Meeting of the LARRP Advisory Committee
Tuesday, December 7, 2004
Association of Research Libraries, Washington, D.C.

Present:

Paul Bary, Tulane University
David Block, Cornell University
Dale Canelas, University of Florida
Elizabeth Darocha, Center for Research Libraries
Georgette Dorn, Library of Congress
Dan Hazen, Harvard University
Eudora Loh, University of California, Los Angeles
Carolyn Palaima, University of Texas at Austin (LANIC Project Director)
Lars Schoultz, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Nick Shumway, University of Texas at Austin
James Simon, Center for Research Libraries
Scott Van Jacob, University of Notre Dame
Gayle Williams, Emory University

Documents included in meeting packet:

1. LARRP Advisory Committee Agenda
2. LARRP Expenditures 2004-2006
3. GRA Maintenance Tasks (Carolyn Palaima)
4. Chair’s Report to the LARRP Advisory Committee (Scott Van Jacob)
5. Report of the Serials Working Group (Paul Bary)
6. ILL Status for Latin American Partners (Gayle Williams)
7. LARRP Distributed Resources Commitments as of September 2004 (Distributed Resources Working Group)
8. Consulting Service Report: 2003-2004 (Ning Lin)
9. LARRP Survey: Draft Summary for the LARRP Advisory Committee (Scott Van Jacob)

1. Announcements, Introductions, and Review of Agenda

Chair Scott Van Jacob called the meeting to order at approximately 9:00 am. He announced that four new members have joined LARRP: Arizona State University, Emory University, University of Michigan, and Rutgers University. Introductions were made around the table, and Van Jacob reviewed the agenda.

2. Global Resources Network Update

Eudora Loh reported that four out of the six Global Resources Network (GRN) projects are now working directly with the Center for Research Libraries. GRN is working with the OCLC Office of Research to develop GIS-based maps that graphically represent collection gaps or overlaps, by country and region, within North American libraries. Records in a sample from WorldCat are being analyzed using the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) to bring together similar works and minimize “duplicate” records from the sample. OCLC is developing prototype maps that will highlight the holdings by research libraries as well as the countries and regions whose information output is underrepresented in our library holdings. GRN is also developing models for cooperative activities among libraries, utilizing successful models from such projects as LARRP’s Distributed Resources program. Work is being done to refine the definition of the Global Resources Network with the ARL library directors.Loh reported on ongoing efforts to raise financial support for the GRN. This revenue is used to fund basic GRN activities, such as the Program Officer position, advisory committee travel, and as seed money for efforts such as the scholars’ forum meeting at Yale in March 2005. At the present, ongoing GRN support has been through voluntary contributions made by members of ARL. The Global Resources Network advisory committee meets annually. The last meeting was in March 2004. The advisory council consists of library directors, faculty, and directors of research institutions; the chair is Barbara Allen (Committee on Institutional Cooperation). The GRN Advisory Committee endorsed the “AAU/ARL Global Resources Network and the Global Resources Projects: Principles for Participation and Fees” document, which permits individual projects to implement annual participant fees of about $1,000.The Participants and Fees document from the March 2004 meeting can be found on the GRN Web site. Loh noted that there is funding for GRN through 2005. Hazen elaborated on the GRN models for cooperative projects that were effective. For example, LARRP’s cooperative collection development program minimizes duplication among libraries. Lars Schoultz mentioned that teaching materials need to be local but scholars understand that ILL is an important tool for seeing research materials. James Simon reported for the Center for Research Libraries (CRL). In the 2004/2005 fiscal year, CRL took over the administrative and logistical support of two additional GRN projects, including LARRP (the Digital South Asia Library and the Cooperative African Newspapers Project were already administered by CRL). CRL will host the Web site and Listservs for LARRP, in addition to logistical support such as setting up future meetings. Bernard Reilly, the president of CRL, is on the GRN advisory committee. The next issue of the GRN newsletter will concentrate on LARRP. The GRN newsletter is intended to particularly highlight activities of both LARRP and the German-North American Resources Partnership (GNARP).

3. LARRP Fee

Van Jacob raised the issue of an annual LARRP membership fee, noting that the amount and procedure for instituting the fee need to be decided. He referred those present to the spreadsheet that was included in the meeting packet. Loh mentioned that there should be a three year grace period for the newest members of LARRP. The Committee supported this. Simon raised the point that the basic support budget will need to be adjusted in order to factor in additional costs for any new initiatives, such as Web archiving. Dale Canelas noted that the ARL fee increases 5% annually and most libraries are now spending more on purchasing services and licenses and acquiring fewer books and manuscripts. Loh said that LARRP will be the first GRN program with a membership fee. Shumway asked about the small number of Latin American partners. Shumway added that LARRP should consider including Spanish and Portuguese libraries. Loh noted that LARRP membership in the past has focused on ARL member libraries, but now that the administration has shifted to CRL, this policy should be revisited. Van Jacob raised the issue of the amount of the membership fee. He suggested $900 for United States members and $100 for Latin American members, option #2 on the budget spreadsheet provided. This amount was agreed upon. The Advisory Committee of LARRP will be responsible for setting the budget and adjusting the membership fee as necessary to balance the budget. As it may already be too late to affect changes in fees for FY 2006, it was decided the fee would remain constant for FY 2004/2005 and 2005/2006.Van Jacob next raised the issue of the invoicing procedure. CRL will handle the billing of the member institutions. The fiscal year of most North American institutions is July 1 – June 30, and the billing cycle will be tied to this. It was decided that the 2004/2005 invoice will be sent as soon as possible, in December 2004 or January 2005. The 2005/2006 invoice will be sent in May 2005, before the end of the fiscal year. The first invoice will go to the library directors and be copied to the LARRP contact.

Schoultz inquired about expanding the membership to LARRP by involving smaller institutions with specialized collections, e.g. law or agriculture. Loh responded that there could be different ways of participating, with different levels of membership.

4. LARRP Project Updates

a. LARRP Chair’s Report

Van Jacob referred to the LARRP Chair Report, which was included in the meeting packet. The report includes information on the LASA meeting and the usage of the LARRP databases. Shumway inquired about other possible areas for the Latin American Periodicals Table of Contents (LAPTOC), including subject areas such as theology and law.

b. LAPTOC

Paul Bary reported on the LAPTOC project. He mentioned that the ILL features are not working with all institutions and are causing delays in getting the materials. Loh affirmed that the ILL request goes through the user’s institution rather than directly to the owner’s institution. This procedure should be amended in order to shorten the ILL time. Bary mentioned that this fall his institution purchased the SFX software, which will let him do a better job of testing the ILL features of LAPTOC. Loh mentioned that the University of Texas is the Group Access Capability (GAC) administrator for LAPTOC, meaning if a LAPTOC partner is not an OCLC participant, UTX will make the request on their behalf. Van Jacob said that regular statistics on LAPTOC use are needed. Some usage statistics were included in the LAPTOC report in the meeting packet. Loh suggested that it may be necessary to buy statistic software for the site to collect more accurate usage data. Some complaints about LAPTOC were mentioned, such as the length of articles not being included and the authors’ names are not checked against any established authors list, so there are inconsistencies. Bary mentioned the problems in LAPTOC regarding diacritics in entry and retrieval. The LAPTOC database has been recently upgraded and now ignores all accent marks when searching. The Serials Working Group will continue to ask inputers to add table of contents information without including diacritics.

Loh inquired about the viability of entering TOCs from available electronic journals into the LAPTOC database. The Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) contains full text of science, humanities, and arts journals. This issue was raised at the LASA meeting regarding the REDALyC indexed full text social science journals. Carolyn Palaima asked whether these resources should be a part of the Latin American Open Archives Portal (LAOAP) instead. Van Jacob commented that the articles could apply to both projects, and that LARRP will look into ways to connect LAPTOC to digital items.

c. Latin American Partners Survey and ILL Access

Gayle Williams reported on issues with ILL access for Latin American Partners. In order for Latin American partners to use LAPTOC’s document delivery system, access to the OCLC ILL Subsystem is necessary. For those not using this, OCLC Support Services now have to pay a fee based on annual average number of ILL transactions so they can receive authorization. OCLC has offered remote training in the use of the system for approx. $200 per institution. Van Jacob proposed a pilot project regarding the training. LARRP will pay for the ILL transactions in a deposit account for two years and pay for the training. This will cover ILL transactions involving LAPTOC and articles only. The committee supported this pilot project, if the ILL transactions costs are not too high. Williams will report on the transactions costs to the Advisory Committee in the near future.

A break for lunch was taken from approximately 12:00 – 1:00 pm. The order of the agenda was then altered slightly for the rest of the meeting.

5. Advisory Membership Review

Dale Canelas, Lars Schoultz, and Nick Shumway are planning to step down from the LARRP advisory committee at the end of this year. Van Jacob thanked them for their exceptional service over the past decade to the LARRP.

It is necessary to review guidelines for nominating new members to the committee. The committee noted several important characteristics for the academic representatives that the Committee should consider. These include connections to NRC, LASA, MLA, and/or funding agencies; maintaining a balance of humanities and social science academic representatives; and being senior level faculty. Loh suggested enacting an executive committee for LARRP, similar to GNARP’s steering committee. Characteristics for the library director representative include a strong affinity for the print culture. Van Jacob noted the importance of maintaining a diversity of opinion on the Committee. Schoultz suggested that the Committee consider term limits for the advisory committee, as well as task groups being initiated.

4. LARRP Project Updates (continued)

d. Distributed Resources

Van Jacob commented on the draft Distributed Resources report that was included in the meeting packet. The commitments of the member institutions are listed by country, university, and topic. Loh suggested that the country strengths should be posted on the new LARRP Web site. The various strengths and weaknesses were discussed. Shumway suggested some further topics that are not covered: theology, Latin American law, and agricultural studies. This initial list was built on historical collection strengths. It may be time to begin identifying new areas of collecting and ongoing collection needs that have not been covered.

e. Latin American Open Archives Project

Palaima reported on progress made by LAOAP, including metadata that is migrating without being re-entered. Loh noted that several institutions have expressed interest in participating in the LAOAP. Georgette Dorn suggested the addition of the Cervantes portal, which contains Latin American literature. Palaima stressed the importance of separating full text from bibliographic citations in order to avoid any user confusion or frustration with the system. Loh added that the full text is not searchable through LAOAP; only the bibliographic metadata is searchable, as the full text is in PDF form. Loh suggested a statement of purpose on the opening page of the LAOAP. There was an agreement among the committee that LAOAP should be built beyond the social sciences. Van Jacob expressed his thanks to Palaima for her work on the TICFIA III proposal.

6. LARRP Survey Review

The LARRP/LASA users’ survey results were discussed. The low response to the survey was a problem, as was the abnormally high ratio of political science respondents. The results therefore cannot be seen as representative of the user population. Loh suggested that the results may still be valuable as a statement of need. The Committee agreed that this should not be made public in its present form.

CRL is holding a Latin American Forum sponsored by the Andrew Mellon Foundation on February 18, 2005. The forum, which will take place at Mellon’s headquarters in New York, will consist of faculty members in a variety of disciplines to discuss their research needs. There will be a series of focus groups relating to the various subject areas of law, anthropology, cultural studies, economics, political science, public policy, and history. Each scholar will give an assessment of recent trends in their field.

The survey and the Latin American Forum will be used to inform LARRP about research needs and, thus, future priorities. Schoultz argued that bibliographers should be the foremost source of information about research needs. Van Jacob responded that the LARRP came about to address the issue of collections all being the same; which was due to the model of bibliographers overseeing selecting. Palaima suggested constructing an area on the LARRP Web site for scholar’s comments about resources. Also discussed were other potential sources of information about resources: asking editors of major journals about trends in submitted articles, conference programs, feedback from researchers and new faculty, and readers’ survey cards, which is done at the Library of Congress’ Hispanic Reading Room.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:00 pm.