Present:Paul
Moriarty (Chair), Michele McKnelly (for Christina
Baum), Deb Nordgren (for Bob Carmack), Barb Fahey (for Pat Wilkinson), Peter
Watson-Boone, Winston Van Horne, Ken Frazier, Tom Murray, Arne Arneson, Faye
Flesia (for Jim Bredeson), Joe Jax, Anita Evans, Barb Baruth (for Tom Peischl),
Kathy Schneider, Al Davis (for Huang), John Krogman, Lorie Docken, Chris Goss,
Lori Voss, Rex Hieser, Ed Meachen.Guests:Tanner Wray, JoAnn Carr
Moriarty called the meeting to order at .He thanked
Docken for quickly calling the meeting.Moriarty also acknowledged the contributions of Van Horne as a faculty
representative for the past four years and CUWL’s appreciation for his
participation.Frazier requested an
agenda item be added to discuss the coordination of journal cancellations.
Minutes from CUWL meetings of January 29, January 30, and
May 2, and the CUWL Executive Committee meeting of April 10 were approved as
distributed.
Enhanced Resource Sharing Task Force Report
Wray summarized the findings of the ERSTF since their
appointment in November 2001.The task
force concentrated on three vendors:Fretwell Downing, Endeavor, and ILLiad. ILLiad meets most of the objectives by having strong
desktop delivery, empowering the patron, and having basic ILL.Its weaknesses are that it does not integrate
with Voyager so that total resource sharing cannot currently be accomplished in
one product.While the task force
recommends ILLiad, they do have concerns about
payment for ongoing costs and UW Madison has outstanding technical questions.
Docken discussed four hosting
options and the accompanying cost scenarios that include the license fee, the
host fee, and the SQL license.Pricing
for Colleges is higher because they are considered as individual institutions;
some effort must be made to accommodate them.Option I has Atlas hosting all UW libraries (one server for Madison;
one server for all other campuses).Option II has UW Madison with its own local server and Atlas hosting all
other UW libraries.Option III has UW
Madison with its own local server and WiLS hosting all other libraries
(withdrawn by Schneider during the meeting).Option IV has each campus with its own server and a hosted site for
Colleges.
Both OCLC and Atlas ask for a two-year commitment for this
project to allow them to recover costs associated with hosting.Atlas introduced its hosting service option
earlier this year and hosting the UW libraries would represent a major account
for them.Jax
asked about UWS picking up costs now to which Docken replied that System will
pick up costs for year one and then turn them over to campuses.Atlas has said that after two years we could
move databases into whatever configuration we wish (continued use of the
hosting service or local loading of databases).Murray noted that none of
the costs include cost of OCLC transactions or other ILL fees.Moriarty said that Platteville has been
successful with outsourcing with the Voyager Hub, Blackboard for WebCT, and Docutek and that hosting costs are a bargain.Watson-Boone asked about timing and how all
libraries would be phased in.Discussion
ensued regarding a variety of phase-in possibilities.There may be some delays as Madison
determines how to handle procedures, but according to Docken Atlas thinks they
can have all libraries up and running quickly.Meachen would like to see an implementation plan before spending this
much money so that we’ll know when each library can come up; otherwise delay
implementation until everyone can come up, but overall he encouraged an
aggressive implementation schedule.Fahey asked what the implication would be if Oshkosh
would use ILLiad, but not Madison.Docken responded
that Oshkosh would use OCLC to send
requests then rather than ILLiad for Madison
items; however, Oshkosh would
manage those OCLC requests through ILLiad.There was some discussion of the Voyager
product; Docken and Wray explained that the module
isn’t complete and will not function for libraries with multiple ILL shops
(Madison and Colleges).Frazier said
that ILLiad makes sense if we’re committed to
providing journal delivery to faculty in light of heavy print cancellations.He continued to comment that we need to be on
the same software if we’re going to truly have a system-wide document delivery
system.Evans reminded the group that
one of our strategic directions was to use this tool as a backup for faculty
when cutting journals.Moriarty said
that we’re looking for something that will supplement Voyager’s Universal
Borrowing, not replace it.Rose wondered
why the task force did not recommend Ariel as part of this purchase for those
libraries who currently do not have it since that would allow desktop delivery
for all transactions rather than just ILLiad to ILLiad.Wray said
that Ariel may not be cost effective for those sites handling lower
volumes.Docken
reiterated that with ILLiad a library could send to
and receive electronic documents from another ILLiad
library with the Odyssey software in ILLiad and a
scanner.Without a scanner that library
can only receive electronic documents.
Van Horne wondered what faculty on other
campuses are saying about journal cuts.Milwaukee has heard many
angry responses to cuts.Some mechanism
needs to be found to placate faculty.Platteville promised faculty ready access to journal article delivery
when they did cuts.Frazier said Madison’s
new Provost asked how he was getting away with canceling journals.Frazier explained that as faculty sign over
their copyrights to publishers, it then forces libraries to buy back those same
articles at a cost beyond their means.He tells departments how much it will cost to maintain the titles they
want.Meachen suggested that we look at
alternatives to paying for increasing journal subscriptions, such as pooling
our resources and asking faculty to change the way they do research and publish
their work.Van Horne explained that faculty
must publish in certain journal titles in order to meet tenure requirements and
that needs to be changed.Watson-Boone
said that Milwaukee is not opposed
to ILLiad even though what they have is working well,
but he’d prefer having a lengthier implementation schedule.
Jax motioned and Evans seconded to
accept the recommendation of the task force to purchase ILLiad
and go with the Option I as the hosting model.Motion passed.Docken will
work on an implementation schedule and UW System will fund all costs associated
with year one implementation, and will fund hosting and SQL costs in year
two.Campuses will fund the ILLiad license fee in year two and absorb all costs in
years 3 and beyond.
Resource Sharing Policies
Docken began the discussion of the
economic implications of doing ILLiad
transactions.In traditional ILL,
we’ve been paying WiLS or have used reciprocal
agreements.How will each library fund
this activity?Murray
said that $5 seems to be an average transaction cost.Schneider said that it comes down to more
than Milwaukee and Madison (WiLS) have provided.Will the loaner pay?She said
that the resource sharing group determined that the lender would bear the cost,
but can major lenders still cover that cost?Docken said that these costs are different
than the resource borrowing policies determined a few years ago which
established no fees for UB-type transactions – can a no-fee policy apply to
requests for non-returnables?Baruth asked if we
do nothing will fees shift from borrower to lender?Schneider said that this is a larger policy
issue than just ILLiad.She continued to say that the resource
sharing group agreed that the lender would bear the cost for all types of
resources, but wondered if major lenders can still cover that cost.Frazier said that $5 per transaction is
attractive economically and offers the best option for providing access for
faculty; there’s no way to increase transactions without having a means to pay
for them and each library may need to pay.Meachen said the possible scenario may be a
fear of what’s going to happen if requesting for non-returnables
is more readily and conveniently available to library users.Perhaps we need to develop a central
transition point and rethink business processes for nonreturnables.This may create savings at other
libraries.Meachen
offered to assist in determining how UW System could cover these costs to help
CUWL get over the fear factor during an experiment over the next two
years.Jax
said that the central system seems good to him rather than shifting costs
around.He also predicted that libraries
other than Madison and Milwaukee
could become net lenders.Frazier said
that faculty welcomed the convenience of desktop delivery; it’s a great benefit
to get articles in a timely fashion.Watson-Boone said some faculty members prefer purchases of electronic
format if there’s a choice.He suggested
that payments could be made to net lenders at the end of a year rather than for
each transaction.Docken
reminded us that there is a precedent for this as UWS has been paying fees for returnables to WiLS and Milwaukee
as part of our resource sharing experiment; these payments will stop at the end
of June 2002.Meachen
suggested another working group explore how library patrons would use this
service if there were no fees.Docken would like a small working group to scope out the
financial angles for nonreturnables and then report
to CUWL.The group will consist of Jax, Schneider, Wray or someone else from Madison, someone
from Milwaukee, and Docken.[On June 26
Moriarty sent an email stating that the original Resource Sharing Committee
chaired by Schneider and now consisting of Jax, Rose,
EwaBarczyk (Milwaukee), Docken, and Murray will work on this.]
Universal Borrowing Resource Sharing
Schneider distributed a handout of recommendations from a UB
working group conference call:
Allow
1 renewal for UB items circulating 28 days; no renewal on 14-day loans
Frazier said that there are objections from individual
libraries on the Madison campus,
but Madison will support this.CUWL agreed to support this
recommendation.
Extend
the hold shelf life from to 10
days.Agreed.
The
level of processing fees and the decision to waive processing fees if the
item is returned should be left to the individual campuses.Likewise, lost item replacement fees
should be determined by the holding library.
It seems that libraries can’t be as consistent as we had
hoped; it’s up to individual libraries to waive processing fees or not.Fahey mentioned that level of staff
represented on the conference call varied; consensus needs to be made at the
CUWL level.Arneson
said we do our users a disservice if we aren’t consistent with UB
policies.Baruth
said it’s unfair to our own students when we waive a processing fee for UB but
won’t for a local processing fee.Jax asked what the fee covers in addition to cataloging
costs.Rose suggested that CUWL approve
the recommendation for now but continue to work on this issue.Docken said that at
some point libraries should be able to set separate policies for UB and local
policies since the next Voyager release has some separation between the
two.Perhaps after that, this whole
issue could be examined.Agreed
to processing fee recommendation for the short term
and will review after everyone is up and running for a year.
User
blocked from UB with 1 UB lost item.Agreed.
Campuses
should declare an item “lost” after no less than 28 days, but longer
period is acceptable.Agreed.
Item
of concern:Lack of ID cards for
some distance education students.
Many distance education students do
not have IDs and this presents a problem for some campuses.Frazier wondered if it’s beyond CUWL to force
IDs.Moriarty said having CUWL’s support is useful to convince campus administrators
that DE students need IDs.Schneider
asked whether UWS could push on this issue.Meachen said he brought it up with Provosts
and it didn’t go anywhere, but perhaps he could pursue the issue with
administrators responsible for student services.UW Online Initiative will need to offer all
appropriate services to participants, so they’ll need IDs.Frazier said that DE students get premier
services and should have IDs.Arneson mentioned there are IAA implications.Meachen said we
probably won’t be able to go beyond the registry.Arneson suggested
that Voyager and libraries would be a good model for IAA to look at.Meachen said that
in the short term we need to force the ID issues and he’ll bring it up again
with the Provosts and also student services administrators this time.Docken said that
some campuses are adamant about IDs for UB transactions and others are more
flexible.
Coordinated Journal Cancellations
Frazier said Madison
made $500,000 worth of cuts for Elsevier and other high-price titles.A flat budget needs collective action to
cancel high-cost journals.Last year Milwaukee
cut 50% of their Elsevier journals when they committed to interdependence with Madison.Now is the time for all of us to commit to
that interdependence and cancel expensive journals.This ties in with
document delivery.Frazier asked
directors to lead their collection development librarians on this.Docken said that
the CDC is gathering title lists for cutting.Meachen asked that creative and collaborative
models for sharing money be explored, especially if we get cost to
continue.Watson-Boone suggested
canceling more than necessary to get ahead and to build up a fund to use.Murray
said cost to continue shouldn’t be used as an excuse not to cancel.
Recessed for lunch at
and reconvened at
Collection Development Committee Report
Carr, Chair of the CDC, reviewed recommendations of the
Committee.Jax
moved and Evans seconded to approve $58,000 for the purchase of ebooks.Murray
asked the CDC to purchase more computer books since Safari is not a viable
option for this consortium.Motion
passed.Rose moved and Jax seconded to approve $21,750 for access to ACS Journal
Archives for the period of July 1,
2002-December 31, 2003.Motion
passed.The CDC is collecting
information on titles to develop the journal collection as a system; they’re
also looking at the selection process each library goes through to develop
common criteria.A discussion on deselection criteria is also forthcoming.Frazier asked if the CDC is considering
article-by-article access from Elsevier.Docken responded that’s possible if an
individual library has $10,000 worth of print subscriptions, but Elsevier won’t
talk about consortial subscriptions.New CDC officers for 2002-2003 are Jan Bogstad, Chair, and Brian Finnegan,
Secretary/Chair-Elect.Moriarty thanked
Carr for the good work the CDC does.
QuestionPoint
Schneider discussed the pilot project for the virtual
reference desk software.WiLS had a goal of 10 participating libraries and 20 have
responded.The deadline for signup is
June 15th for the special rate of $2,000 for 18 months beginning
July 1st.There is support for
multi-type libraries working together for this project.At WiLSWorld there
will be a project meeting with the product manager from OCLC.Schneider reported the participants as 10 UW
campuses, 2 private colleges, 1consortium of privates, 1 reference and loan, 1
technical college, and 5 public library systems.Participation is based on a profile that each
participant sets up.
Meetings
A joint meeting between the outgoing and the incoming
Executive Board members will be arranged for some time during the summer.Members will be contacted for best times.
Does CUWL want to continue with the joint fall meeting?Frazier suggested that the meeting agenda
topics be addressed to overlap activities of other groups so that the “joint”
part isn’t so weak.Moriarty agreed that
the joint meetings have been beneficial, but perhaps there’s been too much
segregation between the groups and that CUWL could be a stronger partner in
planning the overall meeting.Jax agreed planning should be joint between ITMC and CUWL
and we should convey that to them.Docken will talk to Bob Jokisch
about the fall meeting.Jax felt CUWL should have a meeting regardless.Rose wondered if the LAMS should meet at the
same time.Moriarty said that as systems
were implemented it was beneficial to meet at the same time since so many
decisions needed to be made, but maybe there’s less reason now.Baruth said having
the LAMS meet then might depend on what the joint sessions are about.Arneson agreed that
CUWL needs to be there.It’s also
important to have a voice at Hal Schleis’ conference
concerning distance education and learning resources.Rose said we should ask our librarians to get
involved in that conference by submitting papers.
Next CUWL meeting:Milwaukee’s
invitation is still open and RiverFalls
has also extended an invitation.We
should meet in Madison at the time
of Legislative Day.
Budget Update
Goss reported there wasn’t much to update since the budget
is still being debated.Nothing more on
cost to continue has been raised.The
following budget is expected to bring more cuts.Frazier said that there’s already a category
called cost to continue, but it’s very limited.The legislature will notice that items are being added to this category
since non-library items are also being added.It’s not an automatic passage and he doesn’t have hope that this will
result in new money for libraries.However, it’s good that libraries should be thought of like this and
it’s worth a multi-year strategy.Rose
suggested we think of other variations, such as the student tech fee.Even though that may depend on tuition caps
this year, it might be a good strategy for coming years.Goss said that he’s gathering justification
information on dins and will ask for feedback.The Regents will need a general document in August, with a dollar amount
but no detail.Rose mentioned that Kathi Sell (UWS Associate VP, Budget & Planning) had
visited the Eau Claire campus and
she seems to be pushing for cost to continue.He explained to her what the library had done with previous money and
emphasized their collaborative activities.Frazier said that CUWL needs to consider communicating to UW System
Administration that the libraries are declining in our ability to support
research and teaching in light of a four-year period of flat budgets.This will disadvantage us with other
university systems.Nordgren
asked if we could collaborate with faculty groups to help our cause.Frazier responded that we could each talk to
all type of governance groups on our campuses.Watson-Boone said he’s hearing from faculty that they think Milwaukee
is declining as a research institution.Frazier said that we need to discuss long-term consequences, especially
with potential budget cuts.Evans
suggested we distribute the information on serial cancellations Docken is compiling, perhaps in capsule form with graphs
and stories that would capture people’s attention.Van Horne agreed that we want to show
tangible effects of cancellations.Moriarty said proceeding with this idea could be an action item for the
Executive Committee.Watson-Boone added
that our ability to support scientific research is declining.Goss suggested CUWL members continue to
contact United Council and the legislature.Frazier proposed that the Executive Committee draft a letter to Cora Marrett stating the decline of UW collections, increasing
concerns to faculty and students regarding research quality, and four years of
flat funding with increased costs should warrant investigation of a tuition
surcharge for library collections.This
should become a tuition issue.Watson-Boone seconded the proposal.Docken said we’ll need to use data from 2002
for reporting.After some discussion,
Watson-Boone made a friendly amendment that CUWL would not say how the increase
is to be made.Proposal passed.
Retirements
Rose presented a retirement card and gift, Insider’s
Guide to Madison, and a framed map of Madison to Moriarty as a token of CUWL’s appreciation for his many years of devotion to the
library profession as well as his year as Chair.Moriarty replied that he enjoyed CUWL and
feels that UW libraries are in good hands despite budget problems.Rose also presented a card and gift for Bob Carmack, who is also retiring and was not attending.Nordgren agreed to
give them to him and was sure he’d appreciate the gesture.
