§ SAALCK Directors' Council Meeting
October 28, 2003
- Directors in Attendance:
- Lee Van Orsdel, Eastern Kentucky University (President); Mike Binder, Western Kentucky University; Larry Besant, Morehead State University; Karen McDaniel, Kentucky State University; Carol Diedrich, University of Kentucky; Hannelore Rader, University of Louisville; Nancy Campbell, Northern Kentucky University (proxy for Arne Almquist)
- Others in Attendance:
- Michael McCoy (Executive Director), Jennifer Coldiron (Fiscal Coordinator), Beth Kraemer (UK – Presenter), Mary McLaren (UK – Presenter), James Burgett (UK – Collection Development Committee Chair)
- Directors Absent:
- John Griffin, Murray State University; Cherry Berges, Kentucky Community and Technical College System
- President Lee Van Orsdel called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. She distributed an updated roster and participants introduced themselves.
- The minutes of the previous meeting, as revised by the chair, were approved by common consent.
- Lee Van Orsdel reported that KCTCS had agreed to try the more formal consortial arrangement for one year. As a result, invoices forwarded to the institutions reflected a nine-way sharing of the costs. She reported that KCTCS has selected a new representative to SAALCK, Cherry Berges, Director of Library Services at Madisonville Community College. She was unable to attend this meeting but hopes to be present in the future.
- Lee Van Orsdel introduced Jennifer Coldiron, the new fiscal coordinator for SAALCK. Michael McCoy offered a brief description of the financial processes and how the headquarters office will handle them.
-
Beth Kraemer presented information on the UK program for Electronic Theses and Dissertations. She also distributed an announcement of the 7th International Symposium on Electronic Theses and Dissertations (http://www.uky.edu/ETD/ETD2004/) to be held in Lexington on June 3-5, 2004.
Her topic arose from the question, “What can SAALCK do to implement the use of ETD (electronic theses and dissertations) on our campuses?” Beth described the NDLTD (Network of Digital Libraries of Theses and Dissertations) an organization based at Virginia Tech. She also described the UK program, which has been active since 2000, collecting some 100 documents in pdf. format. The program at UK is voluntary, but has received strong campus support.
Beth listed several benefits to this approach including: the ability to include multimedia and other non-print materials in these documents, enhanced access for researchers who no longer have to wait for a lengthy process of requesting and receiving materials, and the excellent learning experience for students preparing these documents as they face an increasingly electronic world. She also noted several concerns including anxiety about copyright issues, leaving students concerned about the future marketability of their work, and her greatest concern, the problem of long-term access due to the inflexibility of the pdf. format. She noted that some institutions are using xml formats instead of pdf. This is a more flexible option for future accessibility, but is more challenging for students creating the documents.
A question and answer period ensued. Lee Van Orsdel asked about how to resolve the copyright issues. Beth suggested that students with this concern could always insist on traditional paper documents. Alternatively, libraries might be able to arrange differing levels of access for the documents, protecting their potential marketability.
Larry Besant observed that the copyright concern also applies to potential dissertation based articles submitted to journals that do not accept previously published materials. Beth noted the need to educate journal editors about these options and encourage them to adopt appropriate policies.
Larry Besant asked about UK’s relationship with UMI in the case of ETD’s. Beth explained that ETD’s are forwarded in the same way, and that the cost to the student is slightly less than for paper.
Larry Besant asked if there was a standard format in place for ETD’s. Beth indicated that one was being developed for xml documents. Institutions using pdf. apply their own individual policies.
Larry Besant asked if ETD’s increase the costs for the library. Beth indicated it is unclear as yet, but that there might be costs down the road when documents need to be converted to some new standard format for archiving.
Hannelore Rader asked for details about attending the conference. Beth invited everyone to visit the website listed in the announcement for more information. She indicated that registrations and general announcements would be forthcoming in January. She promised to forward an announcement of the conference to the SAALCK directors through Lee Van Orsdel or Michael McCoy.
Lee Van Orsdel asked what UMI does with the electronic files. Beth replied that they transfer them to microfilm and then digitize. The result is that any special indexing or other electronic feature is lost.
A discussion ensued about whether libraries ought to rely on UMI as the repository for ETD’s or whether some other, perhaps statewide, system might be developed.
Lee Van Orsdel summarized the discussion by observing that there were two key issues: 1) there exists an opportunity for libraries to use ETD programs to exert some leadership in graduate programs in universities; and 2) there exists an opportunity for libraries to use ETD’s as the beginning of exercising leadership in the whole field of electronic depositories.
- The group broke for lunch and more informal conversation.
-
Michael McCoy began his first formal report to SAALCK as executive director. He began by reporting on conversations with other consortia about possible group purchasing arrangements. These groups included AIKCU (Association of Independent Kentucky Colleges and Universities) and SOCHE (Southwest Ohio Council on Higher Education – Library Division). He has also begun conversations with KYVL. Many of these conversations appear promising, but will require time to develop.
As conversation turned to database acquisition negotiations, Hannelore Rader advised the group of her discussions with Wiley and the possibility that a change in her purchasing might affect the larger group. She will forward contact information to Michael McCoy, who will attempt to determine the situation for the group.
Michael McCoy indicated some discomfort with the task of screening database proposals for relevance to the collections of the libraries. After some discussion it was agreed that he will pass these proposals by James Burgett’s collection development committee in full detail, with summaries forwarded to the directors. Once a product has been identified as worth pursuing, Michael McCoy will endeavor to negotiate for the best deal possible. The directors requested that he poll them by email for explicit contact information for collection development contacts and fiscal contacts.
The group offered the following direction to Michael McCoy with regard to the database proposals pending at this time:
- Inspec – to be deferred until directors have had a chance to review the proposal.
- Wilson – Michael McCoy will poll the directors to determine which products they wish to pursue.
- Gale – Michael McCoy will inform the Gale representative that only two or three schools have any interest in the product, and not at that price.
- Elsevier – Michael will seek a list of subscription information so as to enable the group to effectively build a Unique Title List. He will also seek clarification about other aspects of the proposal.
- Bowker/Ulrichs – no interest at this time.
- Westlaw – no interest at this time – directors will review information.
- ProQuest – no interest at this time.
The directors indicated that concluding successful negotiations with Elsevier and Wilson were the top priorities, with Wiley an additional urgent matter.
- Mary McLaren (UK) offered a PowerPoint presentation about her research into storage facilities. She also provided copies of her white paper, “Storage Issues: The University of Kentucky Libraries.” She described the advantages and disadvantages of traditional shelving systems, High Density Book Shelving Systems (HDBSS) on the Harvard Model, and Automated Storage and Retrieval Systems (ASRS). Subsequent discussion focused on UK’s plans, similar needs at other institutions, and the possibility of collaborative or common depositories. Directors noted that this issue might prove important in their perennial conversations about last-copy preservation.
- Carol Diedrichs initiated the discussion about changes in GPO policy, which may lead OCLC to encourage/require government document depository libraries to catalog government materials in their possession. Directors expressed concerns about the cost of such a change. Some SAALCK are currently cataloging materials, but others are not. In addition, the cost of going back to catalog earlier materials may be prohibitive. Libraries that have cataloged these materials have found that usage increases dramatically.
- Lee Van Orsdel noted that upcoming meeting dates have proven inappropriate. She will poll the group for possible dates for a combined November/December meeting.
- The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.