Maintained by CDMC, X:> Library Faculty Committees > CDMC > Accounting Reports
The procedure is Under Tab Procedures: New/Missing Notifications. When physical materials that have been checked out to patrons are declared MISSING, that patron typically will pay a fee for replacement of the item(s), and the library receives these funds for purchasing replacements. This appendix describes the procedures for making replacement decisions, regardless of whether a patron is charged.
Background: For many years, replacement decisions fell under the purview of both Technical Services and Library Faculty, depending on the age, condition, and popularity of the missing title and available funds. In general, if the missing title was the most recent edition, and it was highly circulated (10+ times in past year)—criteria usually met only by Reserve books—they were automatically replaced by Technical Services. Other missing items were placed into a database for Library Faculty to review, through software known as “LCRM.” This home-grown software died about 2012, and was not replaced. At the same time, book replacement funds declined. Thus, few missing items were replaced other than those on Reserve.
Funding: Funds collected by the University for missing items are allocated to the 0012D Hegis fund known as the Replacement Trust Fund. The funds vary from year to year. If requested replacement items exceed this funding, the CDO informs the Library Faculty who have the option of purchasing the items through their discipline Hegis funds, or the CDO may purchase them through 0020.
Materials Acquired: Items that have been declared MISSING. Generally, if there is a more recent edition of a title than the one missing, the more recent edition is purchased, unless the Library Faculty member decides otherwise.
Reviewing and processing items that are lost/missing involves several departments and processes. These processes initially were developed a couple years ago, then revised to reflect new processes/terminology for ALMA. Most of these steps do not involve librarians. Missing items are generally identified in one of five ways:
***Exception to above for LOST/PAID items.
***Exception to above for LOST/PAID items.
Appendix C: E-preference policy
CSULB University Library Collection Development and Management Committee
ePreferred Monograph Acquisition Policy
Consistent with the principles stated in the Collection Development Manual and the stated criteria for acquisition, if a monographic title is available in both print and electronic format, the Library prefers purchase of the online electronic version. The rationale for this policy is based on the following facts:
The following considerations should be taken into account when choosing eBooks:
Print monographs will be purchased only under specific circumstances: 1) where print is the only available format, 2) where print is preferred for price or quality or usability or content reasons. Librarians will consult with faculty about their print requests.
Approved by the Library Faculty 6/26/2020
The Library Faculty use a variety of ways to build a library collection that meets the academic, scholarly and leisure reading needs of the CSULB community. Using the following places/sources to determine important or new materials in a specific collection.
Choice Reviews Online
In addition to reviews, check out:
The annual Outstanding Academic Titles list,
Bibliographic Essays (look issue by issue; not searchable),
GreenGlass (Available through 12/31/22)
Construct deselection, collection, and preservation projects
Interpret the following library collection metrics or benchmarks:
Usage statistics (by Subject or LC Class Distributions)
Age of the collections
Evaluate collections for curriculum relevancy
Evaluate and identify gaps in collections
Analyze collection segments for space planning purposes
Compare collection to WorldCat, and HathiTrust (in copyright or public domain) databases
Compare collections' attributes to more than 322 US academic libraries
Use the search tool to retrieve items or sets of items by searching specific record number or identifier
Professional organizations (e.g., American Psychological Association) recommended readings or helpful bibliographies,
Libraries with specialty collections (e.g., Pitts Theology Library – Emory University),
Book reviews in scholarly journals,
GOBI, Spotlight Lists Collections,
Publishing companies’ web sites and catalogs,
BeachReach/ILL usage, X > BeachReach,
New academic programs, see Tab: Procedures, Collection Assessment and Appendix G: New Program Proposals.
Faculty requests that serve their curriculum and/or research needs (faculty requests have a very high priority), and
Library Faculty colleagues in related disciplines. Sharing collection development needs can help identify collection gaps or areas of shared purchasing (e.g. Several librarians with departments in the College of Health and Human Services got together and identified collection gaps, such as program review materials, the treatment of the mentally ill in the criminal justice system, the school-to-prison pipeline); Or working together on multi- or interdisciplinary areas for collecting.
Background: The Online Remote Collections Access (ORCA) is an automated storage and retrieval system that was inaugurated in fall 2008 at the completion of a Library building remodel, which included a reduction in the Library’s square footage consequent to a reallocation of the east wing of the physical building to be repurposed as the Academic Services Building. See: “Efficiency is Key to New University Library Storage System.” Inside CSULB 2009-01-30.
Goals: The main goal of the ORCA is to house Library materials which:
Do not have a high circulation;
Are non-current serials other than annuals;
Are most subject to damage, mutilation, and/or theft; and
Are in less current physical formats for which the Library still has playback equipment (e.g., VHS tapes);
Scope: Guidelines for relocation of materials to the ORCA are:
Print issues of journals and magazines approximately two (2) years and older are moved to ORCA; this does not include annuals, or serials which are issued in alternate years or less frequently and housed in the General Collection stacks. Microform periodicals are normally housed in the Microforms area.
Paper issues of serial back run titles that are also held in other formats (such as online or microform) should be reviewed, taking special care to retain paper issues that are of artifactual value or essential to meet research needs.
“Scanty” serial holdings, serial runs that have ceased publication, and those no longer received by the library.
Books and Other Monograph
Books with no record of circulation or other evidence of having been consulted (browsed) in the last ten (10) years. Note: Sets are kept together whether in ORCA or the stacks regardless of circulation of individual volumes.
Original materials which were published before 1860.This does not include reprints or new editions of materials originally published before 1860, thus copies of texts by Shakespeare, Isaac Newton, and the Bible, etc., stay in the stacks as long as they have circulated. Coordinate with Special Collections Library Faculty member before making a decision.
Materials at high risk for theft or mutilation.
Government Documents: As determined by the Government Documents librarian.
Indexes: Abstracts and indices which have ceased publication or been canceled shall be placed in ORCA unless determined by Library Faculty member to still be of use. In that case consideration should be given to shelving them on the Index & Abstracts Wall (currently 2nd floor).
Special Collections & University Archives Materials: Selected materials may be included as determined by Special Collections Librarian & University Archivist.
Responsibility: All Library Faculty and designated members of the Library’s staff may recommend materials to be housed in the ORCA, or in certain circumstances to be removed from the ORCA either for re-housing in the open stacks or for removal (deselection) from the collection.
Appendix F: Awardee Sample Congratulations Letter
Dear [Honorific Surname]:
Congratulations on being selected as the winner of this year's [Name of Award] Award.
In recognition of this honor the Library would like to buy a book, DVD, or CD that will bear a bookplate with your name. It may be something which has informed, inspired, or amused you, anything really.
If you have a title you wish to recommend we'd love to hear from you. We would like your selection to be something you want to share with CSULB's students today and in the future. If you would like to see if the Library already owns a particular item, please check the Library's catalog OneSearch .
If you would like suggestions, please contact the Library Faculty member for your department, [name], at [e-dress] or x5-####.
Early in the fall semester, we hope to publicize your choice, and those of the other Award winners, on our web site and in an e-mail "Campus Community Update."
Dean Roman Kochan and the Library's faculty and staff send our best wishes.
[Signed by Award Recognition designee, their title], on behalf of the Library
[cc: appropriate Library Faculty member]
Background: When departments propose new programs, they must justify them to the University Resources Council (URC), the Academic Senate, University Administration and the Chancellor’s Office. The University has a template that departments use to propose new programs. Until about 2010 the Library had very little input into the process. After that, departments were required to “Include a report written in consultation with the campus librarian which indicates any necessary library resources not available through the CSU library system. Indicate the commitment of the campus to purchase these additional resources.”
That requirement was revised in 2015 and has been approved by the URC and submitted to the Academic Senate. The new requirement states: “Include a report written by the Library Faculty member for the relevant department, in consultation with the proposing department, which assesses any additional library resources needed to support the new program. Indicate the commitment of the campus to purchase these additional resources.” The principal change is that the report must be written by the Library Faculty member, not the department. This document will be part of the campus review of the new program and/or degree in URC (University Resource Council) and CEPC (Curriculum and Educational Policies Council). The librarian representative to these councils need to make sure that the document is correct and copied from other reviews by the department.
In preparing this report, Library Faculty are asked to use the template, unless the new program is a minor for an existing major and the Library Faculty member does not think that new resources are needed. Librarians should review Tabs: Appendix D: Tools for Collection Development and Procedures: Collection Assessment for gathering data and information to fill out the template.
This template for new program and/or proposals is found in "X > Library Faculty Committees > CDMC > CDMC Documents > Assessment of Addition Library Resources Needed to Support New Programs.
On odd years or every year in tight budget times, Library Faculty subject specialists and other selectors should review their serial and standing order subscriptions to determine their relevance to the curriculum, for faculty research, and their usage in comparison to their cost.
Responsibility: For electronic subscriptions, the CDO will supply spreadsheets with formulas and date including usage statistics, the journal subscription cost, the copyright cost per article, to calculate the cost effectiveness of subscription vs. interlibrary loan. For print subscriptions and standing orders, the CDO will supply a list of titles, and cost. To prevent paying twice for subscriptions, Library Faculty and other selectors will check availability in other library sources and include information in spreadsheet.
Procedure: After reviewing and completing the spreadsheet, Library Faculty and other selector will review potential cancelations with colleagues in related disciplines and departmental faculty before making a preliminary determination of whether the subscription should be renewed or canceled.
Timing: Following the Collection Development Calendar, the CDO will supply the data by April 15, and the review should be completed by May 15.
To: Library Faculty
From: Carol Perruso
Re: Clearing up confusion re added fees for Gobi purchases
Librarians have been wrestling with how to track the total cost of their book purchases, including taxes and fees, for as long as I have been here and probably longer. When I started, I was told to “add 18%” to the list price to cover taxes, shipping and services to make books shelf ready. Once I became Collection Development Officer, I realized that some librarians added 20% “just to be safe,” some added 15%, and some added nothing at all, with the rationale that those “extra” costs should not come out of their book budget, or it was just too much trouble. This last group tended to accept the Accounting Report Expenditures and Encumbrances figures.
This year, encumbrance inconsistencies made it particularly difficult to track book purchases, and almost half of the librarians overspent their allocations (including the Journalism librarian J). The encumbrance issue has been solved, we think, but predicting fees still makes it difficult to understand the encumbrance figures. This prompted me to try to figure out GOBI fees.
I sampled invoices for 36 random titles/invoices to get an average fee, and made a startling discovery. The markup (including taxes and processing/shipping fees) on paperback books is 35%! For those of us who lean toward paper to stretch our budgets, adding 35% to the individual cost of books you select is critical so you don’t overspend your allocation. Cloth books in the sample showed an average fee of just 4%, and there are currently no fees or taxes on ebooks.
While one would hope that Gobi could present a more accurate cost when you are making your selections, apparently they do not do this. So each librarian has to keep track of the fees when they are calculating how much they have left to spend. The reason for this is that the fees are not included in the Encumbrance number in the weekly Accounting Reports; they don’t appear until the book and invoice are received. The fees are reflected in Expenditures, but not Encumbrances, which means your Available Balance is understated as long as you have Encumbrances. This is confusing for all, especially near the end of the purchase cycle (April 1) and even more so as the fiscal year comes to a close.
Here is the bottom line on YBP fees (based on this sample):
See attached sample.
Library Assignments, sortable by Name, HEGIS, and LC Call Number are located at: X:> Library Faculty Committees > CDMC > CDMC Documents >LC Hegis Files (maintained by library management).
Library Assignments, and department contacts are located at: X > Library Faculty Committees > CDMC > CDMC Documents > Librarian Assignment Sheet (maintained by library management).
For the purposes of this policy textbooks and other course specific or assigned materials are defined as works in any format required for use by students enrolled in or faculty teaching a specific course. Wherever possible, teaching faculty are encouraged to replace high-cost course materials with low-cost or open educational resources. Library faculty are available to assist in identifying possible replacements.
As a general policy, the University Library does not purchase course specific or assigned materials. However, upon faculty request, exceptions will be considered, as budget considerations allow, on a case-by-case basis. Where exceptions are made the purchase of a digital version of the material(s) is preferred (consistent with the University Library’s Collection Management and Development Manual, Appendix C).
(Approved by Library Faculty December 10, 2021)