UW System Home > Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries > Meetings

Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries

Minutes

Minutes

Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries

May 4, 2000

University of Wisconsin-La Crosse

Present: Faye Flesia, Kathy Pletcher, Jerry Rodesch, Jean Gilbertson, Kathy Schneider, Tom Peischl, Lorie Docken, Joe Jax, Anita Evans, Joyce Huang, Peter Watson-Boone, Winston Van Horne, Bryan Schwark (vice Paul Moriarty), Pat Wilkinson, Peter Gottlieb, Arne Arneson, Bob Carmack, Bob Rose, Christina Baum

Guests: Joan Robb, Dale Montgomery

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by CUWL Chair Carmack at 1:00 p.m.

Opening Remarks

Carmack welcomed CUWL members to UW-La Crosse and thanked Anita Evans and UW-La Crosse staff for their hospitality. Evans introduced Larry Lebiecki, Assistant Chancellor, UW-La Crosse who welcomed the group to La Crosse on behalf of Judy Kuipers, UW-La Crosse Chancellor. Mr. Lebiecki provided some basic information on the campus. Dale Montgomery, emeritus director of Murphy Library at UW-La Crosse also welcomed the group and made a few remarks. Evans provided some logistical information about the location of the next day’s meeting, the evening’s dinner, and the library tour scheduled for later that day.

Agenda Change

Carmack noted that the Resource Sharing Committee Report agenda item would be moved to the next to last item on the day’s agenda, since Ken Frazier was unable to attend the meeting until later in the day.

Approval of Minutes

It was moved (Peischl) and seconded (Evans) that the minutes of the meetings of February 9 and 10 be approved. Motion carried.

Nominating Committee Report

Bob Carmack presented the slate of nominees developed by the Nominating Committee. The Nominating Committee members were Carmack, Christina Baum, and Kathy Pletcher. The nominees were: Paul Moriarty for Vice Chair/Chair-Elect; Pat Wilkinson for Secretary; Anita Evans for Member at Large; and Ken Frazier, Arne Arneson, and Faye Flesia for WiLS Board members, representing the doctoral, comprehensive, and college libraries respectively.

Action: It was moved (Watson-Boone) and seconded (Jax) to accept the slate of candidates as presented. Motion carried unanimously.

CUWL Operating Procedures Revision

Peter Watson-Boone presented the committee (Watson-Boone, Evans, Flesia) recommendations for revision of the CUWL Operating Procedures. In addition to the changes noted on the previously distributed document, Watson-Boone noted the following additional changes. Under II.A.1, the wording would be changed to "The chief executive officer representing the library/libraries at the eleven comprehensive and two doctoral universities, or their designee" and that under V.C. the "s" should be dropped from the word "includes" in the second sentence. He added that the standing CUWL committees had been added to the document and the membership representation on the WiLS Board had been revamped. In discussion, Peischl asked if under II.B.2 that the word "System" be inserted before ITMC, to read "University of Wisconsin System ITMC." This change was made. Gilbertson asked if the UW-Extension representative was to be a person from the coop side or the distance education side of Extension. That is not clear at this point.

Action: Watson-Boone moved and Jax seconded approval of the CUWL Operating Procedures as revised.

In further discussion, Rose asked whether in III.D.8. the official name of the collection development group was Collection Development Committee or Collection Development Officers, as shown in the document. The name is Collection Development Committee and the wording will be changed. He also asked about IV.B.4, which indicates the alternates to WiLS will be the runners-up in the election since the election just held had been uncontested. Carmack noted that alternates would be appointed after adoption of the revised operating procedures. Carmack thanked the committee for its report.

Action: The revised CUWL Operating Procedures were adopted, as amended.

Watson-Boone asked if the operating procedures needed to be forwarded and/or approved at a higher level. Carmack responded that they needed to be forwarded, but not necessarily approved.

Disposal of Library Property

Carmack introduced the related topics of disposal of library property and FPPP 47, referring to Paul Moriarty’s e-mail message of March 2. The Executive Committee recommends that rather than adopting a uniform policy for disposal that would affect all campuses, that each campus dispose of materials consistent with local campus policy. FPPP 47 indicates how materials removed from collections are to be valued at average cost.

Peischl noted that it would be a lot of work to determine the original price of the book. Jax asked why we have to deal with this issue. Carmack noted that we each have to deal with internal auditors – do we want to try to adopt a system-wide policy or leave it to individual campuses? Watson-Boone asked if there was System pressure to resolve this issue and Pletcher noted that we don’t want to add to the cost of the withdrawal process.

Action: There was consensus to let this issue lie until or if we are asked to work specifically on it.

Schwark asked about the issue of a last copy policy, noting difficulties in weeding if there are no guarantees of a last copy in a UW library. Peischl referred to the last copy policy that had been adopted by CUWL and Joan Robb amplified that the policy referred to last copies of particular relevance to the state. Pletcher noted it was now at least very easy to check against Voyager for copies held elsewhere in the system.

Future of CDR

Carmack introduced the topic of the need and efficacy of the CDR, noting that Frank Goldberg’s office had okayed not doing it. Melissa Kepner’s main concern was that we be able to document foreign and domestic book purchases. Wilkinson asked for clarification of foreign versus domestic, which refers specifically to the imprint of the book. Schneider asked about the use of IPEDS and what occurs when data is needed about collections between IPEDS surveys. Rose noted he had been told that IPEDS was now going to be conducted on an annual basis, though library participation was going to be voluntary rather than mandatory. Huang expressed her belief that the CDR was more stable than IPEDS in terms of the information requested and definitions used. Gilbertson noted that Lou Pitschmann had also talked with Melissa Kepner and that she had agreed that Voyager data could replace CDR data. Robb relayed the concern of the CDC CDR subcommittee about dropping the CDR because that data was more consistent. Evans noted that we need to gather data for comparative purposes but that there must be an easier way of doing it than at present. Docken indicated she was unsure what System was currently doing with the data and Schneider asked how we could gather information in a systematic way without the CDR. Evans asked if we couldn’t do the IPEDS survey every year, whether required to or not and use that as a basis of comparative data. Baum asked what good the CDR was if the data presented in it was inaccurate. Carmack noted that we need some collective body of data – perhaps a cross between the CDR and IPEDS.

Watson-Boone asked if we can unilaterally get rid of the CDR. He recommended formation of a separate subcommittee to discuss this with System and to come up with a standard way to collect data. Peischl noted that we need the data among ourselves and Arneson indicated that we need one mechanism that is accurate. Docken asked of Schneider how WAICU handles this. Schneider replied that WAICU uses IPEDS data and also has one page of additional data. Pletcher noted that the CDR office at System is primarily concerned with enrollment management, etc., and the library CDR was originally used for such purposes as justifying building consturction. Evans expressed support for Watson-Boone’s idea but also liked the notion of a supplement to the CDR.

Action: Carmack appointed a subcommittee of Schneider, Docken, Peischl, and Moriarty to devise additional questions to those asked on the IPEDS form. IPEDS with these additional questions will replace the CDR.

Report of Committee on Access to Technology For Users With Disabilities

Joe Jax introduced this report as an informational item, noting that he had been appointed to a System committee to implement the recommendations of this committee. The committee report represents a declaration of the University of Wisconsin’s commitment to disabled persons. He noted in particular the sections of the report dealing with libraries, computing, and web accessibility.

Watson-Boone asked about the composition of the committee(s). Jax clarified that there were two separate committees. The current, implementation, committee is composed of Bob Jokisch, Joe Hisrich, Betsy West, Connie Wiersma, Gail Kettner, Joe Douglas, Greg Vanderhelden, and Bob Christiaansen. Watson-Boone also indicated that consideration should be made of what to do with/how to handle online exhibits. Arneson noted he was responsible on his campus for coordinating disability services and that Voyager is not Bobbie compliant. He has talked to Ed Van Gemert about this, who in turn has talked to Endeavor. He further noted that the new edition of Bobbie is stricter and that the issue of compliance statements on Web pages needs to be examined. Jax indicated the target date for the committee to develop its recommendations for implementation is the end of August. He distributed information about W3C and Arneson explained that there are four levels of W3C compliance. Information about W3C can be found at: www.w3c.org/WAI.

Customized Database Task Force

Rose reported on the work of the Customized Database Task Force. The task force has been expanded to include Ann Combs of the Health Sciences Libraries at UW-Madison. Preliminary lists of core journals for the various subject areas to be included in the database are due May 22 and the committee is hoping to meet to finalize that list in early June. A RFP or RFQ will be developed and once responses are received they will be shared with the CDC for its recommendation.

Digital Library Task Force

Jax reported on the work of the Digital Library Task Force, focusing on their "Wisconsiana Project Proposal," a joint venture of CUWL and UWSAC. He sees this a s possible digital library gateway and as an example of what could be done. Pletcher noted that at the November meeting there had been some some discussion of using Voyager for this purpose and asked how this project relates to that discussion. Jax responded that the project could be tied to Voyager if that contract option were exercised. He noted that the Task Force had not yet delved into the technical aspects of this proposal. Gottlieb expressed his approval of this project, noting that it has more potential for special legislative funding than other kinds of proposals. Wilkinson echoed Gottlieb’s sentiments and indicated his belief that such a project would be highly used in undergraduate education and would also help solve some preservation problems with frequently used documents. Peischl indicated his belief that we need to talk about the technology and the budget required for this project. Pletcher noted the project is very inclusive as designed and that she liked its cooperative nature.

Watson-Boone expressed the belief that the project could possibly be housed at UW-Madison and felt there was a lot of potential use for community users. Rodesch noted that as a teacher he really liked the concept but asked what kind of input potential users would have on the project content. Wilkinson suggested that history instructors be included as part of the group to make collection decisions. Gottlieb said this was a better proposal than the previous UWSAC proposal and that he had no objections to broadening its scope. His big concern is finding the resources and funding to accomplish the project. Jax noted the task force had decided they wouldn’t discuss funding until the concept was approved by CUWL. Docken believes that as a pilot project this is manageable and can be budgeted. Pletcher noted that Ed Meachen in previous discussions had indicated his support for pilot projects; once a budget is developed we should proceed with seeking funding sources.

Jax reported that the task force had asked Lorie Docken to work on a technical sub-group to examine technical issues surrounding the proposed project. That sub-group will include Lee Conrad from UW-Madison, someone from UWSAC, someone from the State Historical Society, and Barb Baruth from UW-Parkside. Some of the technical issues that need to be addressed include scanning technology, image editing, system architecture, access issues (including metadata issues), and integration with other library resources. Gilbertson described ways in which UW-Madison has been approaching digital projects. Docken noted that Endeavor is working on their Encompass feature which will be beta-tested at Cornell this summer. She also said she had talked to Ed Meachen about this project and that he encouraged the task force to continue its work. Pletcher expressed her concern about a potential lack of networking expertise on the sub-group. If CUWL members have additional names they would like to suggest as members of this sub-group, they should forward their suggestions to Docken or Jax. Docken, Pletcher, and Gottlieb stressed the usefulness of including faculty in the process of developing this project.

WiLS

Schneider reported that the COWL Executive Committee is meeting for the last time the following Wednesday. There are a few more papers to be filed with the state but she believes everything will be organized by July. The new Board is almost completely formed and the first annual WiLS membership meeting will be part of WILSWorld. She encouraged attendance at the membership meeting. She also noted that Endeavor is supporting the CLIO presentations and that the WILS office has been busy with licensing issues. A new person will be starting in WILS as of June 1 and will be focusing on OCLC issues. Carmack indicated that an arrangement for alternates to the WiLS Board will have be made to cover this year. Watson-Boone expressed his concerns about having another conference in the state which is seemingly becoming larger each year and to which more people will want to attend and the effects of such additional travel on libraries’ budgets. Pletcher thanked WILS for moving the conference to July.

CUWL Web Page

Carmack introduced the topic of a CUWL web page, and apologized to Chris Baum who had volunteered UW-RF services in creating such a page at the last CUWL Executive Committee meeting. At the spring meeting, Lorie Docken had been asked to investigate the possibility of creating a web page through OLIT. Docken presented an outline of potential content for that web page and asked for additional suggestions. Jax suggested the addition of charges for the standing committees and Arneson suggested adding historical CUWL minutes. Jax asked how far back the minutes should go; Arneson suggested as far back as possible. Gottlieb reminded members that UW-Madison serves as the archives for the UW system and that these minutes should reside there as well.

Pletcher asked if we should have a central web page from which all catalogs can be searched. This issue arose after the presentation to the Board of Regents. Carmack asked Docken and Dwayne Williams to look into this possibility and report back at the fall meeting. Docken also noted that a UWSA web page revision is under advisement. Schneider reported on a presentation by Brian Knight of WPTV on interactive HDTV. It will be possible to have icons to link to other resources and to heighten awareness it might be a possibility to have an icon to link to UW library sites.

Legislative Days

Camack noted that there is a perception that Legislative Day is geared more towards public libraries than academic libraries and that that might account for low attendance by academic librarians. Two suggestions made previously include scheduling a CUWL meeting preceding Legislative Day and having the Chair or Secretary send out reminder notices of the meeting, encouraging attendance. Schwark suggested encouraging members of faculty library committees to attend. Evans responded that that suggestion had been raised at the WLA Board meeting as did the idea of "virtual" attendance, i.e., sending e-mail messages to legislators on Legislative Day if an individual is unable to attend personally. Watson-Boone noted it is important enough to have people attend to make attendance structural – that is, to assign members to go on a rotational basis. Van Horne suggested it could be the prerogative of the chair to make those assignments.

Action: There was consensus to have CUWL members attend at least on a rotational basis.

Fall Joint Conference

Jax reported there would be a joint fall conference with the ITMC, EMTC, LTDC, etc. He noted this has not always been a jointly planned conference but he will be working with the incoming chair of the ITMC to ensure CUWL input into the planning process. Watson-Boone suggested that if the joint meeting was planned for later in the fall that CUWL might want to consider having a separate CUWL meeting prior to that date.

Meeting adjourned at approximately 4:15 p.m.

Minutes

Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries

May 5, 2000

University of Wisconsin-La Crosse

Present: Faye Flesia, Kathy Pletcher, Jerry Rodesch, Jean Gilbertson, Kathy Schneider, Tom Peischl, Lorie Docken, Joe Jax, Anita Evans, Joyce Huang, Peter Watson-Boone, Winston Van Horne, Bryan Schwark (vice Paul Moriarty), Pat Wilkinson, Arne Arneson, Bob Carmack, Bob Rose, Christina Baum, Ken Frazier

Guest: Ed Van Gemert, Steve Elfstrand, Joan Robb

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by Chair Carmack at 8:55 a.m.

Resource Sharing Committee Report

Schneider introduced the Resource Sharing Committee Report, noting that the principles section had been approved previously. Some aspects cannot be implemented until Universal Borrowing is in place and/or we see how things work. Frazier relayed some fears about UB at some UW-Madison libraries, especially Health Sciences and Law, in regards to the possibility of UW-Madison faculty being deprived access to locally held materials. He distributed a document outlining the concerns of library directors at Madison. Those concerns included the fact that a close reading of the document could mean that libraries would lose control of their local budgets. In a previous reading, it seemed possible that there would be a permanent commitment to non-returnables without any charges and some libraries simply cannot afford to do that. He pointed out that the directors’ response indicates a commitment to the concept of resource sharing.

In discussion, Evans suggested that some of these same concerns were probably present at Ohio State when OhioLink was implemented. Frazier noted that both Ohio State and the University of Illinois have benefited from resource sharing and have become net borrowers. He also indicated that most states have continued to have law, medical, and business libraries that have been very protective of their resources in regards to resource sharing. Rose noted that some of the concerns expressed by UW-Madison libraries were shared by other UW libraries, particularly those related to potential budgetary impacts. Peischl suggested we should move forward with the report recommendations and watch carefully for their impact. Huang expressed concern from Circulation staff about the lack of fines for loans and the fact that there are no limits on the number of items to be borrowed. Schwark agreed but raised particular concerns about not having limits and for allowing renewals. Watson-Boone asked if we were facing an early deadline for approving these policies and procedures. He is concerned about their impact, particularly on libraries with community arrangements – with local school districts, for example. He would like to try it, reserving the right to pull back if necessary and feels the need to approach this cautiously.

Van Horne noted in reference to item 3A in the Madison document that we are talking about a normative principle with empirical consequences. Do we want to maintain that principle or change the normative principle? Schneider replied that the key piece in the document is the principles. Pletcher noted the group has been committed to that principle since 1995-96. She is willing to accept the document even though it is not perfect and advocates adopting it as it stands and reviewing it at a later date.

Action: Pletcher moved (Peischl seconded) adoption of the Resource Sharing document.

In further discussion, Jax reiterated that the principles had already been approved and spoke in favor of the document’s adoption. Docken noted the committee recognized there were potential problems and for that reason included the recommendation of reviewing it in a year’s time. Rodesch asked if there wasn’t an implicit commitment to the state that this would occur when funding for the new system was sought. Schwark expressed his opinion that 3.C dealing with [no] limits on borrowing be removed.

Action: Schwark moved (Frazier seconded) removal of 3.C. from the document.

Pletcher asked why the committee had included this provision in the document. Schneider responded that the committee was not sure if it was technically possible for the system to monitor 26 separate locations. Jax added that distance education was also an issue and that placing limits could be a problem for DE students. Watson-Boone suggested we were looking at the document piecemeal and he would like to refer the document back to the committee.

Action: Watson-Boone moved (Van Horne seconded) referral of the Resource Sharing Committee report and the Madison document back to the Resource Sharing Committee. Motion failed.

Frazier expressed his support for the amendment. Wilkinson would not like to see the issues approached piecemeal and would favor voting against the amendment and referring the document back to the committee. Van Horne noted that there are always things one won’t like about a particular document and that the wisest course would be to refer back the document. Watson-Boone opined that this is not the best way for CUWL to operate and that he is not sure leaving out the statement regarding limits is the best way to provide protection for collections.

Action: Peischl called the question on the amendment. Amendment failed.

Action: Carmack closed debate on the motion itself. Motion accepted.

Carmack indicated the topic of research sharing will be on the agenda at a future meeting. Pletcher suggested we needed to conduct the beta test to get a better idea of its impact. Schneider requested CUWL consider naming the Curriculum librarians as an official committee view concerns and potential impacts on curricular collections. Frazier noted that curriculum collections pose particular problems for libraries that don’t allow materials to circulate locally. Wilkinson noted that educational materials are also a concern at Oshkosh. If we have accepted the document in principle, could we have a clearer timeline established of how the policies would be phased in? Carmack noted that implementation might be a year away. Robb noted the Green Bay collection is relatively small, that the materials are expensive, and that they will not hold up well under extensive circulation. Jax noted that all libraries have small collections that could be threatened but that we are in danger of splintering by taking parochial viewpoints. Frazier pointed out that CUWL needs to understand that Jo Ann Carr and the other curriculum librarians are trying to work things out and that their efforts should be supported. Schneider asked if the group had CUWL’s blessing to proceed, couldn’t their actions serve as a model for other groups with particular needs or concerns? Peischl asked what Carr is seeking. Schneider responded that she is seeking the authority to have the group deal with the issues on an official basis. Peischl contended that the group should be doing this anyway. Watson-Boone noted a problem for UW-Milwaukee with the inclusion of videotapes. Schneider asked again if a committee could be appointed.

Action: Frazier moved (Arneson seconded) to appoint the curriculum librarians as an official CUWL committee.

In discussion, Pletcher suggested the committee needed a specific charge.

Action: Previous motion withdrawn. Consensus to appoint Curriculum Librarians as a subcommittee of the Resource Sharing Group.

In additional discussion, Wilkinson noted that this project will entail a lot of work solving common problems and that perhaps we should start "smaller" with the main circulating collections. Peischl indicated there would be problems if one campus lends particular kinds of materials but another doesn’t. He recommended further involvement of circulation librarians in this process.

Schneider also distributed current statistics on the direct interlibrary loan program. Removing the fee barriers during the second semester experiment has not made a significant difference in lending patterns.

Frazier noted that he had shared an earlier version of the resource sharing document with the Provost at UW-Madison who had seen the then proposed resource sharing mode as a source of possible campus contention. There was a concern expressed that should problems arise that librarians would solve those problems themselves rather than pass along the conflicts to administration. Watson-Boone stated that this relates to such issues of blocking, that are not yet resolved. Pletcher indicated her belief that there is an underlying assumption that we will deal with problems that are caused by our own statements.

NetLibrary

Frazier introduced the topic of a NetLibrary purchase, indicating that UW-Madison was resolved to go forward with NetLibrary one way or the other. Formerly, he had not liked the NetLibrary model but came to realize that like it or not this has enough momentum that we need to deal with it. Madison is looking at a one-time purchase as a pilot project. He asked if we would leverage this investment and share in the expense; can we do this and have it in place for the fall? Wilkinson provided some information on the Oshkosh experience where they felt they had to do this, particularly to support DE students. He believes that if the details can be worked out, it would be a worthwhile system purchase. Robb noted that as part of the remaining funds for 99-00, the CDC was recommending that $50,000 be spent on NetLibrary, with Madison doing the initial selection. Jax asked why Madison was doing the initial selection and why other campuses were not involved. Robb responded that while Madison would start the selection process, the other campuses would have input. Wilkinson added this was the same approach taken when Marquette did the initial selection for the NetLibrary Academic Consortium. Docken noted that 10,000 plus titles are available through NetLibrary and that Madison had agreed to do the initial selection to expedite the process. Peischl asked if the campuses hadn’t been invited to participate in the NetLibrary Academic Consortium. Schneider replied that they had been invited, that the consortium ended up with 13 libraries participating. They paid by FTE and initially ordered 500 titles. The consortium hopes that the UW libraries will join it but she noted that $50,000 is insufficient for that purpose.

Frazier stated that $50,000 was enough for an experiment but not enough to join the consortium. Baum asked for clarification as to who would have access for that $50,000. The answer was all UW students. Docken reported that the CDC had not had enough time to investigate fully all the issues. She noted there were two decision points: for $50,000 a UW libraries consortium could be formed to which all campuses could have access, and whether or not the UW libraries wanted to join the NAC. Frazier indicated that from the Madison point of view it was a question of UW-Madison joining the NAC by itself or leveraging available dollars for the UW libraries to join. Peischl stated that we need to look at the whole of the CDC’s recommendations rather than just this part.

Evans asked for clarification on whether the $50,000 included consortium membership. Pletcher believes we ought to leverage available dollars by joining the consortium and that she liked the project. She inquired about the implementation timeline. Jax stated that we needed to look at the overall fiscal implications of this decision, particularly since only one user at a time can access the material in the collection. Docken suggested that there was another, additional approach which would be to take additional money out of the 2000-01 budget to put towards a consortium membership. Frazier stated that Madison wanted a decision-making process that would determine that the resources would be available for the next academic year. Pletcher asked if we needed to spend the $50,000 by June 30. Docken replied that it could be carried over to the next fiscal year.

Action: Pletcher moved (Jax seconded) postponement of a decision on NetLibrary until the CDC provides a report that more thoroughly examines this issue. Motion carried.

CDC Report

Joan Robb reported on CDC actions, including the CDC’s recommendations for expending $140,000 of 99-00 monies and $589,000 from the 00-01 budget. She indicated that the campuses had all received favorable reactions to the subscriptions that had been placed with the additional money made available by the DIN. For the remainder of this year’s money, the CDC is recommending a subscription to E*Subscribe, the Web of Science backfile, and the Grove Art Online. Frazier asked which of these recommendations represented on-going costs. Answer: E*Subscribe and the Grove.

Action: Rose moved (Evans seconded) approval of the CDC recommendations for 99-00 expenditures.

Gilbertson noted that Madison had already bought the Web of Science backfile, but she was told that had been taken care of. Baum expressed concern about the Wilson databases not being included and asked how CUWL as a body felt about that. Pletcher agreed with the CDC’s recommendations and likes the idea of using new funding for new resources. Schwark noted that Platteville supports the inclusion of Wilson databases from System funding sources. Robb responded that the full-text content of Wilson is low, that there is considerable overlap with other sources, and that some campuses have seen declining usage of Wilson databases. She noted that there would be no cost savings with a System purchase and that it was important to maximize System funds. Frazier asked if the strategy for including Wilson databases from system funds was an effort to transfer system funds back to local campuses. In further discussion, Peischl asked for clarification of the simultaneous user fees for Web of Science. Docken clarified that each campus pays for the number of simultaneous users they want, at a cost of $1,000 per year per user. Jax noted that it would have been helpful to have received a copy of the CDC recommendations prior to the meeting. Peischl expressed concern about the ongoing costs for the Grove resource and Frazier noted that this could be a very expensive source for this type of resource. He also suggested we hear the rest of the CDC’s report.

Robb continued with her report, outlining the CDC recommendations for sources to be paid with funds from next year’s budget. The CDC recommends continuing subscriptions for Statistical Universe and Academic Universe. For new items, they recommend subscribing to the OED, the McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Grove’s Opera, Columbia Earthscape, and the CCH Tax Database if campus fees for the latter resource are reduced. They are not recommending the J-Stor science backfile, the Wilson databases, Britannica Online, or Ulrich’s Plus 2. Under future consideration is the Grove’s Dictionary of Music. The CDC also discussed the multiple vendor book bid and developed recommendations for priorities for cataloging items from aggregator databases, as follows: Ebsco Academic, Proquest, and Academic Universe.

Van Horne asked if there was any need to use the OED online, the thought of going to the Internet for access to the OED is alien to him. Huang noted that faculty response to a trial subscription was favorable. Peischl suggested that from the available information that it appeared there was only $254,000 left to be spent from next year’s budget. Docken clarified that there was actually $589,000 unallocated. Pletcher recommended that at its June meeting the CDC look at the totality of the 00-01 budget and report back at the fall CUWL meeting. Frazier asked that the CDC make summary information of its recommendations available prior to the meeting and that it also provide summary information concerning the use of these resources. Rodesch emphasized that for the Humanities, the OED is very important. Van Horne noted that there were dangers in taking a piecemeal approach in examining such committee recommendations.

Action: Motion to approve the CDC recommendations (less the NetLibrary recommendation, on which deferred action was previously approved) carried.

Action: Van Horne moved (Rodesch seconded) approval of the CDC recommendations for expenditures from the 00-01 budget. Motion carried.

Frazier indicated he would welcome receipt of inflationary information from the CDC and would encourage incremental increases as part of the biennial budgets.

UW System Book Bid

Docken introduced the topic of a system-wide book bid contract, and distributed a supplement to the document previously distributed. This is the result of an audit recommendation for a more competitive procurement process. The CDC is recommending approval of the document. Docken noted that the changes concerned making the contract cover a longer term and adding information about approval plans.

Action: Pletcher moved (Wilkinson seconded) to approve the document, as amended.

Watson-Boone asked for clarification on the approval plan inclusion. Docken responded that it was covered under section 32.

Action: Motion approved.

Endeavor Implementation

Van Gemert and Docken reporting on continuing issues with Endeavor implementation. Van Gemert announced that interviews for David J. Ward’s position would be conducted the following week. He suggested the possibility of inviting the successful candidate to next fall’s meeting. In terms of the contract review process, he suggested that it was important to have such meetings scheduled with Endeavor on a regular basis and for the foreseeable future. There have been concerns expressed about the takeover of Endeavor but he noted that maintenance charges had been prepaid for five years.

Docken reported on the Universal Borrowing meeting. She noted some potential problems and reported that Universal Borrowing will function at the database level rather than at the circulation level as had been previously thought. She reported that Eau Claire and Stout had volunteered to be beta sites for UB and that La Crosse was considering volunteering. Rose asked if this would be a sufficient number; Van Gemert responded that Endeavor was suggesting that 3-5 campuses be beta sites. She also reported on Endeavor’s Universal Catalog that the University of Georgia system is currently beta testing. That function can be viewed at: http://giluc.gsu.edu/. The UC consists of a de-duped database of bib records from a group of libraries. Docken also summarized the Universal Borrowing recommendations of the LATF OPAC Committee. The group investigated simultaneous searching capabilities in preparation for the implementation of UB. They discovered that there are problems with the functionality of simultaneous searching, including journal titles not being currently available (though they will be with 2000 release), truncated subject searching, and limits and call number browsing not being available. Universal Catalog is also not without problems. The group is recommending that the UW libraries continue their plan to implement UB using simultaneous searching. They are also recommending that the Universal Catalog not be considered for purchase at this time.

CUWL recognized and thanked the group for its efforts.

Van Gemert continued with his report, reminding members that the upcoming Voyager release should be available in July, 2000. Four days of training, consisting of half-day sessions, are being scheduled. He reported that the hub site group costs have been approved for the next year and that the hub has been working well. He distributed a handout on and described the security services that can be provide by DoIT. These are the same as DoIT is providing the hub. If campuses want to avail themselves of this option, they should contact Dave Lawver at DoIT. He also noted that Endeavor has put up some security web pages.

Docken reported that the expanded courier delivery service appears to be going well. If anyone has comments on the service, they should send them to her.

Docken also reported that around $500,000 from the Library Automation Project remains unallocated. She noted that the United Council had presented a request to the Board of Regents asking for additional money for libraries for print resources. Pletcher asked if any CUWL members had been contacted by United Council regarding their request; no one had been contacted. Peischl asked if some of the unallocated money could be used to help out beta test sites as some libraries had not volunteered because of the potential budgetary impact of that process. This appears to be a possibility.

Frazier brought up the issue of incremental increases for materials budgets. It will be too late to accomplish anything in this biennium if we wait until fall. He urged the directors to explain to their administrations the need for additional money. Pletcher suggested that it is almost too late now to do anything as the Regents will work on their budget priorities at their June meeting. Van Horne agreed, noting that the students are out front on this issue just as they were forty years ago. He recommended consideration of support for the students’ efforts, saying that at the least CUWL should pass a resolution of support for the students. Frazier believes it is not too late and that we might be successful. Jax supported Van Horne’s idea, believing we should strongly endorse the United Council resolution.

Action: Jax moved (Van Horne seconded) that CUWL endorse the United Council resolution for additional money for UW libraries’ collections.

Evans asked if the notion of incremental increases could also be included in the endorsement of support. Van Horne suggested it would be better to keep it simple. Watson-Boone said it was an powerful argument that the students were making to seek funding for the balance of the original DIN. Frazier supported Van Horne’s suggestion but believes it could lead into the idea of incremental increases. Pletcher supports the students’ efforts and believes that any such CUWL indication of support should be copied to the United Council, the Chancellors, and the Provosts. Docken pointed out again that the United Council resolution specifically cited print resources. The consensus of the group was to go with that recommendation.

Action: The question was called and the motion approved.

The question was raised about the incremental budget issues.

Action: Peischl moved (Pletcher seconded) that Chair Carmack work with Ken Frazier on inclusion of incremental budget increases in their communications with the various constituencies. Motion carried.

Note: See attachments for resulting documents.

Miscellaneous Items

Carmack led the group in acknowledging Ken Frazier’s receipt of the Hugh C. Atkinson Memorial Award. Applause ensued.
Carmack recognized the work and contributions of Jerry Rodesch and Peter Martin as faculty representatives and thanked them for their contributions to CUWL.
Carmack deferred discussion of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act until the next meeting and noted the upcoming teleconference in which Ken Frazier will be the primary presenter.
Watson-Boone asked if members were aware of the fact that WEAC had dropped the word Objective from the job-title, "Librarian-Objective"

Meeting Continued

Action: Watson-Boone moved (Van Horne seconded) to stop the clock in order to continue past the scheduled ending time of the meeting. Motion carried.

Access to Journals in Aggregated Databases

Steve Elfstrand reported on behalf of the CUWL committee that has been working on the issue of providing enhanced access to journals in aggregated databases. The issue of providing such access is very complex and has a number of possible solutions that range from full cataloging to creating Web lists of holdings. Both approaches have significant advantages and disadvantages. Elfstrand began to outline some of the pros and cons of each.

Frazier asked why the committee was doing this work if it is unlikely that cataloging journals in databases will ever occur. He asked why this information was being provided when it had been provided previously. Elfstrand responded that he was trying to provide the context to a very complex issue. Elfstrand was asked to "cut to the chase."

Elstrand touched on the possibilities of creating journal lists on the Web and the use of relational databases. He described the possible creation of a shared electronic journals database in which each campus could be responsible for maintaining holding for a particular database. Elfstrand was asked if the committee was making any specific recommendations at this time or if he was making an informational report. Elfstand replied that the committee was still doing its investigation and that this was an informational report.

Wilkinson spoke to the possibility of a database if it could be jointly maintained.

Action: Watson-Boone moved (Peischl seconded) to thank the committee for its work and to refer the subject to the Library Automation Managers for solutions that are technologically based.

Pletcher spoke against the motion, suggesting that costs should be analyzed before any decision is made. Frazier spoke to the motion, seeking a collaborative maintained list of journals. Wilkinson suggested that it may not increase work across the system since so many campuses are already working on similar kinds of projects.

Action: Motion carried.

Miscellaneous Items

Carmack thanked Elfstrand and the committee for their work.
Carmack recognized Faye Flesia for her contributions to CUWL, noting this was her last meeting as the Colleges’ representative.
Schwark thanked the group for allowing him to participate.
Carmack thanked Anita Evans and the UW-La Crosse staff for hosting the meeting.

Meeting adjourned at approximately 12:35.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Rose, Secretary

May 12, 2000

Dr. Katharine C.Lyall

President, University of

Wisconsin System

1720 Van Hise Hall

1220 Linden Drive

Madison, WI 53706

Dear President Lyall:

As Chair of the Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries (CUWL), and on their behalf, I write to urge the University of Wisconsin System Administration to consider seriously the enclosed Resolution. This Resolution was adopted by the CUWL at their meeting at UW-La Crosse on May 5, 2000.

The University of Wisconsin Libraries are grateful for the $7.3 million for acquisitions and enhanced resource sharing during the current biennium as it certainly addressed a decade of neglect. Unfortunately, the reality is that without additional funding in subsequent biennia the University of Wisconsin Libraries will soon face the same problems they encountered before this budget increase. To maximize the value of this funding and the investment in the quality of education it represents for UW System students there is a distinct need for continuing increases. Such funding will not only provide additional library resources for our students but also provide libraries a mechanism to address annual inflationary costs for both print and electronic information that UW Libraries purchase on a continuing basis such as journal and database subscriptions.

The Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries unanimously and enthusiastically endorses the request of the United Council for $4.7 million to complete the funding request of $12 million in the current 1999-2001 biennium. It is important to note that this is an initiative coming from the students. The students themselves recognize the value of having adequate collections of library resources to assure, and enhance, the quality of their education. At the same time, CUWL recognizes that, without an annual infusion of incremental funding, we will not be able to sustain the buying power of these budgetary resources. Without funding to offset inflationary and increased costs for information, regardless of format, libraries in the UW System, very soon, will be back in the unfortunate situation that they were before this biennium increase. With annual increases of 8-10% in the costs of information, it will not be long at all before libraries have to revert to a maintenance mode rather than acquiring, and keeping up, with new information. This would be a sad situation for our students.

CUWL encourages you, as President of the University of Wisconsin System, to support the request of the United Council and to work with the Board of Regents in bringing it to reality. At same time, CUWL asks that you and the System work with the Board of Regents to seek annual, incremental monies to sustain a level of purchasing power that will maximize the availability of information to students in the University of Wisconsin System.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Bob Carmack

Chair, CUWL

Director, Jim Dan Hill Library

University of Wisconsin Superior

Cc: David J. Ward, Senior Vice-President for Academic Affairs

Kathleen Sell, Associate Vice-President, Budget/Planning

Ed Meachen, Associate Vice-President for Learning and

Information Technology

COUNCIL OF UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN LIBRARIES

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS libraries are integral to the quality of education provided by the University of Wisconsin and,

WHEREAS libraries within the University of Wisconsin System acknowledge, with great gratitude, the funding provided in the biennium 1999-2001 and,

WHEREAS the costs of information provided by libraries continues to escalate and,

WHEREAS the libraries within the University of Wisconsin System received only partial funding of the full request and,

WHEREAS the need for an annual increment to offset inflation and the rising costs of providing information was not included in the funding allocated to the University of Wisconsin System,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries (CUWL) wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support the request of the United Council to maintain current funding for UW System Libraries and to increase funding by $4.7 million and,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries (CUWL) request funding on an annual incremental basis in order to provide, and sustain, a level of purchasing power in the acquisition of information and,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be sent to the President of the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents and the President of the University of Wisconsin System.

Unanimously adopted by CUWL at its meeting at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, May 5, 2000.

May 12, 2000

The Honorable San W. Orr Jr.

President, University of

Wisconsin Board of Regents

P. O. Box 65

Wausau, WI 54402-0065

Dear President Orr:

As Chair of the Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries (CUWL), and on their behalf, I write to urge the Board of Regents to consider seriously the enclosed Resolution. This Resolution was adopted by the CUWL at their meeting at UW-La Crosse on May 5, 2000.

The Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries unanimously and enthusiastically endorses the request of the United Council for $4.7 million to complete the funding request of $12 million in the current 1999-2001 biennium. It is important to note that this is an initiative coming from the students. The students themselves recognize the value of having adequate collections of library resources to assure, and enhance, the quality of their education. At the same time, the CUWL recognizes that, without an annual infusion of incremental funding, we will not be able to sustain the buying power of these budgetary resources. Without funding to offset inflationary and increased costs for information, regardless of format, libraries in the UW System, very soon, will be back in the unfortunate situation that they were ten years ago. With annual increases of 8-10% in the costs of information, it will not be long at all before libraries have to revert to a maintenance mode rather than acquiring, and keeping up, with new information. This would be a sad situation for our students.

CUWL encourages the Board of Regents, working with President Katharine Lyall and the University of Wisconsin System, to support the request of the United Council. At same time, CUWL asks the Board to seek annual, incremental monies to sustain a level of purchasing power that will maximize the availability of information to students in the University of Wisconsin System.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Bob Carmack

Chair, CUWL

Director, Jim Dan Hill Library

University of Wisconsin Superior

Cc: President Katharine Lyall, President, UW-System

COUNCIL OF UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN LIBRARIES

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS libraries are integral to the quality of education provided by the University of Wisconsin and,

WHEREAS libraries within the University of Wisconsin System acknowledge, with great gratitude, the funding provided in the biennium 1999-2001 and,

WHEREAS the costs of information provided by libraries continues to escalate and,

WHEREAS the libraries within the University of Wisconsin System received only partial funding of the full request and,

WHEREAS the need for an annual increment to offset inflation and the rising costs of providing information was not included in the funding allocated to the University of Wisconsin System,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be sent to the President of the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents and the President of the University of Wisconsin System.

Unanimously adopted by CUWL at its meeting at the University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse, May 5, 2000.

Search UW System

Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries

Minutes