Library Council
University of Toronto Central Library System

Minutes of Library Council April 14, 2000

Present: Fillion, E. (Chair), Clark, J., Cozzi, S., Downs, V., Grof, G., Guardia, T., Martyn, K., Masters, A., McNair, L., Moore, C., Rosenstock, M., Stone, S., Santeramo, A. (Recording Secretary)
Regrets: Bradshaw, G., Bravo, G., Chase, V., Cheng, A., Clapp, S., Cummins, M., Granatstein, E., Hawrychuk, S., Healey, R., Holder, R., Houtman, E., Jaffray, C., Langford, L., Lee, M., Leishman, J., Murray, C., Newman, S., Press, M., Raic, J., Roddy, M., Schlauch, E., Snow, J., Socknat, C., Thierry-Broad, A., Turko, K., U, A., Wagle, I.
Guests: Horne, B., Michael, H.


Minutes of the March 15th, 2000 meeting:

Minutes were approved with one correction as follows: add 2000 after March 15th in first sentence.

Business arising

a) Addendum to the report of the Task Force on Services at a Distance. The addendum was distributed at the meeting. The Chair announced that it was actually an amendment to the report. It was agreed to reopen discussion of the report for the purpose of considering the amendment, moved by Jane Clark, seconded by Lachlan McNair. Jane reported that as a result of her membership on several committees where issues of library delivery have been a priority, she felt that the language should be stronger for Recommendation 2. It was made clear that this proposal had already been discussed with the Chair of the Task Force on Services at a Distance, Helen Michael, who added that it was not out of place, considering the fact that the task force focused on automation. A motion to accept the amendment was made by Jane, seconded by Gabriele Grof, and Council voted in favour. A motion to accept the report as amended was made by Susan Cozzi, seconded by Teresa Guardia, and Council unanimously voted in favour.

Chief Librarian's Report:

Carole announced that she has accepted the report of the Task Force on Services at a Distance in principle. She indicated that she would like the Steering Committee to move forward in establishing the standing committee to help with the implementation of the report’s other recommendations. She added that it is a very good report.

Planning and Budget

The Chief Librarian announced that the University expected to have good news at this time, but this is not the case. The University Administration will continue its lobby-ing efforts in hope of some better news, hopefully in early May, from the Provincial Government. The Planning stage is therefore on hold until later. It was stated that the government’s Performance Indicators are very poor indicators of how Universities are rated and the University Administration is much involved with addressing this.

Resource Sharing update:

Susan Cozzi pointed out that the Resource Sharing Transition Team has met since late last summer. Six vendors have been investigated. A recommendation has been made and a contract has been signed with a vendor. Implementation plans, which will cover all libraries at the University, are being made at this time. The hope is to have the document delivery system in full operation by the end of summer and all team members are full of enthusiasm. The new system is Fretwell Downing.

Question/Comments arising: It was asked how this system would benefit the library. Susan said it should work more efficiently and smoothly than the present system. It will give better reporting for statistical purposes and will enable patrons to request material on their own. The flexibility will be much improved. The system is already in use at the National Library of Australia and most universities in Australia. All the reports received have been good. The Chief Librarian added that the leaders of the OCUL libraries are very enthusiastic as well. Mike Ridley, who is President (OCUL), wants to move ahead very quickly with this, based on all the work the Resource Sharing Transition Team has accomplished

Report of the Task Force on Replacements:

Bonnie Horne reported that the task force came to the determination that everyday procedures were being covered. The task force also looked at very large budgetary issues, stocktaking, etc. The report was therefore divided into two parts, the recommendations which have serious budgetary implications and the Best Practices. The report was made available to Council before the meeting and all recommendations were reviewed.

Recommendation #1: That stocktaking is done routinely in all library collections in the Central System. A member asked how many areas actually conduct stocktaking. It was reported that it is not conducted frequently in any of the libraries at the University any longer. Gerstein Library has tried stocktaking in selected call number areas. It was added that the task force is not proposing that stocktaking of entire collections be conducted yearly; it actually may take several years for each library to do stocktaking of its collections, as it is an extremely big job. OISE/UT has not conducted any stocktaking since the merger; they usually do only the more frequently used areas. Gerstein also targeted the most heavily used areas. It was noted that project funding might be required for stocktaking of targeted areas in Robarts.

Recommendation #2: That this Task Force strongly supports the Status Report of the Advisory Committee on Library Space with regard to the need for off-site collection storage facilities. A member stressed concern for off-site storage facilities: how will we know what has been sent there? It was mentioned that a form of inventory would be needed to select items for off-site storage, and the location would be entered into the catalogue, as well.

Recommendation #3: That a library technician position be created in the Collection Development Department to assist in the timely ordering of replacements. It was added that this would include more clerical routines. Useful Internet sites for ordering out-of-print books have been noted.

Recommendation #4: That funding be made available to support a digital replacements programme based upon an expanded mandate for the Preservation Services Department. That the feasibility of extending the digital replacements service to the campus libraries, and to external organizations such as OCUL, be investigated.

It was noted that copyright issues have been investigated when making this recommendation.

Recommendation #5: That adequate funding for replacements always be made available. Bonnie added that this could have serious implications if the number of books needing to be replaced rises significantly. The Chief Librarian was very impressed with Gerstein’s stocktaking results, which were much better than expected.

Recommendation #6: That where the missing item is from a unique record, the item record be eliminated and the 090 field changed by adding a $r with the message “Last copy cancelled”. The record from UTCat would be suppressed but left in Netcat. That where the missing item is not from a unique record, the item record be eliminated and the 090 field changed by adding a $r with a short clear statement to the effect that the copy at this location is missing. This record would not be suppressed. It was recommended that the first word of the second line in the first paragraph be changed to read: eliminated instead of cancelled. (This was approved and is incorporated above.) It was noted that the terminology of the DRA system, particularly “assumed lost”, gives a false impression to the public, suggesting that many more items are missing than is actually the case. This problem is being investigated, and wording may change in the future.

Recommendation #7: That the Access and Information Services Department, on behalf of all central system libraries, improve the methods by which patrons are enabled and encouraged to report missing items. Methods could include the development of electronic and print “missing book” forms. While it might seem convenient for patrons to be able to submit forms without stopping to talk to staff, it was stressed that this would eliminate the opportunity for immediate problem-solving in cases where patrons need to be directed, e.g. to the blue shelves on the 9th floor, or to copies available elsewhere on campus.

Recommendations #8: That the DRA and resource sharing systems be utilized in part as tools for electronically forwarding appropriate interlibrary loan/document delivery requests to the Collection Development Department. No comment.

The Chief Librarian reported that this report is excellent and that she felt it could move forward at a fast pace.

Other business:

Lachlan McNair announced one new member of Council: Joanne Lynes. Nominations are still open for other members.

Meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.

Back to: Minutes of Library Council

Back to: Library Council Home

This page was last updated . Your comments and questions are welcomed.
All contents copyright ©, University of Toronto Libraries, 2001.