The Kansas-Nebraska Model: Redefining a Regional FDLP Collection

1. The Kansas-Nebraska Model: Redefining a Regional FDLP Collection Jeff Bullington, University of Kansas (presenting) Debbie Madsen, Kansas State University Charles Bernholz, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Five-State Government Documents Conference 2006 Boulder, CO, August 3, 2006

2. Background Facts • Nebraska - 2005 Population (Estimated): 1,758,787 • Land Area; 76,872 - Persons per square mile (2000): 22.3 • Kansas - 2005 Population (Estimated): 2,744,687 • Land Area: 81,815 - Persons per square mile (2000): 32.9 • Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts, NE and KS Tables generated by Jeff Bullington, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html, August 2, 2006

3. Precedents for Regional Collection collaborations among and across state lines • States with two-party Intra-State Regionals (CO, ND, NM, SC as example) • States with Inter-State Regionals (MN-SD, MD-DE-DC as example) • Believe a collaborative approach to Regional Collections is a method that could strengthen preservation of tangible collections

4. History of how we got here • 2002, KU and KSU start talks about shared housing agreement with KSU for Agricultural materials • 2003, KU (Stella Bentley) and UNL (Joan Giesecke) Deans start talking about collaboration between the two Regionals • This where I came into the picture – late 2003 asked to undertake FDLP responsibilities at KU. Informed of KU UNL concept and that I would be working on it

5. January 2004 • KU Dean Stella Bentley (via Jeff Bullington) announces to KS FDLP community that KU was going to explore concept with UNL • Met with strong resistance from some librarians in KS FDLP around some points: • Concerns that KU tangible collections would be moved to Nebraska • Concerns about access – how would people obtain materials

6. In face of resistance, we pulled back from for awhile (informed UNL of KS situation) • Did not drop, kept topic on table and kept questioning assumptions that this could not work or would have unacceptable impact on access • In 2005, with new dean onboard at KSU (Lori Goetsch), new concept emerged – what about a three party arrangement?

7. August 2005 • Judy Russell comes to Kansas • Met with three Deans to further discuss concept • Open meeting with KS FDLP libraries • KU Dean Stella Bentley announced that the three libraries would resume discussions • Deans, Govt Info/Docs Librarians, and Judy Russell have additional conversation to further discuss planning issues • Updates sent out to FDLP libraries in two states to clarify as well as inform those who did not attend

8. Govt Info/Docs staff at three libraries start talking about how to do this? • GPO shared existing MOU’s as models • We decided Agency/Department division best method for dividing responsibilities • Decided we would at first stage focus only on agencies currently in production – leave ‘Dead Agencies’ for later stage • Set division in ways that would minimize materials transfers

9. Collection Analysis Report

10. 9 Agencies looked promising for KSU to take on (high current selection rates 85.5-100%) • Conferred with KSU staff – were current selection rates a reasonable indicator of past practice? They agreed. • Examined KSU non-selections • Shelf checks at KSU and KU to get feel for KSU holdings, scope and nature of materials to gauge impact if transfers needed

11. 9 Agencies set for KSU responsibility.

12. Final division roughly 40-40-20 (KU, UNL, KSU for % Agencies and % Items

13. Started drafting MOU • Initial text outlining agreement concept including references to purpose, precedent, and caveat that applies only to tangible collections • Appendices that contain more of the particulars that could change over time • Effective dates, assignment of agencies • FDLS in both states • Address State Plans, partner responsibilities (service, ILL), and impact on N&O processes

14. Initial draft of MOU went through General Counsel review at all three institutions • Deans and Govt. Info/Docs Librarians agreed on final draft • Letters of Support secured from KS and NE State Library Commissions • MOU submitted to GPO

15. GPO initial review brought up two questions for us to consider • Time frame for collection responsibilities • Initially, intent to treat agencies comprehensively through time back to inception • GPO expressed concern that lack of machine readable cataloging records (pre-1976) could cause complications – How would people know ‘who has what?’ • What would happen if one partner wants out?

16. Our responses: • Re-framed time on agreement to cover materials from January 1, 2000 forward • Addresses cataloging concerns in that records fully reflected in all three library OPACS • Electronic redundancy is strong • Agreed on process for collection if termination • If one library wants out, must be prepared to transfer tangible materials as needed to complete ‘Regional Collection’ at partner libraries.

17. Where things are at this point: • Revised MOU delivered to GPO in April 2006 • GPO has advised us they are working on some things at their end with respect to our MOU and to respond to similar concepts under discussion in other areas

18. The Future... • Once MOU and plan becomes real, will take partner libraries time to figure out next steps • At KU, will work to critically examine where we might ‘step back’ from tangible receipts and retention where no longer ‘Regional’. Not something to be rushed into • Work to further develop and support other Regional Services to libraries and the public • How to better realize long-term archival responsibilities for Regional Collections. Deposit directly into preservation friendly high-density storage?

19. Points we ask people to remember • Know we are engaging in an experiment • Believe we have covered the critical issues • Believe we are working to better ensure long term archival preservation and access to the tangible collections through this model

20. Questions? • Observations?

21. Thank You

22. Post-Presentation Errata (August 9, 2006) • Slide 4 – KU and UNL Deans names added • KU – Stella Bentley • UNL – Joan Giesecke • Slide 6 – KSU Dean name added • KSU – Lori Goetsch