Shared Print in the Orbis Cascade Alliance Xan Arch, Reed College Jim Bunnelle, Lewis & Clark College Jill Emery, Portland State University Xan slide Here’s what we said we’re talking about: In the Orbis Cascade Alliance, librarians are having to re-visit historic shared purchases. They will explore one such project and examine steps taken to reconcile current institutional needs with past collection-building priorities.

What is Shared Print? Early efforts at cooperative collection development Pooling of resources In second phase: space reclamation Xan slide Shared print represents early collaborations on collection development in a way that wasn’t burdensome to any single library financially or space-wise. It allowed us to combine resources to purchase expensive materials, especially primary source materials, that we could not otherwise afford or house. It showed that we were working with other local libraries and could provide expanded access beyond our own walls. Later it allowed us to shift materials to the library that would use them the most, and leave space at those libraries who were not using them.

NAPCU 1967: Northwest Association of Private Colleges and Universities forms in WA/OR; creates union serial list $225,000 grant to fill journal gaps and acquire microforms Emphasis on Environmental Studies, Urban Studies, minority American materials (especially newspapers) Xan slide First big project, grant to form a union serials list, and investigate journal gaps that showed us and acquire microforms to fill those gaps. Additionally we looked at how we could add to environmental studies, urban studies, and minority American materials (newspapers) – areas highlighted as important to the region.

BPP Acquisition 1979: NAPCU acquires 19th Cent. British Parliamentary Papers; 1,000 volumes costing $37,000 Set divided between primary financial contributors: Portland St. (bulk of run), Lewis & Clark (52 vol.), and Reed (60 vol.). Indexes to other NAPCU schools. Xan slide Next big project was acquisition of British Parliamentary Papers. We do not know why we wanted this. We pooled resources between seven local schools to purchase this large expensive set

Problems Patching together legacy documentation is difficult Only 7 NAPCU schools listed (of 21) No stated limits on retention Completeness. Who still has what? Indexes? Shifting collection priorities of past participants Holdings responsibility skewed towards L&C Sizeable footprint No-one wants to be left with legacy print Jim slide Maybe pull the relevant issues above that would be common to any such legacy agreements and reword them as advice for others at the end of the pres.? Assuming we have time for that.

Taking Up Space! Jim slide I took a pic of ours with my phone, will upload. Replace with more impressive pic

Records Management 101 MOU and supporting NAPCU documents uncovered by staff at Lewis & Clark and Portland St. in old file cabinets Outlined purchase agreement but not retention plan; retention was assumed PSU volumes moved to L&C due to construction at PSU but only incomplete records of the move Jim slide

Lessons Learned #1 Print documentation not complete Emails related to the later move of volumes not readily saved or collated and had to be “recovered” Institutional memory saved the day, just barely Jill slide

Lessons Learned #2 Always have an exit strategy for the shared plan Determine statute of limitations for participation at your institution Be willing to walk away from past practice When asked, Faculty will begin building assignments around the content Jill slide

What do we do now? Write new MOU for print purchase Consider joint purchase of electronic version Determine if any institution wants the print volumes? Jill slide

Questions?