Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries

Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries, October 30-31, 2007
Wisconsin Library Association Office

Present: Jean Gilbertson, Ewa Barczyk, Paul Roberts, Valerie Malzacher, Marc Boucher, Peter Gottlieb, John Pollitz, Leanne Hansen, Anita Evans, Ed Van Gemert, Patrick Wilkinson, Vanaja Menon, John Krogman, Kathy Davis, Felix Unaeze, Joyce Huang, Kathy Schneider, Anthony Gulig, Kristin Eschenfelder, Chris Goss, Ed Meachen, Paul Moriarty, Richard Reeb, Joshua Ranger, Steve Frye, Marlys Brunsting, Ken Frazier.

Guests:  Laura Dunek, Kathy Pletcher, Lisa Strand, and Paul Nelson.

Tuesday, October 30

The meeting was called to order at 12:35 pm by Jean Gilbertson.  

Self introductions were made by all present.

General Announcements:

Ed Van Gemert noted that the University of Wisconsin Madison had received an $85,000,000 gift/endowment to not name a building (specifically the school of business).   He also stated that Nolan Pope is retiring.   His work will be missed.

Felix Unaeze announced that the UW-Superior Library got flooded again on October 6 &7. Books had been shelved higher as a precaution and so were not affected this time.  The same type of flooding happened as last time and the University is trying to address the problem.  UW-Superior has hired a Vice Chancellor for Student Life and Dean of Students.  The new Vice Chancellor comes from UW-River Falls.  The Library renovation is going forward they want to present to the Regents in order to get approval to hire an architect.  Next spring they will move to the student center while renovation progresses during the summer.

Ewa Barczyk stated that UW-Milwaukee is sending out special materials and collections on exhibit.  Currently photos from art collection are on exhibit loan.  Also currently on loan to the Field Museum in Chicago are maps from UW-Milwaukee.  A number of special collections have been transported and this has provided an interesting lesson in risk management

Kathy Davis announced that UW-Stevens Point will also be having an exhibit of miniature books in the spring. 

Paul Roberts stated that UW-Stout has had a name change of the Library Building.  It is now the Robert S. Swanson Learning Center named after a former Chancellor.  Also, Stout had successfully recruited a new head of Cataloging and Processing.

Joyce Huang said that the UW-Whitewater Library participated in the Benefits Fair with a display table.   They are also in process of searching for a Chancellor.  Joyce announced her retirement at the end of April. She does plan to attend the April CUWL meeting.

Peter Gottlieb said that the new budget adds 15 million to the previous 10 million for the preservation storage facility and the project is moving ahead.  He also noted that there are three new positions for his department in the budget for records management responsibilities.

Consent agenda

Anita Evans moved to approve the Agenda approved as it stands and also: 

  • Minutes, July 24, 2007
  • Review of Executive Committee minutes, Sept. 14, 2007 and Oct.10, 2007.

Leanne Hansen seconded the motion and the motion passed.

UW System report (Meachen)

Ed Meachen reported on the UW system’s Strategic Framework to Advantage Wisconsin.  This is the UW systems strategic planning initiative that began in September and is part of President Riley’s growth agenda.   Advantage Wisconsin is moving ahead quickly and is intended to be a bird’s eye view of where the UW system should be.   CUWL needs to align itself and its budget request with ideas and recommendations developed by the seven Think Tanks working on the Framework (note:  CUWL member John Krogman is on Think Tank no. 4).  Ed believes CUWL is doing that.

Discussion ensued on Advantage Wisconsin

Ed Van Gemert noted that CUWL plan should show how libraries can contribute to the process of teaching and learning.  He mentioned programs that mesh with that concept. 

A list of the members of all the Think Tanks will be sent out to CUWL members by ED Meachen through Paul Moriarty.

Ewa Barczyk noted that we are seen has having a good model for collaboration.  How do we strengthen it and contribute to the growth agenda?

John Krogman said that a challenge is that each of these think tanks will only meet twice.  In essence the work needs to be to the president by December 1.   

Ed Meachen said this is a high level plan to inform the budget process and formulation.  We need to have the teaching and learning resources in front of people so it gets into the budget later.  Since the budget has passed we are now going forward with a number of major projects. 

John Krogman asked about the budget lapse.  Ed Meachen has talked to Rebecca Martin, Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs about it.  It is on the agenda at the next Chancellors meeting.  It has not yet been determined how they will deal with the lapse

Library records schedules (Laura Dunek)

Laura Dunek had visited CUWL in April to report on Records Retention.  In the interim a group has been meeting and she will give us a report/update on this topic.  Her title is Regent Records Policy Advisor and System Legal Counsel. 

There was a meeting at Green Lake to work on a general schedule for UW system libraries. 

  • This is for records created within the State of Wisconsin (records created overseas have to be declared categorically).  The Libraries within the UW System have ten general record categories, no matter what library.  If we declare these categories to the records authority, libraries then have a right to manage the records.  Laura Dunek distributed a handout of the draft schedule for the synthesis of two types of records systems (i.e. IT Information systems and Library records    Laura requested that we  please review the categories and respond to her on the following:
    • Did we miss anything?
    • Please review the descriptions.  They are fairly terse and would we please enrich them.  She suggested we review language with an eye to retention times and schedules.
    • There is a tight timeline. The plan needs to be submitted to the Records Board in January, and so they need responses within the next two to three weeks.
  • Discussion about the Library Records Schedules ensued.  This is a minimum retention approach.  It is up to CUWL to determine what we want to do above the minimum.  A Discussion of security tapes retention occurred.   Pete Gottlieb stated that the standard retention for security tapes is for 120 days.
  • Laura Dunek will be sending an e-mail about records retention will be coming and they would like a reply no later than December 1.  Please look for boiler plate listing ahead of schedule, it will have legal language and will define terms including confidentiality.

Automation Report and CUWL budget for 2007-09 (Moriarty)

Paul Moriarty began with a report on the new CUWL website and the new committees.  Karen Dunne at the Steenbock Library has done a great job to move the website ahead.  Universal Borrowing statistics are now available and will be sent out tonight.  There is an issue with Wiscat and Autographics.  Last January when UW libraries upgraded to the most recent version of Voyager, the HUB noticed a problem of things freezing temporarily.  The problem went away but re-emerged in September. Brian Wilson has been trouble shooting at Whitewater and it appears we are being overwhelmed by sessions coming in from Autographics.  We are still in the diagnostic/problem resolution mode.  The difficulty is that the OPAC not available when this happens. The problem is mainly on the HUB and when it happens there is frequent intermittent down time of two or three minutes at a time.

Paul Moriarty has previously distributed the new budget.  Much is the same but there are some new things.   

  • There is now a contingency amount set aside to cover any budget reduction and/or adjustments in strategic directions for CUWL.
  • There is now money to support comprehensive and college faculty research.  One of CUWL’s primary strategic directions is to increase the Shared Electronic Collection to meet the scholarly and educational needs of the UW faculty and students. One overall goal might be to provide the same sort of access to resources that UW-Madison has, although the intent is not to indicate that doctoral campuses do not have a funding problem.  All of the UW campuses have a problem.  There is $40,000 for additional commercial document delivery services this year.  Next year there will be $80,000 available as a fifty-fifty match between UW System funds and local library funds.  There would be $160,000 towards helping the comprehensive and colleges to support faculty research through the expanded use of document delivery.  This would be in addition to current document delivery systems that are funded.  It is a way to improve access to resources for comprehensive and college campuses while working to secure new funding for collections.  General discussion then ensued about document delivery.   
  • Money has been added to the budget for a LibQual+ survey for next spring.  There is money to cover the survey and also money in the second year to get assistance to analyze results, especially as they relate to system wide issues.  Unfortunately there is no additional discount for doing the survey as a system rather than individual libraries.  The cost remains $3000 per campus.
  • Budget monies have been added for an ISkills Pilot project.  Some libraries are interested in doing a pilot project with some of the classes on their campuses and now there is some money to do it.  This project supports the competency strategic direction.   
  • The rest of items maintain what we have had before.  There is money in the second year to have two more campuses to join the hub. 
  • The funding for UW Digital Collections (UWDC) and Minds@UW is at the full amount for this year.  During this year the Digital Initiatives Coordinating Committee will be determining the role of the institutional repository.   This review and recommendations will provide CUWL with the information to help determine the funding model during the second year of the biennium.

Joyce Huang noted that we are voting to approve the system dollars outlined in the document and not contributions from campuses. 

More discussion occurred on the issue of document delivery and faculty research support.

John Krogman moved to accept budget as presented.   John Pollitz seconded.  

More brief discussion ensued and Richard Reeb suggested a midyear report on how the initial $40,000 is spent this year and that will allow adjustment for the second year if necessary.  This will be studied in committee.

The motion passed. 

Library consultant position (Huang)

Joyce Huang reported on the Search and Screen process for the Library Consultant position.  It has taken longer than anticipated.  The Committee did preliminary interviews in October and they will be having face to face interviews in November.  During the interview process each candidate will meet with Ed Meachen.  After the interviews, the final selection will take place.

2007-09 Strategic plan documents (Wilkinson)

  • Pat Wilkinson passed out the new brochure titled One System, One Library.  Ed Van Gemert had his public relations people work on it.  The back page will highlight previous CUWL accomplishments from Valerie’s Malzacher’s document.  Comments and discussion about the brochure included:
    • Ed Van Gemert recommended keeping it simple for the first draft, 
    • Ed Meachen suggested ending the document 2009 or 2011 so to build for the next budget cycle, 
    • Kathy Pletcher asked what was the intended audience and recommended action words and to simplify, 
    • John Krogman suggested that it be bulleted and make each bullet two to three words.
  • The CUWL Strategic Directions 2007-2009 plan with action items was also distributed by Pat Wilkinson. 
    • Action item 1 (collections) under Strategic Direction 1 is a priority.
    • Action items that were submitted were placed under first strategic direction given.  These Action items may be moved around if appropriate. 
    • The coordinating committees that submitted the action items were noted on the CUWL Strategic Directions document.
    • Action items may be added as we move through the biennium.
    • Some objectives do not have an action item, as a group we will have to decide to leave them that way or not.

Coordinating Committee reports  

  • Richard Reed reported on the Collections and Resource Sharing Coordinating Committee. (CRSCC)  A progress report on the committee was sent to CUWL. 
    The committee helped prepare a quick bid document for selecting commercial software so that UW libraries can evaluate their collections individually as well as consortially with respect to the strengths, weaknesses, usage levels, and overlap of holdings.  The bid request was sent to three vendors that offer software that will allow cross-campus analysis.  (Strategic Direction 2, objective 6, action item 1)
    • There is an interest in analysis of shared electronic collection and what it would take to expand the UW-Madison collection system wide. (Strategic Direction 1, Objective1, Action 1)  This is a difficult to determine, just collecting the list and cost data itself is not trivial.
    • Richard Reeb talked about Blackwell that we started using as a primary vendor this year. 
      • The CRSCC will do a six month report to see how successful the single vendor has been implemented on the campuses.  The report will be done in January and will be passed onto the group.  It will allow us to see how close we are to the target figure of 2.5 million.  If we are able to meet that figure we may have a higher discount next year.
      • The committee will also be evaluating Blackwell’s performance, delivery, fulfillment, turn-around time, customer service, etc. 
    • The CDC group will be meeting in Madison this Friday discussing renewals (shared electronic collections) due in January.   
    • Finally Richard Reeb was asked to have the CRSCC develop a plan for tracking and monitoring expenditures related to the new document delivery initiative in the budget.
  • User Services  Coordinating Committee (USCC)   
    • Steve Frye reported on the activities of the USCC.  The committee initially met via teleconference for an hour.  They then met all day in Green Bay on October 16.  They have discussed user services across all campuses.  Contact persons for the four campuses without members on the USCC have been established.  The committee will   contact them whenever data or input is needed.  There are currently eighty-four people on the USCC listserv.   This helps give a sense of similarities and concerns.
      • People want to do a better job of assessment of services.  What are the tools we can use across the system to assess various service?  The issue of assessment came up over and over again.
      • Other issues such as where reference service is going have also been discussed.    We need to develop better tools to share information and analysis across the system.  This is now one of the action items. 
      • The committee is working to create a system-wide user services wiki to share information, tools, resources and teaching materials.
      • The committee has established standing meetings on the second Friday of every month from 10 am to noon.  The committee will meet mostly via WisLine conferencing.  Most of the meetings will be digital meetings and teleconferences.  WisLine allows them to invite people from throughout the UW system to sign in and participate.  The committee plans to meet face to face twice a year.
      • Metalib was discussed, but did not make it into the Action Items.  There was a long discussion from services point of view.  There are mixed feelings about it.
      • Everyone on the committee is joining all other committee listservs
    • The committee has agreed to the following Action Items:
      • Investigate new models of reference services while focusing on services for remote users, the role of students and paraprofessionals in providing reference services (staffing issues), the integration of reference services with other academic support services, training issues, assessment issues, and the future of the reference desk.
      • Explore information literacy/library instruction assessment tools and make a recommendation.
      • Document user service tools, resources, and methods currently employed by UW campuses and facilitate the sharing and use of these tools, resources, and methods across the UW System.  The open source reference statistics software developed at UW-Madison (PS Stats) is one example.  The use of student response systems (clickers) at a few of our campuses is another example.
      • Explore the use of Web 2.0 tools in the provision of user services.
      • Create a system-wide user services wiki to share information, tools, resources and teaching materials.
      • Investigate and recommend ways to assess our user services - focusing on our shared resources and parallel services. 
      • Identify the desired/required functionality of our next generation OPAC.
  • Library Technology Coordinating Committee (LTCC)   
    • Marlys Brunsting reported on the activities of the LTCC.    The LTCC had its first meeting in August to organize and set goals.  Goals were also solicited via the cuwltech mailing list. The committee is expanding on some of the goals.  The committee needs to identify groups involved with various goals.
    • The committee set the following goals:
      • Assist campuses with D2L/Library Integration Taskforce recommendations (putting more library resources into D2L/Learn@UW). (Year 1)
      • Review distance education problems accessing library resources and work with other units to remove obstacles.  (Year 1 and ongoing)
      • Review options for a new OPAC; keep apprised of new products like WorldCat Local, Primo, and Evergreen. (Year 1)
      • Improve consistency across campuses of the MetaLib implementation; review recommendations for consistency of SFX and MetaLib variables and features.      (Year 1)
      • Perform an assessment of SFX/MetaLib – on hold until we receive further direction from CUWL.
      • Review Voyager invoicing and licenses to determine if there would be significant savings by renegotiating the contract. (Year 1)
      • Assist smaller campuses with automation needs - investigate centralization of more functions; work to offer more training. (Year 1)
      • Create a UW functional contacts list. (Year 1)
      • Discuss a needs assessment for an electronic resources management (ERM) system, such as Verde. (Years 1 & 2)
    • The LTCC discussed having a wiki also.  Perhaps there could be one wiki for all four coordinating committees.
    • There is one immediate issue on the listserv; that of universal borrowing pickups from holding libraries.  A suggestion has been made that all campuses change a setting in Voyager for universal borrowing.  The problem is that it would allow a de facto pull service.  General discussion ensued on this issue. The consensus is that UB policies issues should be added as an action item to the strategic plan.
    • The LTCC has made a concerted effort to utilize the cuwltech list to solicit input from librarians throughout the state and convey information on our activities.  At this point there are 86 people signed up for this list.

 
The Digital Initiatives Coordinating Committee Report was postponed until the Thursday, October 31 session.  It is included in the minutes in this location in order to keep the minutes organized.

  • Digital Initiatives Coordinating Committee (DICC)
    • Joshua Ranger reported on the DICC activities.
    • The committee has a proposal for CUWL to bring to vote.   In an effort to streamline the approval process for UWDC projects, the DICC respectfully requests that CUWL waive its need to approve most projects, relying solely on the discretion of the DICC to make decisions in routine matters.  This acknowledges that CUWL has never disputed a recommendation by the UWDC Advisory Committee in the past.  The DICC will, however, continue to bring proposals that diverge from past practices and experiences to the attention of the CUWL Executive Council.  The DICC also wishes to authorize the UWDCC to be able make minor changes to approved MOUs without the need for DICC re-approval.  Only changes that amount to a 20% or greater increase in costs or substantially change the character, content or format of the original project will require re-approval by the DICC.   The UWDCC staff will inform the DICC chair of all modifications to MOUs regardless of what changes were made, however. 
    • Ed Van Gemert moved to accept the recommendation: 
      • CUWL waives the requirement to approve all projects, only MOUs modified in excess of twenty per cent will require approval by DICC.
      • Valerie Malzacher seconded the motion.
      • The motion passed
    • The DICC has four Action items.   In general the committee sees the first year as a planning year.
      • Develop best practices guidelines for the digitization and preservation of “off-lined” digital content delivered to CUWL in April 2008.
      • Develop user focused assessment and research and development program for the UWDC.  The first report on progress is to be delivered to CUWL July 2008.
        • The DICC acknowledges that, in the past, CUWL financial support of the UWDCC was directed (or was perceived directed) to support digital production activities.  To maximize the success of the UWDC, the DICC believes that a portion of these System resources need to be shifted toward assessment and--based on the acquired data--to research and development of new technologies and services. To simplify this process, the DICC recommends proposing an assessment project AS A UWDC PROJECT on an equal footing as a digital production project.  The DICC and UWDCC will create a project with an estimated budget and this will be paid for through the same funds that go to pay for production projects.  UW Madison will also pay for a portion of this project out of their funds.  As this is considered an unusual project proposal, it will be brought to CUWL’s Executive Committee for approval. 
          If approved, this project will limit the amount of new projects the UWDCC will be able to accept this year.  Also, as the UWDCC production is at capacity for the next 12-18 months, some projects currently scheduled may need to be delayed to free up staff time.  UWDCC staff does not foresee this being a problem for several clients.   The LSTA funded projects through DPI will not be affected, however.  The DICC will also investigate outsourcing some assessment activities. It is assumed that a proposal for research and development activities (based on assessment data) would be treated similarly in the future.  
      • Develop a comprehensive digital plan delivered to CUWL October, 2008.
        • Develop a multi-part strategy for the enhancement of the MINDS@UW program to be delivered to CUWL October, 2008.  This may have to be moved up the timeline up due to the budget issues.

Ed Van Gemert asked about the two year queue of work (Joshua has work for his people to do for the next two years).  Discussion ensued on this topic. 

Ken Frazier stated that the management of the UW libraries is committed to assessment of the digital library project and that this is a timely discussion for all of us.  This is not just for the UW libraries; this is something for all of us in the system to think about.  Across the system there is uneven participation in the digital library project.  This should loop back into a CUWL leadership discussion as well as a staff and digital library discussion.

Jean Gilbertson proposed a discussion on this issue at the January meeting.  Joshua Ranger was unsure how much will be done, but is willing to have the discussion.  He will have something to report on in January and we will have a broader discussion. 

A discussion of digital issues followed and included Minds@UW,             Digital depository issues (Ed Van Gemert), and future needs (Kristin Eschenfelder).

Jean Gilbertson noted that there will be a meeting with ITMC in spring and there may be opportunities for conversation.

Paul Moriarty stated that there are other institutional repositories that do not necessarily involve libraries.  He is looking to see how they can work together.

Ken Frazier noted that there will be repositories but they need to be shared and work together. 

Budget Planning for 2009-11

Chris Goss reported on budget planning for 2009-11.

  • The budget process will again be led by the Chancellors.  The best thing to do is to lobby your individual chancellor with one or two top CUWL initiatives.  We should have a common message across campuses and talk to our chancellors. 
  • There are no dollar amounts yet.  They have not had a chance to work on the 2009-11 budgets.  If CUWL can come up with a dollar amount for the budget that would be useful.
  • This budget process will move very fast.  Richard Reeb will determine a cost for the statewide shared electronic collection – a really large number.  Kathy Pletcher stated there should be research support for faculty along with library support.  Ken Frazier proposed a small working group to put together a budget initiative.  The CUWL Executive Committee will appoint a group.

COLAND strategic visioning (Kathy Pletcher and Ken Frazier)

COLAND is a nineteen member council that serves for a three year term.  It is advisory to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Elizabeth Burmaster. 

  • COLAND is discussing a number of planning issues for the future of libraries.  There will be a Strategic Visioning Summit on the Future of the Library which will take place in the spring of 2008.  It has been ten years since Wisconsin government sponsored a statewide conference on the future of library services. The Superintendent of Public Instruction is providing money to support the summit.  The Superintendent has left open the possibility that recommendations from the summit may be budget recommendations.  There is not as much planning time for this event.
  • An Executive Planning Group has been appointed.  They have had one meeting and another is coming up. The members of the Executive Planning Group are:
    • Kathy Pletcher, Chair, Executive Planning Group and Chair of COLAND
    • Rick Grobschmit, Division Libraries and Community Services,
    • Jim Backus, trustee Wisconsin Valley Library Service, representing WLTA
    • Cara Cavin, retired school librarian, representing WEMTA
    • Pat Chevis, Stoughton Public Library, President Elect, WLA
    • Mike Cross, Department of Public Instruction
    • Sally Drew, Department of Public Instruction
    • Ken Frazier, Director General Library Systems, UW Madison, representing CUWL
    • Peter Gilbert, Director Lawrence University, representing WAICU
    • Sandra Locket, Milwaukee Public Library, representing COLAND
    • John Nicohls, retired public librarian, representing COLAND
    • Cal Potter, retired from Legislature and DPI, representing COLAND
    • Steve Sanders, Department of Public Instruction
    • Jim Trojanowski, Director Northern Waters Library System, representing SRLAAW
    • Melinda Orebaugh, Director Gunderson Lutheran Hospital, representing WHLA
  • The purpose of the Summit is to develop a vision for how libraries of all types will contribute to the continued prosperity of Wisconsin and its communities by promoting
    • quality of life,
    • health of our democracy,
    • educational excellence,
    • economic and workforce development, and
    • preservation of our heritage and culture.   
  • Will be soliciting input and responses from various groups 
    • They have identified questions they want people to respond to:
      1) How will the library of the future contribute to the quality of life in our communities?  
      2) How will the library of the future contribute to the health of our democracy?
      3) How will the library of the future contribute to educational, economic and workforce development?
      4) How will the library of the future contribute to the preservation of the heritage and culture of our communities? 
    • Please see the COLAND web site for details and the online questionnaire:  http://www.dpi.wi.gov/coland/index.html. 
    • This is part of both the Governor’s and the Superintendent of the Department of Public Instruction’s agendas.
    • They are looking for common themes and questions  
  • They are looking for a broad diverse group of 100 to attend the summit.
  • Ken Frazier stated that this is about making a case for public support and funding for libraries.
  • Discussion ensued that other areas/organizations are also looking at these issues.

Confirm dinner plans/Adjourn

Jean Gilbertson adjourned the day’s session at 4:00 p.m.

Wednesday, October 31

The meeting was re-convened by Jean Gilbertson at 8:30 a.m.

WLA diversity update (Lisa Strand and Anita Evans)

Anita Evans noted that at a diversity task force meeting there was a suggestion that Lisa Strand come and talk to CUWL since CUWL was meeting at the WLA offices today.  Lisa started by noting that in March of 2006 there was a strategic planning meeting to discuss what WLA should be doing.  There are three major goals and there are elements related to diversity within the goals in the document. There is a specific objective about diversity in goal no 2.

  • Increase the diversity of WLA membership. (Objective 3)
    Other things that flow from this goal include:
    • Recruit diverse candidates to leadership,
    • Offer diversity training in conjunction with CUWL and other organizations,
    • Increase partnership with library schools, and formalize efforts leading to diversity.
  • The education goal also offers a way of meeting diversity needs.
    • Conferences offer opportunities to do diversity topics.
    • Looking at ways that user services may be serving diverse populations.

Lisa Strand also noted that the leadership program of WLA, WeLead, also has a goal of creating a diverse group of leaders.

  • The program matches mentors with new librarians. Protégés are given one year of WLA membership free, but are expected to be members for two years. There is a $250 stipend with an additional $250 to attend a WLA conference.  WLA cannot do this every year, however they have just selected five more protégés for 2007 (unfortunately one had to drop out).
    She also stated that there is a WLA Diversity Scholarship funded by WLA available.
  • They have had difficulty in finding applicants for this program.  The program criteria have been broadened.  She encouraged CUWL members to consider possible staff to participate.

Ken Frazier said there is a common theme emerging to increase diversity.  That is to begin recruitment and encouragement as early as possible for diversity.   All of these early programs have tremendous impact. Affirmative action at the end of the process does not have the same impact.

Jean Gilbertson mentioned the ISIP program at UW-Madison.   This involves hiring and mentoring undergraduate interns from underrepresented groups, giving them exposure to libraries and librarianship as a potential career path.  They are reaching out to diverse populations in the student body.

Anita Evans mentioned that the Diversity Taskforce talked about the pipeline and also that job shadowing is very effective. 

Kristine Eschenfelder stated that the Library School at Madison is starting a library minor and the hope is that it will generate interest in librarianship.

Ewa Barczyk noted that the UW-Milwaukee Library School has an IMLS grant to bring in students of diverse backgrounds in partnership with the UW-Milwaukee Library, Marquette and the Milwaukee Public Library. 

  • UW-Milwaukee Libraries have created a three pronged program to increase diversity in our workforce.  One is a post MLS diversity position to offer recent graduates the opportunity to learn more about academic libraries, work in several functional areas and departments of the Libraries, and to participate in a challenging work environment.  They have appointed the first fixed term librarian recently and the program has been very positive.  They have not implemented the undergrad part yet as funding is minimal.  They are working with the Library School.
  • The Diversity in the Organization of Information and its Technology (DOIT) Project is a collaborative program providing generous student support for an ALA accredited Master of Library & Information Science (MLIS) education at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM). The goal of the DOIT project is to recruit and educate students of diverse backgrounds as information professionals specializing in the organization of information (OI). The project will bring a cohesive group of diverse professionals into the area of OI where they can influence policies and practices.
  • The program includes:
    • Tuition for up to 36 credits over six semesters,
    • Scholarships of either $1500 or $2500 per semester for up to four semesters,
    • A paid internship for two semesters,
    • A computer and printer,
    • Travel funding to the 2007 American Library Association Annual conference in Washington DC,
    • Distance education students receive travel funding to Milwaukee for orientation in January 2007.

John Krogman reported that the UW-Platteville Library is reaching into the local high school and offering internships for the students to work in library.  The incentive for the students is that the Library pays them.

Ed Van Gemert noted that our hiring rules are rigid may work against hiring diverse candidates.     He said that internship programs are more flexible and work well.  This is an ongoing process.

Jean Gilbertson said that in the Spring of 2005 the Diversity Task Force of CUWL did a survey and reported on the level of library staff diversity at each of the UW campuses. 

Anita Evans stated that we should do another survey within the next biennium.

Ewa Barczyk mentioned an article in the September 2007 issue College and Research Libraries.
Johnson, Peggy. “Retaining and Advancing Librarians of Color”, College and Research Libraries, September 2007, volume 68, no. 5 p. 405-416.

Anita Evans said that a new ALA online paper on diversity link will be added to the ALA website.  The link will be sent out and shared with CUWL members 

Anita Evans suggested adding an action statement regarding Diversity to the strategic goals for CUWL. Jean Gilbertson said that since this does not fall within a coordinating committee’s charge, it will be up to the group as a whole to decide how this fits in.  Anita Evans noted that currently there is no formal structure since the diversity taskforce did its job and then disbanded.  We may want to continue the Diversity Taskforce.

CUWL operating procedures – revisions (Malzacher and Evans)

Valerie Malzacher agreed to look at changes to the CUWL Operating Procedures since the advent of the new coordinating committees changes how CUWL functions.  The proposed changes deal with committees and how they operate. There are also some other cosmetic changes.  Two versions of the revised Operating Procedures were distributed; one with changes and one without were distributed. 

It was suggested to add one point to the duties of officers and executive committee; that is to report annually on the progress made on projects in the strategic plan.

There was discussion of Section II Organization and Membership.  It was noted that we do not yet have an extension faculty member.

Mark Boucher noted that in Section I Introduction that what CUWL does is mostly item D. He suggested moving that it become item A since it is the bulk of what CUWL does.  This is just reordering the points.  The Executive Committee can talk about revising the order of the items. 

Language regarding coordinating committees was taken from the prior document when the committees where approved. 

Jean Gilbertson stated the procedures for reviewing and approval of the Operating Procedures.  We cannot approve at this meeting because it did not meet the four week notification period to members.  The approval will be at the January meeting after suggested changes have been incorporated.

WILS report (Schneider)
Kathy Schneider gave the WILS report.  She began by distributing two handouts.  The first handout detailed:

  • The first quarter report on the Net Lender program and the British Library Document Supply Center (BLDSC) program.
    • Lending overall for the system is down slightly.
    • The budget is about where it should be.
    • This handout is for our information and is a current status report.
  • The second handout was a summary of the recent WILS survey.  The first page is general findings and subsequent pages focus on academic responses to the survey.
    • WILS was surprised on how many people in the academic community do not have a clear understanding of what WILS does.
    • The annual WILS World conference is very popular.
    • The last page of the handout list individual written comments from academic library respondents.
    • This is a study and analysis of the relationship between WILS, colleague libraries and organizations, and OCLC.  There is a commonality in thinking out there and there are things WILS needs to look at with an eye for change.
    • There were some comments on the WILS Survey handout. Kristin Eschenfelder noted that the survey cannot differentiate between those respondents who do not care about WILS as opposed to those who don’t know about the organization.  Kathy Schneider noted that this was an ongoing process and the next time around the survey will be tweaked to be more responsive.

ExLibris product implementation across the campuses –
The results of the survey on ExLibris product implementation were distributed to CUWL members prior to the meeting.  Each library director was to come prepared to report on the factors affecting implementation decisions on his/her campus.   Individual reports were given by:

  • John Pollitz of the UW-Eau Claire stated that there has been some customization.  They use SFX to manage databases.  The UWEC Librarians are not using it as a search engine, but rather see it as a way to get into the individual databases as opposed to a meta-search engine.  They do not have an assessment of how students are using it.  UWEC Librarians are not teaching it as an access point but do want to find out how students are using it.
  • Ken Frazier noted that JSTOR saw a doubling of use in a short period of time.  This was due to content becoming discoverable through Google searches.  This is a timely discussion of meta-search issues.  We need to see how our users are using newer technologies.
  • Ed Van Gemert stated that UW-Madison is now heavily invested in Metalib and relies on it for resource presentation. Their statistics show heavy usage of Metalib.  Madison librarians are not happy with the federated searching aspect of Metalib but statistics show heavy usage.
  • Kathy Davis of UW-Stephens Point concurred with much of the previous commentary.  UWSP has done some customization of the product.  Their librarians do not think it valuable for undergraduates and are not pleased with it.  They do not use to access databases and do not use it for federated searching.
  • Leanne Hansen of UW-Green Bay reported that they did a robust Metalib implementation.  They   reallocated positions to implement full blown Metalib and SFX services.  The UWGB library staff has not taken to it.  The librarians feel it cannot be trusted during instruction sessions.  The UWGB faculty were initially excited but found it difficult to use and have returned to native interfaces.   Some users like it and others do not.  It runs the gamut.  Students are confused by it and seem to avoid it.  However once they know it, they love it.  Peer to peer training on Metalib is effective with undergraduates.  Metalib is difficult to teach in the classroom but works better for one on one instruction.
  • Anita Evans of UW-La Crosse stated that when they first implemented Metalib, it was an excellent beginning.  While they found problems, they spent time on implementation and publicity.  However they had so many questions and problems, that they made a decision a year ago not to continue to work on it.  It was very staff intensive, and they had to make hard choices about staff time and also found that students were not using it.  One year statistics showed it was used 28,000 times as compared to 800,000 uses on other data bases.   She also noted that there is a lot of dissatisfaction in the literature and the field about these types of services.  Federated searching is not where it should be. 
  • John Krogman of UW-Platteville agreed with much that had been said.  Users were initially enthusiastic about federated searching, but both staff and faculty have lost that enthusiasm.  The expectation is that it would work like Google, but it does not.    SFX works well but Metalib has not lived up to expectations.
  • Joyce Huang of UW-Whitewater agreed with John Krogman.  UWW faculty and students like SFX but not Metalib.  Metalib is not used that much.  Starting in September they implemented a new interface using Metalib as access. The initial reaction from faculty has not been positive.
  • Valerie Malzacher of UW-River Falls said that they had Metalib training in 2005 and implemented the service as quickly as possible fall 2005.  They did a soft rollout on their web page.  Newer staff have more enthusiasm for the product and want to use it to organize resources.  They feel that using Metalib is actually more cost effective and less problematic than maintaining duplicative web pages, lists, URLS, etc. The staff thinks Metalib brings advantages, but they only have anecdotal evidence of user’s opinions.   She recommends more thorough analysis of user behavior on this topic.  She did a literature search and used Metalib to find articles on federated searching.  She feels this is our opportunity to assess the user experience and we need to do a better job of it.   She noted that we all gave up card catalogs for online tools that are not perfect.  This is a direct analogy to Metalib.  Discussion ensued at this point.
  • Vanaja Menon of UW-Parkside stated that the UWP staff has recommended getting rid of Metalib.  They are unanimous in not using it in instruction.  They prefer to use the native interfaces.   They are trying to promote one system/one library concept, but the argument is that it is labor intensive.  She feels there needs to be more discussion.  She is unable to discuss the initial promotion or time involved for implementation.  They feel SFX is excellent.  She is told that faculty is not positive about MetaLib either.  Metalib needs a lot of promotion.
  • Felix Unaeze of UW-Superior said that they use SFX and the staff uses Metalib.  Students do not use Metalib because they are not exposed to it.  There is difficulty with the interface.  At Superior they use it to organize resources.  Metalib needs some promotion especially to faculty using it for research.
  • Ewa Barczyk of UW-Milwaukee noted that a lot of the difficulty is attitudinal on our part.  Illinois has put up a new front end that uses federated searching.  Librarians are not enthusiastic but that is the way the students are moving in their searching behavior.  Some staff at Milwaukee is moving it forward and they are beginning to teach Metalib and federated searching.  We need the champions to push it and emphasize its advantages.  Nothing is perfect and we have to live with the product.
  • Pat Wilkinson of UW-Oshkosh said they had probably the least robust implementation.  SFX has been a good product and their JSTOR usage has gone up due to SFX.  The A to Z list does not meet their needs and they are still using Serials Solutions.  They have Metalib installed but not available due to the issues previously mentioned.  There is a real future in meta searching, but the UW-Oshkosh staff do not trust this product. They have no desire to stop others from implementation, but is this a one system/one library project?  Would it hurt another library if Oshkosh went in a different direction?  Do we need to be in lock step?  He feels Google Scholar is the future.
  • Paul Moriarty noted that this raises serious implications.  There was discussion on this point.
  • Mark Boucher of the UW-Colleges said that within colleges there is a major division. Two libraries heavily promote Metalib.  If CUWL was not supporting it, the Colleges would probably not continue.  There is resentment from other libraries; they feel they are forced to use it.  One benefit is that search-ability is incorporated into the Library Course Pages.  Metalib has advanced features that are not used.  Faculty and student do not use Notifications and there is a problem with using Metalib in instruction.
  • Paul Roberts of UW-Stout said that they have implemented Metalib but have not done much customization.   Comments from library staff noted that there are interface issues:  it is not an intuitive interface, it is not easy to find full text, there is no way to determine peer reviewed journals (this is a major issue on the Stout campus), and there are problems with the searching syntax including truncation problems.  It is still the best product out there.  The Stout staff likes SFX but are not particular smitten with Metalib.  It is a mixed bag for students and we are unable to make a consistent statement about use.  They intend to survey users next semester about Metalib use. 

Brief discussion occurred after the individual reports.  John Pollitz noted that he is following new open source meta-searching software being developed out in Oregon.  He feels this is a project to watch.

Valerie Malzacher commented that much of the difficulty may be due to mind set issues on our campuses.

Jean Gilbertson said that she would take this issue back to the Executive Committee and they would then decide how to proceed.

Paul Moriarty noted that there is a notification period in the Metalib contract.  Adequate notification may require at least a few months.

Anita Evans asked if SFX and Metalib can be negotiated separately.  Paul Moriarty said that he would need to talk to Ed M. about that issue.  

Summer workshop for library staff

Jean Gilbertson said that we want to have a staff workshop next summer.  She asked the Chairs of Committees to think about what the workshop should be and to participate in some of the planning. This is about as far as things have gone at this time.

Briefing on confidentiality of library records (Paul Nelson)

Paul Nelson from the Wisconsin Library Association briefed the meeting on legislation dealing with the confidentiality of Library Records.  He distributed two handouts.

The Library Records Bill is to amend the current law to create a narrow exception.  The law states that public library records are confidential.  Because of a specific incident the Attorney General of Wisconsin issued an informal opinion about surveillance tapes.  In order to view the tapes law enforcement officials would have to get a warrant to view them.  Paul Nelson then gave examples of surveillance tape use.  The only exception to not getting a warrant is if life or liberty at stake (like child abduction).  Please note that this does not preclude reporting criminal activity, libraries just cannot hand over tapes of criminal activity.  In effect, library surveillance video tapes are considered confidential library records according to this informal opinion by the Attorney General.

There are five points in the amendment:

  • Allow the library to release library records to protect against imminent threats to the life or safety of the individual.
  • Allow the library to release records to law enforcement officials when reporting apparent illegal activities.
  • Allow the library to release records to law enforcement officials or a collection agency for the purpose of recovering overdue library materials or collecting fines and penalties.
  • Allow the library to release records to a business partner of the library for management of library data, transfer of library data from one records management system to another; and statistical analysis of library use data.
  • Allow the library to release records to a business partner of the library for purposes of conducting library user surveys, educating library users, or otherwise promoting the legitimate services, programs or other interests of the library.

This legislation got rolling early in the year.  An incident at the Neenah public library triggered the action.  A patron was observed committing a lewd act.  The Neenah library has a video surveillance that showed the person.  The police were unable to review the tapes before getting a court order because of the legal opinion that the tapes are library records and are covered under privacy laws that pertain to libraries.  The police obtained the warrant and viewed the tape.  The person was caught after they showed the video surveillance tape on TV.  However the video tape also showed other people in the library at the time.  As a result of this incident a law was introduced; there were twin bills that addressed the video surveillance issue.  WLA was uncomfortable with the original wording and worked for a substitute amendment with better language.  There are five points in the amendment:

  • Allow the library to release library records to protect against imminent threats to the life or safety of the individual.
  • Allow the library to release records to law enforcement officials when reporting apparent illegal activities.
  • Allow the library to release records to law enforcement officials or a collection agency for the purpose of recovering overdue library materials or collecting fines and penalties.
  • Allow the library to release records to a business partner of the library for management of library data, transfer of library data from one records management system to another and statistical analysis of library use data.
  • Allow the library to release records to a business partner of the library for purposes of conducting library user surveys, educating library users, or otherwise promoting the legitimate services, programs or other interests of the library.

Yesterday the bill passed the senate and now goes to the assembly.  It should eventually make its way to the governor for signature.  WLA at first did not   take a stand due to initial language, but now supports the bill with the new language.  There is follow up legislation that addresses the other issues listed on one of the handouts.

Ken Frazier stated that there was a   definite improvement in safety due to video surveillance at UW Madison.  He asked about FIRPA and the affect on student privacy and confidentiality of this legislation.  Paul Nelson said he cannot answer at this time.

The (Ellis/Crawford) bill would exclude the need to get a court order to view video surveillance tapes.  Collection agencies are not addressed in the bill.

Discussion followed on this topic. 

Paul Nelson also provided a handout with an overview of the WLA legislative agenda.

LibQual in Spring 2008 (Moriarty)

Paul Moriarty provided an update on the LibQual+ survey in the spring.  He said that Madison is thinking of not doing it in the spring.  However a faculty survey has been delayed, so Madison may participate.  Madison has done LibQual twice; including last year.  Madison got the same results both times.  Paul Moriarty said there is no consortium break in price and asked if anyone is not doing it.  Ed Van Gemert said that Madison would do it if there is an advantage to doing so.  Paul Moriarty stated the more libraries that participate the better the data will be.  He also said that money is available for collection analysis.  We can also add five questions for the consortium; however we must get the questions in rather quickly.  The question becomes who will select the questions. We have about two weeks.   Discussion ensued on the LibQual survey and included the questions of: do we have to pay for our own survey, and may we add questions of our own to the five consortium questions?  Paul Moriarty will follow up on questions.

Paul Moriarty made a final comment on the budget.  Ed Meachen has scheduled a meeting with Rebecca Martin to include present, incoming, and past chairs of CUWL, plus Pat Wilkinson.  The intent of the meeting is building support for the budget.  John Krogman urged that we keep the budget lapse on the radar screen when we talk to Dr. Martin. 

Ken Frazier and John Krogman commented on the UW common systems.

There was more discussion on the MetaLib issue.

Anita Evans proposed that for the future we discuss how to we move off a product to another one in such a way that we do not damage or harm libraries that are more heavily invested in a particular product.

Wrap-up

Jean Gilbertson made the following announcements:

  • The winter meeting will be in Madison on Wednesday January 23, 2008.  This is the day after Library Legislation Day.
  • The spring meeting is a joint meeting with ITMC in Green Lake on April21-22, 2008.  We need to start thinking about the program for the plenary session.  Possible topics are digital content and a presentation of the D2L Library Task force.

Adjournment

Leanne Hansen moved to adjourn and Anthony Gulig seconded the motion.  The motion passed and Jean Gilbertson adjourned the meeting at 12:10 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted
Paul Roberts, Secretary, CUWL