research libraries? What are the larger issues does the research library
community face when considering a shift to subsidized document delivery
of journal articles?
Joint meeting with the Collection Development Librarians of Academic
Libraries Discussion Group
1. Welcome and announcements. (Bonnie Cox)
Reports:
2. Center for Research Libraries. (Susan Rabe)
In addition to Susan Rabe's report, Don Simpson, President of CRL, will
report on CRL program planning and project implementation.
3. Association of Research Libraries. (Deborah Jakubs)
4. Library of Congress. (Bill Schenck)
HK/RWK 2/10/97
Received on Tue Feb 11 1997 - 08:37:10 EST