Highlights of Public Comments & Feedback

Discussion Draft: Proposed Southeast Guidelines for Management and Disposition of Federal Depository Library Collections Highlights of Public Comments & Feedback

Process Overview • Proposal approved at ASERL Spring 2010 Membership Meeting on April 22, 2010. • Posted for public review & comment on April 24, 2010. • Copies also provided to GPO, JCP, White House Open Govt Liaison. • Presentations at ALA (several), AALL, others.

Results Overview • Comment period closed on July 30, 2010. • Feedback from 60 individuals at 36 institutions • 27 respondents at ASERL member institutions; 33 at non-member sites. • Roles: • 35 = “documents librarian” or “documents specialist” • 11 = “library dean / director” • 5 = “public service / other reference librarian” • 4 = “technical services / cataloger” • 1 = “collections manager” • 4 = “other”

More demographics • 19 respondents worked in regional depositories • 40 respondents worked in selective depositories • 1 respondent = “other” (retiree)

Location of Respondents

Overall Support for Proposal 29 = strongly support; 18 = moderately support; 4 = neutral; 9 = moderately oppose; 0 = strongly oppose. n = 60

Dean’s / Directors’ Overall Support 10 = strongly support; 1 = moderately support. n = 11

Doc Libn’s Support for Proposal 16 = strongly support; 12 = moderately support; 2 = neutral / no opinion; 6 = moderately opposed; 0 = strongly opposed. n = 36

Likes? Dislikes? • Very strong (96%) agreement that FDLP collections are regional assets; • Very strong (93%) agreement that expanding Centers of Excellence is useful means for building comprehensive collections; • Strong agreement (90%) agreement that digital access is the best means for accessing collections;

Likes? Dislikes? • Very strong support (91%) for building two comprehensive-as-possible, cataloged FDLP collections with depositories in the SE region; • Moderate support (78%) for including FDLP materials in collaborative storage plans • Several wanted more info on this before offering opinion; some concerns about service from storage location to remote users.

Likes? Dislikes? • Moderate support (80%) for establishing “regional priorities” – i.e., any Regional in SE can have priority to request items being discarded, not state-based. • Moderate support (80%) for “microfiche exception” – i.e. Regionals will continue to support microfiche collections • Moderate support (85%) for “superseded documents exception”

Likes? Dislikes? • Frequent preference by doc librarians to maintain state-centric collections & processes; • Concerns about service quality to out-of-state Selectives; • Concerns about proposed processes: • Concerns a depository will be compelled / pressured to discard items, or give items to build a CoE collection; • Concerns about collecting superseded items; • Concerns about replacing microfiche with print;

Likes? Dislikes? • More concerns about proposed processes: • Questions about proposed discard lists & processes; • Concerns about how Regionals / CoEs can identify gaps in their collections if itemized disposal lists are no longer used; A few think new processes would increase workload for Selectives; • What determines if an item is “rare or significant”? • Many concerns about proposed “Florida exception” • Who pays shipping costs?

Selected Final Comments “The entire Regional/Selective Collection and disposition process has needed updating for a long time. I’m glad that ASERL took the initiative to tackle such a huge and complex issue.” Documents Librarian, Florida

Selected Final Comments “While I don't agree 100% with this document, I'm glad that by provoking this discussion & meeting, it is moving us forward toward what I think almost everyone agrees is a significant goal.” Documents Librarian, Mississippi

Selected Final Comments “The slight improvement in the N&O process is outweighed by what appears to be a significant addition to the N&O responsibilities of not only Regionals but also Selectives. The intention is good, but the execution is unclear.” Combined library response, Georgia

Selected Final Comments “I think this survey was a very difficult one to complete.” Technical Services Librarian, Louisiana

Selected Final Comments “What worries me: By establishing a minimum of two comprehensive collections over ten states, some library deans may give themselves permission to withdraw massive amounts of materials, weakening their own role as research institutions and weakening democracy's inconvenient-but-important safety net.” Documents Librarian, Washington

Selected Final Comments “In many ways this is an ideal time to be reexamining, simplifying and automating the GPO disposals process. However, I do question whether the materials being disposed of merit much investment in an elaborate procedure and database.” Documents Librarian, Virginia

Selected Final Comments “I think it’s doubtful that any complete or comprehensive “needs” database for ASERL Regionals can be created. I just don’t believe that the Regionals’ “needs” and the Selectives’ “offers” are very likely to match.” Documents Librarian, Georgia

Selected Final Comments “This proposal has many good points, but please keep in mind that this plan will also have a huge impact on small/medium selective depository libraries which had no representation on the ASERL task force. Their concerns cannot be ignored.” Documents Librarian, Florida

Selected Final Comments “This is such an important document that will hopefully lead to a fully operational plan. A small number of excellent print collections, efforts to have digital access to all materials and to free space for many libraries is smart and efficient. Such a plan is long overdue. It's rational and sustainable plan. Let's get started.” Collection Manager, Florida

Highlights of Public Comments & Feedback