Collection Services Council Meeting of June 11, 2019

10:00-11:30

251 Doe

Present: Jim Church, Mark Hemhauser, Chan Li, Toshie Marra, Becky Miller, Stacy Reardon, Lisa Rowlison de Ortiz, Hannah Tashjian, Sam Teplitzky, Jesse Silva

Absent: Jeremy Ott, Jo Anne Newyear-Ramirez, David Faulds, Chan Li

Guest: Lynne Grigsby

Agenda

  1. Announcements

    1. Welcome Jesse

    2. Chemistry search candidates will be here June 25 27, July 1. Presentations will be at 9 in Moffitt 405.

  2. Continuation of review of Binding Working Group recommendations (Hannah)

    1. Will continue to do Circ rebinds through the following year and these will not be counted against allocations.

    2. Mark Marrow has approved the following changes for MAIN binding:

      1. Paperbacks that circulate will get rebound; exceptions will be items that have Colibri covers (unless their bindings are damaged).

      2. Newly acquired paperbacks 1/4" or under will be pamphlet bound.

      3. The binding of newly acquired paperbacks between ¼-⅜" will be determined by criteria developed by Preservation.

    3. A pilot project of Morrison books showed that CoLibri covers did help maintain the condition of the books. A CoLibri pilot for new MAIN paperback bindings will start the beginning of July.

      1. Additional students will be hired to do the work.

      2. Hannah will determine how to assess the pilot.

    4. At a recent CDLG meeting there was discussion of using the Millennium binding module for all the serials in the Heynes reading room (that get bound). A project to input binding parameters for those materials is underway. Hannah is working out the binding allocations for next year. Hannah worked with Sheehan to survey division heads, operations managers, and other staff involved with sending materials to the bindery, to gauge the current binding needs of the libraries. PRES is currently reviewing the results of that survey.

  1. Offline Digital Assets Working Group report (Jim, Lynne)

    1. Recommendations for preserving content we already have. There are two potential workflows: 1) Selectors can review the items and make decisions about preservation or 2) Library IT preserves all the items without selector review. The report recommends option 2.

    2. Jim interviewed librarians at various locations about what their needs were and determined a "one size fits all" approach will likely not work. Some libraries may want to preserve all the materials (e.g., the Music Library). Others may want to follow Engineering's model workflow. Engineering chose to image all standalone materials, but only accompanying material if it had circulated 3 or more times. Music Library, for example, wants to preserve all of the materials, further suggesting a one size fits all model may not work.

    3. Library IT did a pilot using the Doe Reference Collection. They were successful in imaging all but around 100 items, which they have put aside for review by Steve Mendoza. Lynne suggests doing another small project to continue to work out the details.

    4. When an image of an item is made, a note is added to the item record, which can be seen in the staff view.

    5. Before proceeding much further with this project, some details need to be worked out. There should be some discussion with Division Heads and Operations Managers about what materials in a Library should be imaged/preserved. A workflow needs to be established that would allow LIT to clear shelves to provide the students doing the work a steady stream of media. Materials will be returned to the participating Library.

    6. The Library must determine where the imaged files should be kept. Storing locally at first may be beneficial, since some files may be deleted if the original material is withdrawn. Once the files are uploaded to Merritt, they cannot be deleted. Projected costs for storage of these files in Merritt is approx. $10,000/year.

    7. Recommendations for handling newly acquired offline digital assets. Jim consulted with Rico and Lisa about possibility of intercepting these items upon receipt. This was seen as infeasible. The recommendation, then, is to do a periodic review of offline digital assets based on reports generated by LIT.

Action item: Jo Anne and Beth should discuss project with Division Heads and Operation Managers.

Action item: Lynne Grigsby will attend a future CSC meeting to report on outcomes of next pilot.

Action item: Jim Church will make some editorial changes to the report and send the revised version to Jennifer and Jesse.