Search UW System

UW System Home > Offices > Office of Learning and Information Technology > Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries > Coordinating Committees > Collections & Resources > CDC

CDC Meeting Minutes
August 22, 2006
Madison, WI
780 Regent St. Room 108

Members Present:        
Marc Boucher, UW-Colleges
Mary Rieder, UW-Colleges
Jan Bogstad, UW-Eau Claire
Roni Carey, UW-Eau Claire
Joan Robb, UW-Green Bay
John Jax, UW-La Crosse
Gladriel Chilton, UW-La Crosse
Susan Barribeau, UW-Madison
Richard Reeb, UW-Madison
Julie Schneider, UW-Madison
Karen Jander, UW- Milwaukee
Janet Padway, UW-Milwaukee
Ron Hardy, UW- Oshkosh
Cynthia Huebschen, UW- Oshkosh
Sylvia Beardsley, UW-Parkside
Kim Bartosz, UW-Parkside
Judy Wurtzler, UW-Platteville
Lisa Pillow, UW-River Falls
Mindy King, Uw-Stevens Point
Tom Reich, UW-Stevens Point
Bill Johnston, UW-Stout
Deb Nordgren, UW-Superior
Carol Elsen, UW- Whitewater
Sharon Knight, UW-Whitewater
Lorie Docken, UW System
Paul Moriarty, UW System

 

Meeting was called to order at 9:00.

I.   Minutes from the April 3, 2006 Teleconference were approved.

II.  UW System Risk Management – Dave Pulda and Brenda Stoffels

Dave Pulda gave a presentation describing the level of insurance coverage we have available through System.  We have 300 million dollars worth of coverage and they purchased an additional 300 million worth of insurance to cover the fine arts.  We are covered for items as long as they show on the inventory lists.  Additional coverage for the fine arts was necessary because of the limitation of the coverage.  Exhibits can now be insured when they are sent elsewhere if the receiving party does not provide insurance. Dave recommended that valuations be adequately reported.  We should over report since our rates are competitive.  We have not had a large loss to test whether the state would replace or repair an item.  A methodology is needed to determine the value of collections and the level of depreciation.  No one seemed to know who was responsible for it and who was providing the figures.  A working group will be set up to deal with this question after the RFP for the book procurement process is completed.  Volunteers for this working group are Joan Robb, Richard Reeb, Janet Padway, Jan Bogstad and Lisa Pillow.

III.  Netlibrary

Lorie Docken reported that $55,000 dollars are left in the Netlibrary Consortium budget.  It will be spent this fall on the patron driven acquisition program and the consortium will be dissolved.  The UW’s can act as a single entity and can continue to purchase copies if we want.  Titles we have purchased will remain in the collection.  Lorie will be checking into the question of whether we can get one last accurate record load of Netlibrary titles we have purchased and will continue to have access to. Other ebook options to look at would be Gale and Ebrary.  Bill Johnston suggested 24x7.  Joan postponed further discussion until the afternoon session.

IV.  Book procurement, best practices.

Richard Reeb reported on the progress of the book procurement RFP.  An update was sent out by email and the CUWL directors received it very well.  At the end of the month the RFP will be out on the street as it is close to being finalized.  The approval plan and technology experts gave some suggestions such as use ‘standards’ language.  The committee is still meeting and will share any updates. There are no media provisions in this RFP.  Audio visual will have to have a separate RFP but this has not been discussed yet.  Other concerns were expressed about notification criteria for canceled orders.  The committee expects to use a point system for rating vendors which respond to the RFP.  There was much discussion about the duplication of materials being ordered and what is the expectation of a primary vendor.  Richard said the directors would like to see us have a process that demonstrates cooperative purchasing.  They feel that we haven’t used our collective buying power but the committee doesn’t really know if we will get better discounts than what some of us are already getting.  Joan suggested that everyone go through the RFP one more time and email comments to Paul Moriarty by Friday at 4.  Lorie assured everyone that we are using the RFP process because we want more than just a bid based on cost.  We want the complete vendor package.

V. Westlaw presentation

Drew Larson and a contingent of Westlaw representatives made a short presentation of possible Westlaw options.  We could purchase News and Legal or just Legal.  They are making many enhancements such as print functionality, open URL compliance, interface design, template searching and others. 

VI. Working Group on CUWL subgroups, discussion and questions

Bob Rose gave us some background on the issues and problems which lead to the CUWL Working Group on Subgroups.  CUWL was inundated with projects with no way of long term oversight.  There was no vehicle for input from affected groups and crossover was not happening.  They felt that there was a lack of activity or initiative on the part of some permanent CUWL committees and they only worked from top down communication.  There was a lack of communication, reporting of activities and a lack of charges.  There have been problems staffing committees. The charge of the Working Group on CUWL subgroups is laid out in the primary report.  After they receive comments they will revise the report.  We can decide to respond as individuals or as a group.  They are trying to get a bottom up approach.  Bob then opened up his session for comments and for questions.  Input does need to get to the committee by September 15.  It will be voted on at the October CUWL meeting and be implemented in January. 
Questions and concerns raised: 

-How will names be submitted or gathered for new committee positions?
-How will renewals be handled as well as management of the shared collection budget?  This does require consensus or voting of all involved (else why would they contribute their own money to bolster the limited System shared collection budget.)
-Technical services does not seem to be represented in these new committees.
-How would you bring up new initiatives?
-Everyone has to hear the same thing.  This is especially important with monetary discussions, votes on system purchased resources, and vendor presentation that we are ruling on.
-How is each campus’s vote going to be represented by a limited committee?
-How is this restructuring really fostering better relationships among the UWs?
-How do you keep the complex and illuminating, historical perspective if people don’t meet together and only meet by email?  We don’t want to lose the big group atmosphere and congeniality that has developed with this committee.
-How would this really work?  We need more details.
-All CUWL committees, regardless of how well they do function, achieve consensus, fulfill their charges, make decisions etc. would be disbanded.  This seems inefficient and more importantly, it seems ineffective to work that way. 
-Regardless of what changes are done to the CUWL committees, is there any system of evaluation for the changes being considered?  Seems irresponsible to not follow through on the actions be considered.
-How can we get broader representation and input into major category?
-This report seems to be based on a survey that was extremely unevenly done.  Since it has been excluded from the report, we can not review its questions.
-How can seven people do the work when the current group is much broader and more numerous than that?

Joan will work on a letter on behalf of the CDC and run it by a couple of people and submit it to the Working Group on CUWL subgroups.  CDC members are encouraged to express their opinions to their directors on this matter before the vote is taken at the CUWL meeting.

VII. Best practices (discussion resumed)

UW-Green Bay has compiled a spreadsheet of the RFP committee member acquisition procedures.  Richard will refine the data to focus on certain points and then ask for the information for other campuses so that it can be added to the spreadsheet.  This will be done sometime this fall.  Joan and Richard are also working on a preliminary guideline document of best practices to accompany the RFP

VIII. ABI Inform/Factiva

Mike Peters from Proquest gave a presentation on the merits of Factiva and  ABI Inform as a possible replacement product for Academic Universe. 

IX. Trials discussion

A.)Biological Abstracts via ISI – There were some positive comments about the ISI interface and ability to link with Web of Science but many people were not able to get feedback from their campus sources.  We need a longer trial and will vote at the next meeting.

B.)Ebrary – Everyone liked this resource better than Netlibrary.  One liked the platform but another had printing problems and another had concerns about the numbers of titles available.  There was a question about whether titles would be purchased or leased.  Will it work with SFX?  Again there were problems getting reference staff to look at it and give timely feedback.  Funding of any new ebook resources is still a concern and some would not be interested if it has to be locally funded.  Other ebook products such as Gale, 24x7, and Safari should be looked at before any decisions are made.  Susan Barribeau will send out some comparison information that Madison had done.  Would it be possible to get some information from our Netlibrary patron use to see what subject areas are of interest to our patrons?

C.)Westlaw – The legal content is not the same as in Academic Universe and business sources are not covered as well.  We do not have pricing yet and we do have until July to make a decision.

X.  January renewals and budget

The UW System Shared Electronic Collections Budget sheet showed projections for 2006/2007.  Actual renewal rates were only noted for bold items and only five resources have definitive renewal rates for January.  This makes it difficult to do any sort of budget analysis at this time.  ABI/Inform could be considered for cancellation but we will have to look at Business Source Premier and/or Factiva.  Madison has purchased the ACS Legacy archive and it was negotiated that System collections budget will pay an additional $51, 000 to extend the purchase to all UW System campuses.  There will be an annual access fee of $1000.  This one time cost is reflected in the 2006/2007 budget but it will drop to the $1000 in subsequent years.
Ron Hardy reported on the analysis he completed between the Proquest Cinahl package and the Ebsco package that we switched to.  150 new journals titles were gained and 260 journal titles were lost.  He did not do a qualitative analysis and he would have to look at dates of titles to get further information about coverage.  Although many titles had been lost, neither Madison nor Milwaukee, as the biggest users, had received any complaints from their patrons.  Complaints at other institutions were based on the loss of specific titles that could be replaced through individual subscriptions on campuses.  Ron was thanked for his analysis.

If we are going to continue to subscribe to the standard package for Project Muse we have to renew by Oct. 20.  Janet Padway moved to renew Project Muse and Jan Bogstad seconded.  The motion was unanimously approved.

Renewals were briefly discussed but without actual renewal price data there was no resolution at this time.  It is still an option to raise each campus’s contributions to support the renewal of online resources.  This will be discussed further at the next meeting.

XI.  Foreign and domestic class codes

Richard Reeb outlined a proposal to eliminate foreign and domestic class codes at the ordering stage.  Is this distinction of value for the state or the UW System? Paul will check on what purpose domestic and foreign class codes have and whether these codes provide any meaningful data. 

XII. A conference call and/or teleconference will be tentatively set up for Tuesday October 3rd from 1-3.  This is earlier than we normally meet but it will give us a chance to respond to the final report of the Working Group on CUWL Subgroups before the October CUWL meeting.

Meeting was adjourned at 3:30