Bookkeeper^® Users Group Synopsis

Over a two-day period in mid-May, more than 40 librarians, archivists, and preservation and library administrators convened in Cranberry Township, Pa. for the second Bookkeeper Users Group. This report details some of the topics discussed during the meeting, which was facilitated by David E. Walls, Preservation Librarian at Yale University Library and L. Suzanne Kellerman, Judith O. Seig Chair for Preservation, The Pennsylvania State University Libraries.

The purpose of this forum was to share institutional deacidification processes and experiences through open dialogue. Topics of discussion included:

• Criteria for selecting materials
• Establishing a budget for deacidification
• Managing/staffing
• Cataloging/documenting deacidified materials
• Selection of collections appropriate for deacidification
• Evaluating process results

The meeting was divided into three sessions. Two general sessions were held as discussions led by the two facilitators rather than specific agenda-driven topics. The third session specifically focused on current deacidification research and a technical briefing on the Bookkeeper process by Jim Burd.

The following sections summarize the meeting highlights.

Criteria for selecting materials
David Walls started the meeting by relating his selection criteria experiences at Yale. Walls speculated that institution or collection types are the key factors that drive deacidification selection. He also shared that the selection process has entailed building support for deacidification and then choosing materials based on that level of support. Similar to the Library of Congress, Yale analyzes collections with subject bibliographers to determine suitability for deacidification.

Northwestern has deacidified music scores and African materials, which it deems to be collections of distinction - a classification driven by the University’s research focus and collection priorities. Maryland and Michigan likewise mentioned the notion that collection importance determines what materials are chosen for deacidification.

Sue Kellerman said Penn State selects materials for deacidification from its circulating collection. Selected materials must be reasonably stable and weigh less than three pounds. They are then sent to the library binder for re-binding, which Kellerman said supports the suitability for deacidification and efficiency of the process. Yvonne Carignan (University of Maryland) remarked that the University’s deacidification decisions are made by committee, which has generated a lively discussion among library staff about the overall priority of one collection compared to another.

Continued...

1 | 2 | 3 | Next           Back to Case Studies