Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries
Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries (CUWL)
May 5-6, 2005
Present: Leanne Hansen (Chair), Ewa Barczyk, Barb Baruth, Marc Boucher, Lorie Docken, Anita Evans, Ken Frazier, Jean Gilbertson, Chris Goss, Tony Gulig, Joyce Huang, John Krogman, Mordecai Lee (Thursday only), Valerie Malzacher, Paul Moriarty, Pat Wilkinson, Bob Rose, Philip Schwarz, Felix Unaeze
Guests: Lisa Weikel (Thursday only), Jana Reeg-Steidinger, Brad Baker (Friday only), Andy Bush (Friday only), Nolan Pope (Friday only)
Thursday, May 5
1. Hansen called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. She welcomed everyone and thanked Boucher for making the meeting arrangements and for the lovely weather. Introductions were made around the table. There were no announcements. The consent agenda was adopted, including review of the Executive Committee meetings minutes of April 14, 2005, approval of the minutes from the CUWL February 7, 2005 meeting and the agenda for this meeting.
2. Docken presented the UW System Administration/OLIT report. She expressed Meachen’s regret for being unable to attend -- he is at a Board of Regents meeting.
· The next Voyager upgrade, which includes the Unicode release, will take place this summer, with campuses upgrading between July 6th and July 21st. Campuses need to inform their users that simultaneous search and UB will be disabled during that time, with services restarted on July 24th.
· The LAMs have formed a working group, the Voyager Hardware Upgrade Committee, to review hardware replacement options for the Voyager system. Docken distributed a May 3rd report from the committee. Maintenance is increasing for older hardware, some UW Voyager systems are not mirrored, and a hub configuration would provide several benefits. In addition to DoIT (UW-Madison), UW-Eau Claire and Endeavor also could serve as hosting sites. The Voyager hardware replacement issue will be on the CUWL agenda this fall, and swapping out hardware could take place in Spring 2006.
· SBC is the prime contractor with the Wisconsin BadgerNet Alliance. Conversion pilots will take place over the summer and the goal is to have all sites converted by Spring 2006. All UWs will remain on WiscNet through the coming academic year. The looming issue is cost; a CIO working group is reviewing the cost information provided by DOA.
· Last February, the Provosts and CBOs held a retreat to identify areas of potential efficiencies. Docken distributed copies of an April 26, 2005 memo from UW System President Kevin Reilly. The memo outlines a charge to form two working groups to study potential efficiencies. The groups, composed chiefly of Provosts and CBOs, are to look for three levels of reductions (10 percent, 20 per cent, 30 per cent) and will provide reports for the Chancellor’s retreat at the end of June.
· Lawson (APBS software vendor) will send staff to UW-Madison to work with campus technical and functional staff. A gap analysis will be performed to answer questions about why the system isn’t functioning well for UW-Madison. The analysis will take a couple of months to complete. There will be dialog with other UW institutions to ascertain what the PeopleSoft HR implementation should look like. The APBS project will be on hold for at least a year. Costs for consultants have been reduced, but there are ongoing costs. The UW System will continue to use the legacy system, which should be able to do the job for the next three to five years.
Copies were distributed of the October 25, 2004
document “Assessing and Leveraging Common Systems: A Report to the
3. Goss reviewed the UW System budget status. The Joint Finance Committee (JFC) is looking for additional cost savings and wants to restore some proposed cuts. The JFC is interested in funding the UW System at the 03/05 level, which means there would be no money to cover increases in costs to continue. A three percent tuition cap has been proposed, but probably won’t go through. The situation is still very fluid. Evans commented that there is an impression that the UW System cut is much less than the campus cuts, and asked if this is a fair assessment. Goss and Docken both said that they did not know what the UW System cut will be, and Goss offered to find out and report back. Rose said that UW System cut issue is difficult – the shared electronic collection, for example, is funded by UW System money and directly benefits all campuses. Docken stated that much UW System money goes out to the campuses. Wilkinson observed that the UW System did not put up a good fight about the definition of “administrative positions” and Lee commented that any agency that fights with the Legislative Audit Bureau loses. Hansen said that CUWL needs to share information about how libraries are being cut. Each CUWL director around the table reported on probable cuts. Campuses are using varied approaches to come up with the necessary funds; anticipated cuts range across staff, acquisitions, and supplies & expenses. Some directors expect big cuts, others little or nothing. Frazier mentioned that there is a correlation between the number of degrees an institution grants and the decline/increase in library acquisitions dollars. Wilkinson and Evans both noted that the UW System is making cuts of convenience rather than strategic cuts, and Goss said that that may be due to chancellors, who want to tailor cuts on their own campuses. Rose noted that it is difficult to take a programmatic approach because teaching positions are off the table. There was consensus that CUWL should collect data on library budget cuts starting with the 2001/2003 biennium. Goss will develop a grid, which should include cells for both dollar amounts and percentages, and send it to the Executive Committee for review.
4. Boucher presented
the final report of the Online Services Policy Revision Committee. Lisa Weikel, a member of the committee,
assisted with the presentation. The
committee consulted with library liaisons on each campus, sent a survey to each
campus (100 percent response rate), and held a discussion group at the
· Under “Philosophy of Service”, the “one system, one library” concept was added, as well as a definition of distance learning (DL).
· Under “Principles of Service,” a section (2.0) about photo IDs was added. Concern was expressed about whether a library could identify an individual as a DL student if s/he has no campus photo ID. Although it may be possible to check the Voyager patron file or call the home campus library, there are technical issues. CUWL agreed that the phrase “if technically possible” should be added to the 2.0. sentence. Regarding mailing loaned material to the distance learner’s home (4.0), Rose noted that it will be logically difficult and will cause delays. Weikel replied that using Federal Express works well. Sometimes it is worth it to the student just to get the item at all, even if the individual cannot keep it for long. Krogman recommended changing Desire2Learn to Learn@UW (10.0).
· Boucher proposed other new recommendations the committee would like CUWL to consider.
a) Create a new standing committee specifically addressing DL concerns. If CUWL does not create a DL committee, use the Reference Coordinators Committee as a forum to discuss DL issues. b) Establish a listserve for DL library liaisons. If the UW System is not willing to host, Boucher is willing to maintain such a listserve locally. c) Revisit the document in three or four years because DL will be rapidly changing
Unaeze recommended that the committee take a look at
5. Hansen announced that Arneson will not be attending the meeting. She will get together a group to take Arneson to lunch and present his retirement gifts. CUWL members should contact her if interested in attending.
6. CUWL discussed the
need for and sustainability of standing subgroups. The issue has arisen, in part, because some
directors have learned that access services (circulation) librarians and
information literacy librarians would both like subgroups formed for their
areas. Wilkinson spoke in favor of an
access services group because there is a need to hold serious discussions about
common circulation policies and procedures as resource sharing efforts
intensify. He noted inconsistencies in
the way UB loans for faculty are handled.
Barczyk asked how CUWL could facilitate information sharing without
further burdening UW System staff.
Docken mentioned the difficulty individual campuses might have in
sustaining operations as multiple staff participate in these groups. Rose commented that the listserve idea might
be a good initial effort. Docken asked
if it would be feasible to consider working committees that do not have
representatives from all campuses.
Frazier said that the CUWL Executive Committee should authorize
committee work; each committee should be charged with a specific activity and
full representation from every campus is not needed to investigate an
issue. Moriarty observed that for some
campuses, if full representation were called for, the same person would be on
many committees. Evans thought that it
might be a good idea to combine the listserve concept with the creation of task
forces assigned specific jobs, as authorized by CUWL or the CUWL Executive
Committee. Unaeze, Krogman and Huang all
spoke about the need for librarians to share information and to gain a feeling
of belonging. Rose suggested the
possibility of forming regional subgroups.
It was noted that some groups have a natural place to congregate (e.g.
7. Barczyk gave an overview of the Collection Management Task Force’s recent activities.
She then reviewed each recommendation contained in the Task Force’s Spring 2005 report.
Recommendation 1. Set up a six-month voluntary trial to use YBP. Huang moved to approve the recommendation and Boucher seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Barczyk will email CUWL directors (and copy the CDC), asking each institution for a decision about their participation in the trial.
Recommendation 2. Charge the CDC to review the last copy policy. Frazier moved to approve the recommendation, Boucher seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Recommendation 3. Ask the Resource Sharing Committee to investigate volume discounts for article document delivery through commercial vendors. Frazier said that UW-Madison has instituted a “canceled journal title project” whereby articles from certain publishers (e.g. Wiley, Elsevier) are quickly purchased when faculty ask for them. Users appreciate the quality of article – an original, not a derivative copy. Frazier warned that UW-Madison is canceling research journals, and in the future, photocopied articles from these canceled journals will not be available from UW-Madison. Wilkinson moved to approve the recommendation, Krogman seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Recommendation 4. Develop publicity and information on promoting “one system, one library” initiatives. Gulig moved to approve the recommendation, Lee seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Recommendation 5. Have the task force adapt the existing shelving survey developed by UW-Madison and send it out to CUWL. Evans moved to approve the recommendation, Malzacher seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Discussion then ensued about a possible one-year purchase of
OCLC’s Collection Assessment Service.
Barczyk outlined benefits of the service, particularly the information
to be gained about the level of duplication and the age of collections. Docken questioned whether CUWL will be able
to use the information and was concerned about the amount of data to wade
through. Moriarty said that CUWL needs
to know exactly what the data will be used for.
Rose noted that it will be expensive to analyze the data. Evans observed that it is more important to
look forward when building collections.
Schneider reported that OCLC’s price proposal is only good through June,
and then the price will rise. Barczyk
will email an article to CUWL about the service’s benefits. The task force will hold a conference call to
discuss the service and how the data could be used, and will report back to
CUWL. Rose noted that YBP’s
8. CUWL discussed the potential for shared government documents collections. Rose said that the potential exists, but government documents are often used as reference materials, and, at the point of need, there can be quite a bit of interaction between the documents user and the librarian. Wilkinson observed that UW libraries are developing documents collections that are much larger than needed. Gilbertson noted that CUWL would need to consider overlap issues and the length of time that materials should be kept. Wilkinson suggested that CUWL could create a historic collection housed in a storage facility, but questioned whether it would be worth the time, money and space needed. The group agreed to drop the idea.
9. Frazier briefly updated CUWL on the off-site storage facility issue. The Wisconsin Historical Society has authorization to plan a storage facility to be built in 07/09. UW-Madison Libraries have put forward an issue statement that says that the campus should propose a partnership with the Wisconsin Historical Society for a second module that could be shared with UW-Madison and other UW System libraries. Frazier noted the benefits of collaborative management of a storage facility.
10. Schneider presented the report of the Resource Sharing Committee. She first outlined the recommendation to continue the funding of document delivery for resource sharing from the British Library. Other vendors, such as Wiley and Elsevier, could also be included. Boucher moved to approve the recommendation, Rose seconded. The movement passed unanimously.
Schneider next brought up the recommendation that there should be UW System funded compensation for net lenders for non-returnables. Huang moved to approve the recommendation, Evans seconded. Gilbertson asked how the $95,000 funding figure was arrived at. Schneider confirmed that it was a “best guess.” The movement passed unanimously. Schneider then took up the committee’s recommendation that there should not be inter-campus transfers of funds to cover lost UB materials. Wilkinson noted that UW libraries handle processing fees differently (e.g. some charge a fee, but forgive the fee if asked) and consistency is needed. Schneider said that the committee would take up this topic again. Gulig asked how many items have been lost in transit, but Schneider did not have that information. Hansen said that she thought the figure was very small. Huang moved to approve the recommendation, Malzacher seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
11. Schneider gave the WiLS report. Wisconsin Heritage Online is moving forward. UW-Madison digital staff is setting up a CONTENTdm server and the central metadata server. A pilot project with a small public library is just beginning. At the digital summit, a statement was passed around allowing institutions to sign on as a Founding Member of Wisconsin Heritage Online. The WiLS website will provide a mechanism to allow those institutions not at the summit to sign on as Founding Members.
12. This year’s mentorship program was reviewed by the participants. First, Unaeze and Rose reported on their activities. Rose visited UW-Superior, where Unaeze introduced him to the library staff and showed him around the library. The two directors had fruitful discussions and Rose was able to offer some suggestions, one of which has resulted in a recarpeting project. Unaeze plans to visit UW-Eau Claire. Both directors agreed that the relationship was successful. Next, Gulig and Lee reported. Lee said that Gulig had been a fabulous mentor, the best he has ever had. (The two have never been in touch.)
13. The meeting was recessed at 5:10 p.m.
Friday, May 6
1. Hansen reconvened the meeting at 8:20 a.m.
2. Evans presented
the Diversity Task Force update. The
survey return rate was good, but the committee is still waiting for a few
responses. Evans outlined survey
findings and then reviewed information from Traci Hall’s (
3. Huang presented a Strategic Directions Task Force update. The task force decided to work on the internal document first, reorganizing it, creating a new vision statement which focuses on users rather than collections, and moving the “One System, One Library” phrase to the title. Huang asked for edits and the following were suggested:
Strategic Direction 1.
Objective 1. Action 1. Change initial wording to: “Collaboratively develop collections…”
Objective 1. Action 2.
Changing initial wording to: “Explore ways to collaborate with
Objective 1. Action 4. In response to a suggestion that language be added about the philosophy of the shared collection, Docken said that the CDC could be encouraged to review the shared collection policy document.
Objective 1. Action 5. Broaden the “
Objective 4. Action 5. Change initial wording to “Continue the online retrospective conversion…”
Strategic Direction 2.
Objective 2. Action 1. Change Desire2Learn to Learn@UW.
Strategic Direction 4.
Action 1 (b). Change initial wording to “allows libraries to improve library environments…”
Strategic Direction 5.
Action 3. The task force will rework this section.
Action 4. Start the action item on a new line. Change wording to “…and other under represented groups, employed in UW Libraries.”
Huang indicated that she will accept suggestions after the meeting and asked CUWL members to send her changes by May 13th. The draft will be shared with CUWL standing subcommittees, and then sent to Meachen and to Cora Marrett, UW System Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs. The task force will have a final document ready for approval at the fall CUWL meeting.
4. OCLC Group
5. Nolan Pope gave an update from the Task Force on Strategic Directions for a UW Digital Repository. The task force is preparing recommendations for CUWL. Issues being discussed:
* Governance, including expertises that will be required and policies that will need to be established.
* Quality control.
* Relationship to other initiatives, such as portals, Learn@UW, and Google.
* Identification of communities. Several communities have been created at UW-Madison; at UW-La Crosse, masters theses are being added to the campus repository. Many more groups are lining up to get their communities set up and to create their collections and subcollections.
Task force members have given presentations at meetings and conferences,
held poster sessions, prepared promotional articles, and made numerous visits
to faculty and staff at UW-Madison and other campuses, with more visits
scheduled. There will be a presentation
at the upcoming 2005 Teaching and Learning Symposium, which will be held in
Pope said that response has become more positive. Barriers include finding the time for the project, dealing with material that is not ready to go public, and getting approval from a higher administrative authority.
Rose asked what the response would be if an individual approached Minds@UW about adding a resource that would be a better fit with the UWDC and Pope replied that a referral could be made. Gilbertson said that NIH requires published results of NIH-funded research to be made freely available through PubMed Central (PMC), and there is concern that faculty aren’t going to have the time to put them into both an institutional repository and PMC. Wilkinson noted that the UWDC and Minds@UW relationship could be complex. UWDC is highly managed, with selector control, while Minds@UW is a repository for faculty to self-archive publications. Pope said that if someone could identify resources in Minds@UW that would also fit in UWDC, links could be made. Rose asked about the structure of the masters theses community, and Pope responded that currently, campuses are considering them as part of the local repository, rather than a big UW collection. He added that it might not be too hard to shift resources to other collections. Gilbertson reported that there had been a Google Scholar presentation at ACRL; she predicted that users will consider it to be a good starting place. Problems finding theses may disappear, since Google Scholar plans to search repositories. Huang asked Pope to provide promotional information about Minds@UW.
6. Docken, substituting for CDC Chair Sylvia Beardsley, asked if there were any questions about the CDC report. Wilkinson said that tough decisions about the e resources collection are coming, and the important issue is whether many little cuts or a few big cuts will be made. Huang moved to approve the recommendations for 2005, Rose seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Reeg-Steidinger reviewed the RCC report.
She said that joint discussions with CDC were especially fruitful, as
the reference librarians brought the user perspective to table. She outlined other RCC activities and said
that the RCC recommends that it continue as a standing committee. Discussion
turned to the topic of virtual reference service. Reeg-Steidinger said that the committee
focused its efforts on successful models, reviewed many programs, and
determined that there is not one program that could be used as a UW model. The RCC recommends that the UW libraries
pursue virtual reference service, making one service available to all UW
libraries, with participation voluntary.
The service architecture could campus-specific or there could be
consortial arrangements. Reeg-Steidinger
agreed with Wilkinson’s summary of the situation: there is much interest in
virtual reference, but no RCC consensus on how to proceed. It was pointed out that UW-Madison has a
group currently working on virtual reference services, assessing “instant
messaging” as an alternative to the current service. Malzacher said that
encouraged CUWL members to attend the sessions about the future of WISCAT being
held on May 26th at the
9. CUWL held an evaluation discussion of the RCC. It had been hoped that the RCC
would share more scripts for online learning modules, but the virtual reference question consumed most of their time. Evans suggested that CUWL use the RCC in a flexible way to encompass broader issues. Boucher asked if the RCC should be given a new charge, and if so, suggested that distance learning could be added. Malzacher said that casual sharing of ideas and the ability to have roundtable discussions is very beneficial, and that a balance should be struck between assigning a specific charge and providing for information sharing. Unaeze moved that the RCC be continued, Barczyk seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
10. Rose moved to continue the mentoring program, Evans seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
11. Wilkinson presented the slate of candidates from the Nominations Committee: Malzacher for Chair Elect, Boucher for Member-at-Large, and Gilbertson for Secretary. Krogman moved that nominations be closed and a ballot be cast for the nominees, Rose seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The newly elected Executive Committee members were congratulated.
Wilkinson asked whether it is necessary to hold a joint meeting with the IT groups. The ITMC group organizes the joint meeting, and last year there was no communication during planning. Rose observed that CUWL could get more done if it met separately, but politically and strategically, it is best to continue to meet with the other groups. Wilkinson also asked if the group wished to have the winter meeting held in conjunction with Legislative Day. Unaeze said that the practice should continue; he attended 2005 Legislative Day and felt that it had been productive.
Evans praised outgoing CUWL Chair Hansen for providing excellent service (applause), CUWL Secretary Baruth for excellent minutes (applause), and host Boucher for providing excellent meeting facilities and services (applause).
13. Barczyk asked
whether an 800 number for Distance Learning is necessary, considering that
almost everyone uses a cell phone now.
Boucher replied that the committee was following
14. The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.