Thomas Teper
Review of Annual Goals, 2008
Enhance support for the University’s curricular needs while devoting time to building the unique research collections that will define the Library’s future place as a research institution.
The FY08 collections budget saw the creation of a centrally-managed backfile fund allocated to enhance, first, those needs identified with new service models and, secondly, those needs of units or groups of units with identified backfile needs. In FY08, this funding addressed collection needs identified through the Labor Library’s and the CPLA Library’s merger. The remainder was allocated to support backfile purchased in LSD/PSED. In FY09, the University Librarian agreed to my suggestion in November that we allocate the entire pool to LSD/PSED backfile needs.
Resources were identified to support purchases of both print and digital resources in the Arts & Humanities, including the ProQuest’s British Periodicals I & II and the Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals and rare books to supplement resources available in the Art & Architecture Library. Additionally, I worked on a funding model to support a purchase of the Historic New York Times and Wall Street Journal. Previously, we had been leasing this content. Out purchase should pay for itself within three years.
In an effort to garner extra support to highlight local research, I worked with representatives from CAM and IDEALS to develop a request for support to digitize ProQuest’s entire backfile of UIUC’s microfilmed theses (over 25,000 titles). After several years of work on this proposal, we received go-ahead on the $400,000 project only to have the funding pulled by campus as the current financial crisis darkened.
In the realm of special collections, work to secure the collection of Iva Toguri’s (a.k.a. ‘Tokyo Rose’) papers was put on hold in 2007 due to her untimely passing; however, conversations between Ron Yates and the Toguri heirs were recently resumed. More success has been experienced in recent progress toward acquiring the Fund for Investigative Journalism’s archive. This independent agency funded much groundbreaking investigative journalism, including research into the My Lai Massacre and recent attempts to cover-up abuse by members of the Catholic Church.
Encourage the transition to e-only for those collections/subjects where most appropriate and our stewardship responsibilities can be adequately met.
Last year, the Office of Collections supported the efforts of faculty within the Social Sciences Division as they attempted to purchase the Sage Complete Package – a database model for Sage’s current publication. This was complimented by the use of end of year money to purchase the complete Sage backfile.
In 2008, I held a discussion with the Arts and Humanities Division about a Project Muse upgrade that would cost the Library relatively little while greatly expanding our offerings for humanities scholars. Basically, the Library was already expending funding sufficient to cover the upgrade in print+e subscriptions and print-only subscriptions. Based upon the argument that such a situation presented a particular challenge to advocating for greater support for the humanities, the division agreed to flip the content. We moved ahead on making the transition to e-only.
Support programs and initiatives dedicated to enhancing access to the Library’s hidden collections.
Four efforts come to mind in this area – gift processing, Music Special Collections WG, Campus Planning Documents Project, and the IHLC Processing Project.
Support enhancements and development of the Library’s Gifts Program.
As noted above, I worked with Mary Laskowski of IPM and Michael Norman from CAM to revise gift processing. IPM support and the subsequent processing changes enabled the Library to process 10,000 items in six months (4,000 were added to the collection).
The Library also secured Legal’s approval to enter into a contract with Better World Books (BWB). This organization will serve as Library’s sales agent for unwanted gift titles. The library’s projected profit from sales are anticipated to double those of the annual booksale. The contract is still in negotiation.
Support the Preservation and Conservation Program as it continues developing a program capable of meeting the needs of the Library’s collections and their users.
Mold, mold, and mold. The last calendar year saw the discovery and remediation of a mold outbreak in the RBML vault. Efforts on my part included finalization of a contract (with Business Office support – thank you Kathie), work to help the Library secure funding for a nearly $1,000,000 clean-up project (not including contributed labor), and helping to plan the day to day operations of the effort within the Library.
As the first project ended, a new outbreak was discovered in Press Basement. This one impacted approximately 130,000 children’s books. My main work included working with internal partners (Conservation, EESL) to better understand the scope of the problem and to locate internal resources to support a cleaning effort.
Work with the E-Resources Librarian and the Head of CAM to support improved and/or enhanced access to collections.
Calendar year 2008 witnessed a Syndetics purchase and agreement on dividing funding for content enhancement vs. productivity and work-related tools between IT and Collections. Per that agreement, subsequent Syndetics purchases were to be funded off the top for FY10 and the funding managed through the Collections Budget.
In addition, I worked with the Budget Group to secure more money for records in FY09 and allocated some new FY09 collections money to support an own-not-loan program.
Work with the Head of Acquisitions and the E-Resources Librarian to improve processes that support our subject specialists.
During 2008, I worked with the Library’s Acquisitions and E-Resources librarians to implement an opt-out model for flipping many subscriptions to e-only. This is generally receiving positive reception from library faculty. In addition, we have discussed a need to work at more aggressively de-duping subscriptions in 2009.
Identify emerging research and teaching programs on campus and provide support for their curricular and research needs and the Library initiatives that support them.
In support of the emerging Translation Studies program and the development of a four-year College of Media, I have worked with graduate assistants to complete collection assessments that will help identify local and peer strengths and direct subject-level decision-making in subsequent years.
Recent difficulties in finding an individual to manage the linguistics fund has actually been a benefit in disguise. The challenge encouraged me to meet with the department chair, and while we are still working on identifying a long-term fund manager, it exposed a significant divergence between the research and instruction emphasized in the department and the collections being built.
Continue working with CAPT to develop a robust committee capable of coordinating policy related to access and management of the Library’s collections.
I will admit that this has been a weak-point in my area. Over the past year, the committee has detailed several working groups to examine next generation catalogs and other access enhancements. While there has not been a definite answer on which direction to go, I believe that the Library learned a lot about the possibilities.
Continue working with CDC to better tap into its role as an advisory committee.
As we closed FY08 and moved into FY09, I was able to secure a strong level of consensus from the membership that the Library’s priorities for new funding allocation should be:
(a) inflation, (b) devaluation, and (c) additional monographic support. This was pending the availability of new funds and the ability of the Library to meet other strategic directions.
During the past year, one other change took place in the committee’s operations – namely, rather than focusing too much of the committee’s time on more mundane issues such as funding, I have begun to seek the committees advice on larger topics and issues in collection development. For example, what will the Google settlement mean for research libraries? How should the Library identify and set priorities for funding distinguished collections?
Encourage and support collaborative approaches to collection development and management within the Library and among peer institutions.
Early discussions within the CIC stalled – largely based upon a “we’ve been here already” mentality and a disinterest in engaging subject specialists. However, this was before the recent financial meltdown. I am hopeful that 2009 will see more discussion within the CIC of a Berkeley/Stanford-like collaboration. In the meantime, early discussions continue with my counterpart at Michigan about a possible collaborative collection development activity.
I have raised this idea locally among my colleagues, most recently in relation to some weaknesses in the collection development model established within the Slavic Library. Unfortunately, the topic frequently causes a defensive posture.
Support New Service Model activities as they impact collections.
I have contributed as needed to larger projects, but I have also been working on several follow-up groups to the Stacks Services WG, including groups working on a process to identify and relocate rare books within the Stacks, a group working on reviewing the Stacks display, and a group identifying a process to relocation folios within the Stacks.
Operational
Support New Service Model Activities
Provided as needed and requested. Direct work includes leading the Stacks Services Working Group and the five sub-groups that emerged from the first set of recommendations. I am glad to report that work is progressing with these groups and most of their work should be wrapped up in the next several weeks.
Support Facilities Needs
My efforts in support of facilities needs have been fairly diverse. On a limited level, I have worked with Facilities and the Preservation Unit to clear most remaining preservation unit materials from the 7/14 hallway and advised the Facilities Office on flat storage needs for the recently completed second Oak St module.
On a larger level, I worked with the University Librarian to secure funding for a replacement to the RBML HVAC system following the mold outbreak. Upon receipt of funding, Jeff Schrader and I represented the University Library’s interests as F&S identified a suitable consultant to design and execute the project.
In terms of long-range planning, I continue to serve as a representative to the Library’s Main Library Feasibility Study Project.
Finally, I assumed leadership of the Library’s Energy Conservation and Sustainability WG. Our first recommendations were sent to the University Librarian and AC in early 2009.
Successfully close FY08 collections budget.
Done. End of year purchases included all of part of the funding for: Blackwell-Wiley Backfiles, ECCO conversion project (outstanding bill pre-dating my tenure), EEBO TCP2, Elsevier Computer Science Backfile, ProQuest’s Historic Black Newspapers, Sage Backfile, SimplyMap, Springer Backfiles (1:1 match with PSED and LSD).
Successfully open FY09 collections budget.
Done.
Complete documentation for budget preparation.
Mostly done. Transitory nature of all Office of Collections personnel (GAs) is a difficulty, but we are moving ahead.
Work with the Acquisitions Unit and the Business Office to ensure clear, non-contradictory communication of fiscal information about the collections, inflation, and the budget process.
Over the past two years, I feel as though we have built a strong working team. Our communications have been more planned and far more consistent.
Develop a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the collections budget, both in terms of its ability to support curricular and research needs and in terms of its ability to meet the institution’s evolving needs.
I have a better understanding than I did two years ago. In short, concerns exist, but I am fairly comfortable with the fund model that we have. It has strengths (protects less visible areas, gives a lot of control to subject specialists, etc…), and it has weaknesses (inflexible in dealing with larger purchases, move toward database model of e-resource licensing, and cross-fund commitment to large purchases). It is also fairly weak in terms of meeting the evolving needs of the campus community in that it is completely dependent upon the closeness of the subject specialist to the discipline. While this is a strength in areas where we have a strong liaison relationship, we have fallen down with respect to our meeting the needs of linguists on campus. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are other similar situations. That said, I don’t have a better solution at this point in time.
Beyond the fund structure, I see a weakness in terms of staffing for Collections as a whole. I have some level of concern about the institution’s ability to support the current fund management model given anticipated attrition in the coming years as many retirement-eligible faculty appear to be fund managers. Not only will we see a brain drain if that comes to pass, but we will be pressed on the issue of filling every position.
The other staffing concern that I see is what, frankly, constitutes the absence of an Office of Collections. It is, for all intents and purposes, an office of one. Assessment support is weak, and the ability to provide oversight for such a diverse group of disciplines and purchases is limited. I believe that opportunities exist within the New Service Model to rethink this as primary responsibilities in other areas diminish for some of our faculty, but the thinking behind this is still developing.
Lastly, I am in the process of completing a mapping of Library collections support to financial support for programs in campus in order to determine how closely our funding matches campus funding for individual disciplinary areas. It is not going to be a 100% guide, but it will be informative.
Begin developing a better understanding of our collections budget in comparison to those of other peer institutions.
This is improving annually as we complete the budgeting process, as that is the point where comparative information is most apparent.
Work toward the development of additional university support for the collections.
I believe that I successfully advocated on behalf of collections needs for FY09 as this represents the best year for collections funding of the last six. That said, it was dependent partially upon what was a good year for the Library as a whole, a sympathetic campus administration, and strong advocacy on our behalf by the University Librarian.
Work with the Senate Committee on the Library to enhance the Library’s representation in academic planning and programming activities and to better communicate the central role that the Library plays in making resources available.
After several years of trying to get this process implemented, the formal participation of the University Library in the new program proposal process has been implemented.
Support the Development Office and the Library Friends as they continue to build on the Capital Campaign.
Such activity was relatively limited during 2008, but I have provided support when needed. Recently, I began reviewing endowed funds in order to gain a better understanding of the Library’s fiscal situation in regard to these funds.
Support grant and development activities that will enhance acquisition, access, and preservation of library resources.
During the past year, I have contributed to the following:
Support newer librarians in their research and professional development needs.
Lately, I have been participating in an informal advisory group that is assisting Mark Puente in developing his position as curator of special collections within the Music Library.
Collaborative Programming
Support the development of standardized licensing language for electronic resources.
No significant effort – personnel changes in Purchasing limited ability to move forward.
Work with consortia such as the CIC and member organizations such as CRL to enhance the Library’s buying power and access to collections.
Over the last year, I have contributed significant effort to a CIC-CLI program aimed at leveraging our cooperative buying power. Both as a member of the committee outlined the initial buying program and the subsequent implementation group, I worked to advance the institution’s interests. Currently, we are in the evaluative phase of the first year of this program. However, as a cooperative, we were able to purchase three significant resources for the list price of one. So, from a dollars and cents standpoint, it was successful. That said, there is still evaluation to complete related to the suitability of the resources, the process, and the long-term benefit of supporting such a program.
Identify and support methods to improve cooperative collection development activities.
I have initiated tentative discussions within CIC. However, as I believe I noted earlier, these have met with limited interest. A subsequent discussion about a possible UIUC and Michigan cooperative venture is still in its early phases. Similarly, a working group was formed at the end of 2008 by the CODSULI directors, and I was asked to chair. Its first report is due in March 2009.