Global Collections Committees Frequently Anticipated Questions

The CRL consortium model is based on a cost-share, not a membership fee. Members contribute a percentage of their acquisitions budget to leverage collaborative collection efforts. This model enables equity of access independent of financial resources across a wide spectrum of research libraries.

As a member-governed non-profit organization, CRL must always act in the best interest of our members. There is elasticity in our revenue as members come and go, but our viability is dependent on providing our members increased value for their contribution to fund the consortium. Not providing the services and support our members expect would lead to an existential crisis as members would start to leave.

Member benefits include services such as digitization by request, demand purchases, licensing support, collection data analysis, and webinars. Most significantly, however, are our print and electronic collections. Our cost-share model enables CRL collection work that has been most visible in purchase proposals, demand purchases, shared purchases, matching funds, and other programs. These options are being reviewed for changes or enhancements that would be of better service to the members. Undeniably, the contributions of the AMPs to the collection from their member fee revenue has also added value to the collection over the many years of collaboration.

As part of our ongoing commitment to the shared collection, and specifically to provide service and support for the proposed collections committees, CRL has undergone internal structural changes ranging from contracting experts to develop our SharePoint and migrate our website, to hiring a Membership Coordinator, to a full renovation of our work area.

We also have capacity to fill positions to support the work proposed in the recommendations, including but not limited to cataloging and scanning. If the proposal is approved, we will update job descriptions to reflect changes that will be needed and hire appropriately.

What benefit is there to an AMP or GRN for moving to the proposed committee structure? (added 18 Oct)

CRL continues to improve member services with ongoing investment, such as our planned migration to a new digital content delivery system, investing in a new website platform, plans to purchase a newspaper scanner, ongoing development of our cooperative licensing, and reimagined staff positions for better support. These benefits and others are available to all our member institutions but for the AMPs and GRNs considering options outside of CRL, choosing instead to work within a CRL committee has further structural benefits.

Having worked with CRL for years, moving into CRL itself will offer an opportunity to resume work with familiar processes and familiar faces and CRL is familiar with the people and procedures of your institution, ranging from the transfer of library materials to processing invoices for the CRL membership. For any group working with print material: being hosted within an institutional library or shared repository would not have the same breadth of services and universality that working with CRL provides. For groups working with licensing digital content: our licensing team and workgroups that include licensing specialists from member institutions offer impact and opportunities that cannot be found anywhere else.

Having a budget provided by CRL may or may not be a benefit to the group itself but going forward CRL member organizations will not have to pay separately for each AMP and GRN.

CRL will absorb project overheads costs, current and future. Previous project proposals had to account for overhead and future proposals would not require this detail.

With our growing membership and evolving programs, CRL provides opportunities for committee recruitment and connections across a great diversity of academic professionals which lead to innovations, collaborations, and projects that do not happen within other professional organizations.

How has CRL improved and expanded its ability to support digital projects? Can you explain the infrastructure support that you’re able to offer for digital collection building?

There are several elements in our strategic enhancement plan to support digital content. CRL is migrating from an in-house digital collection system (called “Digital Delivery System” or DDS) to a commercial product: TIND DA, a digital archive system based on open-source technology created at CERN. TIND is extensible with the ability to house larger collections and a variety of formats per strategic development of the CRL collection. (see www.tind.io ) We have identified a new (second) vendor to film and/or digitize print content. We are also reviewing products to extend our in-house capabilities, such as a newspaper scanner for preservation and digital delivery of print newspapers that are too fragile to outsource. If you have a specific concern, please ask.

How has CRL expanded its capacity for processing and stewarding (storing) materials in preparation for the proposed approval plans and subscriptions for physical materials that would be routed to, housed at, and processed by CRL?

Like all libraries with physical collections, CRL’s facility has limitations, but we have considerable room to grow. We actively manage our space. As content is digitized or microfilmed, the footprint for those resources shrinks. We have a closed collection, so the material can be arranged for space efficiency rather than for patron convenience. We have both conventional and compact shelving. And CRL leases off-site storage for preservation copies. This comprehensive approach ensures that we can accommodate strategic growth for the foreseeable future.

Within the last three years CRL’s facility has been upgraded with a new roof, masonry and windows to ensure a climate-controlled space. We are continually improving our HVAC system and are currently engaged in a full building assessment to improve our environmental controls.

Our building is four floors and takes up a quarter of a city block. We have sufficient workspace to process whatever physical materials are sent to us and will house them on site within our 113,280 square feet or offsite, if access has been secured through reformatting. For those with an interest we’d love to show you the facility whenever you’re in the Chicago area!

CRL has considerable resources for reformatting print and microform content. CRL has several digital scanners and staff with the expertise to process and make digital images available to CRL members. In addition, we will be investing in a newspaper scanner soon with the goal of digitizing endangered and rare newspapers for CRL’s membership. We also work with several digitization and microfilm vendors who help with larger scale digital projects.

Question about the process

Why do we need to decide before October 15^th?

The requested response date of October 15th is a bit before the Board Meeting to give the Task Force time to collect feedback from the community and add it to the presentation we will give the Board.

When presenting the report to the Board at their meeting on Nov 8, the Task Force will include feedback from members and other stakeholders. We will also indicate which AMP/GRN has indicated an interest in moving to a committee, which are looking at our sponsorship parameters, and which are in the “other” category.

Also, any recommenced policies or procedures strategized with members in response to the public release of the report will be included in the presentation at the November Board Meeting.

What if we don’t have time to decide?

Sponsored programs that don't have an answer in time for the Board Meeting will be represented in the “other” category with a brief explanation. The Task Force will meet on October 17^th so the courtesy of a check-in would be appreciated even if your group does not have a definitive response. Any information provided will be shared with the Board at their November meeting.

UPDATE 04 Oct: Last Friday Kevin formalized this fourth option to read, “undecided, we need more time and more information.” Please include what information is needed and, if possible, reach out before the 15^th to request that information. Others may have the same concern and the sooner we understand the need, the sooner we can work on the solution.

Can the CRL Board reject recommendations in the report all or in part?

Yes. This report is an situational analysis and list of recommendations from a task force convened and charged by the Board, which is why it focuses on governance and policy rather than procedural details. The Board can take selected action or no action on the report.

The Board is the governing body of CRL, which is incorporated under Illinois law. They have an obligation to act in the best interests of the organization. Board members of non-profits generally also provide guidance by contributing to organizational culture, strategic focus, effectiveness, and financial sustainability, as well as serving as ambassadors, advocates, and fundraisers. Our Board has considerable authority and engagement with the governance and policies of CRL. As is common with governing Boards, they generally do not weigh in on operational or managerial details, which is the responsibility of the management and staff.

How much flexibility is in the timeline?

The timeline in the report is itself a recommendation to the Board. The Board is not obligated to perform or charge staff to enact any recommended actions on any timeline.

Is there a way to get in touch with Kevin or the Task Force?

On the Strengthening Global Collections landing page on the CRL website, there are links to self-schedule for open office hours: meetings with the Director of Global Collections and meetings with a Member of the Global Collections Advisory Task Force.

For needs that exceed the times and format of these office hours, such as a special time to meet exclusively with an executive committee, please reach out directly to Kevin by email.

Questions about working in the proposed structure

How can one committee cover "global collections"? Surely a better, although more expensive, option would have been more groups to cover more of the world as opposed to one centralized group. (added 18 Oct)

The proposal is for several committees roughly paralleling the existing AMPs and GRNs and includes a process for spinning up new committees per members’ interest.

Can you provide more information about the committee governance, decision-making authority and reporting structure (added 07 Oct, updated 18 Oct)

Based on ongoing conversations the Task Force is amending the recommendation in the posted document. CRL bylaws outline that the Board can convene committees to carry on the work of the organization, but this now seems to be heavier governance than is necessary and the adjusted recommendation is for CSPC to form the committees.

Also, the recommendation will be adjusted to connect the committees directly to CSPC for policies and the CRL staff for procedures. This is in response to numerous comments that the governance was confusing.

The proposed governance structure is outlined in the Committee Charter. Per the proposal, committees are determined and established by the CRL Board of Directors, with advisory from the International Collections and Content Group (ICCG) per strategies and policies established by the Collections and Services Policy Committee (CSPC). GC Committees work closely with ICCG, which advises on strategies for global collections, services, and networks including the work of the Committees collectively and independently. ICCG is constituted by and reports to the CSPC, which sets priorities and strategies for developing and managing CRL collections, content, and services in accordance with directives from the Board of Directors. In the proposal, the committees work closely with CSPC and ICCG but do not directly report to either. This and other details could be adjusted by the Board in their review of the proposal.

As CRL committees, they would have officers to coordinate the work of the committee (Committee Chair, Vice-Chair, etc.). The committee can create other standing subcommittees and working groups to divide up the work. The committees will have allocated funds provided by the CRL membership cost-shares. The committee will decide where ideas for projects come from. The committee will consult with CRL to ensure that proposals are viable. The committee will decide amongst themselves how to approve projects and purchases per their allocated funds.

What if we don't want to work within these proposed committees?

We hope members will find them a comfortable new home because we value the work of the AMPs and GRNs and the long history CRL shares with these programs, but we simply can no longer support the current structures. Much thought went into supporting the work being done under a new sustainable governance structure and there is significant room for creative solutions within the limitations of governing law and responsible accounting practices.

The Task Force proposal includes the recommendation that the Board create Collection Committees to build the CRL collection and advise on other work in the service of our mission. The question before the AMP/GRNs is whether they would be willing and able to work in the committee structure after they are formed, would they find better benefit in pursuing fiscal sponsorship at CRL, or will they look for other solutions to do their work.

Is fiscal sponsorship a viable option for the AMPs?

To respect the self-determination of the AMP/GRNs, the Task Force presented three possibilities: committee, sponsorship, or partnering with another organization (working within CRL, with CRL, or without CRL). Feedback we’ve received suggests that people do not feel empowered, only confused. The simplest answer to clear the confusion is that recommendations are the most pragmatic solution to continue working with CRL: AMPs moving to committees and LARRP, SAOA, and TRAIL negotiating a fiscal sponsorship agreement. Why?

We ran the numbers for our costs and determined overhead would need to be at least $20,000 per sponsored program. We also determined that CRL spends 46% of our total revenue on our activities. This made our sponsorship minimum requirement to be $37,000 in revenue ($20,000 for overhead, $17,000 for activities).

Most AMPs do not currently have this much revenue, but they could increase membership or membership fees to generate this number, so the Task Force left the option for you to assess and decide. Moving to a committee would require certain adjustments and you technically do have choices but it’s confusing.

However, for work related specifically to collections, if the committees are approved, CRL members with an interest in area studies collections could appoint representatives for collection work. We are also making efforts to support all work of the AMPs that fall under our mission, and we are continuing to better understand what support and structures that work requires. This is still very much an active process.

Conversely, a few groups have revenues over the $37,000 minimum. We recommended that we continue conversations about sponsorship because technically they can afford to maintain their systems and structures… but that is for them to decide. We wanted to leave the committee option open as a CRL-supported service but, again, that is simply confusing the situation. A simple contract would enable them to get back to work and take more time to better strategize the next steps as CRL itself goes through a change process. This would be a negotiation, and we are motivated to find a mutually agreeable solution within our legal and fiduciary boundaries.

How will the members of the Collections Committees be selected?

Committee participation is a benefit of CRL membership, and the Heads of member organizations will appoint their representatives. We trust our member leaders will make decisions to benefit the membership. We do not anticipate a need to vet participants for qualifications nor to manage the size of the committee, which are the most common concerns expressed. These CRL committees will be operating as part of the CRL governance structure and if something unforeseeable compromises the integrity of the committee to operate effectively on behalf of CRL members, the Board can adjust the committee charter as needed.

The proposal includes the recommendation to offer current AMP/GRNs the opportunity to migrate their members to committee members if from a CRL member institution (with the understanding that their Head already approved their participation in the AMP), or as a guest. Further, if eligible, moving their elected officers to parallel positions the committee steering subcommittee.

What do you mean, “Heads of member organizations will appoint their representatives?” My director doesn’t get involved with my work at this level.

Some have found this phrasing dismissive of the expertise of the area studies specialists, but I (Kevin) meant to indicate that there was not a separate membership fee or vetting process to participate in the committees. I am not suggesting that current experts would be excluded nor that unqualified members would be appointed. This adjustment should open opportunities for qualified individuals that do not work at libraries with specific subject area programs, positions, and budgets. Those positions and resources are limited, and we may have librarians across the membership with credentials and interest without the title and budget. The Task Force believes this will foster diversity in representation from across our membership. Another optimistic interpretation is that this would provide opportunities to foster early-career and disenfranchised would-be area specialists.

How will elections be handled in the committee structure?

The committee charter talks about elections and includes the text, “Elections shall be held annually in the Spring, to elect new officers with terms beginning on July 1. CRL staff will determine the timing and process for administering the election.” This is just to permit flexibility in scheduling to incorporate appropriate technology: using Microsoft forms or other voting software. Calls for nominees usually begin in January and communications usually run through the listserv.

The charge also indicates, “The Committee Secretary is responsible for issuing an open call for nominations and self-nominations, submitting the final slate of candidates to CRL staff, and communicating with Committee membership throughout the election process. The Secretary is responsible for communicating the election results to each candidate and then announcing them to the Committee membership. Elections are decided by a simple anonymous majority of the voting members who cast a ballot.”

Will long-standing members lose their access to the collections? (updated 09 Oct)

CRL is committed to honoring our existing obligations as we continue to evolve as an organization. Since the inception of the Area Materials Projects (AMPs), CRL has ensured that members of each respective AMP can access their project’s resources through specially tailored loan rules in the CRL catalog. All requests to borrow would be handled through regular ILL systems and workflows and access to digital collections would be available through CRL's digital delivery platform. This approach reflects CRL’s longstanding dedication to making AMP materials accessible to their respective members while managing access to broader collections.

We are reviewing internal processes and technical support needed to provide ongoing access to the historical AMP collection (print and digital) for non-CRL members of AMPs that have such access written in their bylaws (or prospectus) such as, “In the event of termination of the project, subscribers to the project shall continue to have the same right of access as above to all microforms acquired by the project during its existence.” We believe this applies to SEAM, SAMP, and LAMP.

We will present more information as we build out the policy and formalize the details.

The Task Force proposal includes the provision for a limited complementary membership to organizational members of AMPs that are not CRL members to avoid interruption collection access. This FAQ update (09 Oct) is new information that addresses ongoing access regardless of an institution’s decision whether to opt-in to the offer of a limited membership.

Isn’t the Library of Congress mentioned by name in some of the bylaws? (added 08 Oct)

Yes, in some but not all. We are trying to coordinate a meeting with the librarians from the Library of Congress as a group and with representatives who can speak on behalf of the LC as an institution to discuss the details of these arrangements.

Are other organizations mentioned in the bylaws? (added 08 Oct)

Yes. A couple of AMPs have called this to our attention. We are aggregating a list to explore what ongoing partnerships might look like.

CRL welcomes conversations with affected groups to better understand how current partnerships with AMP/GRNs might translate to institutional partnerships with CRL.

Can you provide more information about international partnerships?

The Task Force would like to put forward recommendations to accommodate these opportunities, but we have insufficient information about how current partnerships with AMP/GRNs might translate to an institutional partnership with CRL.

For example, we have learned that some international partners are unable to pay for membership outside their country, which is an obvious challenge, but don’t know what to recommend to the Board as an accommodation, acknowledging that different AMPs may already have different solutions in place that may or may not be applicable, and that there may be a difference between partnership and membership.

CRL welcomes conversations to better understand situations wherein an organization would like to partner with CRL in ways that cannot be met though conventional membership.

Questions about Projects, Collections, and other work

What about the projects that are approved and in progress?

Approved projects and projects in progress will continue and costs will be debited from the balances on file from the respective AMP or GRN as identified in the project plan. We believe that all approved plans are active and moving forward. New projects will draw from the annual allocations going forward.

Who will initiate new projects?

Projects historically proposed and approved by AMP/GRNs will continue as such in the committee structure. Ideas will come from the committee members for assessment, vetting, prioritizing, and approving internal to the committee per their own procedures. This may include solicitation for project recommendations from outside the committee so long as they are vetted and approved within the committee. CRL will be engaged to confirm resources are available to ensure success of proposals during consideration.

There will be guidelines for maximum utility of fund allocations that will not rollover, like keeping a project of a manageable size so it can be completed within a fiscal year and budgeting that accommodates multi-year projects.

What is the process for submitting and approving proposals?

The collections committees will receive fund allocations much as a subject area in a research library would have an acquisitions budget. Projects will be decided within committees and presented to CRL for assessment of logistics, but logistical consulting may be introduced earlier in the process. Historically, projects could stretch over years which complicated coordination as well as accounting. Going forward, projects should be broken up into phases that can be completed within a single fiscal year and CRL staff will help with that planning.

Also, collection development will diversify, such as CRL taking on subscriptions on central funds as planned collection development. Newspaper subscriptions, for example, should not need to be considered as a new project every year when CRL can simply subscribe and budget for the work of receiving and processing.

What does the viability of a project mean?

Some thoughts about viability: material that is in a format we cannot host would be deferred. Projects with unclear copyright would be deferred. Projects that require more cataloging than we can supply... would be considered, especially if we can budget centrally to acquire contract labor the following year. A project that would require aggregation of content from multiple sources would need to be scoped into multiple small projects that can be completed in a year rather than as an ongoing open project collecting material across multiple years.

We don’t expect to invoke this provision regularly but need to have some controls in place. The emphasis here is supposed to be the opposite: how can we ensure we fully utilize our resources by coordinating complementary projects. We will hire a staff position to serve on the committee to advise on where we have available capacity across technical services and how the work of the different committees affect each other.

What does the Committee Charge mean by Building and Describing the Collection?

The committee charge was written broadly to encompass many types of work around collection development and collection management. We ask that the committees engage with the collection and with other members of CRL by assessing and describing the strengths and weaknesses of the collection.

Collection development may include planned purchasing, advising on centrally funded subscriptions that benefit the collective, coordinating reformatting content already in the collection, identifying and prioritizing the cataloging of material that has not been processed, and working with licensing to identify opportunities to negotiate favorable terms on behalf of our membership.

Who will process changes to the collection?

CRL will continue to provide technical services and project management support for the member collection.

What about subscriptions and other licensing work?

Work currently being done with the CRL licensing team will continue and current agreements will remain. Current models include negotiating favorable terms and pricing from vendors for participating members to opt-in. GRNs work directly with NERL/CRL licensing to identify titles.

We have insufficient information of the anticipated need to offer more specific details of future strategic development relative to the collection committees; for example, what subscriptions are you referencing?

Can you provide more information for future support of Open Access?

We will continue to explore Open Access opportunities to best identify models that work for our community.

In 2017, CRL committed to removing restrictions on material digitized from the collection that was out of copyright.

In April 2024, NERL negotiated a three-year agreement with Springer Nature to provide seven NERL member institutions with read access to the entire corpus of Springer journals and permits eligible authors to publish open access, with fees covered, in hybrid journals across the Springer portfolio.

In contrast, many members have expressed disappointment and concern over the Global Press Archive partnership with East View, which included Open Access content. We are not pursuing the project for a third phase.

These unconnected thoughts are not reflective of a comprehensive program. I wonder if the question would benefit from a reference interview… what do you really want to know? What would you like to see?

Questions about Budgets

How will budgets be determined and what are the CRL fund sources? (updated 07 Oct)

UPDATE 07 Oct: The transitional budgeting plan for moving to committees has three fund categories: (a) the current balance of funds available, (b) the one-time fiscal adjustment identified in the reconciliation of Feb 2022, and (c) allocations from CRL to the new committees. At present, the CRL committees are allocated $30,000 per year (available beginning FY25 if the committees are implemented in this fiscal year). Should that money be fully expended, the committee can then draw on the balances set aside (current balance and the one-time adjustment). The proposed plan allows past fund balances (a +b) to be available through the end of FY27.

Budget planning for FY28 will include a review of expenses and projected needs for the committees.

Some stakeholders have had questions about the $30,000 budget allocation per GCC and how that compares to previous AMP/GRN membership revenue amounts. It is important to note that GCC's will not pay GCC membership fees, resulting in cost savings for participants who had previously paid fees to participate. If new initiatives exceed the established allocations, balances, and one-time adjustments, CRL may consider additional modifications during the annual budgeting process.

The details of the allocation process are not yet determined but will include involvement from CSPC who will work with CRL staff and submit a collection budget proposal as part of the annual budget approval process.

CRL uses zero-based budgeting so efforts to carry forward balances would not be advantageous to a group, and they should plan to spend down their allocation each year. This also means that commitments will not be carried forward so past practices of carrying forward balances and parallel commitments will need to be reconfigured into planned work across multiple fiscal years. If an invoice comes in during a different year than it was committed, it simply gets paid in the current fiscal year. Outstanding commitments would need to be budgeted annually and not simply carried over year after year. This is seen as an advantage but is an opportunity for error.

The idea of “saving up for a big project” would not apply in this model and big projects may be broken down into single-year phases. Other possible models for funding large project in a single year may be shared funding, supplemental funding, discretionary funds, central pools, annual areas of emphasis, or other efforts to maximize impact for the collective while continuing to actively develop area studies collections.

What happens if an invoice does not come in the same year the project started if we cannot carryover funds? (added 07 Oct)

Invoices will be posted in the budget cycle they are received. Commitments that have not been invoiced at the end of the fiscal year would become part of the budget planning for the following year. Rather than carrying over funds from a previous fiscal year, it will post in the then current fiscal year. Outstanding commitments would need to be budgeted annually and not simply carried over year after year. This doesn’t mean that you have to cancel all commitments with the vendor and re-commit. The biggest distinction is that we don’t carry forward money “set aside” to pay an invoice in three years with money allocated last year.

Some AMPs have historically found CRL policies to be more accommodating relative to the procedures of their home institutions for complex project funding, invoicing, and payments. We will continue to build policies within our constraints to provide flexibility where possible, and we are committed to responsible accounting practices. A deposit account to park money is not an option. Partial prepayment to begin a project might be considered. Policies like these would need to be considered and standardized, not applied ad hoc.

Currently, we have insufficient information about the anticipated needs to build specific policies and welcome specific examples for consideration.

Will each committee have their separate allocation or is there a shared one?

Each committee will have an allocation of funds from CRL revenue to carry out their work. This is like a subject allocation at a research library: discretion lies with the subject specialists per applicable policies of the library. CRL does not have restricted funds so there are opportunities to pool or reallocate funds; this will be especially important for end of the fiscal year opportunities when committees may find benefit in pooling funds. Each fiscal year closes without carrying forward allocations or balances.

There are also “central funds” which previously went to things like project fund matching and purchase proposals. Procedures around supplemental funding will be developed as we have a better understanding of needs and opportunities.

How does one year’s activity affect the next year’s allocation

CRL practices zero-based budgeting which means that commitments and balances do not carry forward at the end of the fiscal year. “Saving up” for multiple years should not be necessary (or possible). Our funds are not restricted to a particular subject or activity. To better utilize member funds, rather than saving up for large projects, we will build out processes for shared funding where applicable, central support where appropriate, and facilitation in breaking up large projects into smaller one-year phases. Invoices will always be posted in the fiscal year received and, at the end of the fiscal year outstanding commitments should be considered as part of the planning for the following fiscal year. Going forward, annual budgets would be adjusted based on demonstrated need.