[PADG:1347] Re: [Joy Paulson <jp243@cornell.edu>: Cost-share Question]

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

REMINDER: The Michigan project involves a Special Collection rather than
Brittle Books Preservation Microfilming.

-----Original Message-----
From: Carla J. Montori [mailto:cmontori@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 12:40 PM
To: padg@xxxxxxx
Subject: [PADG:1346] Re: [Joy Paulson <jp243@xxxxxxxxxxx>: Cost-share
Question]


Michigan received an NEH project award in this go 'round, in which the mass 
deacidification of titles from the target collection is a significant 
source of cost share.  We will convert brittle materials and photographic 
originals, and mass d other volumes.

--On Tuesday, May 29, 2001 12:02 PM -0400 Joy Paulson <jp243@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

> 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