Currently viewing the tag: "Fernando Acosta-Rodríguez"

June 17, 2015, 8:30 am-10:00 am, East Pyne 027, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
Moderator:        Lynn M. Shirey, Harvard University
Rapporteur:         Joseph Holub, University of Pennsylvania

Panelists:
Jill Baron, Dartmouth College
& Fernando Acosta-Rodríguez, Princeton University
Divide and Conquer Brazil: A New Approach to Cooperative Collection Development within the Borrow Direct Consortium

Rebecca K. Friedman, Princeton University
Ivies+ Art & Architecture Group: Tackling Contemporary Art Publications from Latin America

Thomas Keenan, Princeton University
Eastern Europe, the Former Soviet Union and the Challenges of Inter-Consortial Cooperative Collecting

Darwin F. Scott, Princeton University
The Borrow Direct Contemporary Composers Cooperative Collection Plan

Jill Baron (Dartmouth) and Fernando Acosta- Rodríguez (Princeton) described the agreement of a number of Borrow Direct libraries to share coverage of the academic publishing output of Brazil. The focus on Brazil stems from the country’s status as the largest Latin American country, the ninth largest publishing country in the world, and a growing interest in Brazilian studies. The libraries’ major Brazilian vendors have estimated that the country produces approximately 5,000 academic (or titles of interest to academic libraries) titles annually.  Meanwhile, an analysis of Borrow Direct holdings using OCLC showed that Harvard, which acquires the largest number of Brazilian titles of all members of the Borrow Direct group, has been capturing about half of Brazilian titles. The numbers were compared to peer institutions, including New York Public, Texas Austin, and the Library of Congress, and they were found to be far fewer than those acquired by the University of São Paulo. Overall, US libraries do not approach comprehensiveness in their Brazilian collections.

The Brazil Borrow Direct group participants include Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Harvard, Princeton, the University of Chicago, the University of Pennsylvania, and Yale. The group aims to increase the diversity and depth of their combined Brazilian book collections, improve coverage of small publishers, reduce lacunae and redundancy, and make long-term commitments to the program. It does not specifically aim to reduce duplication, however. Each institution commits to working with a vendor of its choice (there are effectively two major vendors for Brazilian academic books) to cover a specific state or group of states. The group felt that using more than one vendor will help support the diversity of their acquisitions and, in any case, the freedom to use a preferred vendor was an incentive for each institution. Vendors provided estimates on academic publishing and costs for each state. For each state the library will acquire all books of an academic nature that fall within agreed upon subject limits (primarily monographs in the social sciences and humanities), although libraries are free to collect beyond those boundaries. Only the cities of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo are excluded from the agreement, since these are the two largest publishing centers of the country and their output has been more consistently acquired than other cities, states and regions. The libraries had to make estimates of what they would be able to spend as well.

The Borrow Direct Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for Brazil was signed in 2014; all libraries agreed to start collecting from their state(s) starting with 2015, but were free to acquire earlier years. The libraries are committed to good preservation practices, including replacing lost or damaged items. It is still too early to assess the success of the program, and there are some concerns about the potential for cataloging backlogs.

The Brazil project has taken its inspiration from a number of other collaborative collection activities undertaken by Borrow Direct librarians. Rebecca Friedman (Princeton), who is Assistant Librarian of the Marquand Library of Art and Archaeology and Librarian for the School of Architecture Library, explained the details of the 2012 agreement developed by the Ivies Plus Art and Architecture Group. Collaboration was impelled by the realization that no one collection could keep up with an increasingly globalized art scene, and collections data showed slow growth collecting outside traditional areas. They sought to expand their collections beyond the art of North America and Western Europe. The first initiative of the group has been to focus on the visual arts since 1975 in Latin America, as each of the five participating institutions (Columbia, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Princeton, Chicago) took responsibility for individual countries. Their evaluation was that Latin America represented a less complicated first step in collecting outside traditional areas than, for example, Africa. The focus has been on contemporary art. They excluded architecture and design, which are more difficult to divide by country. The country(ies) chosen by each library is generally consistent with the already existing focus of the library.

A number of the libraries were already using Karno Books for their Latin American acquisitions, but they are investigating other vendors in order to diversify collections, including using more than one vendor (contrary to current trends) for the same institution. Collective responsibility is a positive aspect of the project, but there are some questions about to how to adapt to the addition of new members. There is also a question whether this group is best situated for covering Latin America. For example, it would be helpful to compare holdings to some known for the strength of their Latin American collections: the Museum of Modern Art, the Houston Museum of Fine Arts, the University of Texas-Austin – and it might make sense to work with one or more of those libraries.

They used the Borrow Direct Music group as a model in composing the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Each group member commits to an internal annual report. The members are committed to timely acquisitions and preservation, but there are cataloging challenges and a need to track initiatives.  Assessment at this juncture is difficult, and they need to develop metrics for evaluation. Meanwhile, web archiving is another likely project for the group.

Thomas Keenan (Princeton) described the collaborative activities of librarians in what is known as the SEEES (Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies) fields.  The area covered includes 27 nation states and 28 major languages (from eight different language families) and corresponds to the area of the old Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc. It is difficult for any one institution to cover such a wide area, and the difficulty is compounded by the fact that the focus of the librarians and the collections has typically been Slavic or Russo-centric. As research interests in SEEES change, including more interest in areas where non-Slavic languages are spoken, collections are unable to keep pace. There is a need to collect in languages other than Russian, especially the non-Slavic languages, and to focus on low-demand items and free up those that collect idiosyncratic materials. Some of this interest comes from students from the old Soviet republics or from Eastern Europe who want to work in those areas and in those languages. Russo-centric scholars, too, sometimes develop interest in non-Russian topics.

Keenan said that when he came to Princeton two years earlier, there was already discussion of collaborative activities to encourage more specialized collecting and reduce redundancy. The BorrowDirect SEEES group has been in discussions, but have not yet been able to initiate an agreement, in part because of the many variables involved, including personnel changes. As BorrowDirect increases its membership, a single copy distributive plan is no longer sufficient (the goal would be 2-3 copies within the group).

The discussion occurred not only in Borrow Direct, but in other cooperative platforms, such as ReCAP, the Research Collections and Preservation Consortium (which includes a storage facility located near Princeton) shared by Princeton, Columbia University, and the New York Public Library. Plus, the Cornell-Columbia shared bibliographer experiment had been underway since 2009. It has been easier to work within the smaller group, which came up with a single copy plan for lower demand monographs for the four institutions (NYPL, Princeton, Columbia, plus Cornell). Higher demand items published in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and parts of Ukraine are excluded from the single copy plan. The program also employs a lead-institution model, so that the institution with a strong collection and/or a high level of scholarly activity will acquire the bulk of titles in a specific area. For example, New York Public Library, because of its historically significant Baltic collections, collects most monographs originating in the Baltic republics. Two libraries have also cooperated on some subject areas of interest to both (e.g., archaeology shared between Princeton and Cornell).

There has also been SEEES cooperation within MaRLI (Manhattan Research Library Initiative), which is a project of the New York Public Library, Columbia University Libraries, and New York University Libraries, that seeks to expand collections.

A major challenge in all collaborative ventures is to produce an MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) that can satisfy all institutions – a handshake is not sufficient – the administrations and general counsels. Despite the larger size of the Borrow Direct group, it offers a shared discovery and delivery mechanism that does not obtain for ReCap and the MRL initiative. For the moment cooperation with Borrow Direct partners will be conducted informally, and there is consideration of bringing in Yale and Brown on discussions with Columbia, Cornell and Princeton.

Darwin Scott (Princeton) described the Borrow Direct Music Librarians Group, which pioneered the model for subsequent Borrow Direct collaborations. There was a strong foundation for the project in the Music Library Association, which includes regional groups. Scott also sees a predilection for collaboration among music librarians that comes out of the experience of musical performance. Borrow Direct librarians began meeting at the MLA as early as 2004-2005, and later decided to focus on contemporary (post 1975) music, with particular emphasis on second-tier composers, whose work had been duplicated in many cases, or not collected at all. They had found that nearly every library was buying the same works by a second-tier composer, but none acquired the composer’s other works. Thus, it was decided that each library would collect specific composers comprehensively.

Between 2009 and early 2012 the group put together a list of ca. 1500 composers, most active after 1975, and used approvals with Theodore Front and Harrassowitz to implement the collecting strategy. Scott emphasized that this cannot work without a cooperative vendor. In 2011 the group accommodated Harvard and MIT as they joined Borrow Direct, and in 2013 the University of Chicago and Johns Hopkins (with Peabody and its extraordinary scores holdings) joined and, later, Duke.

The Memorandum of Understanding of 2012 specified the collecting of scores by 20th and 21st century composers. There have been some tweaks since. Some libraries had to cut back their collecting, some composers are collected comprehensively by 3-4 libraries, and younger composers have been added to the list.

In 2013 the group saw the launch of CCWA (Contemporary Composers Web Archive) hosted at Columbia and with Mellon support. The idea for CCWA came from a presentation of Columbia’s Human Rights Web Archive. The composer archiving project fit into the infrastructure already developed at Columbia.  Fifty-six sites are already in the archive, which Columbia catalogs in OCLC – and are loaded into the Princeton catalog in turn. A mechanism is in place to fast-track the archiving of websites when composers die. The group is facing how to continue funding, which may involve every member contributing to Columbia’s housing and management.

Scott added a recommendation to the group to let OCLC know how important WorldCat is to collection development work, which would be threatened by OCLC’s new discovery system, a potential disaster for collection development.

Denise Hibay (New York Public Library) praises the reports and reassures Thomas Keegan that the development of the discovery layer for the ReCap collection is proceeding and hopes to have it running in three years. There are new grant proposals in motion that, if successful, can help provide the infrastructure to create a consistent approach to these kinds of agreements. She also has a question for the Brazil project about its stated position that it does not aim to reduce duplication and about the need to preserve unique titles. Jill Baron noted that some are including tags in the catalog records that flag the Borrow Direct items to keep their relative scarcity in mind when making preservation and deaccession decisions.  Acosta-Rodríguez  added that there is no requirement to add cataloging notes and the language of the agreement is unspecific, but there is an assumption that each institution will be responsible to the group for the materials it acquires. Lynn Shirey pointed out that, if the group sought to radically reduce duplication, it could damage our vendors’ viability.

Miguel Valladares (University of Virginia) said that he was fairly familiar with all the projects except the SEEES agreements described by Thomas Keegan. He asked that, if reaching a 100% collecting level is the objective of collaborative acquisitions programs, how can a small program, such as ReCAP, be adequate. Keegan responded that there was no expectation that the four institutions in ReCAP would approach 100%. It is viewed as a first step, but one part of the plan specifies that no participant is reducing its collecting. In fact, participants are expanding their collections. Working within BorrowDirect can improve coverage further, although Keenan reiterated his belief that BorrowDirect is too large for a single-copy model. Valladares also asked if ASEES (Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies) is similar to SALALM. Keenan responded in the affirmative and added that there is also AATSEEL (American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages), as well as regional organizations.

David Magier (Princeton) added that he does not encourage speaking of a goal of acquiring 100% — or “everything” — of all research relevant publications. He prefers to ask what we can do to expand our collections. We should think of expanding collections, rather than comprehensiveness, as success. There is a question, too, of finding a balance between duplication and diversifying holdings. Any collaborative program must also take into account political issues, e.g., faculty might not accept reducing the collection of duplicates if it means not getting works by one or another author or a specific subject. He also points out that we have to be concerned about overspending in the quest to expand collections. As for preservation, he thinks we should not worry too much: we need to trust in the responsibility of research libraries when making decisions about old, fragile items. He trusts that these institutions will take care of unique items.

Pedro Huayhua (Ventara – Librería García Cambeiro) reminded everyone that the booksellers are participants in the collaborative process. His company is the supplier for a number of the institutions signatory to the Brazil project. He pointed out how the changing book trade environment has affected the vendors’ ability to work within the parameters established by the new agreements. In the past the vendor could sell 30-40 of any one title. In the past ten years 5-7 copies are more typical. He sees BorrowDirect’s goals to be preservation and the expansion of coverage. He suggested that 60,000 books are published in Brazil annually, but only  ten percent are useful to academic libraries. The consortium should have those 6,000 books, but the largest library in the group is only acquiring 2500 titles and the group about 4000. It is difficult to acquire the remaining 2000.

 

Panel 6, May 31, 2011, 9:00 am-10:30 am

Moderator: Fernando Acosta-Rodríguez, Princeton University
Presenters: Corina Norro, Archivo Nacional de la Memoria de Argentina; Margarita Vannini, Universidad Centroamericana; Graciela G. Barcala de Moyano, Academia Nacional de la Historia; Daniela Fuentealba, Museo de la Memoria; María Luisa Ortiz, Museo de la Memoria
Rapporteur: Tracy North, Library of Congress

Corina Norro began her presentation “Los Archivos Audiovisuales: Aportes para la Memoria en Construcción” by lamenting that there is not enough money or political will in Argentina right now to preserve cultural heritage. However, she enthusiastically reported that the Archivo Nacional de la Memoria is attempting to preserve audiovisual materials. She explained that the Archives are for citizens. They are important so that no one will forget. All of history is written; this audiovisual documentation is equally as important for history.

In 2007, Argentina created the Ministerio de Justicia y Derechos Humanos with the idea of capturing the memories of the victims and perpetrators of the atrocities. The goal is to collect the many stories and experiences of all of those involved in the Dirty War. Corina made the important point that there is not just one story, but rather a diverse group of experiences. The Archive is attempting to collect stories in all formats: images, videos, oral history, etc., in order to trace the trajectory of culture throughout the Dirty War. They are collecting movies, music, radio and television broadcasts so that scholars and citizens can dissect the recordings to analyze censorship or other influences of media production during the time period. For example, they are trying to recover broadcast recordings from the 1978 World Cup which they suggest covered up the truth about what was really happening in Argentina in the midst of the Dirty War.

Margarita Vannini followed with her presentation “Memoria e Imagen: Los Archivos Audiovisuales del Instituto de Historia de Nicaragua y Centroamérica de la UCA.” According to Vannini, the Instituto de Historia has a collection of photographs to promote and disseminate information. Vannini talked about the notion of circulating information through books, journals, and photographs as a way to broadcast the cultural patrimony of the country. The goal is to share the experience with future generations. Vannini explained that Nicaragua has experienced a tumultuous political history for the past 50 years (e.g., Somoza, Revolution, Sandinista, neoliberalism, Post-Sandinismo, etc.). She explained that small museums have taken on the task of attempting to preserve the memory of the nation. In working for a more just society, they are collecting and saving images of murals in public places (e.g., plazas and other central locations). They are also trying to capture music from the different periods of their recent political turmoil.

Vannini noted the ending of a decade of the Nicaraguan Civil War and the election of Violeta Barrios de Chamorro to the presidency in 1990. She ran her campaign and took office with a peace and reconciliation platform. The Instituto de Historia is not attempting to erase the memory of the Sandinistas and the revolution; rather, the goal is to preserve the memory and cultural history of the nation: to recover the thousands of burned books; to remember the changed names of the schools, etc.

Graciela Barcala de Moyano next followed with her presentation “Clasificación Temática de Archivos Orales Sobre Derechos Humanos: Aportes para una Metodología.” Barcala de Moyano began by noting that the archivists and librarians who are cataloging the memory of the nation are working today for future generations, 20-25 years from now. They want to simplify the recovery of memory and the cataloging and preservation of oral testimony and audiovisual resources. They are seeking to develop common terms through a linguistic examination of the resources. Barcala de Moyano made the point that we use words today to describe past events but these words are different from the words that were used during the actual time period being described. She explained that the cataloging process must be objective. She discussed the unique challenge of cataloging oral history. For example, there is not a unique title for each testimony. The people who are speaking out and telling their stories are not well-known; rather, they are family members of the disappeared, so chances are there are not established authority headings for their names. With the cataloging rules constantly changing, the goal is to standardize the thesaurus so that common terms are applied across collections for future searching and access to the collections.

In their joint presentation, “Difusión y Acceso Público del Patrimonio del Museo de la Memoria y los Derechos Humanos Mediante su Centro de Documentación”, Daniela Fuentealba and María Luisa Ortiz discussed the importance of the Chilean exile experience of 1973-1989, and described the urgent need to collect, organize, store, and provide access to the vast array of resources created by Chilean exiles which are dispersed throughout the world in many formats (mostly music, some fine arts, graphic design, and photography), languages, and themes. Most of these materials are held by the exiles themselves, whether they live in Chile or in the country of asylum. The findings indicate that there was no systematic attempt to identify, collect and provide access to resources about the Chilean exile experience.

The artistic output of Chilean exiles covered many different avenues. For example, there was an abundance of literature – poetry, fiction, and non-fiction – being produced by Chileans abroad. Film and theater production have also proliferated among Chilean exiles. The films served as an educational post-dictatorship tool to show young Chileans what life was like during the Pinochet dictatorship. In addition to the primary sources (for which more research is needed to bring together and catalog all of the rich production), some valuable secondary sources also attempt to investigate and explain the massive Chilean exodus during the dictatorship and its role in shaping the history of the nation. Ultimately, there is an urgent need to attempt to identify, collect, and make available the production of Chilean exiles in all formats, languages, and themes in order to create a more comprehensive view of Chilean history during the dictatorship (1973-1989), and the Museo de la Memoria y los Derechos Humanos is the ideal venue to collaborate in undertaking this significant activity.

Panel 2, May 30 2011, 2:00 pm-3:30 pm

Moderator: Holly Ackerman, Duke University
Presenters: Bix Gabriel, International Coalition of Sites of Conscience (not present); Pamela Graham, Columbia University; Patrick Stawski, Duke University; Fernando Acosta-Rodríguez, Princeton University
Rapporteur: Melissa Guy, Arizona State University

Holly Ackerman presented Bix Gabriel’s paper titled “Remembering Guantanamo: How Can We Build a Public Memory of this Site’s Century-long History?” which focused on the Guantanamo Public Memory Project, an ongoing project of the International Coalition of Sites of Conscience (ICSC).

The Guantanamo Public Memory Project highlights the reality that Guantanamo as a place of detention has a long, complex past. Today, nearly 200 prisoners remain indefinitely detained at the U.S. Naval Base in Cuba, but prior to 2001, Guantanamo also housed detainees. In 1991, the George H. W. Bush Administration held Haitian refugees fleeing the Aristide regime. In 1994, the U.S. government created camps to house Cuban refugees who had attempted to flee to the United States. The Clinton Administration created Camp X-Ray as a separate facility to house those refugees who “caused trouble” in the camps, which remained open for over a year.

Gabriel found that Guantanamo has had many “ends,” and each time the camps are closed, public memory fades. The Guantanamo Public Memory Project, which began in 2009, seeks to preserve memories of Guantanamo. The ICSC began the project to encourage individuals connected to Guantanamo to tell their stories. The short term goal is to “learn how it has been used and re-used,” to imagine its future, and become involved in determining the outcome of what happens there today. The long term goal is to establish comprehensive documentation about activities, individuals, and policies associated with Guantanamo. The project seeks an “ongoing forum for truth-telling, dialogue, and collective accountability.”

The ICSC is a network of about 250 historic sites of contested history. All sites of conscience are based on the idea that “preserving and interpreting history is as much an act in support of human rights as is waging a campaign for justice.” In 2009, the organization held its first international working group to develop a framework for the Guantanamo Public Memory Project with various stakeholders including historians, librarians, detainees and their lawyers, members of the military, and directors of sites of conscience. Four principles emerged: 1) the entire history of Guantanamo should be included in the project; 2) it must include multiple perspectives; 3) the project should avoid considering Guantanamo a “closed” history; 4) the coalition should be international in scope. Already the coalition has identified more than 1,000 resources (books, archives, films, etc.) on Guantanamo. The creation of a virtual site is also in progress, since the actual camps at Guantanamo are not accessible. Ackerman is a member of the Advisory Board of the project. More information can be found on the ICSC website at: http://www.sitesofconscience.org/activities/guantanamo-public-memory-project

Pamela Graham followed with her presentation titled “The Center for Human Rights Documentation & Research: Collecting, Preserving, and Promoting the Record of Human Rights.” The Center at Columbia was built around the acquisition of the archives of several major human rights organizations beginning with Amnesty International USA, Human Rights Watch, and Human Rights First. The records of these organizations were originally acquired and organized at the University of Colorado, Boulder by Bruce Montgomery in the early 1990s. In 2004, the collections were transferred to Columbia where they have undergone additional processing, arrangement, and description. These particular archives are on deposit at Columbia; the human rights organizations continue to own the records.

In 2005, Columbia founded the Center for Human Rights Documentation and Research to extend the scope of the collections acquired from Colorado, to expand the focus to the library’s general collection, and to develop digital projects. Archival materials are managed by the Rare Books and Manuscripts Library while the Center focuses on programmatic collecting and promotion of materials. Graham runs the Center and collaborates with library staff including subject specialists in global area studies; processing archivists; the oral history research office; web collection curators; technical services; and the digital program division.

Collections include archival primary sources, published scholarly materials in the general collection, and born-digital material. This particular presentation focused on the archival material; a separate presentation in Panel 9 described the Center’s efforts to archive born- digital material on the Web.

Within the archival materials, the records of greatest value are those that document “what advocacy looked like.” Examples from the Amnesty USA collection include: circulars distributed to country groups, records related to disappeared persons in Chile, and correspondence from the Executive Director and Executive boards. Human Rights Watch/Americas Watch records reveal connections among NGOs including the Committee to Protect Journalists (whose records are also housed at Columbia) and also contain news releases, field notes from hot spots, and legal testimony.

Graham concluded her presentation by describing some of the challenges associated with collecting in human rights, including creating the actual archives, since the organizations are focused on advocacy, not records management. Legal and privacy issues are unique with human rights records; balancing those concerns with the desire to make the records accessible to users can be difficult. Preservation issues are always a concern, particularly with regard to born-digital materials and the shift to online production of records.

More information on the Center for Human Rights Documentation & Research can be found at: http://library.columbia.edu/indiv/humanrights.html

Graham’s presentation was followed by that of Patrick Stawski, the Human Rights archivist at Duke University, whose presentation, “History in Action: Connecting Students, Scholars and Community to Human Rights Histories & Practice” focused on human rights archival collections and outreach efforts at Duke. The collections at Duke focus on human rights activism of individuals and NGOs. Their 25 collections are format-neutral and global in scope.

Major Latin American holdings include the records of the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) and those of Coletta Youngers, a WOLA associate. The WOLA records span the years from 1974 to 2005 and contain information on human rights abuse cases, documentation of the organization’s efforts to lobby U.S. officials for policy change, and evidence of WOLA’s collaboration with local human rights organizations in Latin America.

Duke also houses the Marshall T. Meyer Papers, which document the Argentine rabbi’s role as a human rights activist, religious leader, and scholar from the 1950s through the 1990s. The records also detail his involvement with CONADEP, Argentina’s truth commission, of which he was the only Argentine-born member. A traveling exhibit highlights materials from this collection.

The collection at Duke also contains materials that focus on human rights issues in Latino communities in the United States. The Student Action with Farmworkers records document working conditions of immigrant communities and activism among labor and student groups.

Other collections at Duke include the records of the Center for International Policy and the papers of Patricia Murphy Derian, the first Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs under President Carter.

Outreach for these collections focuses on creating a bridge between students, faculty, the community and records creators and includes, among other things, the WOLA/Duke book award and a documentary film series. More information on the human rights archives at Duke can be found at: http://library.duke.edu/specialcollections/human-rights/

Fernando Acosta-Rodríguez completed the panel with his presentation, “From Underground to Open Access: Civil War, Society and Political Transition as Documented by the Archive of the Guatemala News and Information Bureau,” which focused on the transition of records from microfilm to open access digital material. The records of the Guatemala News and Information Bureau (GNIB) have been housed at Princeton since 2002. GNIB was created in 1978 in San Francisco as an activist group that sought to call attention to issues such as labor rights, indigenous rights and movements for peace and justice in Guatemala through informational campaigns, lobbying of U.S. officials, as well as educational and cultural programs.

Princeton had the collection microfilmed in 2004 with Primary Source Media. Nine academic libraries in the United States (including the Center for Research Libraries) own the 112 reels of film. In addition, Princeton donated a complete set to the Centro de Investigaciones Regionales de Mesoamérica (CIRMA) in Guatemala. Documents range from the 1970s to the present and include records related to the civil war in Guatemala and the peace accords of the 1990s. The microfilm is comprised of four sections: 1) grey literature and ephemera (about 60%); 2) serial runs (141 titles); 3) studies and reports (56 titles); and 4) news clippings (less than 1% of total.)

Princeton is now in the process of creating an open access digital collection of the first section of the GNIB archive. The first section (grey literature and ephemera) will be the only portion digitized due to its research value and unique content. Only the Guatemalan section of the NACLA archive comes closest to matching the richness of the GNIB records, but Princeton’s materials are unique in that they cover the years preceding and immediately following the peace accords. Section one of the GNIB records also complements the records of the National Security Archive project on Guatemala.

The open access digitization project was the result of conversations between the library and Princeton’s program for Latin American Studies about alternative access models for the Latin American political ephemera collection as a whole. In those conversations, five models of access emerged as possibilities:

1)      Outsourced microfilming and commercial distribution (already in place)

2)      Outsourced digitization, publishing, and distribution

3)      Outsourced digitization, internal publishing, and non-commercial distribution

4)      Internal digitization, internal publishing, and non-commercial distribution

5)      Consortial agreement with costs and responsibilities shared among participating institutions

Ultimately, Princeton decided to substitute the first, already established option with a combination of options three and five: outsourced digitization, internal publishing and non-commercial distribution as part of a consortial agreement. The GNIB archive was chosen as a pilot project because of its research value, the structure of the archive, the types of materials it contained, and its potential to reach wider audiences on a global scale. The ultimate goal is to create a searchable website for section one of the GNIB materials with contents described at the item level and open access to all images.

Partial funding for this ongoing project has been provided by the 2009 Cooperative Digitization of International Research Materials Project, sponsored by the Council of American Overseas Research Centers, and a four-year TICFIA grant.

Acosta-Rodríguez concluded that the project has been complex and labor intensive, but also worthwhile. He believes that a consortial open access model for digitization is the best way to move forward with similar projects, and he hopes that SALALM and LARRP will be involved in future endeavors.

Questions & Comments:

Paula Covington (Vanderbilt University):Fernando, who funded this project?” Acosta-Rodríguez responded that funding came from a U.S. Department of Education TICFIA grant: $45,000 with matching funds plus labor from Princeton. James Simon (CRL) confirmed that TICFIA stands for Technological Innovation and Cooperation for Information Access.

 

SALALM LVI
Saturday, May 28, 2011 9:00-11:00am and Tuesday, May 31, 4:00-5:30pm

 

Members present: Richard Phillips, Paula Covington, David Block, Peter T. Johnson, Hortensia Calvo, Eudorah Loh, Martha Mantilla, Laura Shedenhelm, Angela Carreño, Alma Ortega, Anne Barnhart, Pamela Graham, Barbara Tenenbaum, Fernando Acosta-Rodríguez Others: Daisy V. Domínguez, Orchid Mazurkiewicz, Nerea Llamas, Lynn Shirey, Elmelinda Lara, David C. Murray, Joe Holub

 

Finance met twice in Philadelphia, covering a wide range of policy and fiscal matters and endowment/investment topics. Several new members were welcomed: Alma Ortega (San Diego), Angela Carreño (NYU), and Fernando Acosta-Rodríguez (Princeton). A goal of the Committee has been to broaden participation, so these newcomers were truly applauded!

 

A review of the organization’s future (short & long term) was given by Treasurer Peter Johnson and by the Executive Secretary Hortensia Calvo. Topics included boosting SALALM’s name at ALA accredited library/information schools (and recruitment of new personal memberships in SALALM) by the creation of a new scholarship to market SALALM and its benefits to new incoming professionals in our field. The longstanding Marietta Daniels Shepard Scholarship is being fully turned over to the University of Texas after more than 25 years of contributions by SALALM. This thus fulfills SALALM’s pledge. Frustration with the lack of recognition given to SALALM was voiced.

 

$1,000 (plus $500 for start-up publicity) will be taken from SALALM’s dividends to initially launch the new scholarship. Member donations will sustain it in the future. This new scholarship will be fully coordinated and promoted directly by SALALM to all library schools.

 

The Treasurer also touched upon SALALM investments, urging more vigilant and proactive work by Finance’s Investment Working Group (IWG) – which held an early working breakfast session and is coordinated by Laura Shedenhelm. Other topics included credit card fees, CPA charges, use of PayPal, updates to the SALALM website, webinar offerings. Other operating dynamics were also discussed and funded and these were sent on to the Executive Board for consideration and approval.

 

Additional business included receipt of a $1,000 boost to SALALM’s endowment from an anonymous donor, who thereby matched contributions from a challenge made to SALALM members at the end of the Providence meeting.  It is hoped that more challenges and donor opportunities will follow; SALALM’s “Endow our Future” theme is taking off.

 

Also, approval was given to offering a 3-year prepaid membership option that would lock in current membership fees.

 

Pending is the matter of changing SALALM operations to a calendar year in an effort to align SALALM with the fiscal year used by most others.  Also open for further review is the matter of moving more funds to the endowment from institutional sponsorship payments.

 

The Secretariat highlighted its current budget and proposed budget. Invoice processing of institutional members is being scrutinized; there is concern that there must be a smoother way for institutions to pay their bills to SALALM. Other matters were very positive reports from the Providence and Philadelphia conferences. Discussion of the 2012 Trinidad & Tobago conference was also upbeat, with projected expenses and revenues reviewed and local arrangements eyeing sponsorships. The new chair of Finance will be Paula Covington.

 

Richard Phillips, Chair
University of Florida