BHL Institutional Council Conference Call October 23, 2008

On call: Judy, Doug, Connie, Tom G., Susan, Tom B.

When: October 23, 11 a.m. EDT

How: Dial the same phone number: 1-866-748-1119

Type in the passcode: 1912897#

Agenda:

• early draft of five year BHL business plan. (see attached): Tom sent a draft of ideas to get the ball rolling on a business plan. Need to be able to serve multiple audiences. Is the format useful? Are outputs/goals complete and appropriate? A fuller set of documentation is expected for March.

Tom B. noted that there are issues sending out rare and fragile materials and AMNH is having trouble keeping up with output. Is disbinding a possibility? Do we need to start incorporating the special collections materials as part of plan? Yes! Judy also noted that IA should not be the only vendor listed. Tom G noted we should put in a line for "other scanning". NY foldouts may be more expensive than Boston/DC. Requirements for rare/special collections are not the same at all institutions. NY site rejecting more items than expected. Tom G. noted that he has talked to IA about inconsistency among IA sites. Need to find a more cost-effective way to deal with the rare/fragile stuff. Low-hanging fruit goes very fast. The curve is going to get steeper and steeper; will need more resources. Judy noted that we must budget for alternative scanning, think about other partnerships. New goal= special collections scanning and new budget line for this as well.
Susan noted that the DSPACE business plan sent along by Judy is a good model and would make it easier for us to comment on.
Tom G. noted that we need a budget plan before Dec 15. He is trying to do it in such a way that it will feed easily into the strategic plan. Susan noted that we need to develop a program-based budget planned. We can at least outline a plan and then build on it.
Judy noted that costs will shift soon based on what we can actually send to the scanning center.

• Article Repository – I will be soliciting questions and concerns to prepare a position paper on this topic for the IC.
Taxonomists developing authoritative information about taxonomic groups. Often come with bibliographies. These are a great place to look for scanning topics. Often the bibliographies are digitized and may be available online. How can we use this? We are seeking funding to "article-ize" the work we have already done. We are experimenting with some MCZ materials. Meanwhile there is content already out there. The idea of an article repository would be like an institutional repository where vetted researchers can deposit their digitized material. It is a "youtube" model or also known as "safe harbor". Must have clear take down provisions and owner/operator of repository must be willing to respond to copyright holders. The depositors deposit the content. Infrasructure and support can be provided by BHL. Similar to institutional repositories such as at Smithsonian and MBL so that faculty can deposit papers they have authored. Funded from Moore grant to MOBOT for FEDORA and would be interoperable with BHL. Content deposit would be driven by taxon communities and would have process to limit ability to deposit to recognized individuals/groups.

Connie expressed concern that this is not exactly the institutional repository concept because it is not just author-generated content but any content that depositors want to put in. What kind of liability is there for BHL or the individual partners. Judy asked about the funding.

Tom noted that this is the "youtube" model and they have not been sued. Judy suggested there should be an analysis of some of the bibliographies to see if they meet the legality of the "youtube" model? A sample could be done.

The article-ization of already scanned BHL material is critical and should be done. We should be more cautious about deposits that are not copyright-cleared.

• Processing of Invoices: Some have noticed that invoices and reimbursements have been slow. Contact Tom G. directly if there are problems. Tom B. asked if travel can be booked through the Smithsonian. Tom G. processes any requests within 1 day of receipt. Then it has to be input into Smithsonian system and then Tom G. has to track and nag. Tom B. also suggested that everyone submit individual packages simultaneously to Tom G.

Sub award invoices have had some problems, too. Multiple checks may go out under one payment and they are hard to track. NYBG had a 3 month delay getting first reimbursement. Last one took 4 weeks. Sometimes check, sometimes fund transfer. A predictable schedule would be helpful. Tom G. would like to review invoice submittals on a regular basis. Tom will schedule individually with each partner submitting invoices. Doug noted that wire transfers do not have appropriate identity on transfer. Doug has to track them down. Susan noted the same issue. Tom G. noted that he will track wire transfer numbers and notify recipients.

For next call, Tom G. will have strategic plan draft, business plan draft, article repository, response and update on payment issue, summary of Woods Hole meeting. Drafts will be sent ahead.

Next call is Thursday November 13 at 11 AM EST, 10 AM CST, 4 PM GMT