Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries
Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries
November 8, 1999, 1:00 – 4:45 p.m.
Heidel House, Green Lake, WI
Present: Hsi-Ping Shao, Christina Baum, Ken Frazier, Tom Peischl, Joyce Huang, Anita Evans, Barb Baruth, Paul Moriarty, Faye Flesia, Patrick Wilkinson (for John Berens), Kathy Pletcher, Joe Jax, Arne Arneson, Jerry Rodesch, Kathy Schneider, Peter Watson-Boone, Winston Van Horne, Michael Edmonds, Lorie Docken, Bob Carmack, Ken Grant, Jean Gilbertson, Bob Rose
- Introduction, Announcements, and Approval of Minutes
- Strategic Directions for 99-00
- Customized Database of Electronic Journals Task Force
- Revised library support for distance education
- Consideration of UW System Cataloging Outsourcing Contract
- COWL Governance Change Proposal
- Revision of CUWL Operating Procedures Committee
- Strategic Directions for 1999-2000
The meeting was called to order by CUWL Chair Bob Carmack at 1:00 p.m.
Bob Carmack announced several possible changes to the order of the agenda.
It was moved (Pletcher), and seconded (Evans) to approve the minutes of the CUWL meeting of April 23, 1999. Motion carried.
Kathy Pletcher inquired about the item in the April 23 minutes concerning the library system name. Ken Frazier reported that the issue had been discussed by David J. Ward with the Vice Chancellors, that it was not considered a priority, and that all of the names forwarded were already trademarked, which presents certain problems. It was decided that this issue will be placed on the Executive Committee agenda.
Those present introduced themselves.
Ken Frazier asked that this agenda item be moved closer to the Resource Sharing agenda item. Discussion deferred.
Bob Carmack introduced the topic, indicating that the task force was being proposed in response to several CUWL members’ previously expressed interest in the California State University project, though he indicated that this would be different from the CSU model. He asked that the proposed charge and membership be reviewed.
In discussion, Joyce Huang expressed concern about the effectiveness of the California model and indicated the CDC was preparing a composite list of full-text titles in currently subscribed to databases. Joe Jax indicated he sees this as an opportunity to take the initiative and do something unique in support of the curriculum. Other comments and questions centered on such issues as the relationship of this task force to the issue of shared electronic resources, whether the task force would be looking at technical platform issues, whether it would be useful to have a member of LAM as a member of the task force, and whether this would be centrally funded. Tom Peischl recommended holding off on the funding issue until the task force had the opportunity to do some of its work.
Motion: Joe Jax moved and Tom Peischl seconded formation of this task force.
Additional discussion: Lorie Docken explained that the CDC was interested in taking a different approach, i.e., to contract for access to the journals of particular publishers. Other issues raised included the parameters of the committee’s work, whether teaching and research concerns were being intentionally excluded because of the specific mention of curricular support in the draft charge, and whether this was intended as a core collection. Tom Peischl asked if we were not simply putting obstacles in the way of the task force and if it should not be allowed to do its work.
Action: The motion to form the task force was approved unanimously.
Membership of the task force was amended to include Lorie Docken, one of the LAMs, and Joan Robb as chair of the CDC and to fill one of the collection development/serial librarian slots. Suggestions for additional members of the task force are being solicited.
Joe Jax introduced the proposed revision of the UW System Policy on Library Support for Distance Education, Extended Education Students and Faculty, indicating that the committee that worked on the revision carefully reviewed the ACRL guidelines for distance education approved in 1998 when developing its suggested revisions.
Paul Moriarty expressed concerns about the reserve provisions in 4.0 and the possible erosion of fair use rights if such a procedure were followed. Ken Frazier noted that the Copyright Office strongly recommended that non-profit organizations fall under fair use in its study of distance education issues, called for in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Joe Jax asked if the URL for the DMCA could be included in the document; Ken Frazier indicated he would supply the URL. Jerry Rodesch pointed out that there was no specific reference made to provision of services to disabled users, following up on the points raised in the morning’s general session. Peter Watson-Boone noted the inconsistent use of the word "reserve" in this document. Kathy Pletcher stated that the problems may come from the first document that outlined the policy. Ken Frazier suggested alternate language, such as "Every effort should be made to make reserve materials available to distant learners."
Peter Watson-Boone noted the existence of the document, "Digital Dilemma: Intellectual Property in the Digital Age," at www.nationalacademies.org and recommended that members present read it. Kathy Schneider suggested that in 3.0 the language should be changed to "provide" identification to "present" identification since much of this service will now be provided virtually. She also asked about courses being offered with students from a number of campuses and in such cases, which libraries have responsibility for providing library services; there needs to some kind of coordinated effort. Other questions raised included the issue of multiple instructors (from different campuses) for a single course. His-Ping Shao suggested dropping the word "originating" from the opening section to reduce confusion. Ken Frazier noted that the final sentence of 4.0, as written, is unacceptable. Paul Moriarty suggested substituting such language as "respect for copyright and fair use," and "system-wide policies with respect to copyright will need to be developed in these cases."
Action: Kathy Pletcher moved and Arne Arneson seconded approval of the revised policy document with revisions as discussed in the meeting. Motion carried.
Joe Jax introduced this topic, noting that the role of technical services is changing and it is time to look at changing roles within the library. Outsourcing cataloging efforts may allow libraries to reallocate their efforts to provide more direct support for other [public] services.
General interest was expressed in exploring this idea. Paul Moriarty asked about the relationship to the interim report on system work with book vendors. Several examples of libraries that are outsourcing parts of their cataloging and processing efforts (UW-Milwaukee, University of Vermont, University of Arizona) were noted. In some of these cases, libraries are receiving shelf-ready books from their vendors. Sensing consensus, Bob Carmack indicated that exploration of this type of catalog outsourcing would be incorporated into the charge of the CDC subcommittee working on implementation of competitive bidding practices. The composition of that subcommittee will be reviewed to include catalogers as well as collection development librarians.
Among the issues to be considered in relationship to the changed COWL governance are the procedures for electing CUWL/UW libraries’ representatives to COWL’s successor and related CUWL governance issues.
Kathy Schneider explained that with the changed governance of COWL, representatives to that body will now be from the WILS-member UW libraries rather than from CUWL. There will be three people representing from between 36-39 libraries rather than representing the CUWL membership. Bob Carmack suggested that finding nominees for the three representatives of the UW libraries should be handled as part of the spring nomination process but that the voting list be expanded to include other UW libraries. There was general consensus to follow this process, but further discussion ensued.
In response to Kathy Pletcher’s request for further explanation, Kathy Schneider indicated that there will now be a smaller board which means representation from CUWL/UW libraries will be reduced to three. However, there will be more libraries represented by those three board members than there are CUWL members. Kathy Pletcher asked if the changes mean that the UW representatives no longer represent CUWL and if so, why would CUWL be responsible for nominating them? Although this is an awkward process, Peter Watson-Boone indicated his belief that the nominating process was probably still best done through CUWL. Chris Baum asked if the nominating committee should not also represent other UW libraries, rather than just CUWL members. Ken Frazier noted that this problem is no different from the one faced by some UW-Madison libraries in terms of CUWL governance. Some Madison libraries are larger than some campus libraries. An additional problem he noted is that under this scenario it would be possible to have no Madison representatives at all. Anita Evans suggested the possibility of specifying the composition of the UW representatives, possibly one from Madison or Milwaukee, one at large, one from CUWL. Bob Carmack asked the groups its preference on trying to resolve this at the meeting or referring it to Peter’s committee.
Decision: Matter of electing UW representatives is referred to Peter Watson-Boone’s committee on revising CUWL governance procedures, with instructions to that committee to bear in mind the points raised in this CUWL discussion.
Peter Watson-Boone has agreed to chair this committee. Two or three volunteers or nominees are needed to look at and revise these procedures; Anita Evans and Faye Flesia volunteered to serve on the committee. The revisions will be completed by the spring meeting. Peter asked that ideas concerning the issue of CUWL/UW representation (see item 6) be e-mailed to him.
Ken Frazier introduced the revised Strategic Directions document and led the group in a brief review of the vision and strategic directions sections. A new strategic direction has been added, at the suggestion of Joe Jax, dealing with Equitable Collection Access. Ken asked the group, as they go down the list, to ask what we are doing about various items. He also asked the group to consider whether we need a new document or new approach. A spirited discussion ensued.
Barb Baruth noted the electronic reserves direction and asked about its relationship to the fact that many faculty are now mounting articles in support of their classes on WebCT or other courseware. Ken responded that this was an important issue to discuss but saw it in the libraries’ interest to support such efforts as part of electronic reserves, given the current questioning of libraries’ futures. Winston Van Horne asked who was questioning libraries’ futures, to which Ken noted the significant cuts experienced by research libraries in Australia and Canada and the pervasive notion that everything is on the Internet. Generally, decision-makers are becoming less supportive of libraries. Winston noted global expectations that at least at the level of graduate education that there will be no decline in library resources in the U.S. Ken feels that if we give up electronic reserves to WebCT and the like that we may lose support from one of our consituencies. Peter Watson-Boone noted that we may be in a transitional period in terms of electronic reserves and that if faculty want to mount articles, we can’t prevent it. Paul Moriarty commented that pursuing electronic reserves makes sense but expressed his concern about copyright questions and the fact that the comprehensives don’t have legal staffs to provide advice in this matter. Anita Evans suggested that there should be an overarching strategic direction of the library being the primary portal to information.
Bob Carmack asked if this document should be limited to 1999-2000 or if it should be longer-term. There was general consensus that it should be longer-term.
Barb Baruth asked about Ed Meachen’s comments in the morning session about a copyright clearance center. Ken Frazier responded that there will be a meeting about this within a month and that he has serious concerns. Lorie Docken noted that the copyright clearance center to which reference had been made dealt with the issue of copyright clearance for items posted on web sites. Ken’s position is that if and when copyrighted items are used on commercial web sites, copyright permission is necessary but that the notion of creating a center for the protection of intellectual property is problematic. Jerry Rodesch suggested that copyright issues are adequately covered by the strategic directions.
Pat Wilkinson noted that the strategic direction for equitable access may be helpful when dealing with System offices but suggested it would be helpful to include a strategic direction dealing with staff development. Ken Frazier indicated he had taken the issue of resource sharing to the Library Coordinating Council at UW-Madison and that the document has been strongly criticized in terms of the equal access issue. He cited particular examples of difficulties faced by and with the UW Law Library, CIMC, and Health Sciences libraries and noted we need to develop language that will move us in the right direction without "inciting a war." Joe Jax commented that the argument that the UW libraries represent one source for all the University of Wisconsin was an impetus for new funding and that if we don’t take leadership in this regard, all will have been in vain. Jean Gilbertson noted that her perception of the Council meeting was more positive than Ken’s and that the member librarians were being honest in expressing their concerns about potential workloads. Bob Rose suggesting dropping the word uniform from the Equitable Access direction since that seemed to be a red flag to people. Joe Jax responded that "uniformity" is a matter of semantics and that we need to bring this document into conformity with the Resource Sharing Document.
Ken stated his concern that we are not doing enough in terms of creating new knowledge resources that would support the public outreach strategic direction. He suggested that there are many resources unique to the UW libraries that could be part of a Wisconsin Digital Library. Michael Edmonds noted DPI’s interest in facilitating the mounting of such resources on a state-wide portal. Pat Wilkinson pointed out that the ARCs are working on a grant to digitize materials.
Bob Carmack restated his question concerning the time period to be covered by the document. Winston Van Horne suggested that it go to 2005. The group agreed. He also suggested replacing the word "uniform" with the word "common."
Additional suggestions or comments were made that: copyright should be left as part of the "control costs" direction (Watson-Boone); the image server is related to the issue of the digital library and that any such efforts to develop it should be collaborative (Kathy Schneider); that the direction concerning complete online catalog access should be expanded to include enhanced access to the catalog at the comprehensives (Anita Evans); and that we needed to include a strategic direction on staff development (Kathy Pletcher). Lorie Docken noted that there were system performance issues related to the first direction.
9. CUWL Resource Sharing Report
Kathy Schneider introduced the Resource Sharing Policy and Plans report of the CUWL
Resource Sharing Group. She noted that the Planning Assumptions and Resource Sharing Principles were previously approved by CUWL. The original idea was to have these policies and procedures in place at the beginning of the second semester, but not everything included in the document is even possible to do at this point.
In discussion, Kathy Pletcher asked about the policy of not fining remote, direct borrowers, a matter of some controversy within committee deliberations. It was explained that this policy was adopted from a practicality standpoint (i.e., the difficulty of [obtaining] the fine money from delinquent borrowers). Ken Frazier inquired about proposed blocking guidelines and how that would work. In essence, a remote library cannot place a block on the borrowing privileges of a student from another library at another library; only the home campus library can place a block on borrowing privileges system-wide. Peter Watson-Boone noted that under interlibrary loan protocols there were restraints on delinquent borrowers but that there won’t be those same restraints under these policies and guidelines. Kathy Pletcher felt there were enough checks and balances included in the document.
Action: CUWL members are asked to take the document to their respective staffs and to respond to the document by the beginning of January. Response should be sent to Kathy Schneider.
Kathy Schneider distributed interlibrary loan statistics for FY 97-99, both within the system and world-wide. She also distributed data on UW library interlibrary loan requests filled by other UW libraries within the DirectILL Project. The requests were broken out by language, date of publication, patron status, and LC Call number. There was agreement that these would be useful statistics to continue gathering.
Ken Frazier announced that looking ahead to direct borrowing he had asked Kathy Schneider to provide an estimate of the potential cost of no-fee borrowing from the UW-Madison campus. The estimate was for $20,000 for the test period (i.e., the remainder of the fiscal year). Ken has forwarded that figure to Ed Meachen, asking for such funding to open ILLDirect.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries/LAMS
November 9 1999, 8:30 – 10:00 a.m.
Heidel House, Green Lake, WI
Present: Christina Baum, Ken Frazier, Tom Peischl, Joyce Huang, Anita Evans, Barb Baruth, Paul Moriarty, Faye Flesia, Patrick Wilkinson (for John Berens), Kathy Pletcher, Joe Jax, Arne Arneson, Jerry Rodesch, Kathy Schneider, Peter Watson-Boone, Winston Van Horne, Michael Edmonds, Lorie Docken, Bob Carmack, Ken Grant, Jean Gilbertson, Bob Rose, Joan Robb, Nolan Pope, Denise Babin, Jeanne Boston, Bill Doering, Todd Digby, Mary Rieder, Carole Van Horm, Diane Urch, Leanne Hansen, Marie Erdman, Ruth Anderson, Steve Elfstrand, Allan Davis, Anne Kasuboski, Luellen Breed, Scott Manley, Deb Nordgren, Lori Voss, Ed Meachen, Ed Van Gemert
The meeting was called to order by CUWL Chair Bob Carmack at 8:30 a.m.
- Voyager Report
- Cataloging Full-Text Electronic Resources
- CDR Task Force Report
Ed VanGemert reported on the state of Voyager implementation. Ten databases are in production with four installations to go. Overall, he is pleased with the implementation but there have been some functional problems, with some features not working the way they were supposed to work or the way we wanted them to work or the way we expected them to work. Lori Voss and Ed will be conducting a contract review to make sure that Endeavor meets its contractual obligations. At this time, Endeavor has received around 1500 enhancement requests, about 49% of which have been ranked as top priority items. Ed believes we must be reasonable and focused in terms of the enhancements we push for.
Future products or services include image servers, universal borrowing, and a universal catalog. Universal borrowing provides the ability to circulate materials to patrons registered on other Voyager patron databases. The image server might be used for electronic reserve or for digital products. UW has paid $75,000 towards development of a universal index but Endeavor has now changed that product to a universal catalog. The University of Georgia has contracted with Endeavor for that product and it will be in beta test for Georgia in March. Other products are also available. Universal borrowing will not be available for about a year, even though it was supposed to be available in Phase 1. It has the potential to lower the cost of borrowing within the system. The universal catalog costs a lot and it makes some sense but it is not what CUWL had originally wanted. It represents about a $1 million investment. Nolan Pope pointed out that the universal index was to combine all indexes but that the universal catalog will take a hierarchical approach, establishing a protocol for which record will appear first. It is that record that will be searched. Neither has holdings but rather has links back to holdings. Ed Meachen asked if that would provide efficiency of searching across the network, to which Nolan replied that it would, for known item searching. Ed Van Gemert noted that Endeavor is asking for a decision by January whether or not the UW wishes to purchase the universal catalog. Lori Voss indicated the reason for this date relates to whether or not we would want to be a beta site in March. This would be a way to bring the UW into the R&D process.
The cost for universal borrowing software is $75,000, with half due on installation. The cost for the universal catalog is $225,000 for software plus an additional $800,000 to $1 million dollars for hardware plus an annual cost. The cost of the image server is $56,000.
Kathy Pletcher asked if CUWL could deal with this in January after additional information is available. Ed Meachen asked if it would be a good idea to have the Library Automation Task Force reconvene to consider these issues. In the meantime, Paul Moriarty asked if the LAMs could take a look at broadcast searching. Marie Erdman indicated the LAMs would be willing to do so. Tom Peischl asked about hardware costs for the image server. The costs would involve a server and scanner; there could be a central server or decentralized servers.
Decision: The Library Automation Task Force will reconvene to consider these three products and report back to CUWL. Kathy Pletcher will convene the task force.
Lorie Docken reported on the state of the delivery service component of the Library DIN. A RFP was issued in August and responses were reviewed in September. There is an intent to award to South Central Library Services but final negotiations are still underway. The original South Central proposal called for more money than was available so that proposal had to be negotiated with them to implement the expanded delivery service. The only possible way to implement the service is over two years. For the first year, only some campuses will be going to five-day delivery although all campuses, including all college campuses, will have at least three-day a week delivery. The goal is to have all campuses with five day delivery in 2001. All campuses will not have to pay individually for South Central services after December, 1999.
Paul Moriarty indicated that a number of campuses had been promising five-day delivery service with the expectation that would be the case if the Library DIN was funded. He asked what it would cost to add two more days to the service. Lori Voss and Lorie Docken replied that they were not incremental costs. Ken Frazier noted he had submitted a request for $20,000 to expand access by eliminating WILS charges. Ed Meachen suggested we could look at the possibility of partial payment by the campuses to expand the service earlier. Joe Jax indicated he would like to see a estimate of campus costs for expanded service. Kathy Schneider clarified that this would be an all or nothing proposition – that all campuses on every route would have to participate. Additional possibilities suggested included start dates of July or September.
Consensus: Go with the delivery program as negotiated.
Ed Meachen indicated he was inclined to fund Madison’s request for funding to expand access but that he was also inclined to fund Milwaukee in a scaled version.
Richard Reeb introduced the report of the task force on cataloging journals in aggregated databases. The task force did a survey of current practices among UW libraries and found a fair degree of consensus. Richard described some findings from page 3 of the task force’s report. He noted that there is concern about this topic on a national level and described a couple pilot projects currently underway with Ebsco and Wilson Select. The task force favors the approach of downloading records from aggregators when that becomes a possibility.
Ken Frazier asked why the campuses were not working collectively to develop common practices. He noted they were already investing a considerable amount in cataloging. Richard indicated the task force recognized that was a desire of the CUWL Executive Committee but felt it would be good to look at other possibilities. He noted that no UW libraries are currently creating original records for electronic resources. Barb Baruth asked if there might be alternative models that could be followed for this purpose. Nolan Pope asked if OCLC allows the use of the same record to attach holdings. Richard expressed a concern about deleting records and recommended creating separate locations when indicating holdings of large scale serial aggregators. Paul Moriarty expressed a concern about getting records in and out of the database and maintaining the integrity of the catalog. Pat Wilkinson noted that maintenance seems to be potentially a major problem, particularly in the context of the possibility of cutting back technical services personnel.
Joe Jax indicated his admiration for the work of the task force to date but noted that we have to keep our users in mind and how the information appears. Tom Peischl asked if we could not advise the committee to go about completing its charge.
Motion: It was moved (Joe Jax) and seconded (Paul Moriarty) to ask the committee to complete its charge.
Jean Gilbertson asked if there is a Voyager problem when users cannot limit by e-journal. Steve Elfstrand noted that one way or another, libraries will have to import records and that we do not want to overlook holdings record issues. He asked if it would be possible to download holdings information in MFHDs. Tom Peischl suggested the committee report back in March/April at the spring CUWL meeting.
Action: The motion to ask the committee to complete its charge was approved by consensus.
Joyce Huang introduced the report and recommendations of the CDC on the collections statistics section of the CDR.
Paul Moriarty asked about the new way in which to report electronic government publications. Joyce responded that the CDC was proposing that those statistics be kept separate. Tom Peischl asked why we compile the CDR. Bob Carmack provided some background information on the CDR, explaining that it had begun in the mid-80’s at the instigation of CUWL as an attempt to respond system-wide and nationally for requests for statistics. Ken Frazier noted the value of keeping standardized statistics. Bob Rose noted the potential difficulty of reporting OPAC searches. Joyce explained the task force did not look at non-collections issues. Nolan Pope explained that turning on the logging feature of Voyager takes significant system resources. Joe Jax said that while we have been reporting OPAC searches for years, we can’t necessarily report them for Voyager. Ed Van Gemert noted that he had passed along to LAMs instructions on how to monitor sessions.
Joan Robb reiterated the question of why we compile the CDR. Paul Moriary pointed out the difficulty of counting certain electronic titles, that libraries may have to start at the beginning to re-count everything. He asked if System could live with IPEDS data. Ed Meachen responded that it was not a problem for System, that the information was more important to individual libraries than to System administration. There was continued discussion regarding the value of continuing the CDR and whether IPEDS statistics were sufficient for the libraries and System needs.
Action: It was moved (Ken Frazier) and seconded to accept the CDR report and to have the CUWL Executive Committee deal with the issue of the continued utility of the CDR report. Motion carried.
4. Report of the CDC
Joan Robb reported for the CDC, recommending that CUWL accept the "University of Wisconsin System Libraries Proposed Guidelines for Shared Electronic Collections." She reviewed the purpose and rationale for the guidelines.
Joan was asked if the guidelines included bibliographic databases as well as full-text databases. She responded that they did and that principle number 4 was intended to include both.
Action: Ken Frazier praised the guidelines as a good, concise statement and moved their adoption. Kathy Pletcher seconded. Motion carried.
Joan Robb then asked CUWL to approve the recommendations of the CDC in regards to the "UW System Internal Audit Report" and reviewed its contents.
The first sentence of the report was questioned until it was clarified that the CDC was responding to CUWL, not the UW System Internal Audit Library Acquisitions Revew. It was intended that CUWL would respond to UW System. Lorie Docken asked how CUWL wanted to broaden the task force looking at system libraries dealing with vendors. Bob Carmack responded that the CUWL Executive Committee would deal with the issue.
Action: Kathy Pletcher moved and Tom Peischl seconded the acceptance of the CDC’s recommendation on the internal audit report. Motion carried.
Meeting was adjourned at 10 a.m., to reconvene at 1 p.m.
Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries
November 8, 1999, 1:00 – 3:00 p.m.
Heidel House, Green Lake, WI
Present: Jean Gilbertson, Ken Frazier, Joyce Huang, Paul Moriarty, Bob Carmack, Bob Rose, Michael Edmonds, Joe Jax, Faye Flesia, Arne Arneson, Tom Peischl, Kathy Schneider , Lorie Docken, Peter Watson-Boone, Anita Evans, Pat Wilkinson (for John Berens), Barb Baruth, Kathy Pletcher, Winston Van Horne, Ken Grant, Joan Robb
The meeting was joined at various times by guests from other groups.
- Call to Order
- CDC Report (continued from morning session)
The meeting was called to order by CUWL Chair Bob Carmack at 1:00 p.m.
Joan Robb introduced and summarized the CDC’s recommendations for electronic titles to be purchased with central and new Library DIN funds.
Paul Moriarty asked about the allocation for the next fiscal year. Lorie Docken responded that it would be about $1.3 million. Bob Carmack asked if there were any caveats about canceling print subscriptions if we start subscribing to electronic versions. Only ACS and IOP titles cannot be cancelled. Joe Jax referred to the shared electronic collections principles that had been approved and indicated his belief that titles such as Wilson should be included as a basic title under those principles. He stated that some libraries would like to see coverage of such basic titles and use the money saved for other more specialized resources. Joan Robb noted the system-wide subscription costs for Wilson would be $177,000 and that the CDC had deferred action on Wilson databases until the 2000-2001 year because the subscriptions to Wilson had already been paid this year. Kathy Pletcher indicated her agreement with the CDC concerning Wilson and said that those who want those databases have bought them.
Kathy Pletcher moved and Anita Evans seconded approval of the CDC recommendations as presented.
Tom Peischl expressed his belief that money for Wilson databases may in fact be in the budget as money for Britannica and the full-text journal project may not be needed. Paul Moriarty, while not asking that the list be changed, asked if the money for Britannica and full-text journals could be set aside for Wilson. Joyce Huang responded that the money for Britannica needs to be kept, subject to a review of the free Britannica site to see if that site will meet academic library needs. She also noted that the prices for the Web of Science and BIOSIS resulted from skilled negotiating by Lou Pitschman and Lorie Docken. Ken Frazier further noted that Lou Pitschman had saved between $200-$250,000 through negotiations and asked if the $88,500 for journals could be used as a reserve. He also questioned spending such a large amount for BIOSIS, which is not full-text. Joe Jax argued further for the inclusion of Wilson in the list. Lorie Docken noted that there would be no system-wide savings for Wilson if included on the list as we are already receiving a system-wide price.
Tom Peischl questioned the start date for the various subscriptions. The start date depends on the individual title. Pat Wilkinson noted that the titles as presented would all be welcome and used at Oshkosh. Peter Watson-Boone asked how late in the fiscal year the decision can be made. The response was late in the year. Tom Peischl asked again about the unallocated money. Lorie Docken provided background information on the CDC’s intent for that money, i.e., that they wanted to explore the idea of setting up a subscription for certain of an individual publisher’s journals. Tom then suggested putting off purchase of the backfile for Web of Science in order to purchase Wilson databases. Ken proposed again that the $85,500 be used as reserve.
Motion: Joe Jax moved and Faye Flesia seconded that the motion on the floor be amended to include the Wilson databases as part of the CDC proposal for 2000-2001.
Lorie Docken asked for clarification of the amendment. Is the intent to have the CDC look at the possibility of including the Wilson databases as part of its proposal or is it being directed to include them? Anita Evans indicated she would not approve the amendment if the intent was the latter. After discussion, it was agreed that the amendment meant that the CDC was to include the Wilson databases as part of the proposal it forwards to CUWL next year, but that members could indicate they did not recommend its inclusion if the Wilson databases fail to receive the necessary 8 votes to be forwarded. If that is the case, CUWL will then decide whether or not to subscribe to Wilson databases. Jean Gilbertson asked about the potential overlap among the various databases. Arne Arneson asked what was the point of this discussion.
Action: Joe Jax called the question and the amendment came to a vote. The vote was six for and six against with the remaining members abstaining. Bob Carmack broke the tie in favor of the amendment. Motion to approve amendment carried.
Action: After some further discussion, Joe Jax moved and Tom Peischl seconded the original question (of approving the CDC report, as amended). Motion carried.
Action: Motion to approve CDC report carried.
3 Last Copy Definition.
Joan Robb introduced the CDC recommendations for a proposed re-definition and policy revision for last copies.
Action: Joe Jax moved and Kathy Pletcher seconded approval of the CDC’s recommendations. Motion carried.
- Bob Carmack noted that Ken Grant had offered to have UW-Baraboo be the host site for the January CUWL meeting. Bob asked that CUWL members send e-mail messages to him indicating dates in January when they would not be available to meet.
- Lorie Docken explained how System reimbursements for travel expenses for CDC meetings would be handled this year. For this year only, Ed Meachen will simply reimburse each campus by $500 through means of a budget transfer. Campuses will be contacted to find out into which account they would like that money transferred.
5. Digital Millennium Copyright Act
Ken Frazier provided an overview of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Ken noted that the DMCA is relevant to discussions concerning coursepacks and electronic reserves. He noted that generally academic institutions have not paid for classroom reserves. Classroom reserves can fall under the Classroom Reserve Guidelines – which would suggest that electronic reserves and coursepacks fall outside the limits of permitted use, or Fair Use Guidelines – which would potentially lead to the conclusion that reserves, electronic reserves, and coursepacks are legal. UW-Madison bases its interpretation on fair use.
The intent of the new laws is to replace libraries with information utilities, where users pay for each use of information. The legislation was passed despite opposition from both educational and scientific organizations.
The intent of Title I of the DMCA was to make U.S. law compliant with WIPO (the World Intellectual Property Organization). It prohibits the removal of copyright identifiers.
Title II of the DMCA is the most important to libraries. It assigns online service provider responsibility risks to universities. Universities have some protection when they designate a university agent. In so doing, they agree to track claims of copyright infringement and they must have a written policy, agree to terminate repeated offenders, and agree to disable access when significant infringement occurs. Other conditions that apply include that they must be non-profit and they can’t be engaged in activities that are not teaching or research. Designating an agent does not affect required or recommended course materials. If universities meet all the conditions, they have limited exemption from punitive damages.
Title III. B. has nothing in it that affects fair use. There is a range of permissible copying when media become obsolete or when there is no machine/device available to read the original material.
Section 110.2 deals with copyright and distance education and is not yet law. The Copyright Office was charged under this provision with writing a report on how the proposed changes would impact distance education. Their recommendations included: an expanded exemption for copyrighted materials used in mediated instruction; an elimination of the ban on the use of dramatic works; and elimination of the requirement of transmission only to classrooms. Fair use would continue to apply to distance education. In order to be covered, universities must have distance education policies, must disseminate information, must have copyright notices on materials, must have the materials on a university server, and must provide access only to people in the respective distance education class.
Ken suggested that CUWL should join together to build electronic reserves and just call it reserve. He also suggested that a policy on fair use should be developed.
Questions asked included what is the difference between reserve and "stuff" a faculty member might put on his or her web site and, and why Learning Innovations is saying that permission should be sought for all copyrighted materials put on the web. The difference between reserves and other materials placed by individuals is an underlying assumption that libraries will use legally obtained materials for multiple uses. Much that Learning Innovations does is for-profit and thus may fall under different guidelines.
6. Library Group Collaboration Conference
Ken Frazier reported on the Library Group Collaboration Conference that was held August 19.
Ken reported that the conference was sponsored by DPI and led by Cal Potter. The focus seemed to be to take a leadership role in planning for libraries in Wisconsin. Concerns centered on licensing resources statewide, more funding for licensed resources, expanding library delivery services in cooperation with the UW, and the development of digital initiatives within the state. One idea floated was the creation of a "Wisconsin Digital Library." Ken believes DPI does not have the resources for such a creation, that only the UW has the needed resources. He thinks we should be concerned about further state-wide licensing as the needs of higher education are different from other libraries. It is important to understand the changes in COWL and that DPI plans to take a greater role in planning. One issue under consideration is an expansion of COLAN (the Council on Library and Network Development).
The next meeting of this group is scheduled for November 16. Bob Carmack and Ken Frazier are unable to attend. Jean Gilbertson will attend that meeting if possible. If not, Ken Frazier will find someone else to attend.
Kathy Pletcher suggested that if CUWL wants to pursue the notion of a Wisconsin Digital Library that we might want to throw that in the budget mix for the next biennium.
- Further Announcements
- Tom Peischl asked that corrections to the CUWL roster be sent to him.
- Anita Evans thanked CUWL members who had contributed to the plaque honoring Dale Montgomery and further indicated that a Truman Lowe chalk drawing had also been purchased in his honor. Both are hanging in the UW-La Crosse library.
- Peter Watson-Boone noted that some years ago there had been a move to bring the UWS Archives Council closer to CUWL and that this idea might be worth re-considering.
Meeting adjourned at 2:58 p.m.