Council Meeting Minutes April 2005

 Council Meeting Minutes #9: April 14-15, 2005

Orbis Cascade Alliance Council Meeting

Absent: Vickie Hanawalt (Reed)

Consortium staff: John F. Helmer, Travis Honea, Nancy Nathanson (by phone for agenda item number 7)

Guest on Friday morning: Joseph W. Janes, Associate Professor & Associate Dean for Academics, Information School, UW. Dr. Janes led Council in a discussion of "The Future of Reference Service in Academic Libraries."

The meeting was chaired by Pat Kelley.

1. Introductions
New members of Council:

Leonoor Ingraham-Swets announced that she is retiring from her position at Clark College and that this will be her last Council meeting.

2. Review of agenda
Agenda item #7 scheduled for 2pm on Thursday
Agenda item #9: order will be reversed (LCC, WWC)

3. Minutes from January 20-21, 2005 (Kelley)
  Approved as written.

Executive Director (Helmer)
Helmer reviewed his written report covering the following topics:

5. Regional Library Services Center (Helmer)
Helmer reviewed RLSC progress:

Dill & Co. produced a draft report which was reviewed by Hanawalt, Helmer, and Executive Committee on March 11. The final draft is expected by May 1 and will incorporate information from facilities contacts at Reed College, OHSU, and Linfield College.

Carver is scheduled to meet with the Academic Council (provosts) of the Oregon University System to discuss RLSC. RLSC is currently included in the OUS capital construction budget for FY07/09.

DECISION: Council approved having Helmer organize a second funding group meeting. The purpose of this meeting will be to review Dill & Company costs estimates, discuss the RLSC funding model, secure commitments and discuss sources of foundation support. Participants will be

Yaple indicated that Whitman College may be able to supply land at a low cost in return for storing materials at a reduced rate. Helmer noted that the site selection process began with Orbis prior to merger and suggested that several new locations might be offered if Council were to reopened site discussions.

When asked about a likely timeline for occupancy Helmer responded that, although construction time is fairly short for such buildings, the primary determinant is availability of funding.

Some Council members expressed an interest in discussing Paul Gehrman's "A Proposed Virtual Storage System" at a future Council meeting.

6. FY06 Budget (Helmer)
Council reviewed the draft budget prepared by Helmer and revised by Executive Committee. Discussion included

MOTION: Owen moved to have Helmer and EC revise the budget and seek adoption via email.
SECOND: Burkholder
DISCUSSION: none
VOTE: Council voted unanimously in favor of the motion.

ACTION: Helmer will work with Executive Committee to revise the budget as follows:

Budget will be revised, distributed to Council, and a vote taken by email.

ACTION: In order to plan for the future, Executive Committee was asked to work with Helmer to create a conceptual budget based on no growth in membership.

ACTION: Executive Committee will consider an appropriate mechanism for determining what the "new initiative" will be.

7. Resource Sharing at the Article Level
Chmelir reviewed the Collection Development and Management Committee's report concerning the Article Supplier Study assigned by Council in January. Nancy Nathanson joined Council by phone to answer questions about the data analysis.

Topics explored included:

In an outstanding performance worthy of the Ashland stage, Deb Carver debated herself and facilitated a conversation about why Council should or should not pursue a development partnership with III. Helmer also reviewed III's answers to questions posed by Council at the January meeting. Ideas presented by Carver and other Council members included the following.

Why would we move forward with a development partnership?

Other thoughts

Kelley suggested that Council members consider two questions:

Q1: If there are six or more members that would like to participate in a non-returnables development partnership with III, does Council approve of such a project with start-up funding from the reserve and the investment of consortium staff time?

Q2: Will your institution participate and fund the per-institution annual costs quoted by III?

Discussion centered on human resource and financial costs.

MOTION: Popko moved to allocate $20,000 from the reserve and approve Alliance participation in the proposed non-returnables development partnership with III, if there are six or more institutions that would like to participate.

DISCUSSION: Popko clarified his intent that no annual fees from individual Alliance libraries engaged in the development partnership would be included in Council's offer to III. Time period for the development partnership should also be part of any agreement.

QUESTION CALLED: Bilyeu

VOTE: Yes - 20 votes, No - 5 votes, Abstain - 2 votes.

DECISION: Council members wish to share information regarding pros and cons and consult with staff before making a decision regarding participation. The process agreed to is as follows:

ACTIONS:

OHSU

Morgan reviewed a memo explaining OHSU's decision to begin charging Washington libraries for ILL. The motivations for this move are 1) to increase income, and 2) to decrease the number of requests (and thus staff time). OHSU's primary aim is to reduce the number of requests.

8. Executive Director evaluation (Kelley)
Council met in executive session.

9. Membership discussion and vote (Kelley)
Lane Community College (LCC)
Kelley reviewed findings from Executive Committee's visit to LCC. Council discussed the application.

MOTION: Kopp moved to approve LCC's application.
SECOND: Fortier
DISCUSSION: none
VOTE: Council voted unanimously in favor of the motion.

Walla Walla College (WWC)
Kelley reviewed findings from Executive Committee's visit to WWC and noted that discussions at WWC had caused EC to consider member access to the courier system. Noting WWC's expressed willingness to join the courier system as a dropsite (thus fulfilling a membership requirement), Kelley asked that the broader courier topic be considered separately from WWC's application. Council discussed the application.

MOTION: Yaple moved to approve WWC's application.
SECOND: Kopp
DISCUSSION: none
VOTE: Council voted unanimously in favor of the motion.

ACTION: Helmer will work with Executive Committee on letters offering membership to LCC and WWC.

Courier service
WWC is fiscal agent for and in close proximity to the dropsite at Whitman College. As such WWC is a "forwarding site" along with Walla Walla Community College and Walla Walla Public Library. WWC has requested time to forewarn their partners in courier service if they are to withdraw from the Whitman dropsite and begin a WWC dropsite. There are budgetary and workflow implications that make such notice necessary.

Kelley reported that this request caused Executive Committee to re-evaluate the circumstances under which a member needs to become a dropsite. EC recommends that Council continue to support the Alliance's service goals while thinking more broadly about the way in which those goals are achieved. In short, there may be circumstances in which a library can achieve acceptable turnaround time as a forwarding site (e.g., just-in-time processing and quick access to a dropsite), thus saving the cost of becoming a dropsite.

Council members generally agreed but felt that joining the courier system has been a very good way to ensure fast patron service. Others suggested that the volume of Summit Borrowing would make transfer from forwarding site to dropsite very cumbersome and would push WWC to become a dropsite within a year of two. Others suggested that there might be labeling or other workflow concerns for member libraries and that the Summit Borrowing Committee should be consulted. Several Council members suggested a study of Summit Borrowing performance in the near future. Helmer noted that there is much to such a study if the data is to be meaningful. He suggested that this be done once the new courier service is in place and (if we are using a new vendor) up to speed.

Council is interested in better understanding the factors that impact fast and efficient Summit Borrowing service. To this end, Executive Committee is encouraged to consider local workflows, scheduling, access to courier service, etc. and bring to Council's attention any findings or recommendations for revisions to practice or policy. Summit Borrowing Committee will be a key resource in such an investigation.

Note: the following two decisions were not explicit in Council's discussion but are offered as Executive Committee's interpretation of Council's intent.

DECISION: Council approved WWC's request to remain a forwarding site until July 1, 2006 but also asked that the college prepare to become a dropsite after that date.

DECISION: EC was asked to examine Summit Borrowing service expectations and advise Council on the implications of a member accessing the courier system as a forwarding site. As part of its investigation, it is expected that EC will consult with the Summit Borrowing Committee and consortium staff about workflow, shipping accuracy, and performance implications for Summit Borrowing. While WWC may provide a useful test case, recommendations should be general in nature and apply to all members.

10. Retreat: July 14-15, Lewis & Clark College (Kelley)
Council ran out of time for this agenda item.

[Executive Committee later decided to forward this topic to a July business meeting and reschedule the retreat for October.]

Minutes: Honea & Helmer