Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries (CUWL)

UW-River FallsStudentCenter

November 10-11, 2005

Meeting Minutes

 

Thursday, November 10 (Joint Meeting with LAMs in AM)

 

Present: Pat Wilkinson (Chair), Ewa Barczyk, Barb Baruth, Marc Boucher, Kathy Davis, Lorie Docken, Anita Evans, Jean Gilbertson, Tony Gulig, Leanne Hansen, Joyce Huang, John Krogman, Valerie Malzacher, Paul Moriarty, Bob Rose, Kathy Schneider, Brenda Swannack, Felix Unaeze, Ed VanGemert

 

LAMs group:  Denise Babin, Jon-Mark Bolthouse, Luellen Breed, Marlys Brunsting,  Bill Doering, Allan Davis, Debra Duncan, Steve Elfstrand, Carol Hagness, Daniel Hillis, Mitch Lundquist, Betty McIntyre, Jon Musselman, Deb Nordgren, Carole VanHorn

 

Guests:  Beth Harper (Friday only), Michele McKnelly (Friday only), Jana Reeg-Steidinger

 

1.  Wilkinson called the meeting to order at 12:35PM.  Malzacher welcomed attendees to RiverFalls.  All attendees introduced themselves.  Consent agenda was adopted, including approval of the minutes from the August 31, 2005 CUWL meeting and review of the minutes from the September 19, 2005 Executive Committee meeting.

 

2.  Wisconsin Group Catalog (Malzacher) 

 

Malzacher reviewed the progress to-date on the Wisconsin Group Catalog.  UW Libraries are Phase 1 participants, with implementation planned for January 2006.  Other Phase 1 participants include a group of private academic libraries, a group of public library systems, and one special library.  The initial contract runs through June 2008.    

 

UW representatives on the Phase 1 Implementation Committee include: Jon Mark Bolthouse (UW Colleges), Lee Konrad (UW-Madison), Valerie Malzacher (CUWL), and Pat Wilkinson (WiLS Group Services Committee).  UW representatives have participated in planning meetings to make decisions about scopes, interface customization, and UB functionality via the Group Catalog.   Additional customizations under consideration are colors and logos.  The UW scope will carry the UW System logo.

 

BadgerCat has been selected as the name for the catalog.  This is considered an interim, phase 1 name.  It is technically possible to change the name with adequate lead time.  Malzacher, not known for interjecting graphics and humor into her PowerPoint presentations, entertained the group with a slide illustrating a silly catalog name and acronym - BOWL, Bunch of Wisconsin Libraries, complete with a lovely drawing of a bowl full of library buildings.   

 

The ability for Group Catalog users to place UB requests through the local catalog is a high priority for CUWL.   OCLC has seen a demo of Simultaneous Search and UB functionality in the UW environment.   OCLC is strategically interested in developing/building upon resource sharing programs that utilize local systems.  UW participants in Phase 1 have stressed that UW libraries do not wish to replace UB with ILLiad (for resource sharing among UW libraries) in the Group Catalog environment.

 

Current functionality in the Group Catalog allows a user to deep-link to an individual Voyager catalog to place a UB request.  UW libraries want to provide a more intuitive link to UB from the Group Catalog.  OCLC agreed to investigate options for a “smart” link.  Ideally, the user would click on a “Get this item” button.  Behind-the-scenes functionality would determine if the user is presented an option to place a request via UB or ILLiad.

 

Next Malzacher reviewed the configurations that each library must make in its FirstSearch Administrative Module.  Each library needs to configure deep-links that consistently link from the Group Catalog to the appropriate record in the local catalog, so that users can check shelf status and navigate to UB if desired, without rekeying a search.  The OCLC number is the best overall option for deep-linking.  Four campuses need to do some local work to accommodate using the OCLC number.  Steve Elfstrand has developed a method that he’s sharing with those campuses.  Libraries also need to configure Voyager so that UB requests can be placed after a search of an individual catalog.  This affects the user’s ability to place a UB request when: searching an individual catalog, deep-linking from the Group Catalog, deep-linking from MetaLib, and deep-linking from Open WorldCat.

 

Some further issues for CUWL to consider include:  how to present the Group Catalog to users, the possibility of putting a search box for the UW scoped catalog on a web page, developing an assessment plan for the Group Catalog implementation, articulating goals for the project, and using those goals as a basis for assessing UW participation. 

 

Comments/Questions:

 

Schneider said she is compiling a list of possible goals for the Group Catalog project, based on input from participants in the implementation process. 

 

Wilkinson said that OCLC has been very cooperative in addressing our request to have a Group Catalog search box put onto a library webpage.  OCLC has not provided that functionality in the past, but they have developed a solution that will be tested soon. Also, deep-linking problems have always been there with Open WorldCat, but we haven’t given much thought to our FirstSearch customizations up until now.  It’s time to think more carefully about this at all of our libraries. 

 

Malzacher pointed out that the OCLC documentation for deep-linking is not very clear.  She will communicate out to the campuses how to get the OCLC number linking to work This is very important for the Group Catalog implementation.

 

Brunsting asked if a library can have a scope just for its library, to force people to search the local catalog first for books/returnables?  Uncertain.  Can a library hide certain scopes?  We think so.  Each library can also put its scope into whatever order it chooses.  There was a question about what the ERA scope is.  ERA is a multitype library consortium in the northeastern part of the state.   

 

Elfstrand expressed concern about false negatives for government documents in the Group Catalog if the local records are not in OCLC.   This is true, when searching the Group Catalog, your results will be limited to the records you have in OCLC.  Marcive records for GPO items are not in OCLC.  Malzacher said that in Open WorldCat if you find a document and select “link to library,” it will link to your catalog on the OCLC number (which is linkable in the local catalog).   The discovery of government documents using the Group Catalog is an issue that needs to be resolved in the future. 

 

Question:  Is Badger Cat the final name?  Yes, for now.  It was the overwhelming favorite in the voting. 

 

Wilkinson asked about next steps.  Schneider said we’re waiting for OCLC to get the scopes set up and waiting to see the possible logo choices being developed.  Schneider is hopeful that the Group Catalog will be available before January 1, giving staff time to review it prior to public release.  There are additional scopes planned for July 1.  A geographic or regional scope is of great interest.  The list of libraries planning to join the group in July 2006 is growing.  WiLS is planning to conduct online training on the FirstSearch administrative module for libraries that have not used it in the past.  Wilkinson said that Illinois is also very interested in the UB deep-linking issue, so OCLC understands that this functionality is highly desirable. 

 

Brunsting asked if you can search a scoped UW catalog in MetaLib?  No answer yet on this.

 

3.  Integration of library resources into D2L (Docken)

 

There was a meeting between LTDC and librarians about the status of linking library resources into the D2L/Learn@UW environment.  That meeting included a demonstration of the Rochester Institute of Technology solution using ColdFusion scripts to create links for ereserves, etc.  Staff from RIT participated in the meeting through teleconference.    

 

Docken provided background on how UW-Madison’s Library Course Page development works.  Access controls are through the UW portal.  Question - could other campuses use this functionality?  Also, Madison wants to expand reserves to better integrate into the D2L (Learn@UW) environment for students.  IT people have had feedback from faculty on what they’d link in terms of integration of library resources into D2L, but some faculty are interested in doing that work themselves.  

 

Some campuses have been working to bring their ereserves/deeplinking into D2L.  Malzacher feels that faculty want libraries to facilitate this.  At this time there is no coordination or uniformity in how the UW campuses manage ereserves and/or library linkages with course management software.  Perhaps libraries should make a fuller commitment to LTDC to work with them on this.  LTDC typically focuses on technical issues, but there needs to be a better understanding of options for solutions across the entire UW system.  Whitewater is teaching faculty to scan items and put persistent links into D2L.  The faculty member takes responsibility for the copyright issues.  Baruth said that the Rochester Institute of Technology approach requires a lot of technical programming.  Her campus is trying to use a “widget” instead of the navigation bar.  With a widget, you can add links to ereserves, the library’s home page, and/or a library-developed “Just for Your Course” page.  She thinks that libraries should be in charge of copyright.   There is concern that the CopyrightClearanceCenter is actively marketing directly to faculty, offering to sell them rights to articles they want to include on their course pages.  Libraries have already licensed a great deal of material and do not want the campus community to unnecessarily pay additional fees.

 

Wilkinson asked if D2L is robust enough to handle access to library resources.  Docken said that APIs are not available in the current version.  This complicates the process of integration between D2L and other systems.  Docken recommends that libraries focus more right now on working with faculty on approaches that are not completely technology-based.  Wilkinson said the issue seems to be – are libraries providing a platform for faculty to use on their own – perhaps must use on their own- or are libraries providing a service for faculty who prefer not to do it themselves?  

 

Elstrand has approached ereserves by creating a pdf file repository with access through the Voyager interface.   Stevens Point has the ability to show students all courses with all reserves.  Gilbertson said that faculty usage of library ereserves has evolved over time at Madison.  Early adopters of ereserves in some departments (for example, the College of Engineering) were earlier to integrate assigned readings into course pages and CMS, so library-provided ereserves subsequently decreased for those departments. 

 

Malzacher moved to form a CUWL task force or working group to take a look at the various library/ereserves/D2L integration models across the UW. Boucher seconded.  Wilkinson called for the vote and the motion passed unanimously.  With regard to the composition of the task force, Docken suggested a small group (6-7 people) that includes people from LTDC, public services, etc. Evans asked about having a faculty member and the response was yes.  Gulig said it would be best to have a faculty member who is not already a D2L expert.  Swannack said that the group should get input from students, but not necessarily have students on the group.  The Executive Committee will appoint the committee. 

 

4.   MetaLib Update (Malzacher)

 

Malzacher reiterated CUWL’s thanks to Curran Riley, Sue Dentinger, and Dave Lawver for all the work that they’ve done on both MetaLib and SFX.

 

There is ongoing emphasis on consistency of SFX and MetaLib implementations on all the UW campuses.  An early morning weekday time has been proposed for the SFX/MetaLib maintenance window.  SFX version 3 is being fully implemented across the system.  Krogman asked if performance is more sluggish since the last upgrade.   Lundquist said that Riley is changing some of the initial configurations to improve performance.  Wilkinson said that his staff thinks that students expect results by relevancy rather than by date.  This was reinforced by what they heard recently at the Internet Librarian conference.  Malzacher said that the reason for switching default to date ranking was that the relevancy ranking was limited to too small a set of records.  Users can change the default if they wish.  Malzacher recommended that CUWL conduct another review of where we’re at on consistency issues in Spring 2006.  Wilkinson stressed the need to understand how students use resources, even if we don’t agree with what students do.  Malzacher agreed that we need to do that and work with vendors to improve products.  VanGemert said that his observation is that users are quite happy with FindIT, but many are quite unhappy about the MetaLib gateway and metasearch.  He said we should share our comments about MetaLib across system as part of our overall assessment.  Huang said that faculty and grad students are better off setting up MySpace with their favorite resources.  Reeg-Steidinger reminded us that there had been interest in testing MetaLib with students prior to implementation, but there was not enough lead time.  Malzacher said that we’re still discovering what features/functionality have the greatest appeal for faculty and students.

 

5.   UW System Update (Docken)

 

There were D2L performance problems at beginning of fall semester on many campuses.  Lots of work was done by both D2L staff and the LTDC to address the problems.  The CEO of D2L was recently in Madison to come up with a plan for the Spring semester, including hardware-based solutions.  D2L will deploy a consultant on the hardware issues and will work with DoIT on this.

 

With regard to the APBS, studies are being done on the software gaps in the Lawson software.  There will be an analysis of Oracle PeopleSoft as a replacement for Lawson implementation.   Right now there is a high-level planning process for a Lawson implementation, five months to develop a plan, and then senior administrators could assess the plan and estimated costs and timeline.  DOA is also looking at an integrated business suite of HR software.

 

UWSA expects another budget reduction next year, including on the library side.  System  may also face some staff reductions.  Evans asked what the projected budget cut for next year is.  Docken said anywhere between $.5-1M across UWSA, but she has no idea at this time how cuts might be distributed.  VanGemert said that, regardless of how the library portion of budget is allocated (technology, collections), the overall amount should be protected.  Docken said that UWSA tends to take budget reductions across the board, rather than looking at them strategically and making cuts based on decisions about priorities. 

 

VanGemert moved that there be communication from CUWL to Cora Marrett asking for a guarantee that UWSA library funds will continue to be allocated for the use of library programs.  Swannack suggested pointing out that libraries are a model for resource sharing and for the effective use of shared systems.  Evans seconded.  Wilkinson called for the vote and it passed unanimously.    

 

Krogman stated that CUWL and all of the UW libraries greatly appreciative of the efforts that Docken and other OLIT staff have maintained for our libraries, particularly during tough budgetary times.

 

6.   Working Group on CUWL Subgroups (Rose)

 

The Working Group members have discovered that the stated charge is much broader than originally anticipated.   The group has met once thus far, on October 11, with some members at UW-Stout Library and others participating via Wisline. After brainstorming about issues surrounding the charge, they decided to check in with CUWL at this point.  It appears that some changes to the CUWL operating procedures are going to be necessary and another group would need to address those issues. The present committee will focus on examining the existing committees and their charges.   Rose reminded us that CUWL established this Working Group because other UW library staff, such as the distance education librarians, had expressed interest in establishing more groups.  

 

The Working Group brainstormed on issues related to CUWL subgroups such as networking and information sharing, communication (what works and what does not work), advocacy for issues that go beyond the scope of an existing group, membership (when to have all campuses represented vs. a smaller group on an issue), the structure of groups (when would a subgroup be appropriate for looking at a particular issue), new issues brought to CUWL (What is the mechanism? Through a director, by OLIT staff, by other staff?), and the need for additional subgroups.

 

The Working Group pointed out that the LAMs are the only group that routinely meets with CUWL.  Should other groups have an opportunity to meet with CUWL?  If so, which groups and how often?  It was also noted that some informal groups have formed to work on specific issues, even without a formal charge or recognition from CUWL.

 

The Working Group has decided to gather additional data in order to carry out its charge.  The plan is to conduct a web-based survey of existing CUWL standing committees, CUWL members, OLIT staff, and staff who have expressed interest in forming other groups, such as distance education, access/circulation, and curriculum.  The survey is planned for late 2005. 

 

The Working Group will review documentation related to each group, including charges and reports.  Other possible activities include:  Procedures on how future groups can get recognized by CUWL, review of current CUWL procedures, guidelines for self-initiated activities,  posting of minutes for subgroups on the CUWL website, support needed for groups, including determining the costs of sending staff to committee meetings. 

Evans encouraged conducting more meetings using distance technology or perhaps communicating more through email.  Rose said that the draft survey includes questions about effective ways to communicate.  Unaeze likes the idea of having other groups

besides the LAMs meet with CUWL, perhaps a different group each year or so.  Wilkinson said we must develop ways for staff to communicate with each other using technology.  Barczyk reminded CUWL that smaller libraries have fewer staff to participate in CUWL committee work.

 

Moriarty is currently helping the Working Group gather the charges and memberships of all groups, so that they can all be reviewed.   Thus far he has identified 13 (15?) groups that are now listed on the UWSA OLIT website.  He asked that CUWL look at the list and make suggestions or additions.  Moriarty is also updating the overall webpage to increase its usefulness to CUWL members.   He said that the membership and charge for the Working Group on CUWL Subgroups is available on the CUWL website.

 

VanGemert said that the UW-Madison libraries’ administrative council is conducting the same sort of review of staff committees and will be reviewing each charge and membership

 

Swannack suggested providing more opportunities for staff to interact with their colleagues at nearby campuses at a meeting, while also having other members participate via online or phone.

 

Wilkinson mentioned having reports centrally posted on the CUWL website, so that members can print them off without having to dig back through email exchanges.  Docken suggested that posting reports, particularly works-in-progress, on MyUW Space would be another alternative.    

 

7.   CDC Report (Docken)

 

The CDC held its second meeting of the current fiscal year on October 20 in Stevens Point.  All campuses were represented at the meeting.   Docken said that if all currently funded resources were to be renewed, there would be a significant budget deficit.  The group decided to generate significant savings by switching from the ProQuest CINAHL product to the Ebsco CINAHL product.  Because the New England Journal of Medicine is not included in the Ebsco product, there will be a separate subscription for NEJM for UW system libraries. 

 

The American Chemical Society archive is currently being leased and funded through UW System.  The legacy archive is now available for purchase, but it is too costly to be funded through UW System.  The legacy archive will include the entire back file up through 1994.  Current subscriptions (Web Editions) will now begin with 1995 and continue to grow forward (but not backwards).  Madison is considering the purchase of the legacy archives and wants to know if other UW campuses would opt to continue getting the leased archive.  Could document delivery be an acceptable option for older materials for some UW campuses?  It would be very helpful to have our ACS journal use stats broken down by campus and by the archive versus the Web Editions.  At this time it is difficult, perhaps even impossible, to ascertain how heavily the archive is actually used.

 

With the renewal decisions being made this fall, the CDC budget will be fine for this year and next year. 

 

The campuses’ contribution to the UW System Shared Electronic Collection is currently $100,000 per year.  CDC is talking about recommending a $50,000 increase in that amount in the near future.  .

 

Boucher asked about the status of Web of Science and its possible cancellation.  Docken said that CDC will still look at it, but that, based on price quotes gotten for individual institutions thus far, the total cost would be astronomical if bought separately by the interested campuses.  An increase in campus contributions to the Shared Electronic Collection may be necessary to get some products at the best overall price. 

 

Rose said that he is glad that CDC is looking at additional contributions from campuses.

 

Wilkinson asked attendees how they were handling the Duke titles removed from Project Muse. 

 

Barczyk asked about negotiating better prices with our current vendors.  Docken said it at may be possible, but added that for some products, such as Lexis/Nexis and CIS, we are already on national contracts.    

 

Boucher expressed concern that additional contributions from two-year campuses would be used for Web of Science.  He does not think the two-year campuses would support that, but he understands that consortial pricing is important for major products.  Boucher wants to be sure that an appropriate portion of SEC funds are spent on resources of interest to undergrads at the two-years.  Docken clarified that increased contributions cannot be tied to funding for specific products.  Wilkinson said that UW-Oshkosh could not drop Web of Science.  Huang asked if the simultaneous user charges could be dropped, so that those costs are not borne by campuses that don’t use WOS much.  Docken said that ISI now claims that there is no limit on the number of simultaneous users, but we’re still paying those separate charges.  That does not make sense.  

 

Docken is actively working with AAAS on new consortial pricing for Science Online.  It should be possible to get a consortial price for this product that provides a better overall price that what the interested individual campuses can get.   

 

Evans asked about pursuing consortial pricing for other databases that most campuses buy, but are not currently in the Shared Electronic Collection.  Lorie said that some  products have now been shifted over to broader consortial licensing and that improved pricing is already available to the individual campuses.

 

VanGemert said it is important to leverage the dollars we have.  He asked about progress in de-duplicating print collections and subscriptions across the UW System.  Barczyk said that the process of analyzing duplicate print journal subscriptions across UW system has been a bear.   Also, what incentives are there for campuses to decrease their duplicate subscriptions?   Docken mentioned talking with Elsevier about the possibility of getting a UW system license for a specific group of high demand titles through Science Direct, but that would introduce the Big Deal problem.   

 

Wilkinson reminded CUWL that our Provosts need to understand the issues related to the high costs of journals and that having discussions about scholarly communications issues is very important.  Gulig thinks that an increase in collection dollars is still necessary. 

 

Barczyk talked about using document delivery to replace some unaffordable subscriptions at UW-Milwaukee.  VanGemert talked about the rapid article delivery projects underway at UW-Madison.  There was general agreement that CUWL needs to set aside time for a focused discussion on the topic of journal costs, cancellations, and alternatives.

 

Evans asked if more ebook contracts are being pursued.  Schneider said that most of the other ebook models and/or subject packages available are not appropriate for our users.       

 

Krogman moved to accept the CDC report.  Gulig seconded.  Wilkinson called for the vote and it passed unanimously. 

 

Gilbertson mentioned the new UW-Madison journal cancellation web page for 2006.  Evans asked that she send the URL to CUWL members.

 

8.   Results of Budget Reduction Templates (Docken)

 

Basic question:  does the format/template provide any useful information?  Boucher thought the templates are to help Goss lobby for UW system libraries at UWSA.  Docken reminded us that CUWL members originally wanted to know how budget decreases affect libraries across the system.  Some attendees commented that the budget cuts in the templates don’t actually look so bad.  VanGemert is concerned that the wrong message is being portrayed in these templates.  What about including information about serial cancellations and their impact on users?   The current templates are not presented in a way that represents need.  Evans said that we can pull out some components and see trends – in terms of staffing, for example.  Rose thinks we need to get additional data and probably omit Madison, since it’s had success in protecting its collection budget.  But the question remains: what to do with the data?  Hansen pointed out that CUWL needs to think about updating the document on the WLA site that describes the financial needs of the UW libraries.  Hansen and Evans indicated that WLA is willing to help make the case for UW libraries’ budgetary needs.  Goss needs to add data from the last two libraries.  Rose suggested collating data by comprehensives, w and w/o Madison, and by the two-years.  Huang thinks the inclusion of journal cancellation information would be a good idea.  As a follow-up to this discussion, libraries should send any changes or amendments to their template data, along with notes, to Goss.  Then he can do the analysis by groups, including a summary sheet for the comprehensives. Boucher asked if we should include information on increased inflation costs for each year (8% for journals, for example).  

 

VanGemert said that if a message about UW libraries’ budget needs goes to WLA, it should be an aggregated message that reflects all of the UW libraries.

 

9.   WLA (Hansen)

 

Library Legislative Day is scheduled for the end of January.  Hansen reiterated that the current data and narrative about UW libraries on the WLA site is outdated.  Goss from UWSA wrote the text that is currently there.  That text was reviewed by others (either CUWL or the CUWL Executive Committee) before it was posted.  There is general agreement that Goss could use the same approach to update the content at this time. 

 

There will be a greatly expanded WLA website for the WLA Foundation public relations campaign.  A great deal of effort is being put on getting the message out about fundraising for libraries.  There will public service announcements in the media and posters available.  Hansen passed out a clever new fund-raising brochure called “Librarians Shouting.”

 

10.   WiLS Report (Schneider)

 

The WiLS annual report for 2004/2005 is available on the WiLS website.  ILL activity increased by about 14,000 requests.  WiLS ended the year with surplus funds.  The WiLS Board met this week and decided to distribute some of the surplus back to WiLS members who had borrowed materials from the Madison campus.  Schneider said that a total of $50,000 would be allocated back to UW libraries. She passed out a sheet with the recommended allocation for each campus.  It is possible that some surplus funds will also be contributed to the Wisconsin Heritage Online project.  Schneider said that the WHO working groups are working hard and expect to have reports in December.  Also, there will be no IMLS grant submission for WHO.    

 

Schneider is thinking about how to pull together the data for the net lender reimbursement plan for UW libraries.  At this point it appears that the process will be quite labor-intensive and time-consuming.  She may ask OCLC to generate a report for the entire UW system community.    

 

Schneider reported that spending on the $25,000 budget for materials from the British Library DD is on track for the year.

 

Schneider passed out another sign-up sheet for the state virtual reference service, just in case anyone wants to participate.  There is a training session coming up soon.  Barzcyk said that UW-Milwaukee is now participating.   Other UW participants are Whitewater and Oshkosh.  About 300 Wisconsin libraries overall are expected to participate. WiLS is going to develop a VR training program for the Illinois participants.  There may be some interest in Illinois academic libraries working with Wisconsin academic libraries on virtual reference.

 

The private colleges met last week and discussed joining the Group Catalog project.  They will have a scope for private colleges and they plan to do unmediated borrowing among their libraries.  Some colleges are experimenting with PromptCat, which may improve cataloging workflow. 

 

Boucher said the recently revised Wisconsin ILL guidelines are now available.  He passed out copies.

 

Schneider spoke a bit about the relationship between OCLC and the networks.  There was some discussion on the floor at the OCLC Members Council about the extent to which OCLC should dictate what networks do and how they do things.  A small team of network representatives have drafted a response and will be trying to work through things with OCLC.  Schneider will participate in these negotiations.  Wilkinson pointed out that networks can vary significantly, in terms of their relationships with their members. 

 

WiLS will be contracting on a part-time basis for a professional to do its accounting work.   

 

Before adjourning for the day, Boucher expressed interest in hearing about other libraries’ attempts to publicize their libraries, in terms of slogans and/or logos.  Barczyk said UW-Milwaukee has a design project underway right now that will affect its website, brochures, etc.  She said there are campus guidelines for logos and how to use them.  Huang said that Whitewater’s library has a design instead of a logo.  It was developed through a competition of art students.  Hansen said that Green Bay has a tagline.  She does not think the library can have its own official logo.  Rose said Eau Claire has a tagline.   Reeg-Steidinger said that Stout cannot have its own logo, but can use building photos.  That campus had a slogan competition last year. 

 

Friday, November 11

 

1.   Wilkinson called the meeting to order at 8:30AM

 

2.   Diversity Task Force Report (Evans)

 

The committee members present for this meeting were Evans, Rose, and Unaeze.  In the past nine months, the committee has had several meetings, only two of which were face-to-face.   Evans was very appreciative of the work of the committee members.  The overall assignment to the group was to get a snapshot of the state of diversity in the UW libraries.    

 

A major part of the committee’s work was conducting a survey of all UW libraries.  The committee also consulted with experts in the field, including Tracy D. Hall, Director of the ALA Office for Diversity.  Individual committee members were assigned to attend relevant programs at ACRL and ALA.  UW-Milwaukee’s DOIT program is recruiting diverse students for that program, which will begin in fall 2006.  It has both an on-site and distance component.  . 

 

In order to have more diversity, it’s necessary to increase the number of diverse students in library science programs.  Except for Hispanics, the number of minorities/ethnic groups represented in library schools is rapidly declining.  Financial assistance for students is very important.  Barczyk said that UW-Milwaukee has volunteered to be a mentor for Spectrum scholars. 

 

There was a discussion about ways we might improve our recruitment.  Libraries need to construct job postings to attract the largest possible pool of candidates.  Making personal contact with possible candidates is very helpful.  There are now more legal barriers to setting up intern programs that specify diversity. Keep in mind that we must fight the tendency to hire people, for any library job, that are “like us.”  Unfortunately, in times of austerity, the focus on diversity seems to decline.  It may be due to declining budgets and/or cuts in positions.  When recruiting for positions, the emphasis may be on getting the most experienced person.  Diversity takes time, resources, and commitment.  It is important to do something, to get started.  It may not make sense to start with a very grand project.  We need to make library environments welcoming to a diverse user/visitor group.  We need to show librarianship as a dynamic profession and market it as such.  People outside the profession do not understand it.  . 

 

With regard to the survey about staff diversity at UW libraries, there was a question about how to report the level of diversity.  Do people self-identify themselves as a minority?    Also, while permanent staff positions do not turn over often, the student assistant population can vary a great deal from year to year.   Also, regarding student employees and diversity, it makes more sense to report numbers of people rather than FTEs.  FTE counts are not really relevant for this purpose.

 

VanGemert mentioned that diversity is not simply a matter of color.  Community building is a crucial part of what’s necessary.  Also, our structures and hiring practices do not lend themselves to diverse hiring.  Gilbertson talked about student hiring at Madison and mentioned College Library’s success in expanding the diversity of its student staff. It was largely successful because a few minority students were hired and their presence on the staff had a positive impact on more minority students wanting to work there also.  Krogman again emphasized the need to minimize requirements to broaden pool of applicants.  Barczyk said that if you have a choice of a highly qualified person that can hit the ground running and a person of color who might take some time to get up to speed, don’t automatically go with the first.

 

Evans reviewed the content of the UW Libraries diversity web site prototype.  It provides links to a comprehensive set of resources on diversity in libraries, including the Necessary Measure presentation by Tracee D. Hall, the UWM SOI DOIT project, the WLA Diversity Scholarship, the Spectrum scholarships, and the ALA Versed Diversity Bulletin. 

 

Rose said that exploring the links on the diversity website prototype is very helpful as a starting point. VanGemert asked why Library Schools are not listed.  The Task Force will look at including them.  Has a UW Internship been considered?  Not really.  It seems like that there’s no funding available at System level for new initiatives.    

 

The issue of who will have long term responsibility for maintaining the CUWL diversity web site will be referred to the CUWL Executive Committee.

 

In terms of recommendations on how to proceed, several items were suggested:

Have a one-day program for library staff next summer.

Encourage WLA to emphasize diversity as an important issue.

Measure progress over time.  Should there be a CUWL goal to increase staff diversity without setting specific goals in terms of numbers?

At the very least, each campus should report annually on its progress.

 

Wilkinson asked for someone to move to accept the report and have the Executive Committee work with the Diversity Task Force to identify next steps and report back in January.  Swannack moved and Malzacher seconded.  Wilkinson called for the vote and it passed unanimously. 

 

Prior to the Brief Updates agenda item, Davis expressed interest in developing an information commons for her facility and would like to discuss it with CUWL colleagues.  She is considering have a related event at Stevens Point next spring.  . 

 

Brief Updates:

 

Strategic Directions (Huang)

 

As promised, Ken Frazier had drafted a shortened “public” version of the full CUWL strategic directions document for 2005-2007.  Ken had distributed his draft to CUWL via email prior to the meeting.  Huang asked CUWL members to send her any comments by November 20.

 

UW Digital Collections (Wilkinson)

 

A lot of content has been added during the year and growth will continue into next year.  The one-millionth item/image has gotten a lot of attention around the state.  Lisa Saywell, Amy Rudersdorf (who is now at NCSU), Joshua Ranger and Pat Wilkinson have all been giving presentations about the UWDC.  There is a presentation tentatively scheduled for the Board of Regents meeting in December.  Wilkinson said that he is interested in bringing some new people onto the UWDC committee.  He has been personally recruiting people.  There is interest in doing some small-scale usability studies of the UWDC. VanGemert mentioned that the Wisconsin topographic maps have been digitized by the UW-Madison Map Library and USGS.  They would be a good addition to the collections.

 

Digital Repository (Wilkinson)

Pope is the chair of the Repository committee, which will be called together soon.  There is some interest in looking at Proquest’s digital commons software, although there are some intellectual property issues with the product.  The committee needs to look at what is the most effective way to host content and provide a stable platform, while controlling costs.  What possible alternatives are there to the DSpace software?  Is DSpace still the best tool for the UW repository?  UW libraries are still committed to the concept of the repository.  VanGemert said that we also need to be looking at digital publishing. 

 

Collection Management Task Force (Barczyk)

 

Barczyk distributed a brief written report.  We are near the end of the YBP trial.  There was a conference call with the participants about how things were going.  Some think that it is too soon to end the trial.  There have been 6,595 titles purchased, the vast majority of which were by Madison and Milwaukee.  Only 234 titles have been ordered by other campuses.  At this point some campuses are developing criteria for the process, some are interested in trying a subject-based approach (the CIMC at Madison has suggested education).  There is general agreement that collaboration does not come easily.  The Task Force is now awaiting the results of its survey.  A report on the survey results will be on the next CUWL agenda.

 

Electronic Resources Management Task Force (Wilkinson)

Following up on a brief discussion at the last CUWL meeting, Wilkinson asked if CUWL is ready to form a group to look at the software options/products for electronic resources management.  Docken said that there is no funding available this year, so there’s no point in starting anything up right now. Also, the technology staff is still very busy working on MetaLib.  We will talk about putting together a group at the CUWL meeting in January 2006. 

 

LAMs Report (Babin)

 

The LAMs did a brief survey on ereserves management practices at each campus.  They discussed their experiences and problems with the UniCode upgrades.  UB seems to working at this point, but there are still some phantom holds.  Campuses are at various phases of implementing laptop checkouts.  In general ILLiad performance is good at this point, but there are problematic outages at some campuses.  Babin said that Endeavor staff has been unresponsive to our Voyager problems.  Endeavor continues to identify problems as bugs that will be addressed at some point in the future.  Docken said she will keep trying to reach Linda Voyles and convey our level of dissatisfaction.  We currently have little leverage with Voyager.  CUWL members clearly recall the presentation done by Endeavor representatives at the August CUWL meeting.  At that time, the Endeavor identified improved customer service as one of its top priorities.  With regard to the OCLC Group Catalog, the LAMs are somewhat skeptical about the Get This Item smart button working, primarily because it requires too much cooperation between OCLC and Endeavor.  The LAMs are also concerned about the Marcive records in the local catalogs not being retrievable through the Group Catalog.  Babin said that some LAMs are not completely clear about the purpose of the Group Catalog.  What about simultaneous search in Voyager, which users seem to be using more.  Also, use of UB is growing.

 

Babin said that the LAMs are somewhat concerned about workload levels.  MetaLib was mentioned specifically.  MetaLib problems and maintenance take a lot of care and feeding on the local level.   The LAMs hope that no additional big IT initiatives are coming along soon.

 

The hub cost estimates and a full report should be available in January 06.  The LAMs still hope to make these changes at the time of the upgrade to Voyager Version 5. 

 

Question/Comments: 

 

Reeg-Steidinger asked what would happen if the Get This Item smart button in the Group Catalog doesn’t work.  Wilkinson, responding to the Marcive record issue, said that at his campus government document records can overwhelm search results in the local OPAC.  He’s not sure he’d want all of the Oshkosh Marcive records uploaded into OCLC even if the cost is minimal.  Wilkinson also expressed the concerns on his campus about coordination among the campuses on a hub.  Moriarty is working with DoIT to determine what’s possible in terms of expanding the Madison hub.  He reassured CUWL members that no hasty decisions will be made.  Docken said that Madison would not be part of the Hub.  She reasserted that we need to manage the downtime problem carefully.  It should be possible to make read-only catalogs, like Madison has, more readily available to the other campuses.  At this time, July is the typical upgrade/downtime period.  Evans suggested that the Executive Committee should write a letter to Endeavor about Endeavor’s poor performance.  Krogman suggested also having more UW people complaining.  Docken suggested setting up a conference call between UW and Endeavor on this issue.

 

Government Documents Discussion (Beth Harper and Michele McKnelly)

 

Harper gave an overview of the two government documents depository programs in Wisconsin, the Federal Depository program and the Wisconsin Document Depository program.  Harper mentioned that the regional depository at Milwaukee Public Library now has a new depository librarian.

 

Harper said that the basic issue is that there are fewer and fewer print publications coming from government agencies, both Federal and state.  GPO just came out with an approach for libraries to become all electronic depositories for Federal documents.  The University of Arizona had proposed this option a couple years ago.   There is also talk about creating print on-demand accounts for depositories needing to print out electronic documents for their users.  Regarding printing, there is a question about whether libraries should charge users to print government docs. Some don’t think it’s appropriate.  UW-Madison is talking about cataloging for pre-1976 documents.   Some libraries are interested in having digital copies of e-docs deposited with them. 

 

GPO is building two comprehensive retrospective print collections – one on each coast. Print discards would be very welcome. 

 

Harper and McKnelly are typically the only Wisconsin librarians who attend national conferences for documents librarians.  Harper said that attendance at the annual Wisconsin Government Documents (Information?) Day has been declining in recent years.   Harper reminded CUWL directors that they should be including all documents in their assessments for insurance periods.  Huang said she’s no longer asked to report on document replacement costs.  Unaeze said that disaster preparedness is very important.  His library recently had a serious flooding incident.  Gulig asked about the government depositing electronic docs with libraries rather than just providing access to their online copies.   There is value in having documents archived in multiple locations, not just hosted at one site.

 

McKnelly gave an overview of GPO’s past role and activities compared to what’s needed in the present day.  She said that Executive agencies do not want their servers harvested for documents.  Also, most government agencies do not use the OpenURL, making it difficult to assure access and link durability over time.  GPO wants to develop FDSYS (Federal Document System), which would be an all-encompassing attempt to ingest and store all Federal documents.  GPO is implementing its own catalog, but with an approach to cataloging that’s out of synch with standard cataloging practices.  There will be a separate record for each item in each format.  It appears that GPO is interested in marketing materials at a cost.  Depositories are concerned that they will not be assured a high quality product. 

 

There is significant attrition in the depository program.  A new report came out in October. 

 

McKnelly talked about authentication and version control.  In the legal community, authenticity is critical. In the scientific community, version control is very important. 

 

McKnelly is on an ALA group that views the mass digitization of print back runs of documents as not as critical as starting to capture/preserve the born-digital materials that are susceptible to loss/disappearance.  She said that the finding tools purchased through the CUWL Collection Development Committee are incredibly valuable for accessing government information.   She thinks that CDC should consider some of the newly digitized products, but acknowledged that many libraries/librarians want to wait and see how non-commercial digitizing efforts proceed.

 

Wilkinson said that it sounds like GPO is looking for a reason to exist.  He asked the guests what they thought the future would look like. Harper stated that it’s very risky to trust the government to maintain and provide a single electronic copy of every document.  

McKnelly said that librarians can lobby effectively on behalf of citizens.  Perhaps GPO is not the best entity to be responsible for the long-term preservation of government documents.  Library directors need to be in communication with their documents librarians about the problems of having only one or two electronic copies of a government document.  She said that GPO needs to hear from library directors, not just from documents librarians.

 

Harper reviewed the ARL Government Documents Conference in Seattle that Ken Frazier, Ed VanGemert and she recently attended.  She acknowledged that Frazier is still very interested in digitizing the legacy document collections.  Harper said that there is some interest and potential for a shared online government information reference service among documents librarians.  She said that the pre-1976 documents need to be cataloged with the accurate gov doc indicators included.  They are not currently cataloged “as docs.”   Harper also talked about the potential use of LOCKKS to preserve docs.

 

The Wisconsin Reference and Loan Library state documents project now has some docs archived through OCLC

 

Wrap-up (Wilkinson)

 

Wisconsin’s Library Legislative Day will be Tuesday January 31 in Madison.  CUWL typically meets on Monday, the day before.  There is agreement that CUWL will meet for a full day on Monday January 30.

 

The ITMC will meet on April 10-11.  Tentatively it will be a joint conference, but the location has not been finalized yet.  Does CUWL want to have its spring meeting at that time?  If so, CUWL needs to get itself onto the plenary program.  There was general agreement that CUWL should try to meet with ITMC. 

 

Boucher brought up idea of assessment for SFX/MetaLib.  Docken agrees that we need to assess the SFX/MetaLib software at some point.  Malzacher wants to focus some assessment effort on product usability.  

 

Tentative agenda items for the January 30 meeting thus far:  hub and hardware discussion, Group Catalog, establish working group on D2L and libraries, the ERM system, collection management task force, journal cancellation and duplication issues.  .

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11:50AM. 

 

Minutes submitted by Jean Gilbertson, CUWL Secretary