GENERAL SELECTORS MEETING

16 May 2001

RWA Notes

1. Introductions:  Thomas Hahn, the new Wason Curator, was introduced.

2. Reformatting and Retention:  John Dean provided a summary of current CUL reformatting practices, in light of recent discussion about such library practices in the popular press. John said that CUL Preservation uses three primary criteria for deciding on reformatting: use, significance, and condition. There are two general methods used to identify items that need reformatting. First, brittle materials that are returned to circulation desks are set aside and reformatted. There are not large numbers of these. In general, such materials are replaced with another paper copy--usually a photocopy facsimile. Careful consideration is given in each case to the question of whether the originals should be retained. Second, materials that are of national significance and are in deteriorating condition are regularly filmed--mainly using outside funding. Outsourcing of the microfilming is divided between Preservation Resources in Bethlehem, PA and Challenge Industries in Ithaca. The Preservation Department has worked on several large projects, starting with Southeast Asian materials; probably 95% of the materials microfilmed in the Echols projects were returned to the shelf, because the Curator felt this was necessary to maintain a world class collection. Several years ago, John asked his colleagues at an NEH meeting about retention of originals--and found that most institutions are returning materials to the shelf after microfilming (contrary to the plans of the original designers of the national microfilming program). In the CUL preservation digitization projects, which the Preservation Department has been conducting since 1989, a paper facsimile is also always returned to the shelf. Newspapers cannot be returned to the shelf in paper, and must be microfilmed--but such microfilming will ensure that these newspapers are available for centuries into the future: if we kept them in their original form, there is no question that they would eventually be destroyed as soon as anyone tried to use them. We and other institutions are therefore making a key contribution to history and to scholarship through our newspaper microfilming programs.

   The Council on Library and Information Resources has created a task force of scholars and librarians to consider the issue of preserving the artifact, and to produce a report that outlines actions that need to be taken by the scholarly community. The latest draft of this report, The Evidence in Hand: the Report of the Task Force on the Artifact in Library Collections, can be found at http://www.clir.org/activities/details/artifact-docs.html.

3. 2001/02 Materials Budget:
   1. Reallocation:   The Library is undertaking a range of new projects and services that benefit both local users and national level scholarship. In order to support these new directions, and in order to respond to new salary and technology costs, some reallocation of recurring funding is necessary--as Sarah explained in her most recent State of the Library address. The two main sources of recurring funding in the Library are the materials and the personnel budgets. Endowments in the materials budget will increase by 17.4% next year, which will result in a pay-out that is approximately $220K more than the amount that would have been received, were the endowments to increase only by the usual 5%. Sarah, Lee and I have therefore made the decision to reallocate $100K of this $220K. As we have done in the past, this will be accomplished by reducing appropriated funds in those subject areas that have relatively unrestricted endowments. The reallocated $100K will remain in the materials budget, but will be used to cover expenses relating to digital collections that are currently covered by funding outside of the materials budget.

      Because there are large commitments against the appropriated funds in the materials budget for next year (see 3c below), it would be possible further to reduce appropriated lines in subjects with unrestricted endowments, in order to produce additional appropriated funding to allocate. We (i.e., the selectors) decided, however, that we do not want to do that this year. We have reduced appropriated funding in this way--removing from appropriated funding an amount equal to endowment increases above 5%--in the past several years. This year, we want to leave more total funding in those subject areas with endowments. It is in any case important also to bear in mind that those subjects with endowments have had total funding increases in recent years that are cumulatively greater than those subjects without endowments--because the total dollars available to those subjects have increased each year by the amount equivalent to a 5% endowment pay-out; most appropriated funds have increased at a substantially lower rate.

   2. General Funds:   We reviewed the general funds at 85% through the year. Most of these funds are behaving themselves. The approval plan line is tight, but we will, I hope, finish right on target. The major problem is fund 999 (postage), as we should have expected. It is now $5K overspent; at this rate, I expect it will be perhaps $20K overspent by the end of the FY. My plan, which the selectors agreed with, is as follows: (a) move whatever additional funding remains in the general funds at the end of the year into fund 999, to reduce the final deficit in that line; (b) provide a zero allocation to fund 523 (one-time funding), and use the $13K in that line to increase the base of fund 999 by 7%; (c) retain the Grosser endowment in the general funds, which will increase the pay-out for the general fund endowments to ca. $85K; these endowments can then be used for one-time purchases. Julie warned that there will be another postage rate increase in July, and it may be (we should check) that this will increase the price of mailing periodicals; it is very possible, therefore, that a 7% increase will be inadequate.

   3. Appropriated Funding Available:  Beginning this year, the Law lines will no longer be part of the allocation; funding for Law will be taken out before the allocation process begins. We have available this year an increase (once Law is subtracted) of $336K. We have the following commitments against that amount:
      • Fund 519: $165K. We made the decision last year to increase fund 519 (databases) by $500K over two years. Last year, we put $335K into that line, leaving $165K to put in this year. (This will bring the base of fund 519 to $1,086,000--the first line in the budget to exceed $1 million.)

      • PSL: $60K. In order to avoid a situation in which essential chemistry and physics journals would need to be cancelled, because Elsevier and Kluwer journals cannot be canceled, the decision was made earlier this year to increase the PSL budget by $60K--which is approximately 8%. That one-time increase needs now to be made part of the permanent base.

      • Classics: $6,250. As part of an arrangement with Classics, which involves the Classics Department providing support for the purchase of Library materials, I agreed to increase the Classics line by $12,500 over two years.

      • Fund 521: $25K. Given the pressures we have experienced in the central approval plan line (f 521) in the past, which have caused difficulties that have affected the budgets of all selectors, we need to increase that line by at 5%.

   These four commitments add up to ca. $256K--which means we will have $80K to allocate. This amounts to an increase of about 1.5%.

4. Process:   CDExec, after considerable discussion, has recommended that we use the usual process for the allocation, despite the relatively small number of dollars available. We should try to allocate this funding to a few areas where it will do the most good, rather than dispersing a few dollars across all subject lines. It is also important that we have our annual budget hearings, so that we can all report on and learn about the condition of the individual subject lines. The hearings have already been scheduled as follows:

   Humanities: Fri, 25 May, 10:30-12:00.
   Social Sciences: Tues, 29 May, 3:00-4:30.
   Sciences: Weds, 30 May, 2:30-4:00.
   Area: Weds, 6 June, 9:30-11:00.
   

   The usual budget request forms will be sent out this week. These should be returned to Susan Pickett in time for the individual hearings. After some discussion, we agreed that selectors should include estimates of the increases they would need to maintain their current purchasing power--even though most lines will not be receiving significant increases. The aim of the hearings this year should be mainly descriptive, rather than competitive. It would be especially helpful if teams could agree on subject areas that most need budget assistance at the present time. CDExec intends to reallocate unrestricted endowments that have not been adequately spent; restricted endowments that have been inadequately spent will be taken into account in the allocation of appropriated funding. The hearings will be an opportunity for selectors to discuss any special problems with the spending of endowments. As noted above, funding for one-time purchases will be available in the general fund endowments, so selectors should, as usual, make recommendations for such one-time supplemental funding in their budget requests.

Minutes recorded by Ross Atkinson.

StaffWeb Index | Back to Committee Index | Back to General Selectors Index

3/15/01, jwg