Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries
Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries
October 1, 2001
Heidel House, Green Lake
Present: Paul Moriarty(chair), Bob Rose, Joe Jax, Jim Bredeson, Tom Peischl, Tony Galt, Winston Van Horne, Leanne Hansen, Anita Evans, Ken Frazier, Tom Murray, Peter Watson-Boone, Patrick Wilkinson, Arne Arneson, Bob Carmack, Joyce Huang, Kathy Schneider, Lorie Docken, Chris Goss, Lori Voss, Ed Meachen.
Guests: Nolan Pope, Jo Ann Carr, Barb Baruth.
1. Moriarty called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. He announced that Peter Gottlieb would not be able to attend that day and deliver the UWSAC report.
Carmack (Rose, 2nd) moved approval of the minutes of the April 26, 2001 and July 18, 2001 CUWL minutes.
3. UW System Administration Report (Ed Meachen)
IAA (Identification, Authentication, & Authorization Group)
Meachen summarized progress thus far of the IAA group and said that the IAA Technical Packet was ready for distribution. He discussed the complex pieces that constitute the effort, saying that the first of the three main pieces was close to completion. That first part is a “white pages” registry of students, faculty, and staff of all 26 institutions, which is planned for completion by the end of the calendar year in 2002. A pilot registry with four campuses (Madison, Stout, River Falls, Colleges) has been compiled and will be tested further. Meachen said the Identification portion of the registry is not a problem; the Authorization portion still presents many problems and questions. The three steps of the process break into: Claim, Proof, & Privilege. He said the whole process remains a huge challenge for UW system in normalizing presently incompatible data sets. He admitted that costs continue to rise and he is going back to the chancellors for “loans” of $7 million for the years 2003 and following to fund continued efforts.
Frazier expressed concern on the costs and the persistence of flat budgeting from the state. He also wondered if many of the portal environments being created across various campuses would actually be incompatible with the IAA version of authorizations. Moriarty mentioned the ongoing concerns of distance education students, notably, identifying them in the first place and making sure that they have the necessary information to successfully login with ID numbers and passwords. Murray said that with Madison’s Library Express service right now, a straightforward user ID is used and has presented few problems. Schneider asked how the IAA findings thus far mesh with the UW Online plan. Meachen admitted that parts seem to be out of sync at the moment, and added that we can’t really meet the quality standards for IAA with current technologies like Blackboard and WebCT. The expansion of collaborative programs will take creative solutions by faculty, librarians, and student services groups, he added.
Library Funding Strategies
Meachen said he would talk with Cora Marrett, Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, about a library presentation to the Board of Regents. He admitted that the budget prospects for the immediate future are grim. He said that UWSA had collected information and presented only the budget items that they thought had a good chance at funding for the biennium. The $4.7 million library collections proposal did not make it through state’s final budget.
CUWL members discussed several strategies for the next budget for 2003-05. Frazier agreed with the pessimistic outlook for funding and said we might be wise to take our case to the students, who he believes would support extra funding for libraries. Carmack asked if a student fee would be in order; maybe the climate is right for that? Van Horne suggested that it was vital to get in on the “front end” of the process, with the governor and key legislators. Evans said that in her conversations this year, the library part of the UW request just didn’t sound sellable. Meachen thought as many as three potential strategies might help: linking library funding to common systems funds, fighting back the exponential growth in Internet costs, and some type of partnering for external funding. Frazier said that it was rare for our peer institutions to suffer through a zero growth period at this time and he fears that we may be in for another long-term flat funding situation. Murray asked if the “one system, one library” justification might help as a link with common systems funds. Carmack said he still thinks students, via United Council, would be willing to tax themselves for a library fund; it would need to be a system-wide application.
4. Update on Strategic Directions Plan (Evans)
Committee chair Evans reviewed the latest changes that incorporated input from system IT people. She said there were several good suggestions that were incorporated into the document. Evans then mentioned the assignment of the dollar amounts to proposed joint projects from the balance in the automation fund. Baruth discussed the potential for outsourcing parts of the digital collections, with the goal of saving staff and money on the mechanics of scanning and adding metadata tags. UWS would still be responsible for collection integrity and indexing. Octavo Digital Imaging was mentioned as an example of one such outsourcing company.
Frazier said that Madison has had a great return on its investment in digitization thus far, and he doesn’t think they’ve come close to overspending on the process. He said the metadata creation process is the most expensive component. He added that the allocation portion we’re proposing would be less than half of what Madison has already allocated itself.
A MOTION (Jax, Carmack) was made to accept the committee’s report, with an amendment to delete the phrase “extended World Cat” from paragraph one, page three of the document. The motion PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Another MOTION (Arneson) was made to also accept the committee’s supplemental document, UW System Libraries Continuous Strategic Directions Planning. The motion PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. CDC Report (Jo Ann Carr)
Carr distributed the CDC report and briefly discussed the action items for the group. First, the budget for CDC recommended product renewals for 2002 (total renewals for January 2002, $1,083,417). A MOTION (Frazier, Evans) was made to approve the CDC report recommendations detailed on the spreadsheet. The motion PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Secondly, Carr reviewed the coordinated renewal process (primarily between Milwaukee and Madison) that cut $493,000 in low use and/or duplicate subscriptions. The group thanked CDC and the Milwaukee and Madison staffs for their extra efforts and the exercise will continue in subsequent years.
Thirdly, Carr outlined the cost sharing report and a MOTION (Hansen) was made to accept the committee’s report summary. The group then discussed at length the implications of the report and the three proposed models in the attachment. Murray asked if the cost-sharing proposal wasn’t actually just robbing flat individual budgets for another flat group budget, both being eroded by inflation. Carr emphasized that this is simply a pilot project for one year, while the CDC works with vendors for better usage reports and price negotiations. Wilkinson said that the pilot proposal moves us solidly in the direction of the CUWL Strategic Plan. Watson-Boone questioned the logic of the models in terms of actually saving money; we’re really engaged in parallel discussions of cutting paper subscriptions and increasing funding for common e-resources, but we can’t continue to spend more overall dollars than we actually have allocated to campuses. He also said that getting more usage data would be critical in making future decisions. Rose argued that the collective value for all is better with the shared funding contributions. Frazier echoed those sentiments and made a MOTION to amend the previous motion (Wilkinson, 2nd) to approve the report and accept Model #1 as the pilot to begin in July 2002. The motion PASSED 12-2. Model #1 allocates a total of $100,000, with assessments from each campus and based on weighted student credit hours.
The group also discussed the Guidelines for Shared Electronic Collection criteria for adding/dropping electronic vendor products. CDC has already discussed issues such as the number of simultaneous users and getting vendors to improve online tutorials, etc. Galt asked if faculty surveys might also be useful in determining a product’s usefulness; others thought widespread survey results could be too difficult to interpret accurately. Moriarty asked that CUWL members communicate ideas to their CDC reps. Carr will re-send the criteria report to the CUWL mail list.
Fourthly, Carr discussed further efforts in the UWS product accessibility survey for computer-based databases. Past CDC chair Joan Robb is preparing a report to CUWL. Schneider said that she would forward a similar report from the Wisconsin Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired.
6. Digital Library Advisory Committee (Wilkinson)
Wilkinson summarized the group’s early progress. He said that the committee still needs to appoint teaching faculty members and a member from UWS learning technologies. He said the digital collections efforts have caught the attention of the Regents already. A MOTION (Carmack, Van Horne) was made to approve the report and plan for 2001-02. The motion PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
In the follow-up discussion, Wilkinson reviewed the criteria for selecting new projects, highlighting the major points for consideration in this initial year. Watson-Boone asked how the criteria would relate to the integrity and “ownership” of these digital collections, commenting that many long-term questions remain unresolved as to how they will fit overall collection development. Wilkinson says the group was looking broadly at whole collections and did not want to get in a situation of “cherry-picking” only the choicest items from a larger whole. Pope said that the breadth of the labeling/indexing could be as inclusive or exclusive as we want it to be and could work at several levels. Rose added that digital collections projects are begging for external grant possibilities. Baruth said that outside vendors should remain a possibility as well and could be tied in at several points in the process, providing affordable work as well as developing metadata. Watson-Boone said that we would need to monitor outsourcing projects very carefully to assure we maintain control over rights, charges, and access questions.
7. Resource Sharing (Lorie Docken)
Docken discussed the draft charge to the Enhanced Resource Sharing Task Force, and asked if it seemed to be on target. Watson-Boone asked, why a new committee? Docken explained that the older committee was primarily concerned with policies, whereas the new committee would deal more directly with technical aspects of software solutions to resource sharing.
A MOTION (Carmack, Rose) was made to accept the report and empower the executive committee to fill nominations for the committee. In the discussion, it was clarified that the software solutions under consideration would handle primarily returnables and have the potential capabilities to handle non-returnables.
The motion PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Related to resource sharing, Frazier said that we still have a number of intellectual property issues unresolved within the IT plan, including the relationship to the ADL Co-Lab. He asked that CUWL begin to help clarify policies for items such as learning objects that may also tie-in to e-reserves or other library-owned materials. Questions of whether students have the right to unlimited use of such materials, or would it a per-use arrangement? Frazier emphasized that CUWL needs to stay actively involved these digital divide issues and legal/economic issues in an online environment.
The day’s meeting adjourned at 4:18 p.m.
Jim Bredeson, Secretary
Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries
October 2, 2001
Heidel House, Green Lake
Present: Paul Moriarty(chair), Bob Rose, Joe Jax, Jim Bredeson, Tony Galt, Tony Gulig, Winston Van Horne, Leanne Hansen, Anita Evans, Ken Frazier, Tom Murray, Peter Watson-Boone, Patrick Wilkinson, Arne Arneson, Bob Carmack, Joyce Huang, Kathy Schneider, Lorie Docken, Chris Goss, Lori Voss, Christina Baum.
Guests: Todd Digby (and several LAMs members), Steve Miller, Denise Babin, Nolan Pope, Barb Baruth, Bill Doering.
1. Moriarty called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
2. Endeavor Report (Lorie Docken)
Meeting with Jane Burke of Sept. 19, 2001
Docken briefly reviewed the quarterly meeting. One of the discussion items is a new product, EnCompass, a linking software for managing multi-level databases. She reminded everyone that EnCompass is wholly outside the current contract with Endeavor and it’s not real clear exactly what is included in the first phase of development. Voyager release 2001 adds a bindery feature. Docken was asked about Endeavor as a company after Elsevier acquisition; she indicated that Endeavor appears to have more financial flexibility and has added a number of staff in development and support. Endeavor is sponsoring regional “Learning Days,” essentially a promotional tour, said Docken, and asked what interest UW libraries would have in setting up one or more days. The response interest was lukewarm at best, with most of the interest focusing on modules UWS already owns.
Universal Borrowing Update
Docken said that three more sites have now loaded the latest software enhancement, but implementation of the software will take much more time. She again thanked the beta test sites and acknowledged that the commitment had dragged on much too long. She said Endeavor simply didn’t have the staffing levels to handle the situation. Frazier commented that the real question continues, of just how long this can go on? He said we would really need to revisit our goals with regards to our strategic directions. He said Madison is not getting the maximum value of its biggest investment, its book collection, by the continuing delays in UB. Watson-Boone echoed those sentiments, and said that if UB is not ready to go by winter break, they would likely wait until May 2002 at the earliest. Rose stated that we would not have a true idea of UB’s worth until it is implemented and running at all UW campuses.
3. LAMs Report (Todd Digby)
Digby also stated that UB implementation never stops, the constant updates are still the primary focus of most LAMs. He said that student interest in UB seems to be growing at the beta sites. He said the LAMs appreciated the chance to meet face-to-face in conjunction with CUWL and appreciated its recognition by the directors. He also discussed some of the progress in implementing e-reserves and dealing with fair use issues and copyright notification, many campuses following the Madison example. He said his group still seeks input on the other issues involving UB, desktop delivery of articles, and other learning software. Moriarty thanked the LAMs for their extra efforts in dealing with the constant changes.
4. Automation Budget Recommendations (Evans)
Evans reviewed the discussion to date on where we want to place the emphasis on spending of the unallocated automation budget. The amounts are $700,000 for FY02 and $725,000 for FY03 and are for one-time expenditures; money unspent may be carried over to the next fiscal year.
The first priority discussed was UW Digital Collections. Frazier voiced his support for this area, saying that digitization efforts help produce materials that match and enhance the value of the things we buy. Pope discussed the mechanics of digitization briefly, saying that we would need extra hardware for servers. He said that there are many variables in choices for storage space, page- turner software, and a universal index that could span different formats and sites. Frazier said that Madison has already committed significant staff to its projects and would be ready to commit more. The group also discussed outsourcing briefly, especially regarding fragile materials; no one has the proper equipment to effectively handle digitizing those materials at this point.
The next high priority discussed was Desktop Document Delivery. One of the current software leaders appears to be Fretwell-Downing, which was demonstrated recently at the WilsWorld conference and elsewhere. Murray said that the current usage of Library Express at the UW-Madison could be expanded from its current experiment with the Milwaukee and Green Bay campuses. He said that it’s a fairly simple system and one that works now. He also acknowledged that there could be authentication questions that would have to be solved if its expansion continued.
The third high priority discussed was Electronic Reference Service. A couple of different systems have been tried thus far at UW campuses. Madison (engineering, specifically) has been using the Convey software system, which features a voice-over capability, plus chat; it requires software on the reference workstation only, but allows the reference librarian to take over search screens for the end user. Parkside has been using Human Click, a chat software that can be used around the clock. Frazier said that the e-reference service is a nice way to extend our reach with our users, especially with the notable drop-off in face-to-face reference contacts. Rose added that in some situations, this could be combined with general computer use help desks. Frazier said that this was a consideration in Madison with DoIT, but it’s still up in the air at this point.
Other areas were discussed briefly, with a consensus to push E-Reserves above One-Search Software in the priority list. Several campuses are fully implementing e-reserves now, while the one-search software options still appear to be well down the road.
A MOTION (Evans, Galt) was made to advance the priority list as presented with the top three, Digital Collections, Desktop Delivery, and E-Reference, as recommended projects to receive UWS Library Automation funding for FY02. More specific budgets will be devised by working groups. The motion PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The executive committee will meet to form appropriate working groups for project areas (a working group for the Digital Collections has already been formed). These working groups will provide more funding details to CUWL. Moriarty summarized things by saying that E-Reserves funding would not necessarily be applied to a universal system; some funds could be used to ensure that each campus could get started on at least a rudimentary e-reserve system. He also said the LAMs’ consultation may be required to flesh out potential expenditures. Moriarty will ask the LAMs to complete a survey on the status of e-reserves across UWS, including the extent of e-reserve implementation, security/access control to e-reserves, level of satisfaction, and integration of readings/materials into learning management systems.
5. Enhanced Catalog Records (Miller & Babin; Doering)
Milwaukee tech services reps Miller and Babin gave an extensive demonstration of how enhanced catalog records can affect search and retrieval of bibliographic records in Voyager. The issue came to the surface at the beta test sites when they noticed discrepancies in the retrieval performance when one catalog was using enhanced records and another catalog was not. Miller said that there was little valid data so far to measure the significance for the end user; the extra cost of enhanced records does provide increased keyword access. Bill Doering of LaCrosse said that their campus is adding about 700 enhanced records per month at approximately a dollar a record; he also said it is hard assess how the changes have affected searching retrieval.
Evans said that the evidence about how enhanced records affect UB is still mostly anecdotal and not statistical. A lot depends on how users search and it’s really too early to tell until UB is fully in place. Frazier said that this indicates how valuable our catalogs can be, but is the catalog still the primary access vehicle? Gulig asked if we could somehow also provide access to the indexes of books as well as table of contents, etc?
6. Planning for Next Library Funding Request
Frazier said that we might need to look at a complete marketing campaign to tell our story; the Strategic Plan is a great starting piece for that. Galt asked if we couldn’t add a student member to the CUWL membership to help develop a better sense of involvement with students and student government groups? Perhaps inviting a representative of the United Council of Students to attend the next CUWL meeting to start things off?
Schneider said that it’s really clear that our message needs to go beyond the strictly academic community. Wilkinson said that a direct link to the UW Online initiative would increase our chances of any new money. Watson-Boone said that common-system spending and UW Online spending would essentially be deficit spending by UWS, and indirectly, our campus libraries. Moriarty cited the example of the daily ground delivery system; we had demonstrated the clear benefits of that as a common system and it was eventually funded by the legislature. Others pointed to the continuously rising costs of Internet access, which was on Meachen’s short list of things that were eating away at campus and library budgets; controlling those costs could yield some savings that libraries could potentially use.
7. Proposed Dates for Next CUWL Meetings
The group agreed to meet January 29-30, 2002 in Madison, in conjunction with the Library Legislative Day on January 29. The group settled on May 2-3, 2002 for the Spring meeting; Milwaukee was offered as a possible location by Watson-Boone.
The meeting adjourned at 11:55
Jim Bredeson, Secretary