1
Important

2
Somewhat important

3
Not important

4
Do not include in Regional facility

5
No opinion

1.  labeling

0%
0

17%
3

44%
8

39%
7

0%
0

2.  stiffening

0%
0

28%
5

44%
8

28%
5

0%
0

3.  pamphlet binding

0%
0

33%
6

28%
5

39%
7

0%
0

4.  commercial binding

0%
0

33%
6

28%
5

39%
7

0%
0

5.  gift processing (decontamination, sorting, storage including quarantine time)

17%
3

33%
6

22%
4

22%
4

6%
1

1

Establish a professional library of preservation and conservation publications and resources (available for borrowing/consultation). This could include videotapes and other AV materials. Back up this collection with a Web page with full-text of guides/handouts and links to useful sites.

2

I'm a bit unclear as to interpretation of #3 (not important) and #4 (do not include in regional facility). If one selects #3 not important presumably one would not likely use; don't know if #4 means it should not be included even for others to use. When I checked 4 I meant it should not be included at all. A 3 would mean unlikely use by GFU.

4

The survey is a good start at collecting information, but we would need to have a thorough discussion of these ideas before we made any program decisions. The responses are apt to be theoretical, and not necessarily respresent the library's intent to use these services if they were available. For example, a certified conservator sounds good, but in reality, the UO has made use of these services on a very limited basis. A follow-up survey could ask more direct questions such as: "To what extent are you currently supporting an in-house book repair program?" or "What portion of your existing collections might be appropriate for a mass deaccidification program?" Also, I'm not seeing the training aspects has having any connection to a RLSC.