Attendees:   Anne Kenney, Pat Court, Pat Schafer, Angela Horne, Zsuzsa Koltay, Kathy Chiang, Carmen Blankinship, and Eli Brown

1)      Brief update on RAPID Proposal (see March minutes) (Pat Schafer)

·        The RAPID Evaluation Team (Pat Schafer, Julie Copenhagen, Jesse Koennecke) connected via PC Anywhere with the RAPID Team at CSU for a demo of the system. This week the team is submitting sample requests.

·        CSU ran a sample set of filled October non-returnable requests (391) from Olin ILS and Mann ILS. They also searched the same set against the Columbia and University of Pennsylvania catalogs. Both institutions received invitations to join. Columbia has already responded positively and Penn is close to doing so. The results of these tests were a 73 percent hit rate for RAPID, Penn, and Columbia combined and a 50 percent hit rate for just the RAPID database.Bob Krall reported that Penn's test, which was only run against the current RAPID database, yielded a 66% fill rate.

·        Jesse Koennecke was able to meet with Penn's Bob Krall (also Borrow Direct project manager) and Columbia's Tom Delaney at the NY Symposium.

·        Pat attended the Borrow Direct Directors meeting on April 14 and had a pre-meeting with Bob Krall and Tom Delaney

·        One of the action items out of the Borrow Direct meeting addressed an interest in pursuing a non-returnables option for Borrow Direct. If Columbia, Penn, and Cornell all join RAPID, they will report back to Borrow Direct group in the Fall of 2005 with the possibility of the rest of the group joining perhaps as a member of a pod.

·        Raising lending fees at the beginning of the fiscal year can help with load leveling

·        RAPID offers the potential to fill requests for non-returnables (copies from serials) faster by automating more of the processes and eliminating some mediation by staff. It also offers to increase the cost effectiveness of interlibrary loan again a la the experience we enjoyed with Borrow Direct, which is only for returnables. However, there is concern about the potential increase in lending, although the system has load leveling and we can control the collections we make available.

·        Pat suggests that the Team recommends that we try out RAPID with Olin/Kroch and Mann Libraries participating initially followed soon by the Annex (these libraries are the easiest to deliver per the service agreement in RAPID and already have the equipment and much of the needed expertise. As the RAPID's year long development plan unfolds we will gain in experience and develop Phase 2 of our implementation plan. Pat said that we should plan to raise the lending fee for Cornell at the beginning of the fiscal year as discussed. That way we will realize either a drop of lending volume or and increase in revenue as we implement the new reciprocal service. One added variable contributing to the difficulty of predicting the affect of these improved faster services is the potential impact of Open URL which the Library will be implementing. This will increase the number of borrowing requests from users significantly based on Penn's experience, but RAPID will hopefully help manage this added workload.

·        PSEC reacted positively.

·        RAPID web site:  http://rapid.library.colostate.edu/docs/

ACTION ITEMS:

ü      Pat will send PSEC the stats from Bob Krall and action items from Borrow Direct meeting

ü      Pat will meet with Lee Cartmill and Linda Westlake to discuss the financial aspect of joining RAPID and will forward a recommendation to the Administration.

2)      201/IRIS Task Force on Assessment, Evaluation, and Research (Pat Schafer)

·        Pat Schafer co-chaired this task force with Nancy McGovern

·        Pat shared the charge of the task force and discussed how some recommendations from the USAR report related to their report

·        Pat offered Penn’s Data Farm as an example of organizing data and providing access:  http://metrics.library.upenn.edu/prototype/datafarm/

ACTION ITEMS:

ü      PSEC will return to the USAR report once the review of the task force's report is complete

ü      Attend Joe Zucca's (Librarian, Assessment, Planning and Publications Assessment, Planning & Publications at Penn) presentation at Academic Assembly on June 3rd

3)  Annex Repatriation

·        PSEC reviewed the memo from Ross Atkinson about Repatriation of Annex Materials- the policy was devised by CDExec and TSEG

·        PSEC agreed with recommendations # 1 – 3, but had concerns surrounding # 4

ACTION ITEMS:

ü      Policy shoud include an exception for medium rare, archives, and any other exempt materials

ü      Anne will speak with Ross about # 4 to clarify the need

4)  New Faculty Orientation Charge from LMT

·        PSEC reviewed the charge from LMT regarding new faculty orientation

·        What CUL-wide resources could be included in a packet for new faculty?

•       Welcome letter from Sarah Thomas
•       10 Things you ought to know about the Libraries
•       General services information

·        Follow-up is key to engaging the faculty- one contact is not enough

            o       Follow-up contact should be made at the faculty member’s office

ACTION ITEMS:

ü      Appoint a group (Howard Raskin to chair, Matt Morrison, Ida Martinez) to develop strategies for engaging new faculty- group may consult ASSC, IRPC, ILS, and DCAPS

5)      Inviting Sarah to PSEC

·        PSEC considered ways to engage with Sarah Thomas:

          o       there are things we want her to know about

          o       there are things we want her to weigh in on

          o       she may have a vision to share that could guide future PSEC priorities

·        PSEC decided to focus on one topic:  Document Delivery

           o       cost (Annex and Geneva will be free)

           o       Lab of O (charge a fee?)

           o       what platform is best?

           o       case load (up to 15,000 on library to library delivery)

           o       invite Jesse Koennecke and Howard Raskin when the report on pilot is ready

ACTION ITEMS:

ü      Find a time when Sarah can meet with PSEC to discuss Document Delivery

6)      Strategic Planning for PSEC

·        PSEC should be a deliberative body, not just a receptor of information

·        Information should flow up, down, and out to constituent bodies

·        PSEC should get regular updates from IRPC and ASSC

·        Think about the composition of PSEC and potential representation from other functional areas

ACTION ITEMS:

ü      IRPC and ASSC steering groups should be invited to come to June 9th PSEC meeting

ü      PSEC discussed the possibility of having another meeting before our next scheduled meeting on May 26th.  Kim will look into this.

The next PSEC Meeting is scheduled for: May 26, 2004:  1:30 – 3:00 pm, 702 Olin