HIGHLIGHTS
COLLECTION MANAGERS' FORUM
July 21, 2004
122 Main Library, 10:00-11:30

• Agenda
  
  
• Preliminary FY 2004/2005 materials budget
  
  
• Memo: Fund Activity Reports for FY04/05
  
  
• Draft version of a new -1 and -2 fund allocation statement
  
  
• Sample e-mails re: overpriced serials up for renewal

1. Preliminary FY 2004-05 Materials Budget (J. Bracken, T. Davis)
   
   Jim made some comments on the preliminary materials budget for FY04-05.
   • His first point was that these are indeed preliminary numbers; the budget is not yet known. It is anticipated that we will have a flat budget (i.e. the same as last year's).
   • Allocations for monographs are expected to be the same.
   • The figures on the chart assume a "cancel as we go" policy with regard to serial subscription price increases. Only 10% has been built into the serials budget for inflation. (Review the new policy on serial cost increase limits introduced at the June 2, 2004 Collection Managers' Forum.).
   • Trisha shared two recent e-mails as examples of what collection managers will receive whenever there is a significant price increase for continuation titles that come up for renewal. These messages list the three options available to the collection manager:
     1. Cancel the title.
     2. Assign the use of -4 funds to cover the increase.
     3. Cancel a different title on this fund and use the resulting credit to cover the difference.
        
        A fourth option was requested - that one be able to use -4 funds only temporarily(for one renewal) until a title comes up for renewal that the CM would prefer to cancel (check the order record to see whether a title has been renewed yet). Jim and Trisha agreed to consider this alternative.

   • If we can cancel as we go, and the University doesn't make any big cuts in the Libraries' budget we may be able to avoid the annual serials cancellation project.
     
   • On a related note: Jim is on the OhioLINK task force working on developing procedures for pulling out of contracts.

   
   

2. Fund Activity Reports for FY 2004-05 (J. Bracken)
   
   
   • Be sure to read Tschera's memo and note the fields on the examples provided.
   • Get used to ignoring the information from the last fiscal year, which we will continue to see until next June.
   • Remember that the most current information can be obtained from OSCAR, which is updated every 24 hours.

   
   

3. New -1 and -2 fund allocation statement for FY 2004-05 (Draft) (J. Bracken et al)
   
   
   • Compare the formats and information provided by the new and previously used allocation statements, as in the attached examples
   • Some collection managers had questions in the past because the allocations reported did not reflect what had already been spent.
   • The new format clearly states the allocation itself, as well as carryover to the -1 fund, and balance as of that date. It is important to remember that often that which is carried forward is debt, not unspent funds. Amounts that have been subtracted will be identified as such.
   • Note that the fund reports sent out twice monthly by ASA are the only method of tracking allocations and expenditures. OSCAR will indicate current balances, but does not provide a history.

   
   

4. Compressing and consolidating funds (J. Bracken et al)
   
   
   • Jim would like to simplify the fund structure, and proposes condensing the -1 and -2 funds into one.
   • This could only be done during fiscal close, so now is a time for considering and discussing this idea.
   • Such an action is predicated upon the move to virtual approvals:
     • Collection managers receive electronic "slips" to select from
     • YBP provides a tally of all selected so that one can select and de-select from the list and keep an eye on the budget in the process. One option would be to select all and then de-select those not wanted.
     • Virtual approvals consist of a periodic list of titles that match the profile being sent, not the actual books
     • No physical review process involved (Seems like the best approach for the time period when Tech Services will be located at 650 Ackerman.)
     • Can refer titles to each other via Gobi II.
     • "Shopping cart" info goes to the bib searchers in MOD; all notes in GOBI ar transcribed into the OSCAR order records.
   • Simplifying the fund structure would get us away from the process of transferring money back and forth between the -1 funds and -2 funds.
   • Gathering plans would still be funded, although that procedure has not yet been determined.
   • Some ordering would still be done via ORTs.
   • Bib searchers would still search OhioLINK and report back to collection managers on duplication within OhioLINK
   
   Question: Should CAC continue to discuss the idea of consolidating the -1 and -2 funds? (Those present agreed that this idea should be explored further.)
   
   Question: Should OSUL look at the formulas used at other institutions for re-evaluating fund allocations (based on enrollments, number of degrees offered, etc.)? OSU's percentages are historical, and haven't been changd in reponse to changes in University departments. (Those present agreed that this issue should also be explored further by CAC.)