|Names||Email Address||Consortium||Access policy||Retention period (or duration of agreement?)||Eligibility||Storage/housing conditions||Disclosure||Exit clause||Withdrawal/conservation/copy replacement/transfer protocol||Scope/retention model||Financing||Mission/goals/purpose||Validation?||Administration/governance?||Note/comments/unusual features?|
|Kirsten Leonard||Kirsten Leonard <firstname.lastname@example.org>||ALI/PALNI||None stated but there is an ALI-wide reciprocal borrowing program.||None codified.||Membership in either group.||No statement||Not required. Some participants to record retention commitments in WC.||None stated.||Informal agreement to not discard vols that appear on an SCS list of scarcely held titles. Emergent needs/offers service for members to state collection interests or offer scarcely held copies they wish to discard.||SCS made lists of titles scarcely held as suggestions for retention. The criteria for scarcely held as established by the Policy Group in May 2014 are: 1) held by fewer than four libraries in Indiana; 2) held by fewer than twenty libraries in the US; or 3) not held by at least one of Indiana University Bloomington, Purdue University, or University of Notre Dame. Members are free to weed from their collections any title that does not appear on their scarcely-held list. In 2016, the Policy Group approved weeding criteria for the scarcely-held lists, which are available on the project website.||Grant for collection analysis and a round of decisions||Reduce print collections and reclaim space with minimal impact on library users; identify unique print items for preservation and potential digitization; inform and influence collection among members; develop a statewide strategy for print book collections, which may involve cooperative purchasing.||No||PALNI Exec. Dir. and a part-time project manager during the grant plus committees|
|Teresa Koch||Teresa Koch <email@example.com>||CI-CCI||Circulation through established channels.||10 yrs (commitments expire June 30, 2023)||Any library may join. No statement that it needs to be in Iowa.||"best effort to maintain, house, preserve, and make available" retained titles||Upon verification, vols retained are stamped as retention copies and the catalog record annotated. No further disclosure requirement.||Yes, for reasons|
beyond the library’s control (disaster, financial exigency, or university mandate); work in good faith with remaining participants to address implications of withdrawal by providing 6-mos. written notice where possible, supplying the retention list, and identifying redistribution options among participants.
|Protect retention titles from discard and treat them with same or better care as other materials (physical handling, circulation, repairs and restoration). Follow usual workflows for identifying, repairing and replacing retention titles. Good faith effort with badly damaged (unloanable) or lost titles in a way that displays sound judgment in the context of the particular title and its availability to other libraries in the state. No explicit statement about transfer but implied in exit clause.||Proportional distribution of titles published through the present; two copies of every item, except one copy for older (pre-1991) and low use titles.||Self-funded.||Enhance/sustain availability of scholarly information; model best practice for cooperative collections and resource sharing. Goals: responsibly reduce local print collections; create and maintain distributed collection to ensure availability of circulating copies; coordinate acquisitions to reduce duplication and leverage funds; establish possibility for additional areas of collaboration.||Yes, all vols committed for retention.||Committee of directors of member institutions; appointed task forces|
|George Machovec, Michael Levine-Clark||George Machovec <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Michael Levine-Clark <email@example.com>||Colorado Alliance||Lendable; at-risk materials may, in some cases, be accessible only within a
|25 yrs, with five-year review (commitments expire July 1, 2040)||Current and future Alliance members, and non-members sponsored by a member.||stored under conditions of care equal to or better than for similar materials in participant’s circulating collections.||All reasonably necessary steps to disclose commitments and information about their accessibility to potential users through local catalogs, Prospector and national initiatives (where appropriate and reasonable).||Yes, according to circumstances beyond a participating library's control. The terms of the withdrawal negotiated between Alliance and departing member, including access to and disposition of materials shall be recorded in a formal separation agreement.||If copy found to be unique and in usable condition, reasonable efforts made to preserve it by the retaining library or by offering to another participant. If last copy candidates for withdrawal not accepted by another participant, withdrawal may occur following guidelines. According to professional judgment of owning library, materials considered of no value may be withdrawn as needed.||Participants identify materials they wish to commit to.||Making and keeping commitments self-funded. Possibility of securing special project funding by Board and participants.||Distributed repository to retain library materials and thereby assist libraries in disclosing their long-term retention commitments in order to maintain collections in the region, which assures discovery and quick access for library patrons and helps libraries make better decisions about what to withdraw or move into storage. Provide options for sharing the costs and effort of long-term retention of physical library materials. Retention commitments enable consideration of withdrawal.||Library checks shelf for existence, good physical condition and can withstand normal use, not infected with mold or excessively marked, is complete. Completeness and validation requirements determined by guidelines established for specific projects.||Shared Collection Development Committee reporting to the Member Council reporting to the Board.||Developed Gold Rush Library Content Comparison System to allow members to perform ad hoc real time collection analysis.|
|Pam Jones||Pam Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org>||ConnectNY||None stated||10 yr project with review in 5th yr. (commitments expire January 1, 2024||Members of the consortium that choose to join||No statement||None stated||No statement.||Rule only for unique/last copies in the consortium.||Two copies of each title among titles currently held by 3 or more members, published or added to the collection prior to 2000, last circulation before 2003, and 3 or fewer circs. Data-driven review of commitments at five years.||Self-funded.||Further their collaboration through reliance on member circulating print book collections and relieving space pressure by carefully reducing redundancy among low-use titles, equitably allocating deselection & retention titles, and establishing a last copy policy for uniques.||No||Committee including the Exec Dir of the consortium.|
|Douglas Brigham||Douglas Brigham <email@example.com>||COPPUL||Circulation through established channels||15 yrs with five-year reviews (Dec 31, 2031 is 583 note end date)||10 of 22 COPPUL libraries have joined||None. Discussed identifying preservation copies of local interest materials, but did not implement because of lack of storage facilities.||No requirement. Desire to create a registry of retained copies. SPAN reports retained copies to PAPR for serials. Watching what OCLC is doing and need to address disclosure for monographs.
||None||None. Will adjust model to retain materials locally.||Retain 1 copy if Non-Canadiana : |
U Alberta / UBC holdings = 0 (same edition);
Other COPPUL holdings <3;
Non-COPPUL CARL Libraries < 2;
Non-COPPUL CARL libraries < 5 (any edition). For
COPPUL Canadiana model (3% retention - 207K holdings retained):
Retain 3 if not held by U Alberta / UBC
Retain 2 if held by U Alberta / UBC
|Participating libraries paid.||Potential to weed with minimal impact on users; identify unique or scarcely-held titles for retention and preservation; evolve a regional strategy for print book collections; perhaps also inform and influence ongoing collection development for print monographs in the region.||Sample of 6000 titles per participant; check for presence but not condition.||Committee of at least one rep from each participant; Chair reports to SPAN Management Committee. Monos project not under the broader governance of the COPPUL board to the same extent that other SPAN projects are.|
|Matthew Revitt||Matthew Revitt <firstname.lastname@example.org>||EAST||Local library determines; no-charge lending encouraged||15 years (through June 30, 2031)||academic and research libraries in the eastern region||Local library determines||In local ILS. Separate EAST database maintained by project team. Anticipate disclosure in WorldCat in early 2018.||3 year initial commitment. 1 year advance notice required.||Retention Libraries agree to take all reasonable steps to replace lost or seriously-damaged volumes that have EAST retention commitments. There is procedure for replacing lost or damaged items. The procedure is intended for replacing retention commitments on a limited title-by-title basis, not in large batches. EAST also has a bi-annual reallocation process that is managed centrally by EAST.||Circulating scholarly monographs published before 2011 in-scope. Retention Model: retain 1 copy of all titles; retain up to 5 copies of frequently used titles; retain all existing holdings for scarcely held titles.||Annual membership fees. Initial implementation of EAST supported by Mellon Foundation Grant. Cohorts 1 and 2 also received some subsidy for collection analysis from grant funding.||Ensure access to the scholarly record of print monographs, print journals, and serials.||Sample validation study done for monographs.||BLC is the admin host. There is a Project Team, Executive Committee, Operations Committee, and working groups.|
|Heather Weltin||Heather Weltin <email@example.com>||Retention Libraries agree to lend physical volumes using existing ILL policies and procedures. Retention Libraries may require in-library use at the borrowing library.||25 years from inception;January 1, 2043.||HathiTrust members.||Retention Libraries agree to maintain the retained materials in locations that meet commonly-accepted|
standards as established in the Guidelines section. Retention Library locations not meeting these
standards may be approved case-by-case by HathiTrust.
|HathiTrust shared print database and local system; potentially in WorldCat.||Yes. the Library agrees to take one of the following actions:
1) transfer the physical volumes to another Retention Library; 2) transfer the retention
responsibilities to corresponding volumes held by one or more Retention Libraries, or 3)
secure confirmation from HathiTrust that transfer of volumes or retention responsibility is not
|Retention Libraries agree to take all reasonable steps to replace lost or seriously-damaged volumes that|
have retention commitments under the HathiTrust Program. Transfer of responsibility possible.
|Volumes that correspond to titles in the HT digital library.||Through HathiTrust budget process; this is a program of HT, not of some members.||Retain print holdings that mirror HT digital holdings; maintain a lendable, distributed print collection supported by and providing benefits to all HathiTrust members; build on existing SP programs and not disturb members’ other affiliations.||Encouraged but not required.||HathiTrust through existing Board and Program Steering Committee as well as a Shared Print Advisory Committee.|
|Randy Dykhuis||Randy Dykhuis <firstname.lastname@example.org>||The shared titles will circulate locally according to each library policy and will follow the standard ILL practices of each institution for lending to other libraries.||15 years from the start of the original agreement unless this |
agreement is dissolved or superseded by the mutual agreement of
a simple majority of the participants (commitments expire 2027 (original MOU); 2.0 expires December 31,2034)
|Participation open to Michigan state-supported academic libraries that are members of the Michigan Council of Library Directors (COLD) group. Considering how to open program to private colleges.||Distributed storage model. Two print copies of each withdrawn title will be retained in a shared print collection distributed among the participant libraries. The two copies will be maintained at two separate designated participant libraries that already own and have recorded holdings of the title. ||Locally, participant libraries will work toward adopting an agreed on standardized bibliographic identification (e.g. to MARC 583 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd583.html) to retention items in their collections. One of their aims is to ensure participants can identify retention items in MeLCat or alternative shared discovery system. They are not currently disclosing commitments in WorldCat.||An individual institution may be released from the agreement for reasons beyond the library’s control such as a disaster, financial exigency, or a university mandate. Should an institution need to withdraw from the group, that library is expected to work in good faith with the remaining participants to address the resultant implications. This is expected to include providing ample written notice of withdrawal (six months where possible), supplying the library’s retention list and identifying redistribution options among the remaining group members.||Libraries are expected to follow their usual workflows and procedures for identifying, repairing and replacing retention list titles. They will make a good faith effort to respond to badly damaged (unloanable) or lost titles in a way that displays sound judgment in the context of the particular title and its availability to other libraries in the state. They have some guidelines to help libraries with their decision-making.||Circulating print monographs only. Original criteria circa 2012-2013. For titles held by 3 or more libraries in the group, retain 2 title-holdings with a pub year prior to 2005. For titles held by 1 library in the group, it was the holding library’s prerogative to retain or discard the title. This decision resulted in 18% of the shared collection for retention. Per the MOU they did a data refresh in 2015 and next phase of collection analysis in 2016 & 2017.||No grant funds. Members self-fund collection analysis and offer in kind support for staff time on project.||The project has two distinct goals: First, to responsibly reduce the size of local print collections by reducing duplication of low circulating titles among the participating libraries so that library space may be freed up for other uses. Second, to create and maintain a distributed, shared collection of these identified monograph titles to ensure that circulating copies of them are retained within the group, readily accessible to group participants and other Michigan libraries.||No, not initially, but according to January 2017 PAN update they are exploring option of a validation story.||MCLC acts as the agent for the project. They provide project management support and coordinate communication among participant libraries and SCS.|
|Matthew Revitt||Matthew Revitt <email@example.com>||MSCC||Retained materials are subject to the circulation and Interlibrary Loan |
policies of the retaining library. All our members are part of the statewide resource sharing network.
|15 years (through June 30, 2028)||Open to both academic and public libraries in Maine||Local library determines includes both circulating and non-circulating locations.||In local ILS, statewide union catalog, and OCLC WorldCat using SP symbols.||1 year advance notice required. offer the materials to another library for |
|Libraries should follow their own local workflow procedures for transferring commitments to internal copies. For external transfers to another MSCC library staff can choose either to communicate with other member regarding a transfer or follow bi-annual process of transfers which is managed centrally by MSCC. Libraries are asked to only remove retention commitments on a limited title-by-title basis, not in large batches. MSCC libraries are not required to report on the removal of one-off retention commitments. There is guidance on reasons why a retention commitment could be removed.||MSCS committed to retain holdings/items if any of the following criteria were met: Any circulation, internal, or reserve use, Specific edition has less than 10 holdings in the U.S. (according to OCLC), and “local interest” title-sets.||No membership fees; initially grant funded; post-grant libs one-time fee for collection analysis. 2019 analysis probably to require self funding. UMaine covers project manager costs.||Sharing the costs and effort of long term retention of low use library materials.||No, not initially, but our newer libs with fewer commitments (less than 100 titles) are shelf checking and ensuring the copies are in a lendable condition.||UMaine and Maine InfoNet share admin tasks. Exec Comm. of 5 members of Maine InfoNet Board represent MSCC constituencies. Collections & Operations Comm. oversees matters of retention, holdings disclosure, and access/delivery.||The unique mixture of academic and public libraries.|
|Bob Kieft||Bob Kieft <firstname.lastname@example.org>||SCELC||Expected to circ according to standard local and ILL protocols.||15 years from inception (commitments expire July 31, 2032)||Members of SCELC primarily, but any library may join, although SCELC does not have a business model yet for non-members.||"Reasonable expectations" for climate control.||SCS Green Glass and local catalog; WorldCat eventually.||Libraries commit for 15 years. If a library needs to withdraw, one-year written notice required, although that requirement can be waived for an emergency. Library must "work in good faith" with remaining partners to address implications of withdrawal.||Notify other libraries of retained items withdrawn; libraries should have procedures in place for making withdraw/replace decisions and observe accepted standards for conservation and replacement of retained vols. MOU covers transfers.||Two rules: 1) keep one copy of everything published before 2005; 2) keep all unique copies published before 1990 and held by fewer than five libraries in CA.||Combo of central SCELC funds and annual membership.||Create a shared collection of circulating copies; and enable local collection management decisions based on retention commitments; identify unique holdings for potential special attention; prepare SCELC libraries for participation in regional and national collections.||Encouraged but not required; leadership group to consider how and whether to validate.||Shared Print Operating Group for policy and operational decisions, reporting to SCELC executive director and through them to Board.||Retention commitments made by allocation and voluntarily.|
|Anne Osterman, Genya O'Gara||Anne Osterman <email@example.com>, Genya O'Gara<firstname.lastname@example.org>||VIVA||Per local rules. If the book is locally approved for interlibrary loan, lend to VIVA libraries according to local library policy, VIVA Interlibrary Loan Guidelines (December 2013), and in compliance with Title 17 of the U.S. Code.||10 years (until June 30, 2024) or as long as is practicable. Program will be reviewed in 2019.||Nonprofit academic libraries within the Commonwealth of Virginia||Distributed model.||No shared ILS, but libraries identify Repository Copies in their library system. They also have a Union List of Repository Copies.||If a Holding Library wishes to withdraw a Repository Copy prior to the conclusion of the MOU it will offer the copy to other VIVA Holding Libraries. Such a transfer between libraries would be done within Virginia State laws and regulations and would include a transfer of the retention obligations under this agreement. The offer should provide these libraries a stated, reasonable period of time to claim the copy, after which the Holding Library may discard the copy.||If a participating library knowingly elects not to replace a lost or badly damaged Retention Copy, it must notify the other Holding Libraries. However, Holding Libraries may follow their usual workflows and procedures with respect to new editions of Retention Copies. Where it is general practice for a library to replace a title with the most recent edition, this procedure may be followed even where the older edition is on a library’s retention list. Libraries should notify VIVA Central of the change so that the Union List can be updated.||Circulating print monographs only. English languages only. Main library (i.e. no law or medical libraries, special collections, etc.). LC classification only. Two passes at retention models. 1. Retain all title-holdings that are scarcely held: unique within Virginia AND held by fewer than 10 libraries in the US. This decision identified less than 1% of in-scope titles for retention. 2. Retain titles that are widely held: one-title holding of every title currently owned AND two-title holdings of every title that had one more recorded uses within the group. This decision identified 36% of in scope titles for retention.||Central funding provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia, additional cost-sharing by members.||Pilot a coordinated, consortial approach to collection assessment. Use data and analysis to inform future, collaborative collection development. Identify scarcely-held titles in need of protection. Discuss approaches to reducing consortial title duplication & local space savings through weeding.||None required.||A Monograph Collection Analysis Task Force which was established by the VIVA Collections Committee which reports to the VIVA Steering Committee.||The primary aim of the initial title analysis was to inform collection development; the secondary aim was to create distributed a print retention plan based in part on institutional collection subject strengths.|
|"Jacobs, Mark" <email@example.com>||firstname.lastname@example.org||WRLC||Each Participating Library will use its best effort to maintain, house, preserve, and make available the titles on its respective retention list.||Review and reaffirmation of the MOU agreement will occur at five (5) year intervals, or when a request is supported by a simple majority of Library Directors Council or the WRLC Board of Directors.||Open to libraries that are members of the Washington Research Library Consortium (Universities in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area)||Centralized storage facility. Only copies marked for retention will be added to the Shared Collections Facility.||Copies that are withdrawn in favor of a consortially held retention copy will be marked in the holdings information and the record will be suppressed.||An individual institution may be released from this agreement for reasons beyond that institution’s control such as a disaster or financial exigency. If a WRLC Library is seeking release because its collections will be liquidated, it will use its best efforts to transfer to WRLC those parts of its collection which are notated as retention copies. Should an institution need to be released from this agreement for other purposes, that library is expected to ensure that any retention copies remain perpetually available to the WRLC for its Participating Libraries, either through allowing the WRLC to acquire those segments of the library’s collections or through ensuring perpetual access from a trusted repository which will be made available to the WRLC and the Participating Libraries at no cost. Any institution seeking to be released from this agreement is expected to provide six months written notice of withdrawal and identifying redistribution options among the remaining group members. Should a member institution withdraw from the WRLC, then that institution will continue to work in good faith to provide timely access to materials (i.e., meeting the current service level in place among the participants) to WRLC users for those items for which they assumed retention commitments.||If an item that is marked as a retention copy is either lost or is badly damaged and another Participating Library has a non-retention copy, then that copy will be marked for retention. If there is not an additional copy among the Participating Libraries, then the Participating Library which has the original retention commitment will make a good faith effort to replace or preserve the lost or damaged copy. For those that are not replaced or preserved, once a year the Coordinated Collections Committee, or its successor, will review the list of lost or damaged titles for which we have been unable to replace or repair a retention copy and make a determination if further action is desirable.||Focus on preserving rarely held monographic titles. Agree to retain those monographic titles for which there are 10 or fewer copies listed in WorldCat as. Commit to retain no fewer than two copies of each edition of a monograph, in addition to all monographs for which there is a single copy among the Participating Libraries.||Not clear, but presumably part of general WRLC fees||The partners in the Washington Research Library Consortium will provide users with a shared collection, making available the richest possible array of information resources to ensure the success of learning and scholarship. The Washington Research Library Consortium will leverage their collective resources by coordinating with each other and collaborating nationally in the creation, acquisition, access and preservation of information, knowledge and cultural heritage.||None required.||WRLC acts as the agent, specifically the Library Directors Council. Operational issues handled by the Coordinated Collections Committee|
|Scott Gilliesemail@example.com||Tri-University Group of Libraries (TUG)||No specific policy, but TUG last copy items remain accessible to TUG libraries patrons and to other Ontario (OCUL) and external requesting libraries.||No retention period, just that one copy of titles that meet their retention criteria will be kept.||The participants are the University of Guelph, University of Waterloo, and Wilfrid Laurier University.||Both libraries inhouse circulating monograph collections and their storage Annex.||Marked with last copy note in union TUG catalog||None stated.||Each library is expected to take appropriate local steps to protect their retained titles from discard (including marking bibliographic records to indicate last copy status).||Circulating print monographs only. Focus on withdrawals rather than retention. Ensuring that there is one last copy available for circulation in the group. |
Published before 2003, Last item add date prior to 2003,
5 or fewer circulations with a last charge date prior to 2005,
1 or more OCUL holdings,
1 copy will be kept in TUG,
|Not clear.||Large scale monograph de-duplication project with the aim of alleviating space issues at libraries and shared storage Annex by reducing older, low use duplicate materials. Primary goals of project were to: regain and re-purpose existing collections space for high priority local needs and to optimize our collections in order to guarantee continued access to a wide breadth of resources to the TUG Libraries communities.||None required.||TUG Libraries Steering Committee||Focus on withdrawal not retention. At the current juncture, TUG is at a crossroads as there is a new, province wide (equivalent to State level) consortium initiative that will overlap and likely supercede much of what TUG is and does (share ILS/LSP, wider shared resource sharing network, possibility for much wider print preservation network). The project is called the OCUL Collaborative Futures project. Info can be found here: https://ocul.on.ca/projects/collaborative-futures|
The long-standing service arrangements and shared policy framework will have to shift, evolve or be replaced as the larger provincial consortium supersedes the small local (TUG) consortium.
So, at present, the TUG Steering and Executive committees will be reviewing our Last Copy policy and looking as to how best to transition, and probably shift, their collective focus to a larger shared services and print network framework.
|Ben Walkerfirstname.lastname@example.org||Florida Academic REpository (FLARE)||Monographs: Loaned via UBorrow. Standard loan period 60 days, 30 day renewal. Extended loan for faculty and grad students, one semester and one semester renewal. Loan for course reserve, one semester and one semester renewal.||items permanently committed for retention||12 FL public state university libraries and University of Miami; Florida State Colleges may join by signing MOU and paying institutional fee. Others can participate through donation of last copies. Will lend to all institutions that partners would normally lend to.||Modified HDF, 12' shelving, storage by size, utilizing GFA inventory control; environmentally-controlled||In the statewide union catalog (MANGO), and the local UF OPAC; holdings loaded into OCLC but currently only visible locally; they adhere to the OCLC Metadata Guidelines to disclose retention commitments, condition, and completeness||None stated.||Items sent to the storage facility are considered permanent transfers; these items are retained for use by the state university libraries and will be scanned electronically or loaned. Exceptions will be made only through a written request and after review by the Collection Planning Committee.||1 copy only in facility||MOU outlines annual assessments based on weighted FTE. Assessments fund daily operating costs of the facility. Special services require additional fees.||FLARE is a collaboration among the 12 members of the Florida State University System (SUS) Libraries. Reps from SUS established the FLARE program along with reps from the Independent College and Universities of Florida and the Florida College System in anticipation of their future participation. Goal: provide for cooperative storage of low use materials. Housed and administratively hosted by University of Florida, materials transferred in form a permanent collection made available through resource-sharing networks, traditional interlibrary loan, or electronic delivery.||Physical validation, completed at the facility||Council of State University Libraries (CSUL)--Deans/Directors of the 12 public university libraries|
|Ian Bogusemail@example.com||ReCAP (Research Collections and Preservation Consortium)||Shared items can be discovered and shared between participating partners seamlessly. The records are ingested into each partner's discovery layers, and requests are delivered within one to two business days. There are three circulation statuses: unrestricted, in-library use one, supervised use only. Circulation policies follow the borrowing institutions duration and rules.||Items are committed for the life of ReCAP as an entity. As long as it exists, those items will remain in the collection and shared by the partners. Only one copy of each item will have the commitment for indefinite retention. Duplicate copies can be shared, and may serve as a backup, but could be withdrawn if desired.||Currently open to ReCAP members only.||Currently only applies to items stored in ReCAP's facility with good environmental controls.||ReCAP's middleware records the shared status of each item held in the facility including retention commitments. Partners can easily look up any item and its retention status.||The institution essentially needs to leave the consortium. Considering they all store millions of volumes at ReCAP, it would be very difficult to do.||No protocol stated, but each institution is responsible for maintain their committed copies.||Each partner chooses what to submit to the program. There are no limits to formats or subjects.||Partner supported||Seamless discovery to delivery system for ReCAP partners. Particular interest in applying the program to coordinated collection development.||All items at ReCAP are individually accessioned and were in appropriate condition for long-term storage on ingestion to the facility.||ReCAP administers the program under direction of its Board of Governors. The board is comprised of two representatives from each institution: the library director and another vice-provost level administrator.|
|Jennifer Martin, Chuck Thomas||Jennifer Martin <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Chuck Thomas <email@example.com>||USMAI||Retained materials must circulate according to the established (general) USMAI Circulation Agreement, and should be available for resource sharing per the individual library's policies.||15 years (583 end date is 04/23/2033 ; MOU end date 02/28/2033)||Members of USMAI who choose to participate||Reasonable expectations for climate control||In the USMAI shared catalog, and eventually WorldCat||At any time for any reason, with 180 days notice. The need for notice can be waived by majority vote in case of extenuating circumstances such as disaster or financial extingency. The withdrawing library must work with the remaining libraries to try to mitigate the effects of their withdrawal.||Libraries must take reasonable steps to protect retention titles from discard and establish standard procedures for handling lost and damaged materials. Libraries are allowed to withdraw items marked for retention if they are damaged beyond repair, lost, an inaccurate copy, out of scope of the original retention parameters, or otherwise of no scholarly value. (Inaccurate copies include items which are attached to the wrong bib record, misprints, items missing pages, and any other situations where the actual item is not what the library thought it was committing to retain.) If a damaged or lost item is replaced by a same edition item, the retention commitment transfers to the replacement; if it is replaced with a different edition, the retention does not transfer. Libraries may by mutual agreement donate items they no longer wish to keep to other participating libraries to be retained, or transfer retention commitments to identical copies at a different library and then withdraw their own copy.||Scope: Circulating regular collection monographs. Juvenile materials, scores, government documents, and special collections were excluded. Retention model: All copies of items published since 1960 for which fewer than 25 copies of any edition are collectively held by any libraries in the U.S. which are not available in the public domain in HathiTrust. One copy of any items circulated at least once since 2013, and 2 to 19 times since 2003. Two copies of any items circulated at least once since 2013 and at least 20 times since 2003.||Funding from the central USMAI budget||To enable coordination of collections management between USMAI institutions, increasing cost-effectiveness and allowing libraries to make local decisions based on assured availability elsewhere in the consortium; to ensure that sufficient rare and highly used print copies are retained for ready accessibility both within and without the consortium; to identify unique items for potential special attention; and to position USMAI to participate in larger-scale regional or national cooperative collection management programs.||Encouraged but not at this point required||The Council of Library Directors of USMAI has final oversight and decision-making power. The agreement calls for a standing committee to handle operational decisions and policy creation, but its formation has been put on hold pending an organizational review. Currently, the original task group is filling the role of the committee.|
|Cathy Martyniakfirstname.lastname@example.org||Southern Regional Library Facility, UC Libraries||Expected to circ according to standard local and ILL protocols. For more info: http://www.srlf.ucla.edu/using-the-library/requests||Persistent; governed by the UC Persistence Policy.||UC Libraries||Standalone, closed-access facility. Temp: 67F RH: 50% air filtration, low UV emissions light bulbs, wet pipe in Phase1 and dry pipe in Phase 2 (Fire suppression)||Any volume in the circulating RLF collection is subject to the persistence policy. This is not called out specifically in any UC catalogs. In the future, any shared print monographs will also be identified via disclosure standards typical for shared print retentions.||N/A||Withdrawals infrequent, usually only for condition and only if the other RLF has a copy. No default Conservation treatment provided. Materials are not traditionaly transferred between the RLFs but may do so in the future. Due to the single copy policy and the persistence policy, no materials will transfer out of the RLFs.||Each campus chooses what monograph collections are deposited. One copy across both UC Regional Library Facilities unless otherwise approved. The UC RLFs are participants in the HT Shared Print Program - please see HT entry for details on scope.||University of California office of the President supplies approx $1M per year. Rest covered by administrative hosts, UCB and UCLA||Support the UC campuses in collection and space management.||All items are reviewed upon accession, some at volume and other at issue.||Regular oversight by the Shared Library Facility Board; Legal ownership by Regents of the University of California||Not a Harvard style facility but California style. Not trayed, shelved double deep, perpedicular to the front of the shelf. Multiple floors per module, no motorized lifts used.|
|Jo Anne NewYear-Ramirezemail@example.com||Northern Regional Library Facility, UC Libraries||Expected to circ according to standard local and ILL protocols. For more info: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/libraries/nrlf/requesting-nrlf||Persistent; governed by the UC Persistence Policy.||UC Libraries||Standalone, closed-access facility. Temp: 60F RH: 50% lighting only when area is in use; Smoke detectors, air sampling smoke detection system, pull stations, and sprinkler flow detectors are connected to a continuously monitored addressable fire alarm system. Automatic wet-pipe sprinkler system and dry standpipe system.||Any volume in the circulating RLF collection is subject to the persistence policy. This is not called out specifically in any UC catalogs. In the future, any shared print monographs will also be identified via disclosure standards typical for shared print retentions.||N/A||Withdrawals infrequent, usually only for condition and only if the other RLF has a copy. No default Conservation treatment provided. Materials are not traditionaly transferred between the RLFs but may do so in the future. Due to the single copy policy and the persistence policy, no materials will transfer out of the RLFs.||Each campus chooses what monograph collections are deposited. One copy across both UC Regional Library Facilities unless otherwise approved. The UC RLFs are participants in the HT Shared Print Program - please see HT entry for details on scope.||University of California office of the President supplies approx $1M per year. Rest covered by administrative hosts, UCB and UCLA||Support the UC campuses in collection and space management.||All items are reviewed upon accession.||Regular oversight by the Shared Library Facility Board; Legal ownership by Regents of the University of California|