[PADG:1344] Re: [Joy Paulson <jp243@cornell.edu>: Cost-share Question]

["Kolb, Charles" <CKolb@xxxxxxx>]

To clarify Jan's question.  Preservation microfilming OR deacidification,
not both.  Minor repairs for books that would then be filmed OR books that
would be repaired but not filmed and placed back on the shelves. 

Charles C. Kolb
Senior Program Officer
National Endowment for the Humanities
Division of Preservation and Access, Room 411
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC  20506

ckolb@xxxxxxx

202/606-8250 (direct line with voice mail)
202/606-8570 (secretary)
202/606-8639 (FAX)

NEH Internet  http://www.neh.gov



-----Original Message-----
From: Joy Paulson [mailto:jp243@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 12:03 PM
To: padg@xxxxxxx
Subject: [PADG:1343] Re: [Joy Paulson <jp243@xxxxxxxxxxx>: Cost-share
Question]


That's a good question.  I think in practice that minor conservation
treatments
were also done on materials in the grant's subject area that needed
treatment
but not reformatting.  So, I was thinking that we would deacidify items that
were
on acidic paper but the paper was still strong.  It doesn't make sense to me
to deacidify a book with very brittle paper, since the paper has been
weakened,
and the deacidification process can't restore strength to the paper.  I'd
say
the library would either film or deacidify a book not both.  However, this
is 
something we should clarify with NEH.

Joy

At 11:40 AM 5/29/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>Joy --
>
>If I recall correctly, NEH allowed minor repair as a cost share
>specifically on the books being filmed, either to get them into good
>enough shape to be filmed or else to repair any damage caused by
>filming.  Is the idea with deacidification that a library would film
>and then deacidify the book?  Or, would the library decide to film OR
>deacidify a book?
>
>Janet
>                 ---------------
>
>Return-Path: <owner-padg@xxxxxxx>
>Received: from ala1.ala.org (ala1.ala.org [199.245.81.66])
>         by menyapa.cc.columbia.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26600
>         for <gertz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 29 May 2001 11:27:36 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from ala1.ala.org (popper@xxxxxxxxxxxx [199.245.81.66])
>         by ala1.ala.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with SMTP id KAA08373;
>         Tue, 29 May 2001 10:33:24 -0500 (CDT)
>Received: from postoffice2.mail.cornell.edu (postoffice2.mail.cornell.edu
[132.236.56.10])
>         by ala1.ala.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id KAA08117
>         for <padg@xxxxxxx>; Tue, 29 May 2001 10:30:36 -0500 (CDT)
>Received: from Proctor (proctor.mannlib.cornell.edu [128.253.78.147])
>         by postoffice2.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id
LAA24971
>         for <padg@xxxxxxx>; Tue, 29 May 2001 11:24:00 -0400 (EDT)
>Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20010529111925.00a4a630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>X-Sender: jp243@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Unverified)
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 
>Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 11:22:36 -0400
>To: padg@xxxxxxx
>From: Joy Paulson <jp243@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [PADG:1340] Cost-share Question
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Reply-To: padg@xxxxxxx
>Sender: owner-padg@xxxxxxx
>X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.09/990901/11:28 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
>
>I recently asked Charlie Kolb at NEH's Division of Preservation and
>Access about using mass deacidification as cost-share for NEH 
>sponsored reformatting projects.  His answer is below, and he has 
>given me permission to post it here.
>
>Joy Paulson
>
> >X-PH: V4.1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Cornell Modified) 
> >From: "Kolb, Charles" <CKolb@xxxxxxx>
> >To: "'jp243@xxxxxxxxxxx'" (Joy Paulson) <jp243@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Subject: Cost-share Question
> >Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 11:14:51 -0400
> >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
> >
> >Joy --  George, Jeff and I have discussed your inquiry.
> >
> >In response to your question "if participating libraries want to provide
> >cost-share, can they use mass deacidification for cost-share?"
> >The answer is yes.  
> >
> >Mass deacidification can, similar to minor conservation treatments, be
> >cost-shared by applicants to the NEH's Brittle Books Preservation
> >Microfilming grant program.  The rationale for mass deacidification and
the
> >criteria for selection should be specified in the application,
intellectual
> >copyrights adhered to, MARC records updated to reflect the treatment, and
> >the volume must be available for Interlibrary Loan (just as in
preservation
> >microfilming).  At this time because this is a "sole vendor" technology,
> >bids for services are not required but the applicant should provide
> >information about estimates costs and include a cost analysis in the
> >narrative report. 
> >
> >As you know, the per item "cap" on minor conservation treatments ($25.00
per
> >volume) was removed in 1999.  Since then minor treatments have averaged
> >about $28.50 per volume.  Based on data that we have available, the mass
> >deacidification process has been about $19.00 per volume including costs
for
> >MARC upgrades.
> >
> >Charlie      
> >  
> >
> >Charles C. Kolb
> >Senior Program Officer
> >National Endowment for the Humanities
> >Division of Preservation and Access, Room 411
> >1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
> >Washington, DC  20506
> >
> >ckolb@xxxxxxx
> >
> >202/606-8250 (direct line with voice mail)
> >202/606-8570 (secretary)
> >202/606-8639 (FAX)
> >
> >NEH Internet  http://www.neh.gov