Collection Development Council
July 27, 2000 - Minutes of the Meeting
SML Room 409
2:30 – 4:00 p.m.

Present: Ken Crilly, Paul Conway, Fred Martz, George Miles, Ann Okerson, Kimberly Parker, Sue Roberts, Cesar Rodriguez (for Tanja Lorkovic), Andy Shimp, Rochelle Smith, David Stern, David Walls, Will Wheeler (Chair)

Absent: Cynthia Crooker, Jo-Anne Giamattei, Marianna McKim, Paul Stuehrenberg, Chris Weideman

Guest: Jeffrey Larson

I.  Announcements

1.  Kimberly Parker announced that she had sent three items to CDC for final approval and had so far received no response. The items are:

a.  Criteria for archiving electronic resources (see ). At a recent discussion of this document, the CDC requested certain revisions. They were made and this version is accepted.

b.  Information about Yale Library "branding" of e-resources, including graphical suggestions. This item could benefit from further discussion at a meeting in the Fall.

c.  E-Resources License Policy. During discussion of this document, CDC expressed concern that the current draft does not identify the appropriate signing authority(ies) for the Yale Library. Kim will take item back to CoDGeR for appropriate follow up and will bring the policy back to CDC for approval in the fall.

2.  Kim announced that CoDGeR has a new intern, Gillian Mayman of the Medical Library. Gillian will be joining CoDGeR at its next meeting.
 

Ann Okerson reported that Mike DiMassa has been working with Maggie Powell (who has moved to the Walpole Library as its Director) regarding procedures and tools for selector identification of materials for transfer to the Library Shelving Facility. Mike, the Manager of the LSF, will be coordinating the process for selectors as of this summer and onward, replacing Maggie. He plans to schedule meetings in the next few weeks with SML selectors and curators to review the Access databases and selection techniques.

Ann noted that this year the Access databases have been generated later than last year, when they were produced in May. Stephanie Schmitt (Library Systems) has been creating the selector reports, which will be available next week. The new lists are expected to generate over 200,000 records. Selectors will be asked to review their classification sections as soon as possible, so that the LSF staff can begin transferring this FY's quota of SML volumes (approximately 250,000) to the LSF. The LSF staff need some titles no later than September 15th.

There is not a significant number of serials and sets in the report that Stephanie is working on; however, a run later in the year will include these, as by then processes for transferring such items should be in place. CDC members suggested that Mike be invited to speak at a future CDC meeting and answer questions

Jeffry Larson and others asked when the Library would have procedures in place to permit selectors to identify new books to be sent directly to the LSF. Jeffry observed that if we could not send such materials at the outset, i.e., when they are received in the Library, then these new materials would be handled twice. This procedure is in the process of being developed and should be ready for discussion before year-end.

Any questions or communications about how and when to use the selector tools should be directed to Mike DiMassa (Michael.DiMassa@yale.edu).

Jeffrey Larson is chairing the "Collecting in Cross Campus Library" task force (members include also Christine DeVallet, Andy Shimp, and Will Wheeler), which has met once a week for the last several weeks and has produced a report for discussion by numerous individuals and groups, including CDC. Based on CDC's and other input, a second draft will be forthcoming, as well as (likely) later drafts over the summer. The original charge by AUL Danuta Nitecki to the group was to think about CCL's collections. Will Wheeler noted, however, that participants believe that collections and services must be considered holistically.

One key matter raised was that of timing. That is, Danuta Nitecki has asked that the new CCL structure be inplace by 25 August or early in the fall semester.

Another topic was future inclusion into CCL of materials that have found little place there to date, such as sciences materials. (In general, the CCL books have until now been chosen from the SML approval profiles.) David Stern has asked Blackwell North America to run a list of general undergraduate sciences books that might have been placed in CCL, had we been stocking science books there. He reminded CDC that scientists do use older, classical materials.

The CDC spent some time discussing the definition of "core collections" Ken Crilly expressed puzzlement at the idea that core collections over a broad range of subjects could be accommodated in CCL, concerns also shared by Will Wheeler. How could a core collection for CCL realistically be defined? Who decides? For example, faculty are helping to make CCL decisions through identifying materials for course reserves as well as other suggested readings --but this category hardly makes a core collection. Ken reminded CDC that there is a difference between a core collection and undergraduate course collections. CCL has not recently worked as either an intensive use or a core collection. Also, the collection is not adequately weeded every semester or every year. It seemed that there was little agreement about what comprises a core collection or whether such a concept can be defined or should be implemented in CCL.

Will asked whether CDC has an opinion about how CCL ought to be organized. Should there be one person with overall responsibility, as in the past, or should the CCL be managed by a representative committee? George Miles observed that if "intensive use" is to be the dominating concept for CCL, then a "single mind" should be responsible. If some kind of "core" is to be defined, then an assortment of selectors will need to be accountable, each in their own fields.

The report currently recommends that the four members of the Cross Campus task force become a standing management group and continue working on an organizational scheme and collections definitions over the current academic year. CDC agreed that this appears to be a good interim plan. CDC members also commented that the number of volumes (i.e., space) in CCL is currently not a pressing issue, as CCL has ample stack space, which will only increase once systematic weeding is begun. The CDC eagerly awaits the next draft of the CCL collecting report.

Paul Conway launched this discussion by stating that there is an increasing trend by selectors to send items to Preservation that have not yet been catalogued, i.e., newly received items. This means that selectors are ordering items in poor condition, whether hoping that Preservation will "rescue" them or paying inadequate attention to condition at time of ordering. Paul reminded selectors that Preservation will not handle a book that has no cataloging record, and that books ought not to go to Preservation before a record is created.

Paul and David Walls noted that while the preservation budget is adequate to care for a "use-driven" collection (in other words, to look after materials that are being used), it is not sufficient to preserve all extant collections in need of treatment, let alone growing numbers of new acquisitions. Treatment of new acquisitions needs to be a part of the cost of each acquisition. Paul stated that there are three ways to approach the new problem books: (1) Selectors can give Preservation a PTAEO to cover the additional costs of preserving newly acquired materials; (2) a new general fund could be created to cover such costs (such a fund would come "off the top" and out of collections funds); and (3) selectors should check to see if a film copy already exists and order it in preference to a copy in poor physical condition.

One of the points raised during this discussion was the relative level of treatment (and thus expense) required for materials that are intended to circulate, compared to those that can be used only in-house. David Walls noted that supply costs and treatment time (i.e., personnel costs) might be significantly lower if Preservation did not have to assume that all material had to be put into appropriate condition for circulating out of Sterling Memorial Library. The comment was made that Sterling is the one library in the Yale system that contains many frail or "semi-rare" materials but lacks a protected reading room for use of such items. Such a "semi-rare" observation has been made in CDC at various times in the last few years and it seems to indicate a definite need for such a space -- or at least the strong perception that there is such a need.

Paul will revisit the treatment issue with CDC in the fall, with estimates of the preservation costs of new materials.