ACJU Library Deans & Directors Business Meeting
San Francisco, CA
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Convener: Michael LaCroix (Creighton University)
Attending: Jerome Yavarkovsky and Kathleen Carney,(Boston College), Barbara Boehnke (Canisius), Margaret Auer (Detroit Mercy), Joan Overfield (Fairfield), Jim McCabe (Fordham), Stephanie Clark (Georgetown), Eileen Bell-Garrison (Gonzaga), Jim Hogan (Holy Cross), Jeanne Somers (John Carroll), Robert Johnston (LeMoyne), Bob Seal (Loyola Chicago), John McGinty (Loyola MD), Kristine Brancolini (Loyola Marymount), Deborah Poole (Loyola New Orleans), Ivan Gaetz (Regis), Laurie Hathman (Rockhurst), Evelyn Minick (St. Joseph’s), Gail Staines (Saint Louis), Tyrone Cannon (San Francisco), and Liz Salzer (Santa Clara). Vicki Rosen (San Francisco) (guest).
Absent: Janice Simmons-Welburn (Marquette Univ.), David Hardgrove (St. Peter’s), Charles Kratz (Scranton), Theresa McGonagle Crider (Spring Hill), John Popko (Seattle), Kelly Mummert (Wheeling Jesuit), Xavier University.
Michael LaCroix called the meeting to order and asked for a volunteer to record meeting minutes. Gail Staines agreed until she needs to leave the meeting, then Evelyn Minick will take notes. Evelyn Minick will send her notes to Gail Staines who will combine them and send them out to Evelyn Minick and the 4 readers (see below) within 3 weeks of the meeting.
2007 Minutes:
Evelyn Minick made a motion to approve the 2007 meeting minutes with the amended motion by Margaret Auer to have four others read the meeting minutes. (They are: Jeanne Somers, Kristine Brancolini, Liz Salzer, and Tyrone Cannon). Laurie Hathman seconded the motion. No discussion. Motion unanimously passed.2009 Program Committee:
2009 meeting will be held at Loyola Chicago. Bob Seal is coordinator of the meeting. Kris Brancolini agreed to chair the Program Committee. Evelyn Minick, Bob Seal, and Bob Johnston will serve on the committee.
Bob Seal will post possible dates to the group by end of April. The third week in April through first week in May was suggested. Other suggestions: hold meeting Thursday-Friday or Mon.-Tuesday. It was suggested and seemed well supported that we stop work at 4:00pm. The consensus was we still need 2.5 days for our meeting.AJCU Libraries/Archives Digital Project:
Project Committee: Liz Salzer moved to extend the Project Committee’s tenure until the business meeting in 2009. Ivan seconded the motion. Discussion: there should be a subcommittee for metadata. Motion unanimously passed. We need commitment from institutions to continue to add images as well as having currently non-participating institutions participate. Minimum goal was to add 45 images per institution. Goal for those not at 45 is to achieve 45 images. This should occur over the next year while discussions of the next phase of the project are happening.
Adding Content: Ivan Gaetz indicated that Regis is ready to add content. For those wanting to add content, contact Charles Lockwood (Loyola Maryland) at clockwood@loyola.edu. Specific subject areas for content currently include: Jesuit heritage, social responsibility and campus views. You can also provide images on one theme like Canisius did with their “March on Selma.”
Communication: Communication regarding the Digital Archives Project was discussed. The group needs to have continual communication from the Project Committee regarding updates, issues, questions, etc. Some AJCU Library Deans have shared this project with others on campus; others are planning to do so in the near future. All agreed that the Project can be soft-launched, but the Project site needs to be refined for a more prominent launch. a. Kris Brancolini suggested that we have staff listen-in on Project Committee conference calls to take notes. It was also suggested that minutes from conference calls be documented and/or recorded and shared. John McGinty noted that this may be a challenge. All agreed that broader communication outside of the Archivist group is needed. Vicki Rosen recommended that we share best practices to show the website to others. Liz Salzer added that this is an additional reason to have communication.
Promotion: John McGinty was asked to write an article for the CONNECTIONS publication. Evelyn Minick expressed some concern that the collaborative AJCU Libraries project remain a Library project. With JesuitNET needing more to justify 4FTE staff, they are anxious to fund and champion this project. However, AJCU is not JesuitNET. It was noted that the CONNECTIONS article is different. It needs to be made clear that this is a collaborative LIBRARY project and it is the third in a line of library collaborative projects, after the Virtual Reference and Passport. The AJCU site has an extensive library section. Each library is supposed to be adding content, such as annual reports, strategic plans, diversity statements, etc. We need to improve and use this vehicle, it is a great opportunity, and we can all add content and make it available to the group. In terms of the look of the actual Photo site, there is an issue as to whether it is clear that this is an AJCU library project. All agreed that this point needs to be much more prominent on both the project website and in any communication that is shared outside the group. It was noted that AJCU has direct connection to all the presidents which is another reason that we need to brand our project. Jeanne Somers suggested that we need to demonstrate the project before the article gets published. John McGinty noted that the deadline date from CONNECTIONS is April 15th. The article may be premature and it may make more of an impact in September. Evelyn Minick made a motion that we request that the article be in the September issue of CONNECTIONS to start off the academic year. Kris Brancolini seconded the motion. Discussion: Bob Seal asked whether photos will be included in the article? The article is to be between 400-500 words. Vicki Rosen made a friendly amendment to accept the April deadline if the September deadline was not available. The friendly amendment was accepted. Unanimously approved.
Standardizing metadata and committee to work on this: Presently the project is using LCSH, however the content has more detail than is allowed in LCSH. We need to establish more appropriate subject headings. The metadata committee needs to be connected to the Project Committee and should be a subgroup of that committee. Group members need to have expertise as metadata librarians/catalogers including having image cataloging experience.
Future Funding: The current CONTENTdm license is for 5,000 images. The database contains about 800 images presently. Loyola Maryland donated $5,000 to obtain the license. We need to consider the collaborative CONTENTdm being offered by OCLC. Pricing needs to be obtained. Future funding will be discussed at the 2009 meeting.
Next Steps: Several institutions have published histories that are out-of-print and that are ready to be digitized. Bob Seal suggested that each institution submit a 1-2 page institutional history abstract with embedded links and a bibliography. It was noted that Matt Blessing is suggesting, from the archives stand point, to digitize what is already published and in-print. Some institutional histories are out-of-print and generally not available; however there are requests for the history. A question was raised about how CONTENTdm handles text and images. (See Canisius College’s example in the project). Liz Salzer expressed a concern that we may be duplicating campus efforts re: adding institutional histories to this database. Gail Staines said that the scope of this part of the project needs to be clearly defined. For example, do we include broad institutional histories? Do we include histories of colleges and schools? Some institutions are more complex than others. We could also take the view book approach. (See Arcadia Press who publishes view books for cities and for schools). Marquette history is out-of-print, but is in CONTENTdm as a text example. There is also a concern about histories that have been published but do not have good quality images. A question of whether to put the information into PDF format or put the text and the original images into CONTENTdm. Also, information about the photo itself (e.g. identifying who is in the photo, etc.) needs to be included. Loyola Maryland has text links to important documents then provides quality photos. Saint Louis University took a different approach by developing an interactive timeline that links to key campus events. This is on a website and not in a database. It was noted that there could be 2-3 approaches to institutional histories. Kris Brancolini mentioned that Loyola Marymount is currently writing the institutional history which will go on the web and that may have a print counterpart. All agreed that there needs to be additional discussion before this part of the project can move forward.
Project Website: All agreed that the AMDG is too prominent on the project website and that it does not communicate what the project is about. A shorter title is needed. The common name is “AJCU Digital Archive.” Tyrone asked: who is the audience? Maybe the AMDG should be a small clickable tile. The site needs to recognize our Jesuit heritage. It was noted that the Catholic Resources website lists institution-by-institution. We might want to have a link between our project and this website and vice versa. Also, each institution may want to emphasize different parts of their digital collections. Evelyn Minick strongly recommended that “Library” needs to be included in any new title.
Digital Project Action Items:
Digital Project Committee is to draft a front end home page that includes a description of the project first. The committee is charged to draft the front end and share it with the Library Deans/Directors group.
Digital Project Committee will define the skills needed to create standardized metadata and will send this list out to the AJCU Library Deans and Directors who will locate individuals to serve on the subcommittee.
John McGinty will request to have the article published in the September issue of CONNECTIONS and will share the response with the group.
Tyrone Cannon, serving as the 2009 convener of the business meeting, will add the issue of future funding as well as institutional histories for the Digital Archives Project to the agenda.
Each institution should work toward adding 100 images. Libraries new to the project should reach for 45 images.
The Digital Project Committee and/or Subcommittee needs to develop a scope draft statement and present the statement 3-4 weeks prior to the 2009 meeting.
- Each institution needs to explore their current situation re: institutional history.
2009 Business Meeting:
Bob Seal suggested that each institution invite their assistant and/or associate deans to this meeting so that they can converse with each other. All agreed. We will need to let Bob Seal know if we are bringing additional people at the time of registration. Also, this will depend on the program offered. Bob Seal has received a small amount of seed money from Creighton from last year’s conference. Tyrone Cannon will send any “left over” money to Bob Seal. It was suggested that we invite our three Jesuit counterpart institutions from Canada.
Action: Michael LaCroix will send the contact information of the three Canadian institutions to Bob Seal so that he may send an invitation to each.2010 meeting: Jim McCabe offered to host at Fordham. It is a joint meeting with IT. (It was noted that there are no hotels located in the Bronx near the university).
2011 meeting: Kris Brancolini offered to host at Loyola Marymount. Their new building opens in 2009 and the institution will be celebrating its 100th year anniversary.
2012 meeting: John McGinty offered to host at Loyola Maryland. This is a joint meeting with IT. It will depend if the IT people have already set a location.
2015 meeting: Evelyn Minick offered to host at Saint Joseph’s.
WorldCat Collection Analysis:
Joan Overfield said that our group had a group subscription for 2 years. Scranton is not continuing with this and the subscription has lapsed. AJCU libraries each paid $1400. Joan’s received a quote from OCLC for a single subscription and after quoting a price that was 260% more, they reduced it to $2,000. It was noted that OCLC considers two institutions a group. With an individual institution subscription, an individual library can match against any institution. With a group subscription, you are limited to the group. In Nov./Dec. 2007, OCLC launched a circulation collection development analysis tool. This is different from their interlibrary loan analysis tool. With the circulation product, you send OCLC your circulation stats and they run the analysis for you. This is not available as a group subscription.
Group subscription pricing is based on aggregate holdings. When 6 AJCU institutions participated before, cost was $1,467/institution. Fairfield uses this product for accreditation and site visits. SLU uses it for new program and certificate proposals. Each new proposal requires that a collection development analysis be completed. (It is actually attached to the proposal). Funding needs are then included as part of the proposal if needed.
There was a question about overlap between the affinity group and the Jesuit institutions. This depends upon who is in the group. The following institutions are interested in a group subscription: Loyola Chicago, Creighton, LMU, Rockhurst, Fairfield, SLU, Fordham, Holy Cross, Saint Joseph’s, John Carroll, San Francisco, and Loyola Maryland. Boston College may be interested, but it depends on what the Boston Library Consortium is doing.
Action: Joan Overfield will work on pricing over the summer by contacting the OCLC representative.
It was noted that there is an alternative, slightly more expensive product called Spectra Dimension by Library Dynamics of Virginia. Cost is about $2500 per institution.Statistics:
There was a discussion about the data elements for institutional reports. The data elements need to be enhanced. The group used the Oberlin group’s form a few years ago with success. The numbers are relevant to student FTE. Question: should we do this again and, if so, when? The Oberlin form covers 2 years worth of data; it provides ratios (e.g.: $ per student; number of students/librarian, etc.) The survey is refined every year and it was greatly revised in 2007. Holy Cross will send the form to the group. Michael LaCroix will talk to Louis Miller about the affinity form. The nice thing is that it fits on one sheet and it contains good definitions. Salary data is a part of the survey. There are two surveys: the affinity group survey includes salary information. The other part of the survey is about materials. Louis Miller agrees to keep all salary information confidential. Starting salary figures are also included.
Action: Evelyn Minick and Michael LaCroix will work on this for Fall 2008.Other New Business:
LibQual+ Alternatives Committee: Should it continue? All agreed that each institution should decide whether or not to do LibQual+. The committee is officially disbanded.
Future AJCU Project/Program Ideas/Possibilities:
Share best practices (e.g.: Georgetown’s copyright website). Possible program on friends groups (Georgetown and SLU) for 2009. Share diversity statements and policies. We ask that everyone put their information on the AJCU Libraries page on Scranton’s website including annual reports, policies and strategic plans. Action: Tyrone Cannon will combine all institutional reports and will share with the group in one WORD document.
AJCU Faculty Scholarship to AJCU library website. It was suggested that we explore a mini-SPARC with AJCU institutions adding to a refereed digital repository. We need to identify the best Jesuit institutional scholarship and create one depository organized by discipline. John suggested we have a program next year and get numbers of times our scholarship is accessed through World Cat.
Scholarly communication blogs (BC) and web sites (Santa Clara).
Eileen Bell-Garrison would like a program on comparing our ILS systems to OCLC WorldCat.org, how do we offer a circulation system that works with WorldCat.
Undergraduate research awards and programs
Develop a Marketing group among Jesuit colleges and universities to share ideas and information.
Offer a Swap ‘n Shop for ideas that work
Really talking about the book, The Big Switch.
Difficulties with recruiting. Program committee should consider doing a program on recruitment, issues of diversity, as well as a possible consortial project.
Alternative to OCLC
Following the concept outlined in our book, The Big Switch, Jerome Yavarkovsky asked the group to consider the idea of forming an open source, library community-based shared cataloging organization that would function outside of OCLC and therefore avoid OCLC fees. Boston College has decoupled from Nelinet, the New England OCLC affiliate. Although Jerome Yavarkovsky is retiring from Boston College in June, he will be developing a white paper on this issue that he will share with our group.Steering Committee Purpose & History
After we expressed some confusion, Liz Salzer reminded us of the makeup and purpose of the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee is made up of the past, present, and future Chair to keep track of projects between meetings. So our current Steering Committee will be Michael LaCroix, Tyrone Cannon and Bob Seal. Tyrone will serve as the Chair for the next Conference in ’09. The host of the conference serves as the chair for the year following the conference on his/her campus.Programming Experiments: The group liked the change to the Campus Round-up section. The program committee reviewed the Institutional reports and then asked individual Directors to present on programs identified in their reports.