Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries
Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries
February 13, 2001
Present: Joe Jax (Chair), Bob Carmack, Paul Moriarty, Patrick Wilkinson, Ken Grant, Anthony Galt, Winston Van Horne, Anthony Gulig, Peter Gottlieb, Jim Bredeson, Robert Rose, Kathy Pletcher, Anita Evans, Ken Frazier, Jean Gilbertson, Peter Watson-Boone, Barbara Baruth (for Tom Peischl), Christina Baum, Arne Arneson, Gary Alexander, Joyce Huang, Lorie Docken, Melissa Kepner, Ed Meachen, Lori Voss
Guests: Joan Robb, Nan Kunde
1. Call to order and introductions.
Jax called the meeting to order at 1:10 PM. He welcomed Galt and Gulig (new faculty members) to CUWL. He noted that several CUWL members would arrive later because they were still participating in WLA’s Legislative Day. He stated that CUWL’s participation in Legislative Day did some good. Those in attendance introduced themselves.
Jax thanked Docken for making preparations and arrangements for the meeting. She gave some information about the schedule and meeting rooms. Jax also thanked Meachen for his attendance, and Meachen stated he was happy to be attending the full schedule of CUWL meetings in Madison.
2. Approval of Minutes
Carmack moved and Moriarty seconded that the CUWL minutes from October 19 – 20, 2000 and the CUWL Executive Committee Meeting minutes from November 10, 2000, December 11, 2000 and January 20, 2001 be approved. Motion passed.
3. Endeavor and Automation Update.
Jax stated that there was a good meeting with Jane Burke and other Endeavor staff on January 5 to discuss outstanding issues with the company. Docken distributed a memo, dated February 13, that summarized the major points discussed at the meeting. At the meeting Burke provided an overview of the operations of Endeavor since the merger with Elsevier. One positive development is that Endeavor is now able to increase staff. It plans to add 70 new positions during the year. Many of the new positions will be for development, and some of the new positions will be in quality assurance. A Quality Assurance Manager has been hired with the responsibility for quality in Voyager development, testing of releases and documentation. The problems associated with the Voyager Release 2000.1 were discussed. The problems with the release were attributed to the variety of workstation operating platforms, insufficient and inadequate testing on these platforms, and communications. Some problems still remain even after Endeavor patches have been provided. At the meeting, Burke iterated the message several times that Endeavor does not want to repeat the Release 2000 experience, and Endeavor is taking concrete steps to improve its testing processes. The issue of problems with Endeavor's customer support was also discussed. Endeavor encouraged libraries to be assertive with customer support services. At the next meeting with Endeavor and UW LAMs on April 5, customer support issues will be part of the agenda. There was an open forum with Endeavor later in the day on January 5 with other UW System librarians in attendance. Additional issues were mentioned such as Release 2001 coming in summer 2001. This release will have additional features such as "MyOpac." Also, after discussions with Endeavor, UW System released the phase 3 maintenance payment on January 12. Moriarty asked if there have been improvements from Endeavor since this meeting. Docken responded that there are still problems with the acquisition module, e-mail notification and simultaneous searching.
CUWL's discussion next turned to the issue of Universal Borrowing (UB). Docken distributed a memo updating progress towards implementing UB and outlining further needed action. Docken summarized the memo. The UW beta sites (Eau Claire, La Crosse and Stout) received training in late January and have all installed UB beta software. Limited testing will begin soon and gradually will be expanded to include library patrons. Endeavor has indicated that the earliest end to the UB beta testing would be late April. It was noted that an important aspect of successful UB implementation and operation would be the establishing of common UB system parameters throughout UW System libraries. The UB beta sites will configure UB (to the extent possible) in line with CUWL policy recommendations approved in May 2000. In spring 2000, the CUWL Executive Committee established a sub-committee (chaired by Kathy Schneider) to "take the principles and broad policy statements already approved by CUWL and develop recommended specific policies and procedures to implement resource sharing across UWS libraries within the context of Universal Borrowing.” This committee has not met due to the delay in receiving UB beta software from Endeavor. After the beta sites have time to work with the software, the committee will meet to review the Resource Sharing Policies in terms of UB functionality, make recommendations for specific UB configurations for UWS libraries and develop documentation on UB implementation to be used by UW sites. The committee will report back to CUWL prior to the April 26-27 meeting and request CUWL action on its report.
The report of the Working Group on Curriculum Materials concerning circulating curriculum materials in the context of UB was discussed next. The working group's major recommendation was to have a 14-day circulation period for curriculum materials instead of a 28-day period that all other material will have. A significant amount of discussion followed regarding this issue. Several questions were raised. Was it technically or practically possible to have a different loan period for curriculum material? Can a campus withdraw a specific collection from UB that it is circulating to its own patrons? Can UB work if CUWL starts to make exceptions for specific types of materials? Can UB work without the willing cooperation of all campuses? A straw vote was held on the 14-day or 28-day loan period for curriculum materials. There were 7 votes against changing it to a 14-day period and 5 votes in favor. It was the consensus of CUWL to refer the working group's report to the committee headed by Schneider along with the questions raised by CUWL and the result of the straw vote. CUWL will anticipate recommendations on this issue from the committee's April report. CUWL will also thank the Working Group on Curriculum Materials for its good work in finding that a common loan period for this material is possible.
Next the timeline for UB installation was discussed. After discussion, Pletcher moved and Wilkinson seconded that CUWL endorse the phase plan with the goal of installing and implementing UB in as many UW sites as possible by the fall semester 2001, with complete implementation no later than December 31, 2001. To the extent possible, the three-phase installation schedule as presented above would be followed. The motion passed. Watson-Boone expressed the reservation that libraries in the Phase 2 (June/July 2001) installation should not be expected to upgrade twice in a short time frame. Moriarty expressed that it was important for UWS libraries to implement UB as soon as possible.
CUWL reviewed the LAMs Update from Todd Digby. The group is looking at a product from Serials Solution to handle the issue of creating a serial list of titles in the aggregator databases to which UW System libraries subscribe. Serials Solution produces such lists customized for the databases to which an individual library subscribes. Libraries can get it as an html file, it is updated quarterly and libraries are charged by the number of titles. Docken said that the references for the product are good. The LAMs are looking at a group contract that would be funded by libraries locally. Also, Docken distributed a memo on the UWS library automation budget. She noted that there is a projected unallocated budget balance of $740,000. It was the consensus of CUWL that it needed to look at innovative ways to use this funding for the benefit of library users. The next LAMs meeting will be on April 5.
It was the consensus of CUWL that the Executive Committee establish a working group to identify potential funding opportunities for this unallocated budget. The working group should report back to CUWL at its April meeting. Meachen emphasized that the group should look at ways to move a creative agenda ahead rather than funding existing services and collections.
4. UW System Acquisitions Funding Formula.
Carmack suggested that the current formula based on weighted student credit hours prevents smaller campuses from being better partners in UWS’s concept of “One System, One Library.” Kepner briefly described how the current formula is calculated. She stated that it is open to change and cautioned that it is a decision for the Chancellors within the System. Also, she noted that if the library DIN is in the governor’s budget that preliminary allocations will be done in March.
There was a wide-ranging discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the current formula and some suggestions were made for alternative formulas. One idea was to take some money “off the top” for each campus before applying any formula. Other formulas based on non-weighted FTE’s or headcounts were discussed. Other ideas included establishing a grant program to create collections or consider the abilities of libraries to order, process and store materials. Concerns expressed included the importance of not seeing additional funding in a campus-centric manner, the necessity for research institutions to support programs in depth that may not have a large number of students, and the possibility of UWS libraries doing cooperative collection development. The question regarding the stand of accrediting agencies on campus-based collection in relation to access was raised. Some CUWL members thought they had seen some preliminary evidence that agencies were moving away from a campus-based view.
The question of the short time frame to make any changes before March was raised again. Kepner thought it was likely that it was too late to change the first year allocation of any new money, but it was possible to suggest changes for the second year of the allocation. (UW System Chancellors will need to approve any changes.) More discussion ensued on who should be involved in this discussion. Meachen moved and Carmack seconded that the CUWL Executive Committee establish a broad-based working group including collection development officers, library directors, faculty, administrators, and others as appropriate to review and investigate this issue and report back to CUWL in April. The motion passed.
5. UW System DIN Status for $4.7 million.
Jax commented that UW librarians got a good response during WLA Legislative Day. Frazier briefly reviewed the history of the DIN and what efforts UW libraries have taken to support it. He mentioned that a Regent had informally told him that he/she was impressed that UW libraries have not just complained about lack of money but have cooperated to do creative things. Members discussed the need for the increased funding and noted that the WLA packet had a good summary of talking points about the need for the DIN. Watson-Boone made the point that no amount of creativity will prevent cuts at all of the campuses if libraries do not get funding to stay ahead of inflation. This puts UW libraries at a disadvantage in regards to their peer institutions outside of the state. Moriarty stated that Platteville lost a good candidate for its Associate Director position because of poor funding for acquisitions in Wisconsin. Kepner stated that the state budget is tight, but revenue projections may improve. Also, the Governor’s budget will be made public on February 20. In response to a question, she said that she would send information to CUWL as soon as she knows whether the DIN is in the budget or not. Jax noted that we have done what we could to support the DIN.
6. Digital Library Task Force Pilot Project.
Jax briefly reviewed the report submitted by the Content Subcommittee of the Digital Library Task Force that is working on the Digital Wisconsiana project. The report summarized the results of a survey to determine what digital content would be most useful to UWS faculty. The group reviewed the progress of the subcommittee working on digitizing the Belgian Collection at Green Bay and what the task force was learning from this pilot project as outlined in the memo by Lee Konrad. It was the consensus of CUWL that the work of this sub-committee will continue as recommended.
Watson-Boone gave a preliminary report from the Digital Library Strategic Directions Committee. The Committee met in mid-December in Stevens Point and developed general ideas regarding Digital Library development in Wisconsin. Some of the main issues that were discussed involved criteria for selecting digital projects, digitizing utility or utilities that should be used for project, metadata and standards, involvement of scholars in this process, funding, intellectual property issues, etc. The committee will give its report to CUWL in April.
7. Collection Development Committee Report.
Joan Robb gave the CDC report. After looking at alternatives, the CDC does not think that there is an acceptable alternative to PsycInfo at this time. Its major competitor has limited coverage by time period and a significant number of relevant journals are exclusively found within the PsycINFO database. Robb also noted that CDC would pursue web accessibility issues (for visually impaired patrons) with vendors of databases.
Robb reviewed CDC’s report and recommendations regarding its budget and adding three new databases. If approved, it would put the Shared Electronic Collections budget into a deficit of approximately $68,000 during 2001-2002. CDC recommended purchasing the three new databases, but it wanted to share with CUWL the budgetary consequences of this. It also outlined alternatives on how to handle this shortfall.
There was much discussion of this proposal. The group debated whether it was necessary to make a decision on this issue at this meeting. Some questioned if some existing electronic sources that are part of the shared collection could be cut to pay for the new databases. Members wondered how do we evaluate the usefulness of what we already have in the shared collection. Some emphasized that the purpose of the shared collection was to develop a “core collection” and individual campuses were responsible for specialized databases. Other members contended that if individual libraries were “taxed” for the shared collection that they would have to cut print journals on their home campuses. Some noted that maybe UWS libraries should be moving away from print collections to shared full-text collections even more than they have. Others wondered how we get meaningful cost-per-use data for the electronic databases.
After much discussion, the basic question was raised whether the Shared Electronic Collections budget should be seen for now as a “fixed” budget that the CDC would need to live within or was it a more of an open-ended budget that would be supplemented by allocations from the individual libraries. Watson-Boone moved and Wilkinson seconded that CDC subscribe to BioOne. In addition, the Shared Electronic Collections budget was a fixed at 2000-2001 levels unless additional funding came through the proposed DIN. The CDC would need to manage the shared collection within these parameters. Discussion followed. The question was called. The motion carried 10 voting yes and 7 voting no. One reason given in support of subscribing to BioOne was that it is a SPARC initiative, and CUWL’s action would help combat the large price increases by traditional publishers.
8. UW System Archives Council Report.