----------------------------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