----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Librarians from across the Pacific Northwest gathered together on October 18,
1993 to discuss the impact of Restructuring the FDLP and to forge new
agreements in Resource Sharing and Cooperative Collection Development. Below
is the meeting minutes. Questions can be referred to Ann Bregent
([log in to unmask]), Eleanor Chase ([log in to unmask]) or Aimee Piscitelli
(apiscitelli#ewu.edu)
AGENDA:
1. Address the major national and state level changes, with emphasis
on preparation for October 29-31 Chicago meeting on the future of the
Depository Library System.
2. Review survey of depository libraries and brainstorm how to meet
priority needs.
3. Discuss how Idaho, Montana, Oregon, & Washington (Alaska) Federal
Regional libraries might create a Northwest plan for access and Retention.
4. Open Forum.
HANDOUTS:
Depository library survey results (Bregent)
Brainstorming suggestions from Regional staff (Bregent)
Future of Depository Library Service Issues (Bregent)
List of multi-state items that can be shared by depository libraries
(Lily Wai)
Census Regions and Divisions of the U.S. (Lily Wai)
OFFERINGS:
Diskette of background materials distributed for future of Depository
Library Sytem discussion (Chase and Piscitelli)
Diskette of DOCBASE which inlcudes information on use of CDROMS in
Western Washington University (Rob Lopresti)
FUTURE OF DEPOSITORY LIBRARY SYSTEM - DISCUSSION
The Chicago meeting will include a broad representation of all types of
libraries and constitutencies in order to articulate the future organization
and roles in providing access ti federal information.
Discussion of the various proposals for organization of infomration service
centers, core services, etc., resulted in general agreements that none of the
currently proposed structures meets needs of NW regionals or depositories.
Discussion throughout the meeting resuleted in agreements of essential
concepts:
Timely
Accurate
Free Distribution
Qualtiy may best be achieved by subcontracting with commercial
production, but stay within free distribution guidelines
Resource sharing is essential within states & regions
Flexibility
Need a multiple "core" collection concept, based on type of customer
served by depository (legal, academic, small or rual public library, etc.) ie:
Legal libraries core would be different than Public libraries core collection.
Option to select items needed, excluding when desired (Example:
ephemeral)
Create managed collection and information service eliminating
unnecessary duplication
Implement Document Delivery concepts
Implement training, create print documentation to use electronic
resources at both national and regional levels.
Support costs of regionals and others for reporduction when items are
provided in non-print formats.
Consider alternative districtuion systems - electronic or using agency
distribution systems when available (Energy Dept., NASA, USGS).
DISCUSSION OF ISSUES:
MICROFICHE FORMAT:
Libraries receiving microfiche are relegated almost to a second class
citizenship because materials is delayed long after production of print titles,
and has lost relevance. Depositories can not find out or predict when the item
will be available for customers.
Future RFPs for microfiche must increase quality specifications.
GPO has trasnferred electronic and microfiche reproduction costs to
depositories wihtout providing for additional costs of equipment. Expect
increase of information produced only in microfiche format during the next
year.
DELIVERY SYSTEM:
How can quality, dependable service be achieved? When itmes are
missing, by the time shipments arrive in the Northwest, stocks are already
exhausted.
Need funding for ACCESS to materials ... current distribution
procedures may no longer be appropriate based on a new customer service vision.
The doucment delivery concept myst be explored. Federal dollars may need to be
designated for purchasing equipment that will achieve quality access.
Would multiple distribution sites be one solution to increasing qualtiy
and consistency with distribution?
Could access for some small depositories be accomplished by ordering
through GPO book stores? Or through a deposit account? This would increase
ability to respond to local information needs.
ACCESS TO BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATIONS:
There is an approximate 12% error rate on GPO tapes, impacting every
depository. Production is slow. Can service be improvd by contracting with a
bibliographic utility or service such as MARCIVE?
Add ons to itme numbers are not generally useful.
Consider eliminating the item number and use SuDocs Classification stem
instead.
Remove inactive classes.
COMMUNICATIONS WITH GPO:
GPO sstaff need to participate in documents community discussions
through GOVDOC-L.
Decisions appear to be punitive, applying to all depositories when it
is not a common problem. An example is GPO's decision that regionals would
supply claimed items. Regional libraries are sending a letter to GPO.
Depositories should be able to contact GPO and receive reasonable
information concerning when a title will be available, regardless of format.
COLLECTION ISSUES:
Cooperative collection development must be a goal.
GPO needs to manage information. For example, eliminate the item
number and use classification stem for selection. Remove inactive classes.
Then work with libraries to identify classes that are not useful. GPO could
then drop classes based on selection criteria of less than "x" percent use (to
be determined).
If an item is identified for depository distribution, then it should be
distributed in its entirety. For example, ERIC and NTIS were so incomplete
that libraries had to move to paid subscriptions.
GPO should consider role in negotiating master information contracts
for system.
Five year retention limitation should be reconsidered.
There is unnecessary duplication within regional collections based on
frequency of use. Regional libraries should be able to make agreements to make
materials available based on a geographic interest. This would require a
change in law. Each state would be responsible for maintaining its own
historical materials, making them easily available for ILL.
Regionals and depository libraries need to be able to make agreements
concerning retention of titles relating to non-northwest geographic titles.
Easy ILL or delivery through FAX, etc. is essential to maintain quality
service. This approach assumes written agreements concerning access standards.
NATIONAL TRAINING ISSUES:
GPO needs to support Regional libraries so they can provide training.
They should allocate their personnel resources to regularly provide trainers to
regions. Can inspector staff be redeployed to provide this support?
GPO needs to provide training resources so depository stafff and
customers can easily use electronic and CDROM titles.
WASHINGTON/NORTHWEST STATES ISSUE DISCUSSION:
COMMUNICATIONS:
Based on WA depository survey was highest in importance.
Discussion:
A listserv has the highest potential to facilitate communication
with the least cost.
Should involve all NW states
Should be moderated to keep exchanges focused
Everyone attending this meeting had Internet access or would shortly.
(Question: what access do libraries have that did not send representatives?)
Ann bregent and Aimee Piscitelli will explore options for a listserv
and report back to depositories.
Another listserv use could be announcing categories that a library is
preparing to discard (not specific titles)
A list of internet addresses was begun.
TRAINING:
Based on WA depository survey was second in importance.
Discussion:
DOCSER Interest Group in WLA gives opportunity to make public and other
non depository librarians aware of documents resources. However, many
depository librarians are not WLA members and there is conflict with national
meetings.
Since joining WLA, past practice of twice annual meetings and training
sessions has fallen by the wayside. Discussion included: one reason for
joining WLA related to organizational no profit status and collection f funds
to support sessions. DOCSER could use WLA publicitu, etc., in order to
advertise meetings or preconferences, reducing some of the workload of the
documents librarians who were volunteering to arrange meetings/trainings, etc.
Lecture type training facilities are not a problem, howevery hands on
facilities for training are not available.
General consensus was that meetings/trainings in addition to WLA need to be
reinstituted. Notification could be included in the COntinuing Education
Calendar produced by WSL Library Planning and Development Division.
Alternative training approaches:
Alaska is coordinating so each library produces the front end
information sheets. Cna this approach be applied throughout Washington and
other states?
"Share" on WLN Internet is now available. Brochures and other
information can be offloaded and adapted. (Notes WWU's DOCBASE offer)
Long term training needs:
Are there uniform training needs? Can primary needs be identified now?
Are training needs the same throughout the northwest? Is there interest in
interstate training?
Agreement: Regional libraries will develop a joint training survey.
Rob Lopresti will review. The questionnaire will ask libraries if they would
spnosor workshops and identify topics. An additional component of survey will
be identifying specialties of deposiotry staff.
DISPOSAL LISTS:
Based on WA depository survey, was least important service.
Discussion:
Could libraries put general statement on Listserv to notify
libraries? Specific items would not be listed. Notice would include discard
deadline.
Might consider "want list" approach. Current national program (Needs &
Offers List) is slow to distribute, but has good response.
Discussed establishing regional discard sites. Advantage would be
managing titles for the region, relieving individual libraries from storing
title for long time periods. Might be similar to LC National Library Services
program/DOCEX.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF REGIONAL LIBRARIES IN NORTHWEST:
National expectation of JCP and others may not be in synchronization with
capabilities of regional libraries. Participants questioned whether Regionals
were needed in every state, looking toward a regional concept. JCP wants at
lest every two states to have materials for research purposes. Noted that GPO
may be looking at potential for reducing the number of depository libraries in
order to reduce printing and distribution costs.
Discussed concept of a shared Eastern and Western geographical Regional.
Consensus that ALL materials can not continue to be retained in a single
regional.
Sharing materials divided by format does not make sense in customer needs for
information.
Should role of regional library be that of coordinator and manage of
collections in a region? Might then free some staff time to communications,
consulting, coordination. Consider regional counceils of documents librarians
as a planning, coordinating group.
Regional in NW could plan retention of non-NW materials, each taking
responsibility for one section of the US.
Discussion:
How can NW arrive at a "shared" status?
Develop formal agreement for maintenance levels
By Spring 1994, create draft of policy
ILL standard of response (timeliness, reproduction, etc.)
Negoitate item numbers
Negotiate tiers of what will be permanently retained
Identify required reproduction equipment
Recognize reality of proximity, ignoring state lines
Draft policy will be used for academic and other depositories to
achieve approval from their instituions.
Discussion:
How can constituents be involved in determining future of depository
system? They are the real reason for its existence. Discussed ways of
informaing users of consequences and providing them with information such as
contact addresses.
ATTENDEES
Peggy Norris NOLS
Maxine Miller NOLS
Colette Shoeman NOLS
Sue Selmer EPL
Thomas Yeh Central Washington University
Lucy Enriquez Evergreen State College
Susan Connolly Tacoma Public Library
Robin Clausen Tacoma Public Library
Lily Wai University of Idaho
Gwen Newborg Prtland State University
Tom Taylor Fort Vancouver Reg
Jean Hartman Spokane Public Library
Susan Wheeler King County Library
Shelly Stevens University of Puget Sound
Eleanor Chase University of Washington
Craig Kyte Seattle Public
David Biele Tacoma Public Library
Dawn Kendrick-Morgan State Law Library
Tom Miller UPS Law Library
Grace Malson UW Law Library
Elizabeth Thweatt Gonzaga Law Library
Ingrid Mifflin Washington State University
Jean Pasche U.S. Court
Robert Lopresti Western Washington University
Joe Drazan Whitman College (Penrose)
James Quinn Gonzaga Law Library
Kristy Coomes WSL
Ann Bregent WSL
Judy McCarthy WSL
Aimee Piscitelli Eastern Washington University
|
