[Mcls-print-storage] Updates on Charleston Preconference, Retention Lists

[Rick Lugg]

Hello all,

 

1.       I have submitted a proposal for the day-long Charleston
preconference. We have 12 speakers tentatively signed on, including three
from the Maine Shared Collections Strategy project. I'll let you know when I
hear anything back from the organizers. We can wait a couple of months (at
least) before we start planning in earnest, and I volunteer to coordinate
that effort. We've got the makings of an amazing program. It will probably
surpass 'The Hunger Games' for box office.

 

2.       My colleagues and I at SCS would like to put forward some ideas on
retention lists and new libraries. Overall, our sense is that we've gone too
far too soon with the retention lists. We've produced them for only one
subset of items-and one of the least risky or valuable subsets at that.
Despite the labor already invested, we should discuss reducing emphasis on
them. We can talk about this during the next conference call on April 10th,
but let me lay out our thoughts here:

 

a.       Between now and the 2014 data renewal, pilot libraries would focus
efforts on withdrawals only. Restrict action to the 534,000 allocated
withdrawal candidates (plus any associated copies) and the uniquely-held
lists already distributed.

 

b.      Ignore the retention lists. Between now and 2014, do nothing. Don't
withdraw items appearing on them, but don't yet commit to long-term
retention. Defer formal declaration of retention responsibility until all
interested and eligible libraries have joined. If we wait to assign formal
retention responsibility until then, we can address *all* categories of
retention and share the load among all participating libraries, not just the
pilot group.

 

c.       Allow new libraries (Oakland, Ferris) to withdraw their
title-holdings that match the 534,000 withdrawal candidates already
allocated, in conjunction with their other parameters. We know that 2
title-holdings of each remain within the group. Let them also count on that,
even though commitments aren't yet formal. When formal retention commitments
are made in 2014, there will be plenty of other titles that can be assigned
to them. Oakland and Ferris will bear their shares, just like pilot
libraries.

 

d.      The upsides of this approach are clarity and the ability to act
immediately. In 2014, it will enable a much more comprehensive and equitable
allocation of retention responsibility. The risks are minor. Libraries must
trust one another not to deviate from the specified withdrawal lists.
Patience will be required; resolution won't occur until the next round.

 

e.      Doug's point about committing to 'shared management' of these titles
is a good one. Over the longer term, SPI may decide to reduce to a single
copy, assuming circulation remains low and that other groups in the country
also hold copies. In short, this may be a more dynamic process than has been
the case for journals. It may require that we think about shared management
differently. 

 

So that's our take. Look forward to discussing (and even more so to
deciding!) on the 10th.

 

Rick

 

Rick Lugg

Sustainable Collection Services LLC

63 Woodwell's Garrison

Contoocook, NH 03229

 

rick at sustainablecollections.com

 

p. 603-746-5991

f.  603-746-6052

 

www.sustainablecollections.com <http://www.sustainablecollections.com/>  

 

blog:  Sample  <http://sampleandhold-r2.blogspot.com/> & Hold

 

twitter:   @ricklugg 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mlcnet.org/mailman/private/mcls-print-storage/attachments/20120329/f1f1be64/attachment.html