Marshall Breeding, Director for Innovative Technologies and Research for the Jean and Alexander Heard Library at Vanderbilt University

Jerry Kline, Chairman and CEO, Innovative Interfaces, Inc.

Breeding presentation

Absent: Tom Peischl (CWU), Glen Jenewein (Clark), Bryce Nelson (SPU).

Consortium staff: John F. Helmer, Debi Baker, Nancy Nathanson, Greg Doyle (Friday morning)

The meeting was chaired by Susan Barnes Whyte.

Welcome from Benjamin T. Wakashige, Library Director, Pacific University Library.

No action required, minutes were adopted via online poll

4.1 Executive Committee (Barnes Whyte)

Barnes Whyte reviewed EC action items not appearing elsewhere on Council's agenda

• March 8 Meeting. EC plans to meet with all four Steering Teams on March 8
• Council meeting dates have been set
  • October 5-6, 2006
  • January 11-12, 2007
  • April 12-13, 2007
  • July12-13, 2007
• NWDA. EC will hold a conference call with staff from the Northwest Digital Archives to discuss opportunities for collaboration.
• ER Program Assessment. EC proposes to assess the ER Program at their March meeting and forward a recommendation for Council's July meeting. Council members approved this plan of action.
• Voting on SBC recommendation. Barnes Whyte addressed the question of when and how to vote on the forthcoming Summit Borrowing Committee (SBC) recommendation concerning the pros and cons of members accessing the courier system as forwarding sites rather than dropsites. For background on this topic see September 2005 EC action items, number 7.4. EC suggests that they discuss SBC's recommendation at the March meeting and, if the issue seems relatively straightforward, conduct a Council vote via email. Council members approved this approach to voting on SBC's recommendation.
• EC Elections. Barnes Whyte encouraged all Council members to stand for EC elections. Executive Committee has an increasingly important role to play and meetings are productive and well supported.

4.2 Executive Director, Summit holiday report (Helmer & Nathanson)

Helmer expanded on his written report:

• Steering Team Nominations. Council members will soon have an opportunity to nominate steering team members. Helmer will seek nominations in February and EC will make appointments at their March meeting. The last page of Helmer's report includes a list of current steering team members.
• Personnel updates
  • Many thanks are due to Alliance staff, especially Debi Baker and Michelle Williams, for assuming additional duties now that the Administrative Assistant position is vacant.
  • Nancy Nathanson is running for State Representative in Oregon, a position that would take office in January 2007. We have every confidence that she will be victorious and that may require adjustment of her FTE or schedule.
• Two Summit banners (3' x 6' and 2' x 4') are now available to any member wishing to borrow them for promotional use. Contact Michelle Williams for reservations.

4.3 Joint Task Force on Digital Assets Initiative | Grant request (Kelley)

Kelley summarized NWACC's efforts to determine budget priorities. Although the Digital Asset Initiative was not funded, this is not a reflection of NWACC's commitment. The task force will move forward and may add additional NWACC members. Helmer will establish a task force web page for recording membership, minutes, discussion documents, etc.

4.4 NW Directors Symposium (Fischer)

The group is finalizing plans for a keynote speaker and will then set a meeting date. Background information.

4.5 Leadership Institute (Butcher)

An email list has been established and participants identified at the last Council meeting have been asked to express their continued interest.

Nathanson's report provided general background information.

Council members reported on discussions and decisions at their institutions.

• SU: in celebration of their first year as an Alliance members, Lemieux is loaning DVDs and videotapes. Popko distributed copies of issue one of SU's Summit NewsNotes together with an Implementation Report for member libraries
• WSU: will be loaning all media; continuing to discuss lending bound volumes
• EOU: genealogy as of November 2005, working on DVDs
• UW: children's literature was added last summer
• Whitman: close to lending media
• Reed: audio, including linguistic sets
• UPS: working well so far, will be loaning DVDs and videos soon
• WWU: lending microforms & audio (not music). The problem with III's Materials Booking module needs to be fixed before WWU can do much more
• SOU: items from the "browsable videos" collection are being loaned; dialog with faculty is continuing
• GFU: most videos are coded for lending, soon most DVDs
• PCC: lending everything but reference materials; results have been good

Deb Carver (Chair, RLSC Leadership Group) joined Council by phone

6.1 Summary of Financial Planning Meeting

Helmer gave his sense of the major findings from the meeting:

• Remarkable turnout: 7 CFOs, 10 library directors, 2 attorneys, 2 development staff
• Site, funding, and legal status are interrelated; each depending on the other two, to some extent
• CFOs at Linfield College and OHSU would like to have the site selected soon
• Organizational Model
  • The same governance issues need to be determined regardless of organizational model. How they are recorded (e.g., MOU, articles of incorporation) will depend on the model used.
  • Staff should be employees of the fiscal agent or site where RLSC is located but should not be employees of a new, small nonprofit corporation.
  • There is no compelling reason to form a separate nonprofit corporation.
  • UO is willing to consider expanding its role as Alliance fiscal agent to include RLSC
• Fund raising for capital construction
  • No members will elevate RLSC as an institutional priority for fundraising
  • Collaborative fundraising looks promising. Hugh Porter (Reed) suggested asking 4-5 foundations for ca. $2M each.
  • Alliance history of success and stability is a major selling point
  • If bonds are needed, public bonds will offer the most favorable terms

Council discussion included:

• Under the current scenario, who would own RLSC? Answer: UO
• Who would own collections? Answer: Each library retains ownership of deposited material.
• Council discussed the budget model adopted in October 2004 (see Council meeting, agenda item number 8) and reiterated that this is a model which will change as parameters firm up.
• Council will discuss the budget and timeline for commitments once more is known about the recurring budget and likely sources of construction capital. A variety of factors will significantly impact both construction and recurring budgets. Examples of such factors include the success of capital construction fundraising efforts, number of founding depositors, extent of deposits, participation by non-members, and adjustments in the balance between the flat and weighted portions of the fee schedule.
• Success in collaborative fundraising will impact the recurring budget because the alternative is an RLSC recurring budget that includes service on bonded debt. The outcome of fundraising efforts will also impact each participant's return on investment.

6.2 Recommendations

Helmer reviewed recommendations presented in his memo to Council.

Recommendation 1: Cooperative fundraising (RLSC Financial Planning Meeting, action item 2). Charge the RLSC Leadership Group with overseeing cooperative fundraising for RLSC. Such an effort is expected to include consultation with development staff from founding depositors UO, OSU, PSU, Reed, and OHSU.

MOTION: Owen moved to accept Recommendation 1
SECOND: Dancik
VOTE: Council voted unanimously to accept the recommendation.

Recommendation 2: Site selection vote (RLSC Financial Planning Meeting, action item 3).
Council will vote via Web poll to approve or reject the site selection recommendation expected to be forwarded in early 2006.

Background: The RLSC Leadership Group has already been charged with advising Council on site selection. Recommendation 2 only pertains to the way a final Council vote is taken. If an in-person Council vote is required, then site selection will not be complete until July 2006.

Some Council members were concerned about whether members would be able to submit a simple vote or whether more discussion or information might be required. Others felt that the need to avoid taking up business during the April retreat was not compelling and that Council should be prepared to use this time if needed.

MOTION: Kopp moved that Council vote no later than April 14, 2006 (second day of the retreat) on a site recommendation to be forwarded from the RLSC Leadership Group by March 1, 2006.
SECOND: Kaag
VOTE: Council voted unanimously to accept the recommendation.

Council directed that voting occur as follows:

1. Council members receive background information and a site recommendation from the RLSC Leadership Group by March 1.
2. Council members are given one week to discuss the site recommendation via email.
3. Helmer polls Council about their ability and willingness to vote on the recommendation via Web poll.
4. If Council members express a willingness to vote via Web poll, then EC will direct Helmer to conduct a vote on the site recommendation. If Council members do not wish to vote in that manner, a discussion and the vote will be scheduled to occur during the April retreat.

Recommendation 3: Organizational structure (RLSC Financial Planning Meeting, action item 4). The RLSC Leadership Group should proceed under the assumption that UO will serve as fiscal agent. While this decision is not final, having the UO serve in this capacity is judged to be the most promising organizational structure for RLSC.

Note: In order to accomplish such an extension of the current Alliance organization, RLSC Financial Planning Meeting participants advise that a revised or additional MOU describing RLSC governance and member responsibilities will be required.

MOTION: Lyttle moved to accept Recommendation 3
SECOND: Hanawalt
VOTE: Council voted unanimously to accept the recommendation.

Recommendation 4: RLSC Memorandum of Understanding (RLSC Financial Planning Meeting, action item 5). Charge the RLSC Leadership Group with overseeing an exploration of the concepts and legal language that might be included in a revised Alliance MOU or additional RLSC MOU describing RLSC governance, member responsibilities, etc. Such an effort is expected to include consultation with Carl Vance (Linfield), David Ellis (L&C), and Ed McFarlane (Reed).

MOTION: Jensen moved to accept Recommendation 4
SECOND: Montgomery
VOTE: Council voted unanimously to accept the recommendation.

7.1 FY05 Income and Expense Report

Helmer reviewed the I/E report previously approved by Executive Committee.

Council discussed the budget. Helmer noted that the budget is normally adopted in April but this year the April meeting will be a retreat. January is very early to adopt the budget but July seems too late. EC felt it better to adopt a budget now so that members are informed about membership fees well in advance of the new fiscal year. Clearly there is more chance that circumstances may change but the Alliance has a reserve that can absorb reasonable variations. Any major change in circumstances will be brought to Council's attention.

Helmer noted the following:

• EC travel budget has increased because EC has assumed more work for Council and meetings now routinely require two days.
• As usual, a significant portion of HR costs are apportioned to the "new member" category. The result is that these costs are not reflected in membership fees. Should the Alliance stop growing in future years, these expenses would have a significant impact on fees. As a result, Helmer recommends a conservative approach that avoids having the budget overly dependent on growth.

Some Council members suggested that future budgets might include a larger travel pool, in keeping with membership growth.

MOTION: Bilyeu moved to adopt the budget as presented.
SECOND: Wakashige
VOTE: Motion passed by a unanimous vote.

Barnes Whyte reported on Executive Committee's site visit. Council discussed the application.

MOTION: Jensen moved to approve Warner Pacific College's application.
SECOND: Fortier
VOTE: Yes 18, No 9, Abstain 1

Council asked Executive Committee to compose a membership offer letter that emphasizes the need for continued institutional support for the library.

Council conducted an initial review and discussion of the application. Discussion included

• a reminder of the fact that Concordia's application will be considered independently from Warner's, even though the two institutions hope to share a III system.
• concern over staffing levels
• 25% growth in materials budget from FY05 to FY06
• interest in considering materials budget per FTE, total budget per FTE, and staffing per FTE

Executive Committee will conduct a site visit with a membership vote expected at Council's next business meeting in July 2006.

Marshall Breeding & Jerry Kline

Breeding presentation

Jerry Kline

Sarah Beasley (PSU, member of CDMC Steering Team) presented CDMC's report. Discussion included

• enthusiastic support for CDMC's pilot project for a distributed print repository
• need for RLSC and the difficulty of creating a dark archive without such a facility
• potential interest in WorldCat Collection Assessment product
• interest in developing the collection development role of Alliance interest groups
• advisability of emphasizing voluntary CD options rather than "top-down" mandates
• CDMC should look at ways to integrate short runs of journal holdings that may be in greater danger of weeding

Council accepted the report, endorsed CDMC's goals for 2006, and expressed their great appreciation for the group's hard work and great successes in 2005.

Council discussed a revision of Membership Criteria as drafted by Kopp and Popko.

Council discussion included:

• potential for building on the institutional basis of membership and viewing libraries as the "flagship and engine" of an institution's membership.
• should Council periodically review existing members?
• apparent inconsistency in the vote required for approval of a membership application (Bylaws = majority, Membership Criteria = 2/3)
• decision to add back "Collections of unique or specialized materials"
• importance of technical readiness to participate in the Summit catalog
• importance of readiness to support the work of Summit Borrowing
• include a review of the library's mission
• EC practice has been to report findings rather than make recommendations about applications
• Although current written criteria do not require the applicant to have a III system, Council's 2004 retreat yielded a decision not to pursue the inclusion of non-III systems in the near term

Kopp and Popko will incorporate Council's input in the next draft and Executive Committee will discuss further. Council will consider membership criteria at the April retreat and can expect to see a draft for revision and adoption in July.

Council held an executive session to discuss EC's draft of the Executive Director evaluation process. Barnes-Whyte will forward a final version for inclusion on Council's web page.

Barnes-Whyte reviewed the content, format, and goals of Council's Retreat scheduled for April 13-14, 2006, University of Washington. Goals from Council's October 2006 minutes:

1. Articulate strategic directions for the Alliance in order to sustain our mission and vision.
2. Identify appropriate next steps in order to achieve those directions.
3. Identify trends in the larger information world related to the Alliance's mission.
4. Identify characteristics of current and near future information users.
5. Ensure that the vitality of the Alliance continues to grow.

Council reaffirmed these goals and suggested that we make sure that we make the most of the expertise of our guests: Joan K. Lippincott, Associate Executive Director, CNI; Lorcan Dempsey, Vice President and Chief Strategist, OCLC; and Danielle Tiedt, General Manager, MSN Search Content and Acquisitions, Microsoft

The retreat planning group (Barnes Whyte, Kelley, Bilyeu, Spalding, Joan Lippincott) will continue its work.

Johannah Sherrer lecture: Kopp invited Council members to attend the Johannah Sherrer lecture on February 20, 2006 at Lewis & Clark College.

Reed College grant: Hanawalt announced that Reed College has received a grant from the Keck Foundation in support of initiatives in Digital Asset Management. The Library, Computing and Visual Resources departments are working together on this. A major focus of the work is improvement in classroom access to digital resources in support of teaching.

Slowness in Summit Borrowing: Helmer noted that he occasionally hears from member libraries that Summit materials from some institutions routinely take much longer to arrive. Unfortunately, people are sometimes hesitant to identify the sites in question. Helmer emphasized the importance of having Summit Borrowing reps and Council members talk with each other about potential problems with workflow, local couriers, etc. He also indicated that Alliance staff need to be informed in a timely manner so that potential systemic problems can be addressed quickly.

Accreditation text: Popko conveyed his suggestion distributed to Executive Committee via email on January 11, 2006:

"I propose that we prepare and offer to our members a standardized text that summarizes what the Alliance is, what resources we represent, what services we offer, and esp. how these resources and services complement a local library collection. It would be written specifically to fit the standards and language of the Northwest Commission. It would be so accurate, so thorough, and so compelling that each of us would simply cut-and-paste it into our self-study documents. If a library wanted to elaborate in some customized fashion it could still do so."

Council members enthusiastically approved of this idea and asked that Executive Committee draft a group to work on such a statement.

EDIFACT
For background see October 2006 Council minutes, agenda item 12, "14 digit ISBN's & EDIFACT ."
Lyttle reported that Jerry Kline agreed to honor III's sale price on the EDIFACT module. Helmer will convey the following list of interested members to III: WOU, SOU, Pacific, UP, TESC, MHCC, L&C, PCC, and SMU (added later).