Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries

CUWL Minutes, October 5, 2006

Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries (CUWL) Meeting
October 5, 2006
UW-Oshkosh
Meeting Minutes (draft)

Present: Valerie Malzacher (chair), Ewa Barczyk, Marc Boucher, Kathy Davis, Lorie Docken, Anita Evans, Jean Gilbertson, Ken Grant, Tony Gulig, Leanne Hansen, John Krogman, Mordecai Lee, Paul Moriarty, Bob Rose, Kathy Schneider, Brenda Swannak, Felix Unaeze, Ed Van Germert, Paul Roberts, Chuck Rybak, Pat Wilkinson,  Vanaja Menon, Jon Musselman.

Guests:  Mary Rieder, UW Colleges

Thursday October 5, 2006 – 1:30

  1. Welcome, introductions and announcements:

Thanks to Pat Wilkinson and his staff for hosting this meeting.  Thanks to Pat and Kathy Schneider for arranging our preconference this morning. 
Welcome new members/visitors: 
Chuck Rybak – Colleges faculty representative
Vanaja Menon – UW Parkside
Barbara Bren for Joyce Wong and Ewa Barczyk
John Musselman  - UW Plattville
Chris Cox – Interim director after Bob Rose retires
Mary Reider – UW system

Jean Gilbertson shared Read Poster and Badger bookmarks with members.  She also shared that UW Madison libraries have changed their loan period to match UB loan periods. Mordecai Lee announced that Ewa Barczyk has accepted the permanent position of Library Director at UW Milwaukee. UW Superior library renovation project has been awarded to River Architects of LaCrosse.

  1. Executive Minutes (August 4), CUWL Meeting Minutes (July 25) and agenda were approved as presented  - moved by Pat Wilkinson  - Anita Evans seconded

 

  1. Discussion “Is the OPAC Dying” preconference –  Members shared their reactions to the presentation.  Points included:
    1. The presentation reminded the group that we are all duplicating both purchasing and processing of the same collections.  There should be many areas that we can become more efficient and relevant to the changing library environment.
    2. Some members were encouraged by the progress that OCLC has made toward these issues.  The partnerships OCLC is working toward will be profitable to the development of libraries in the nation. 
    3. Some members were concerned about how circulation services would work in this new OCLC  service. 
    4. The movement of certain operations up to the network is inevitable.
    5. There were concerns about the business model for sustaining these services.  OCLC is working hard to make their services relevant for the future of libraries.  There is a concern about the economics of a service such as this and how it will integrate with existing services. 
    6. Some concerns were expressed about the concentration of information and resources in one company or area.  Security of the future of information should be considered.
    7. This demonstrates a move to a consolidation of technical services to eliminate duplication among campuses.  The possibility of OCLC hosting this kind of service could make things easier for technical staff.
    8. The user should be considered when considering a “one-vendor” interface with the information world.  Ease of use is of prime importance.  Students are used to using a Google-like environment and prefer this simple interface.
    9. Shouldn’t we shift our staff time from tweaking records and duplicating services to making hidden collections available to the users?
    10. Accuracy of the Worldcat database is a concern and would need to be considered.
    11. More centralization is an inevitable direction for libraries.  If libraries don’t evolve they might not be as relevant in the future.  Some of our electronic tools are too complex for our users. 
    12. OCLC has a long history of helping libraries develop and move into the future.  Some members share confidence in OCLC for being able to move this project forward.
    13. Sophistication should be in the background and not in the user interface.
    14. Some directors were concerned about the quality of service in past OCLC products.  Can they deliver the product as promised?
    15. The OPAC is currently not sufficient.  OCLC may or may not be the solution.  A better OPAC is needed.  The aggregating of the OCLC product might be very attractive but we already have that capability in Metalib and are spending lots of money on that product.  Why isn’t it meeting out needs?
    16. There will be many hurdles to cross before OCLC or any other vendor has a viable product to centralize all library catalogs and cataloging of materials.
    17. OCLC’s  major revenue has been cataloging which is declining.  OCLC is trying to make their huge Worldcat database work harder.  OCLC and libraries must be dynamic if they are to stay relevant.
    18.  There was a question about the future of automated library systems.  What is the next generation and how will it work?  Future systems will have to be modular with interoperate systems.  

 

  1. Review of U Library policy on charging for loans for Reference and Loan Library.   Valerie provided a summary of the history of UW libraries’ use of this service.  In 2003 CUWL informed Reference and Loan that UW libraries policy  would be to charge for services.  At the July CUWL meeting the Reference and Loan staff presented their proposal to no longer charge for services and the CUWL members agreed to review the policy and make a decision on whether to change the current policy.  Some member institutions aren’t comfortable with charging the public libraries.  There was concern expressed about the increased usage and work load and that borrowing charges are increasing.  The current borrowing charges are not to individual libraries but are to Reference and Loan.  Reference and Loan has chosen to put their resources in other areas and therefore cannot support ILL charges. In a time of reduced budgets, they made a conscious decision to shift their cost to the UW libraries.  There are some concerns about the efficiency of the Reference and Loan service and the choices they have made. CUWL offered to fund Reference and Loan services for a period of time so that they could come up with a plan, but they made no effort to review their model.  Even if Reference and Loan is charged for services, special arrangements with local libraries would be respected and upheld.  It was noted that some universities would like to make their own decisions about charging and may choose not to charge.  It was recommended that UW libraries make direct arrangements with libraries they want to serve for free.  This would be a better service model for those libraries.

Motion:  The members affirm to maintain the current CUWL policy to charge Reference and Loan for services and continue to maintain any reciprocal borrowing agreements with libraries we want to serve for free.  CUWL libraries are encouraged to establish direct agreements with any libraries they wish to serve for free. Ed Van Gemert moved,  Bob Rose seconded  16 positive votes, 2 abstentions – motion passed

5.  WiLS report -   Kathy  Schneider    -   RFP was sent through DPI for a new vendor of WISCAT  and Autographics got the contract. OCLC bid but was not the successful vendor. WiLS has been working with OCLC to offer a deep discount to school libraries and public libraries for BadgerCat.  If anyone takes advantage of this offer, funds will be used by WiLS for next year’s renewal.  They have focused in on seven of the public library systems.  Two have declined, one has accepted and three are seriously considering the offer.  Public schools were also contacted and offered an opportunity to have BadgerCat set up at no cost.

A scenario planning exercise has been initiated by WiLS.  A ½ day retreat took place to discuss the future of WiLS.  This information will be consolidated and taken to the WiLS board. 

Kathy brought Aries electronic resource management product information for the group.  This product is designed along the same lines as Illiad.   WiLS would have access to a discounted price for this product.

“What has WiLS Done for You Lately” document was distributed to members. 

  1. UW-System report – Ed Meachem/Lorie Docken

Ed reported to the CUWL members on the Endeavor update and stated that Endeavor did a pretty good job during the update but communication was very poor.  Overall the upgrade was better than previous experiences.  Bryan Wilson has been trained to do upgrades and indicates that the Voyager hub is stable and most of the version 5 software problems have been resolved.  All libraries are interested in moving to version 6 because of its improved functionality.  Ed thinks that all libraries should be able to migrate by January.  If Endeavor has the technical staff available to do all upgrades and the serious UB problems are fixed, we will look at upgrading in January or summer at the latest.  CUWL’s goal is to be current in our release version and to move from Solaris 9 to Solaris 10 version of the operating system.  UB would probably be down as much at ten days.  Other than UB the upgrade should go faster than the last version.

  1. Distance Learning report – Marc Boucher

Marc compiled the Distance Learning report from all institutions that submitted reports.  Documents were distributed to the group.  Marc will send contact information from Madison to CUWL members and this information will be put on the CUWL website. 

Enforceability of CUWL policies is an issue that was discussed.  Toll free phone numbers and free interlibrary loans are among the issues that are not being enforced.   The final report will be shared with the RCC.  There are many great distance learning activities happening on the various campus and we share many of the same concerns.  More work should be done to get the contact information out to distance learning students.  

Marc thanked all members for submitting the reports and the contact information.
Valerie will send the reports to the RCC and the summary will be put on the CUWL web site. 

  1. Diversity Task Force Update – Anita Evans

Recommendations from report November 2005.  There was a recommendation to send someone to the Joint Conference of Librarians of Color Conference in Dallas  Michelle Washington has been selected to go to the conference whose focus is on recruitment and retention of librarians of color. Valerie wrote a letter to system to fund Michelle to go to the conference.  System has responded that they will fund this effort.  Michelle will report back to CUWL next year.  The Diversity Task Force has been working with the web development librarian at UW Madison to develop a prototype web site.  The web site should be ready for release within the next few weeks. 

Bob Rose provided an update on the Spectrum Scholars Mentor program – Bob Rose encouraged anyone interested to contact Ewa. 

Ed shared that UW Madison has been working on strategies for recruiting  librarians of color.  To this goal UW Madison developed the Information Services Intern Program – started this fall – 15 juniors and seniors of color applied for the internship and 5 students were hired(paid interns) – The goal of this program is to attract students of color who will be interested in a career in librarianship in the future.  Staff members are excited about working with these young people to share their enthusiasm for the profession.  SLIS is also involved.

Thanks for Bob Rose
The group honored and congratulated Bob Rose for his leadership and contribution  to CUWL.  Valerie presented Bob with gifts from the group and read a proclamation of congratulations on his retirement.
Adjourned for the day (October 5, 2006)

October 6, 2006 – resumed CUWL meeting

Pat Wilkinson introduced Lane Earns, Provost and Vice Chancellor who welcomed the CUWL members to the Oshkosh campus.

  • CUWL Subgroup Working Group final report – Bob Rose

Bob Rose opened the discussion with remarks – the working group’s purpose changed from a look at the structure of the subgroups to looking at how CUWL operates and how CUWL can position itself for the future.  Since the last CUWL discussion Bob has met with the CDC and collected all comments and examined all suggestions for possible changes.  Many subgroups responded to the working group with opposition to the new plan.
The basic framework has remained but there have been several changes:

  • Principles and Expectations – every campus will have at least one rep. on one of the groups.
  • Increase the number of members on committees from seven to nine.  Broader representation across the system.
  • Changes in the committee charges- clarify the role in USAC and the Archivists.
  • Increased the role of technical services.
  • Created a nominating process – directors will nominate the campus representatives.
  • Created a phased approach to appointing committees – full committees will be implemented in January.
  • Formal assessment process has been created with a specific timetable.
  • Created a venue for face to face communication – annual system-wide meeting planned.
  • Reduced the number of listservs to four.  This would improve communication and cut down on miscommunication and duplication of discussions.

Original charge:
Networking  - opportunity for cross functionality
Communication – addressed in a variety of ways – Listservs will help with communication
Advocacy – Groups can advocate to CUWL and groups can be more proactive
Membership –
Structure –
Currently non-existing groups – enhanced the representation of various functional groups that do not have their own groups.  Active participation in distance ed, circulation, etc.
Issues – this will have to wait until the actual groups start working – it will evolve.
Support – May require additional resources on individual campuses.  It should reduce the amount of support required of the OLIT staff.

Valerie’s comments: 
Cross functional groups – this new plan will provide opportunities to be ready for changes in our library environments.  Other professional organizations structure themselves very similar to this recommended plan. Annual system meeting will allow for more interaction with various campus staff and issues. 

Mary’s comments – the UW Colleges representative on this subgroup – believes this plan can work.  She has experience with other groups that have a similar structure and are successful.
The nice thing about the listservs is that anyone can provide input and issues are not limited to the committee’s input.  This new system will be more inclusive and not exclusive. Staff can be as involved as they want to with the new communication initiatives. 

Questions/comments: 
The new annual conference would be different from the current CUWL meeting.  This would be a summer meeting that would provide the opportunity for librarians from various groups to get together. 

There was a concern expressed about front line group discussions and reduced representation on each group for all campuses.

There is across the board opposition against eliminating the LAMs and CDCs.
There was a recommendation that we find a compromise for the LAMs and CDCs that meets their needs but supports the new structure.

Campus staff are reluctant to use the listservs because of the time commitment and could affect productivity.  

CDC and LAM groups might not be eliminated with this new structure but groups could charge subgroups to deal with front line issues when needed. 

The chairs of the four committees will have a seat at the CUWL table that they have not had in the past. This should improve and not detract from communication.

This new structure will enable library staff to look at the bigger picture and consider the cross functionality of issues and initiatives.  This kind of structure is an organizational imperative. 

Some members expressed concerns that so many staff are in opposition to this plan.  As Directors we cannot ignore the concerns of our staff.  There seems to be a need for the functional groups.  The current plan states that the current groups would not continue as originally formed.  It was not clear how the new groups would address the need for functional groups.  It will be up to the four groups to address this issue. 

Compromise is needed to make this a more palatable plan for the library staffs that address their concerns.  Also, the recognition of the work that the groups have made to the success of CUWL is important.  Library staff members want the opportunity to provide input to issues.  This structure should provide those opportunities but more specifics may be necessary to help library staff understand the potential of the Coordinating Committees.  The functionality of the current groups is important and their input should be part of this new plan without losing the idea of cross functionality of the four coordinating committees. 

CUWL needs to focus on the future and we need to think about what will work for us on in the long run.  We need to be explicit about effort to compromise.  We don’t have buy-in at this time and we need to give more direction to the coordinating group charges to accommodate the LAMs and CDCs. 

This plan gives each of these coordinating groups the ability to formulate processes and structures to meet the needs of their group and address issues and initiatives. 

There seems to be a feeling on campuses that they are loosing a voice. 

There is a sense that there would be a loss of OLIT staff support.  OLIT staff responded that their role would be to support the needs of all coordinating committees.  Coordinating committees would actually help OLIT staff by having more staff at the table to provide input to the impact of OLIT decisions on various groups. 

Lori shared the idea of special interest/resource group option.  These groups would function within the structure of the coordinating committees.  These groups might be the front line issue groups.  It was suggested that there be an explicit mention of this kind of group in the current plan. 

It was suggested that this process be delayed to provide time for educating the current groups of how they can be involved in the new process and how the front line issues and initiatives can be accomplished.

Valerie summarized:  There is broad support for the general concept of the report and most are willing to move forward.  There are concerns over the opposition to the report and feel that the language of the report was not explicit enough to address the implied solutions to the issues and concerns of library staff.  The current plan is a work in progress and will be tweaked over time to meet the needs of the group.  There is a formal assessment plan but there may need to be more frequent examinations of the process to make sure CUWL’s coordinating committee plan is meeting the needs of the group. 

Ed asks for more specifics about the role of USAC.  Bob explained that this structure will help address the issues of USAC more broadly and determine how these decision impact the overall UW library system.  USAC is a hybrid organization and those charges will have to be worked out as we progress toward implementing this plan. 

This new structure can work if there is a commitment from participants.  

It was suggested that the language of the report be revised to include issues from the CDCs and LAMs and then be brought to CUWL for a vote.  CUWL directors should go back to their staff and help staff understand how changes can be addressed.

Motion:  The CUWL working group report will be sent to the CUWL executive committee to be amended to reflect concerns regarding resource groups. The amended document will be sent to CUWL members for discussion and comments. CUWL members will be polled electronically for a vote on the final revised document.  Ed Van Germert moved, Bob Rose seconded.

Motion:  CUWL members thank Bob Rose and the working group for their hard work on the developing and communicating the new structure proposal.
Seconded Anita Evans

  • Book RFP Task Force Update – Richard Reeb/Lori Voss

  Richard Reeb has met and discussed the Primary Vendor RFP with the CDC.
The contract will be for 18 months with a  renewed annual contract possible for four additional years.
This RFP is designed for a Primary vendor of domestic firm orders and approval plans.  The primary vendor will supply a list of publishers they handle. If an institution requires materials from a publisher that is not on the list they may use a different vendor. The RFP includes rush orders.  Performance of the vendor will be reviewed each year prior to renewal.  The committee must continue with the scoring of the responses and cost information and put together a recommendation and negotiate the final contract.  The committee will then turn their attention to non-print vendors.  RFPs are due Nov 1.

Institutions are expected to use the primary vendor when possible to keep the costs down for the entire group.  Each year the vendors and CUWL will look at the total amount spent to determine the contract costs for the next year.  If an institution uses a different vendor and exceeds $25,000, the institution must develop a purchasing plan that will be reviewed by system purchasing.  Lori explained the requirement of a purchasing plan for library vendors and how this impacts institutions that choose to use other vendors.

The use of a primary vendor is a strategic benefit to all campuses.  Cost of materials is not the sole consideration.  The more materials that are purchased through a primary vendor, the better services and collection evaluation resources that will be.  The use of a primary vendor could also save in staff time and shipping costs.

Bob Rose recognized the task force for the impressive work done on this issue.

3.  LEARN@UW/Library Integration Task Force preliminary report – Marc Boucher and Jean Ruenger-Hansen
Marc provided a preliminary report of the task force-
The group was charged with gathering information from all interested parties: 
*Identify practices already employed by UW libraries to provide library services and resources to students in faculty-developed D2L courses.
*Describe user-identified needs regarding integration of library resources in D2L.  In this case, “users” are defined as both students who access course content via D2L and faculty who provide that content.
*Based on models developed both in and outside of the UW, recommend technology and/or non-technology based solutions for the UW System that will promote a closer integration of library resources in D2L.

The surveys have been completed.  The faculty survey is ready to go.
Library Directors will be asked to contact the faculty on their campus in the hope of getting a better response.  Surveys should be back by the end of October.
Student feedback sessions will be done on the Madison campus only in the next few weeks.  The data should be back by the end of October.  Marc shared the faculty survey with the members and talked about the process and issues. 

 Preliminary Recommendations

  • Include a NavBar link to library resources in D2L courses as a default.
  • Campuses are encouraged to implement a database solution for library content.
  • Regardless of how campuses deliver their library content to students within D2L, the committee recommends using some of the following tools:
  • Links to the library’s online catalog or an integrated OPAC search box
  • Links to Library Databases
  • Inclusion of direct links to specific online articles in library databases
  • E-Reserve list for specific course or integrated e-reserve search module
  • Inclusion of Metalib
  • Links to Citation Linker
  • Links to ILL
  • Links to Online Reference Chat service
  • Inclusion of Citation Guides
  • Links to applicable library learning objects
  • Use of the “lurking Librarian”
  1. Federal Research Public Access Act – Ewa Barczyk

This act is the 2006 initiative to have federal funded research made available in a timely matter particularly in the sciences.

There has been a request for broad support from UW research institutions for this initiative.  Ewa asks that CUWL members take this information to their administration. 

It was suggested that the CUWL members develop a communication from the CUWL group as a whole.  The executive committee will discuss this issues and prepare a communication for the group.  It was also suggested that the CUWL group should meet with the Provost group to share these issues. 

  1. Regents Legislative Budget Agenda – Chris Gross

The budget was submitted in September.  Chris shared a document outlining Growth Agenda initiatives requested system-wide.  In Jan/Feb the Govenor will announce his version of the proposed budget. Members asked about the budget outlook for the future.  Chris replied it’s a little early to know but their may be adjustments in the future. Ed will make some opening remarks about Wisconsin Academic Libraries at WLA at Legislative Day.

  1. Next meeting – Wednesday, January 24, 2007 in Madison

There will be a joint meeting at Green Lake in the spring but the date has not yet been set. 

Adjourn at 12:10   Anita Evans moved   Leanne Hansen seconded