1. ASERL’s Proposed Journal Retention Agreement ASERL Directors’ Discussion Spring 2010 Membership Meeting Atlanta, GA

2. A Brief History Conceived by Willis & Gherman ~ 10 years ago, focusing on monographs Use existing storage facilities as a “bank” of materials that would be stored for long term Other libs could weed/de-dupe their circulating collections based on access to “banked” items

3. A Little More History April 2009: ASERL charged Shared Storage Study Group (SSSG) to draft a proposal; focus now on print journals. SSSG Members: Bob Byrd (Duke) Millie Jackson (Alabama) Lynn Sutton (Wake Forest) Studied programs & existing agreements at TRLN, PALCI, Orbis/Cascade, Five Colleges, others Flo Wilson (Vanderbilt – chairperson) John Burger & Tim Cherubini (ASERL)

4. Overview of The Proposal - 1 Focused on retrospective holdings of low- use print journals, especially those with reliable digital access. Voluntary participation & broad approach – each ASERL library can retain whatever set of titles they feel would be useful, based on completeness & condition. A consideration: Level of duplication with other regional retention agreements/systems.

5. Overview of The Proposal - 2 Creates a dim archive: Items are retained in “closed” facility at each library; access is via digital/photocopied surrogates except in unusual cases. Retained items verified at the volume level. Items to be retained thru 2035, with a review of the agreement in 2020 & 2030. Requires 24 months notice to exit the agreement entirely; 12 months notice to relinquish a held set of titles.

6. Overview of The Proposal - 3 Participating libs will note the retention status in their catalogs (process TBD). ASERL will maintain a publicly- accessible list on its website of titles retained under this agreement, so others can easily access the information.

7. Overview of The Proposal - 4 No remuneration. Participating libs undertake costs for their own retention activities. Libraries that do not have “closed” facilities or otherwise cannot / do not agree to retain items can still consider weeding their collections -- but they have no voice in managing the process going forward.

8. Overview of The Proposal - 5 Each participating library has one representative on the Steering Committee, to determine specific processes and manage affairs going forward Existing borrowing agreements remain the same: All ASERL libs can request digitized/photocopied surrogates of retained items using standard ILL processes.

9. Feedback So Far Two online review / comment sessions. Lots of support – yippee! Include partial runs? YES – minor wording change added to draft. Can materials be loaned to other libraries but not circulate outside lib? Under review. Periodic affirmation/validation of status? Referred to Steering Cmte.

10. Questions? Comments? Likes / Dislikes? What other information do you need to consider participating in this agreement?

11. Next Steps Recruit participants – start date of August 1? Letter from Library Director confirming participation, referring to final draft of agreement

12. Data Needed to Participate Title(s) ISSN Date range Volume #s in range Statement re: level of completeness Location where items are retained Primary contact person Steering Cmte rep