Present: Myra Appel, Joan Ariel (co-chair), Sherri Barnes, Ellen Broidy, Sylvelin Edgerton, Daniel Goldstein (recorder), Phoebe Janes (co-chair), Elliot Kanter, Nancy Koller, Sheila O'Hare, Cindy Shelton (CDCLiaison), Beth Sibley.

1. New Members:
Sheila O’Hare, Women’s Studies, US and British History Bibliographer at UCSC, and Myra Appel, interim Women’s Studies Librarian at UCD were introduced and welcomed.

2. Minutes:
Minutes of the December, 2000 meeting were amended and approved.

3.Campus Reports:
Most Campus Reports were distributed in advance via e-mail. Myra asked how other campuses were handling women’s studies materials from Latin America. Irvine, UCLA and UCSB all collect in this area, but it is done by bibliographers with responsibility for Latin America (structured differently at each campus) more than by the Women’s Studies bibliographers.

Joan reported that Yankee Book Peddler will be providing more ways to analyze acquisitions. In particular, it may be possible to track more effectively the areas of emphasis at each campus and where they overlap. All the campuses but Davis use this vendor for their approval plans. It was observed that improved coordination in collection development might be especially important given the budget outlook.

Members all commented on the large numbers of recruitments for librarians at many of the campuses and discussed whether they were replacement positions or new FTE’s. Phoebe reported that many of the openings at Berkeley represented additional lines, while Ellen reported the opposite at UCLA. She added that UCLA was dropping in ARL rankings due to its relatively low staffing levels. Myra added that CSU is expected to lose 60% of its librarians to retirement within five years.

4: CDC Report—Cindy Shelton
Cindy first stated that the functions of the CDC Liaison as reiterated at a recent CDC meeting were to facilitate communication between the CDC and bibliographers groups and to serve as the JSC contact person for the survey. (She observed that we are one “liaison group” and two survey groups.)
The Liaison can a. be an advisor on tier two acquisitions b. attend bibliographers groups meetings (or send an alternate) and c. be available for consultation.

She also announced the formation of two new official bibliographers’ groups. One for General Reference, the other for African Studies. (There is a list of bibliographers groups on the CDL collection development page.)

The Latin Americanists’ Group is working on a Newspaper project.

There was discussion of a suggestion that the CDOs might centrally fund non-digital shared purchases. A variety of funding and approval mechanisms were considered. The consensus was that this might be a very good idea, but that the group was concerned that the procedure should be transparent, fair, and include as much consultation with the consortial groups as possible.

The Preservation Advisory Group has reported to CDC recommending three possible projects which could be supported by pooling systemwide funds allocated for preservation work on the individual campuses. The projects were 1. A preservation technology workshop; 2. Preserving digitized ILL documents; 3. A pilot deacidification project. The suggestion was made that the bibliographers groups might be able to identify collections or areas in need of special preservation efforts. During discussion of these suggestions members made it very clear that they strongly preferred that the funds be used to address pressing preservation needs on the individual campuses rather than toward systemwide workshops or pilot programs.

5: JSC Report—Cindy Shelton
Clint Howard will be leaving the JSC. (Members of this committee serve for renewable 3 year terms). Current members are Alan Ritch, Cindy Shelton, Lucia Snowhill, Susan Starr, Beverlee French, and Nancy Kushigian (LAUC representative).

EBSCO Licensing project—UC is using EBSCO as an aggregator to help with consortial licensing of electronic journals from the large numbers publishers who produce relatively small numbers of journals—mostly in the humanities. Negotiations with six publishers are nearly complete, so the process seems to be working. However Taylor and Francis and Sage are apparently reluctant to draft a license that meets CDL's requirements. Members urged the importance of continuing to work for electronic access to these publishers’ journals. Members also suggested that EBSCO be directed to negotiate with Earlbaum (a publisher of psychology journals).

She presented an update on the ongoing licensing negotiations with Elsevier and Kluwer.

The E-book taskforce has issued a position paper. Available at http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/sharedcoll/jsc/ebook/

JSC is quite interested in consortium’s view of the ACLS history Book Project which entails digitizing a backlist of 500 core history monographs as well as 85 new works designed for digital use. http://historyebook.org cost approximately $1,300/campus/year.

Cindy requested discussion of NetLibrary to which all campuses but Davis and Riverside have subscribed. Reactions were not overly enthusiastic. It was observed that NetLibrary’s statistics were not very useful, user responses were uneven. They seem not to have made a very strong impact yet.

CDC Surveys will now be conducted annually. Consortium asked Cindy to explain the selection process. How does the JSC use the lists provided by the bibliographers groups. Cindy stated that there were so many different factors that came into play in each decision that it wasn’t really possible to say which ones were decisive.

6: The Next meeting will take place in Davis, 12/14/01 (unless prior action taken to shift timing of meetings—see below)
ACTION—Phoebe will invite the Stanford bibliographer to the Davis meeting.

7: Consortial Web Page—Elliot

Many people praised the web page for organization, content.
ACTION—Web page will be updated with links to the most recent Collection Surveys as well as the current journals list and two-year report as soon as they are submitted to Elliot.

Discussion of the Consortial Archives: Nancy Kushigian had taken periodic snapshots of the web page to keep in paper form. Dan has Nancy’s files and will transfer them to Sheila.

8: Collection Management Iniative: Campuses reported on how they are or are not participating in this project. Some will be removing paper copies of journals available in electronic form, others will be serving as controls to assess the impact on use of electronic v print journals. As reported, there is a wide range of strategies being recommended on individual campuses which would appear to make it extremely difficult to compare results among campuses. Individual campuses have been involved at quite different levels.
ACTION: Elliot and Ellen (and others) will send to the group copies of the letters they sent explaining CMI to the faculty.

9: History Universe—Phoebe
Phoebe reported on the History universe focus group at ALA. She said it’s module indexing UPA microfilm was very useful, but much of the rest of it was not. Her view that at $3,000/year it was far too costly. Overall described it as “a very deficient product.”

10: Access to Web resources:
There was discussion of access to various sorts of freely available internet resources.
ACTION: Ellen will request that the Making of America be listed in the CDL Directory. Further discussion about the problems with the way MOA texts are cataloged in Melvyl. Many of the links seem to indicate that they are available only from UCSD.

Dan suggested that it might be possible for the consortium to develop a shared History website. Members could be responsible for identifying/evaluating sites in a particular area—thereby allowing us to avoid repeating one anothers’ work. Agreed that this would be discussed further at the December meeting.
ACTION: Prior to discussion Phoebe will analyze organizational structures of members current subject web pages.

11: Women’s Studies Microform List—Sherri

List was discussed, updates were described and will be/have been added. Purpose of the list is twofold—first as an internal tracking tool for the Bibliographers, and secondarily as a guide for researchers—though it is not currently posted in a public space.

ACTION: Campuses will check their holdings of guides to these microform collections and pass along information to Sherri.

FRIDAY, JUNE 29, 2001

12: Margaret Gatsa presentation on Proquest Historical Newspapers: (Present: Ellen, Phoebe, Sherri, Sylvelin, Elliot, Joan, Dan)

Proquest Historical Newspapers will eventually include full text, partially searchable, facsimile for New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor. Eventually it should include all issues from Volume 1 number one for each paper to the present.
For details and trail (of Wall Street Journal and NYT) see http://www.umi.com/w/trial.html Userid is 04pnf3798M
Password is “welcome”.
(It may be necessary to reset the browser option under “Cookie cutter” to get this to work.

Currently only a few parts of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are available for trial. The databases are to be offered in two separate sections: The “deep backfile” from beginning to 1985 and the current file from 1896-present.
Pricing involved substantial prepublication discounts and some discounts based on microfilm but the structure was not one of initial purchase with subsequent maintenance fee, but full cost annually. Members of the group spoke strongly against both the pricing structure and the very high cost of the product. In addition members suggested that search terms be highlighted in the text and that advertising be fully searchable—which is not currently the case.

13: Anne Harris from Proquest presentation on EEBO, Gerritsen, and American Periodicals Series. After extensive discussion in which group made it clear that pricing on these products was prohibitive, members made the following recommendations to modify the existing “digital vault” proposal in ways that would make it more attractive to UC.
A. Annual server fees should be flat and there should be a total maximum set of fees/campus to encourage the purchase of additional databases.
B. The initial purchase cost should be spread out over 5 years with no interest.
C. Discounts should be calculated so as to include prior purchases of products, not just current ones.
D. Pricing should be adjusted to reflect the much smaller size of Irvine and Riverside.

14: History and Women’s Studies JSC Survey lists.
Joan and Ellen led discussion of additions to/revisions of these lists. There was considerable discussion of how best to structure the lists. Concern was expressed that if the groups placed high priority on databases of general utility like Readers Guide and Alt Press Watch, then perhaps, those databases of importance only in our disciplines would lose out.

Decided that group needed more information on the following:
Empire Online, Sex and Gender Online
ACTION: Beth would investigate and report on these.

Bibliography of Native North America Online—questions raised about the cost. How much is improved access (over CD) worth given relative to the new data added?
ACTION: Dan would investigate and report on this.

It also became clear that some individual campuses had already subscribed to some of the desiderata.
ACTION: members would report on which items on list were currently available on their campus.

Coordinating lists among consortial groups or at least improving access to other groups’ lists was discussed at length.
ACTION: Group recommended that Cindy try to have a listserv established of Survey Coordinators—much as there is for heads of bibliographers’ groups.

Cindy announced that groups (or individuals?) could make recommendations to JSC at any time, and not just as part of annual survey. The fairness of this process was discussed at length. It was agreed that we would discuss possible recommendations at our December meeting. Timing was discussed also. The point was made that April and May might be good times to submit recommendations to take advantage of the cycle of spending during the fiscal year.

15: TIER Two Process: General discussion of the process of how we decide which databases to pursue via Tier Two Negotiation and how to make the process more effective.
ACTION: Sherri and Dan will review CDL’s guidelines on Tier Two negotiations and draft an amended list of questions that should be addressed at the outset of any negotiation.

(In this discussion, Accessible Archives was used as example and Cindy raised the possibility that there may have been some violations by them of our contract.)

Group also reiterated the importance of negotiating through a single “point person”. Example of Harpweek came up and the difficulty caused by mixed and unclear messages.

It was agreed to postpone a decision to initiate any new Tier Two negotiations until the December meeting.

16: WOMEN’ STUDIES JOURNALS LIST
It was emphasized that the list needed to distinguish between electronic access and possession of a paper copy for the purposes of the last copy agreement.
ACTION: Women’s Studies Bibliographers will check the list against local Campus Records to clarify ambiguous records (example: Does UCD have the NWSA Action newsletter, or not?) Will also send updates on ejournal availability.

17: BRITISH HISTORY JOURNALS LIST
Discussion focused on whether the list should be expanded to include journals on British history published outside the UK or not.
ACTION: British History Bibliographers will review the titles on Page 4 of the list.
ACTION: Nancy volunteered to assist Phoebe with this list.

18: CALIFORNIA FEMINIST PRESSES PROJECT:
Discussion of archives and whether or not (and if so, how) money should be found to purchase archives of those presses that do not wish to donate them.

Jacqueline Marie will assist Volcano Press in sorting its papers this Fall prior to their being donated to Bancroft Library.

Resource Liaison Recommendations
Sherri—Alexander St Press
Dan—Accessible Archives’ African American Newspapers and Pennsylvania Gazette
Elliot—Accessible Archives’ Civil War Collection
Sheila—Accessible Archives’ Godeys