In Attendance: Mary Larsgaard (Chair), Sherry Dedecker, Wei-ling Dai, Janet Martorana, Catherine Nelson, Lucia Snowhill, Sarah Pritchard

AGENDA
Discuss the Government Inforamtion Task Force Report

The following is a summary of comments from the meeting:

1) Overall agrement that shared print collections is the route to take for the future. No major disagreements with findings/recommendations of the report

2) The need for a sterring committee, very likely for the long term

3) Matrices:

• Essential nature of decisionmatrices - what is chosen for shared,what level of cataloging needed, making it easy for libraries to make good decisions, etc. - as one of major outputs from steering committee. (e.g., does one focus on little-used, well-indexed collections from long-dead agencies first? and so on)
• Need for a matrix that would show how materials "behave" when they're shared. wouldn't this have to have levels of shared collection? (e.g., archival; general use; last copy in UC, etc.)
• Matrix to figure out cost of what happens when a collection moves to being shared - e.g., cost to libraries that choose to withdraw item; cost of getting one full run of a given collection by shoving together holdings from more than one library; cost of inventorying, etc.

4) Cataloging for these shared collections:

• The more restricted is the access to these items, the more detailed the cataloging has to be, in order for the items to be findable by our users. This means that in many cases, collection-level records just don't cut it; and while in some cases minimal-level cataloging is fine (e.g., well-indexed periodicals or monographic series), in other cases it would not work for our users.
• Noted that many government periodicals are not well indexed, or not indexed at all, depending upon the title and the time period.
• There would need to be some (computer-searchable,and eye-readable) field(s) that would note that an item were last copy held/shared print collection.

5) Implication that the role of the RLFs would change substantially - to very active components of the UC libraries - if indeed the RLFs are to act as the primary holder of these materials.

6) Scanning: If items are to be scanned at the RLFs and the scan rather than the actual item sent to user:

• who does the scanning?
• keep or toss scans?
• if kept, who does the cataloging and who does the backup?
• what about proactive scanning, would RLFs do that, or campus libraries?