Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries
Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries
Thursday, April 26, 2001
Present: Joe Jax (chair), Bob Carmack, Paul Moriarty, Patrick Wilkinson, Anita Evans, Ken Grant, Anthony Galt, Winston Van Horne, Anthony Gulig, Jim Bredeson, Robert Rose, Leanne Hansen, Kenneth Frazier, Jean Gilbertson, Peter Watson-Boone, Tom Peischl, Barbara Baruth, Christina Baum, Arne J. Arneson, Gary Alexander, Joyce Huang, Kathy Schneider, Lorie Docken, Ellen James, Melissa Kepner, Ed Meachen, Lori Voss, Chris Goss, Susan Riehl and Joan Robb.
1. Call to order and introductions.
Jax called the meeting to order at 1 PM. David Markee, UW Platteville Chancellor, welcomed CUWL to campus. Frazier distributed a new chapbook published by Memorial Library. Jax noted that Hansen and Wilkinson had both been recently promoted to library director at their respective campuses. Also, he noted the gift planned by CUWL to honor the retirement of Hsi-ping Shao.
Moriarty gave some information about local arrangements and mentioned that the UW Library Strategic Directions Planning Group was meeting at 7:30 AM on Friday morning.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Carmack approved and Evans seconded the approval of CUWL minutes from February 13-14, 2001 and CUWL Executive Committee minutes for March 7 and March 29, 2001 as posted on the CUWL website: www.uwsa.edu/olit/cuwlweb/. The minutes were approved.
3. Nominating Committee Report.
Evans gave the report for the Nominating Committee (Evans, Moriarty and Arneson). The candidates for election were:
· Rose, Chair-elect, 2001-2002 (chair in 2002-2003)
· Bredeson, Secretary, 2001-2002
· Peischl, At-Large, 2001-2002
Moriarty moved and Carmack seconded to close nominations and accept the slate by unanimous consent. The motion passed.
Evans continued that there have been differences between the CUWL operating procedures document and recent practice in regards to CUWL offices. She noted that the operating procedure provided for two additional At-Large positions for the Executive Committee. One of the two additional members should be faculty. After discussion, it was decided that the faculty representatives would choose the faculty member. (They later announced that it would be Gulig.) Also, Baum accepted an At-Large position. The 2001-2002 Executive Committee needs to resolve two issues. One involves getting the rotation of the At-Large positions resolved. The other issue involves the staggered terms for the CUWL representatives to WiLS.
4. Endeavor Voyager Update.
Docken distributed an "Endeavor Update," dated April 26, 2001 and "Universal Borrowing Beta Test: Status Report from Wisconsin for UB Task Force Meeting, April 23, 2001." She highlighted several major items in the documents.
There was an orientation meeting for UW System libraries held in Madison on March 6. The meeting was well attended and included representatives from nearly all the campuses. On April 5, the LAMs meet with two Endeavor customer service personnel and Endeavor's contract manager. It was a productive meeting. "Endeavor emphasized that if a site is not satisfied with the level or priority assigned to a particular incident, the site needs to call back Endeavor Customer Support. If an open incident is not being resolved in a timely enough fashion for a site, sites should call Customer Support to escalate with team leaders and/or the Customer Service Manager.”
Docken also highlighted some of the major items discussed at Voyager's User Group Meeting held on April 20-21. Endeavor apologized for the problems related to Release 2000. They were the result of inadequate beta testing and other development/quality control issues. Endeavor promised to improve the development process and quality control procedures. At the meeting, Endeavor described new features that would be in Release 2001 (scheduled for beta-testing this summer). The new features will focus on staff productivity and patron empowerment. Docken briefly described Endeavor's work on EnCompass. It will be a tool to help libraries integrate their collections: library, digital and commercial.
Major discussion took place on UB beta testing by Eau Claire, La Crosse and Stout. They included the poor functionality of the beta-software as delivered to Wisconsin libraries; the difficulty of implementing UB on the proposed schedule without adequate end-user testing; and the importance of having the major problems already identified by the beta-sites fixed before the software is accepted by UW libraries. Docken noted the aggressive timeline that Endeavor has set for itself to fix certain major problems with the software such as simultaneous searching & OPAC, placing requests for materials in home libraries and patron record information. Also, Docken noted that Endeavor wants UW libraries to accept UB software in the near future. Several members of CUWL expressed serious concerns regarding the acceptance of UB software on the proposed timeline given the current development of the software. The concerns revolved around the questions: why should we let Endeavor set UW libraries' timeline for acceptance of the software or why should we accept a product that does not work? Docken also noted that the "gold" version of the general release of the software including UB set for early June is seen by Endeavor as a final product. There will be no patches after that time. Only mission critical bugs will be fixed.
Frazier noted that UB is basically software to help libraries to share their book collections. He commented that CUWL would need to look at document management technologies to help us delivery digital content to our patrons. Watson-Boone stated that libraries need to reserve the right not to install UB if it does not work. The group consensus was that no immediate decision needed to be made. The issues regarding UB should go back to Docken and the beta-sites for evaluation. The LAMs and CUWL's Executive Committee will review the final evaluation by the beta-sites before any final decision is made regarding the acceptance of UB software.
5. WisCat/OCLC/UW System Records Issues/Discussions.
CUWL welcomed Cal Potter, Assistant Superintendent, DLTCL and Sally Drew, Reference and Loan Library to discuss potentially adding Voyager bibliographic and holdings records from UW Libraries into WisCat. Potter gave a general review of the libraries throughout the state that his agency tries to help with a tool such as WisCat. In addition, he stated he was asking the help of UW libraries because of a dramatic price increase by OCLC for archival tapes. Drew reviewed the specific issues on this topic as she outline in a letter to UW System Library Directors on March 26.
After this review Moriarty had two questions. Can we get our records out of our Endeavor systems? Does it have any impact on our relationship with OCLC? Discussion followed. It was noted that the Wisconsin Attorney General has ruled that library records are public records. Hansen and Baruth raised an issue regarding records in our catalogs that do not have an OCLC holding symbol. Evans inquired about Reference and Loan's timeframe to move beyond WisCat. Potter and Drew noted that they have plans to move to other technologies to promote resource sharing, but WisCat is in their plans for the foreseeable future. More discussion followed regarding CUWL's desire to help promote resource sharing within the state but not wanting to harm its strategic partnership with OCLC.
It was the general consensus of the group that it was an individual library's decision regarding whether a library wanted to provide Voyager bibliographic records to WisCat. The LAMs are looking at the issue to see if it is technically feasible with an acceptable amount of work by individual libraries.
6. Library Automation Report.
Hansen reviewed the LAMs Update distributed prior to the meeting. It included information on the aggregator database issue, Voyager upgrade schedule, Universal Borrowing, Endeavor Customer Support and WisCat records. Hansen noted the most of these issues have been covered previously. She described that the LAMs have identified Serial Solutions as an acceptable method to acquire a web-based product that provides information on periodical titles within library's aggregator databases. Also, some campuses have already purchased Serials Solution. Evans noted that another company TDNet offers a similar product. Docken noted that she has talked to TDNet also. Wilkinson mentioned that the LAMs had been asked to find a technologically-based solution to identify the journals within aggregator databases that did not involve putting cataloging records into our catalogs and did not require library's to individually construct a list. He commended the LAMs for identifying a good solution.
7. Resource Sharing/UB Implementation Committee.
Schneider gave the report for the committee. The committee’s major recommendation was “Standard loan period of 28 days for all UB for ‘first twelve months’ during which data is collected to assess any problems and conflicts. Limit UB access to UW faculty, staff, and students for the initial year of service. That is, defer access by affiliated users etc. until the bugs are worked out of the system. NOTE: Definition and handling of affiliated users is left to campus discretion.”
Schneider also noted the next steps for the committee:
· Survey to assess how wide the disparity in campus policies regarding Replacement Fees for lost materials. IF differences are minimal, then Committee will “push” for uniformity.
· Request that Curriculum Sub-Committee provide specific guidance regarding data to be collecting to assess impact of resource sharing policies on these materials. It is important that we collect hard data rather than anecdotal information.
· Investigate options for “Not Filled” Messages etc – Committee needs to give more thought to options for guiding users when UB request not filled. While this is not actualy a policy matter it is important to quality of service issue.
· Communicate to Endeavor major concern about Overdues/Fines/Lost Item Replacement Fees configuration options AND investigate other options/work-arounds.
Schneider then noted issues that campuses must address:
· Availability of complete and up-to-date mailing addresses for users.
· Availability of email addresses for users.
· Lack of ID cards for some Distance students.
The group had a lengthy discussion regarding the committee’s recommendation (based on previously approved resource sharing principles) for a standard loan period of 28 days for all UB materials. Many ideas and concerns were expressed both pro and con. They included the following. Videos should go to a 14 day loan period. This might be a good way to have a test. Exempting some UB material from the 28 day loan period would start CUWL down a slippery slope of exceptions. UB materials need a standard loan period but why not two standards? Would two standards really help anyone? Also, it would likely confuse patrons? It is important to get a year’s testing of 28 days for all material before CUWL starts making exceptions. Could we limit UB lending to only general collection material for the first year to get the bugs worked out of UB software before we added other types of materials? Limiting the UB test to only monographs would not provide a good test of UB. There seemed to be a general consensus not to limit UB to general collection materials.
Several questions were also raised about UB functionality and reports available from the system about UB transactions. Also, it was asked when would the 12 month begin? Schneider answered that it would likely begin some time during the fall of 2001.
More discussion ensued on the 28 day loan period for all UB materials. If some libraries feel uncomfortable with 28 days for some materials, what prevents them from making theses materials “non-circulating” for UB. How would this impact the test and resource sharing in general? A true test of UB needs a standard loan period for all materials. This would allow more uniform result. Also, two-tier loan periods would be confusing for patrons and staff. Other questions were raised. Will UB move campuses towards more uniform circulation policies? Will UB disadvantage on-campus users of a library’s materials.
Moriarty moved and Carmack seconded to approve the committee’s recommendation as submitted. Additional discussion followed about the 28 day loan period for all UB materials. Some of the points raised included the following. Libraries have different loan periods for different types of material based on how material is used. Why should UB be different? Several members expressed concerns about videos being checked out for 28 days considering how they are used for instructional support on campuses. Concern was also expressed about curriculum materials. The point was made that CUWL had accepted the 28 day loan period in May 2000 for all UB material. Why change it now?
Watson-Boone moved and Frazier seconded to exclude videos from UB testing. More discussion followed. Other points raised on this topic included the following. If we exclude one type of material, people will make cases to exclude other types of materials. It would be better to include videos in the UB testing but make its loan period 14 days. Again it was noted that a uniform 28 day loan period for all UB materials would make it a better test, promote resource sharing and give uniformity it our test results. It was also discussed whether a 28 day loan period for videos would encourage teaching faculty on campuses to plan for needed videos more in advance of their classes. Again concerns were raised about curriculum materials as expressed by a sub-committee of curriculum librarians in the state. After more discussion on whether to exclude videos from the UB test or set up a two-tier system of loan dates (14 days and 28 days), Watson-Boone withdrew his amendment.
Van Horne moved and Wilkinson seconded the following amendment to the committee’s recommendation. The loan period of all UB materials will be 28 days except for videos and curriculum materials. The loan period for videos and curriculum materials will be 14 days. The UB test will be for the “first twelve months” during which data is collected to assess any problems and conflicts. Limit UB access to UW faculty, staff, and students
for the initial year of service. This is, defer access by affiliated users etc. until the bugs are worked out of the system. NOTE: Definition and handling of affiliated users is left to campus discretion.
The motion passed 13 yes and 6 no.
8. Ed Meachen’s Report.
First, Meachen discussed System’s vision in relation to online learning. It includes extending the reach of learning anywhere and anytime. UW System suports the development of an online learning infrastructure that would include online library resources and help desk support. It supports the delivery of materials to anywhere in the World. Second, he reported that the search for a Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs is progressing. This is the third attempt. It is hoped that the search may be successful by mid-June. Third, he reported on legislative issues. He did not know where increased library funding was in the process. Also, he mentioned that he testified against the inclusion of UW System in the new eGovernment initiative. He stated that it was likely that UW System would be excluded. Fourth, he briefly described the Academic Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) Co-Laboratory. Its vision is to provide access to the highest quality education and training, tailored to individual needs, delivered cost effectively, anywhere and anytime. He noted that this will be of interest to CUWL because private companies are designing content to accompany these classes. Thus, it is important to have a library presence in the Co-Lab. Several members expressed concerns about the model of private companies designing content to accompany these courses because it often duplicates what libraries already provide. Frazier noted that libraries need to develop effective ways to deliver course content online. Meachen stated that he looked to Frazier and other CUWL members to develop a library presence on the Co-Lab. The Executive Committee will identify CUWL members who are interested in working on this and get those names to Meachen.
9. Barbara Baruth: Issues for Academic Libraries
Baruth reviewed some major issues that academic libraries are and will be facing that challenge conventional library thinking and operations. Her review was based on an article that is forthcoming in American Libraries. Some of the issues that she discussed were:
· “Converting, unbundling and marginalizing the local library system
· “Rethinking access to digitized special collections” (fee vs. free)
· “Providing red-eye reference”
The group had a wide ranging discussion on these and related issues and complimented Baruth for her writing in this area.
CUWL adjourned at 5:10 pm.
Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries
Friday, April 27, 2001
Present: Joe Jax (chair), Bob Carmack, Paul Moriarty, Patrick Wilkinson, Anita Evans, Ken Grant, Anthony Galt, Winston Van Horne, Anthony Gulig, Jim Bredeson, Robert Rose, Leanne Hansen, Kenneth Frazier, Jean Gilbertson, Peter Watson-Boone, Tom Peischl, Barbara Baruth, Christina Baum, Arne J. Arneson, Peter Gottlieb, Gary Alexander, Joyce Huang, Kathy Schneider, Lorie Docken, Melissa Kepner, Ed Meachen, Joan Robb and Judy Woorsley
1. Call to order.
Jax called the meeting to order at 8:35 AM. He thanked Moriarty and his staff for the excellent local arrangements for CUWL’s meeting.
2. UW Library Strategic Directions Planning Group, preliminary report.
Evans (chair) gave the committee’s report. The committee received its appointment and charge in a March 26, 2001 letter from Albert Beaver, Interim Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs. The committee’s charge is to “identify strategic directions that UW Libraries should pursue for the next two years, starting July 2001, including specific goals and objectives to advance these directions.” The committee members are Bredeson, Docken, Evans, Frazier, Galt, Goss, Glenda Morgan, Moriarty and Watson-Boone.
Evans related that the committee was starting with the “Strategic Directions for 2000-2005” document drafted by Frazier and approved by CUWL. It seemed that the document’s vision statement is still accurate. In addition, the committee has identified some strategic directions that should be added. They concern diversity, copyright, digital collections and information literacy. Also, there is renewed interest in the idea of article delivery to a user’s desktop (just-in-time-model) and where UW System libraries are at with electronic reserve. There is a sub-committee looking at the strategic directions and adding specific objective statements under each of the strategic directions.
Peischl asked why the committee was asked to look at only one-time funding projects for the $750,000 Library Technology Fund. The answer was that the money had been used to buy the Endeavor library system and next year we will pay off the purchase of that system. If UW libraries move to another system in 3-5 years, it would need to use monies from this fund. Further discussion ensued regarding Baruth’s ideas from yesterday and how they related to the work of the committee. Also, it was noted again that the Executive Committee needs to name some representatives to the Co-Lab project. The Strategic Directions Planning Group will give a full report at the fall 2001 meeting.
3. UW Library Digital Library Strategic Directions Committee.
Watson-Boone, chair of the committee, presented the report. He moved and Peischl seconded the acceptance of the report. Discussion followed.
Watson-Boone acknowledged the committee members. In addition to the chair, they were Arneson, Docken, Evans, Nolan Pope, Joshua Ranger and Wilkinson. Watson-Boone described how the committee followed its charge. He emphasized that digital library development "holds the potential of being a crucial pivot in the existence and purpose of libraries." Several issues were raised regarding the report. First, would the governance structure in the report be able to operate effectively because of its number of members? Frazier noted that an editorial committee was needed, and it would likely need to form an executive committee. Rose expressed concern about the section on free vs. fee. He noted it was important to protect both copyright and fair use. It was mentioned that it was the intention of the committee to protect only high-resolution images that might have a commercial value.
There was further discussion regarding such topics as the collection of fees online; overlap with the Co-Lab project; and the relationship between digital scholarly projects and campus tenure and promotion standards. It was noted that often faculty do not get reward and credit in salary, promotion and tenure for e-publications. Van Horne described a letter and a report that he sent to the Chancellor, Provost and Academic Deans at UW Milwaukee as chair of the University Library Committee on the topic. Alexander encouraged CUWL directors to raise the visibility of this issue on their campuses by doing something similar to what the University Library Committee did at UW Milwaukee. Van Horne said that he would mail the documents mentioned to directors. After further discussion, the question was called and the motion to accept the report was passed.
4. Digital Library Pilot Update.
Docken and Jax reported on the pilot digital library project. A draft agreement between UW System Administration, the Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries, the University of Wisconsin Green Bay and the University of Wisconsin Madison Libraries regarding the Belgian, American Collection Digital Pilot Project was distributed. Watson-Boone noted that this draft agreement was a good model of a proposal for future digital library projects. It was the consensus of CUWL that this project should move forward.
Gottlieb noted that UWSAC has learned a lot from work on the Belgian, American pilot project. It was learned that certain types of materials such as 19th Century handwritten documents are very hard to digitize. Basically, UWSAC has learned that it needs to scale back its ambitions to material that currently lend themselves to digital projects. Frazier noted that this accurately reflected their experience at UW Madison. He said that at UW Madison their current strategy was to drive down cost and scale up the volume to build a critical mass of digital materials.
5. UCITA (Uniform Computer Information Technology Act).
Watson-Boone warned CUWL about the problems that UCITA would cause UW libraries if passed. He referenced an article in the Golda Meir Library's newsletter describing this possible legislation. He noted that UW System does not seem alarmed about the possible legislation. Frazier mentioned that in essence this potential legislation if passed would replace current licensing agreements and copyright law in this area with a very one-sided license in the favor of software publishers. Discussion followed. Docken noted that UW System was aware of UCITA and prepared to oppose it. Watson-Boone stated that he would get a copy of anti-UCITA legislation passed in Iowa and send it to UW System and UW libraries. He also urged that CUWL should take a strong stand against UCITA.
Wilkinson moved and Gulig seconded that CUWL opposes the introduction of UCITA in the Wisconsin Legislature and that it also strongly urges UW System to oppose the introduction of UCITA in the Wisconsin Legislature. The CUWL Executive Committee should inform UW System of this resolution. The resolution passed by unanimous consent.
6. UW System DIN Status for Library Acquisitions, 2001-2003.
Goss described that 4.7 million was in the UW System Economic Stimulus Package for library funding, and UW System was lobbying to get this passed by the legislature. The Joint Finance Committee will likely be dealing with this issue some time later in May. Strategies to support this package were discussed. It was recommended that library directors contact both the co-chairs of the Joint Finance Committee and their individual legislators.
7. UW System Archives Council (UWSAC).
Gottlieb gave the UWSAC report. UWSAC is currently meeting. One of the major topics for the UWSAC meeting was institutional record management responsibility handled by many of the archivists. The meeting is being video taped. Gottlieb also mentioned UWSAC's interest in National History Day. This is a program that encourages middle school and high school students to do history projects based on primary sources. The Historical Society will encourage the ARCs to be involved with this project. Gottlieb noted the mentoring program that the society was organizing that places a professional archivist in community repositories to help train them to care for archival material that they have. He thanked the campuses that have or will participate in this program. He also mentioned the decision by UW System to no longer distribute the "Red Books" in print form. It will now be available on the web and distributed to libraries on CD. There is a real concern if this important budget information will be available over time. He also noted that this issue was just the tip of the iceberg in terms of state government electronic publishing. Kepner and Goss will check on this and see what the plans are for this publication. They will communicate what they learn to CUWL.
8. Collection Development Committee Report.
Robb reviewed the report that she distributed to CUWL members on April 13. The CDC had looked at available usage data and asked for approval to renew the subscriptions for Academic Universe - Lexis/Nexis, Statistical Universe - CIS, Columbia Earthscape - SPARC, Groves Art - Groves, McGraw Hill Dictionary of Science and Technology - McGraw Hill, Oxford English Dictionary - Oxford U.P., and E*Subscribe -EDRS. Peischl moved and Evans seconded that CUWL approve the CDC recommendations. The motion passed. Wilkinson asked that the usage statistics that are available for the electronic shared collection databases be shared with CUWL. Docken will distribute this information to CUWL. Robb continued and summarized other information in the CDC report on topics such as NetLibray and PsycInfo.
She also asked for CUWL’s support for the CDC to look at different models for UW libraries to contribute money from local budgets into the shared electronic collection fund. After discussion, Wilkinson moved and Peischl seconded that the CDC develop several models of how local campuses can contribute to the shared electronic collections fund and report back to CUWL in the fall. The motion passed. Jax noted that this was Robb's last year as CDC chair and expressed the appreciation of CUWL for her good work.
9. Other Business.
Carmack reported that the committee looking at the acquisitions formula would report to CUWL at the fall meeting. It was reported that the time for the fall meeting has not been set. Jax noted that this was Grant's last CUWL meeting and thanked him for his contributions during his tenure. He also thanked Moriarty for UW Platteville's hospitality. Watson-Boone thanked Jax for his service this year as CUWL chair. Jax said that the old and new executive committees would meet some time in early June. He also noted that Gilbertson will not be on CUWL next year and thanked her for her service.
The meeting adjourned at 11:05 AM.