Left Menu Right Menu

Council Meeting Minutes #23

February 18-20, 2009
Renaissance Hotel Seattle
Seattle, Washington

Wednesday, February 18, 2009: 5:30 pm to 7:30 pm
Thursday, February 19, 2009: 8 am to 5 pm
Friday, February 20, 2009: 8 am to 12 noon

Expected Participants

David Bilyeu (COCC), Daniel CannCasciato (CWU), Natalie Beach (Chemeketa), Michelle Bagley (Clark), Brent Mai (Concordia), Karen Clay (EOU), Pat Kelley (EWU), Merrill Johnson (GFU), Nadine Williams (LCC), Jim Kopp (L&C), Susan Barnes Whyte (Linfield), Nancy Hoover (Marylhurst), Jan Marie Fortier (MHCC), Christ Shaffer (OHSU), Karen Kunz (OIT), Karyle Butcher (OSU), Marita Kunkel (Pacific), Donna Reed (PCC), Helen Spalding (PSU), Vickie Hanawalt (Reed), Scot Harrison (SMU), Bryce Nelson (SPU), Paul Adalian (SOU), John Popko (Thursday only, SU), Gregg Sapp (Thursday only, TESC), Deb Carver (Thursday only, UO), Mark Watson (Proxy on Friday for Deb Carver, UO), Drew Harrington (UP), Jane Carlin (UPS), Betsy Wilson (UW), Carolyn Gaskell (WWU), Sue Kopp (WPC), Jay Starratt (WSU), Allen McKiel (WOU), Christopher Cox (WWU), Deborah Dancik (WU), Dalia Hagan (Whitman)

Guests: Andrew Pace, Executive Director, Networked Library Services, OCLC; Ted Lay, Facilitator, Ted Lay Facilitation; Rick Lugg, R2 Consultation (Joined by phone)

Alliance Staff: John F. Helmer, Kyle Banerjee, Jodi Allison-Bunnell, Greg Doyle, Elizabeth Duell

Welcome & Introductions
 Paul Adalian was introduced and Jan Marie Fortier”s upcoming retirement, marriage, house selling and moving was announced.

Ted Lay started the day by having the whole room introduce themselves.

He then went over the desired outcomes of the retreat:

Desired Outcomes
By the end of the retreat we will have:

·         Knowledge of the status and planned progress for Summit migration so that participants can concentrate on strategic planning.

·         An understanding of the future trends in academic library services so that we can make decisions within as broad a context as possible.

·         An understanding of the results of the pre-retreat survey”s ‘Prioritization of Potential Strategic Initiatives’ to be considered at this retreat so that we can better focus our efforts.

·         An agreement on the proposed initiatives to consider during this retreat.

·         An understanding of each of the initiatives selected for consideration and any recommendations for next steps so that we can be fully informed before agreeing which to pursue.

·         An understanding of the Membership and Governance Task Force report so that we can be fully informed before agreeing to any recommendations.

·         An agreement on which initiatives to adopt.

·         An agreement on next steps to move forward for each adopted initiative.

·         An agreement on the proposed recommendations from the Membership and Governance Task Force.

The Ground rules for discussion were gone over:

·         Participant by sharing our own opinions and experience

·         Honor time limits

·         Stay of track

·         Listen and consider the opinions of others

·         Keep an open mind


Helmer and Banerjee reported

          Summit Migration update
Action Item - Get reports about Summit fill rates regularly

1. Only Web-scale Is Good Enough presentation
          Andrew Pace gave his presentation ‘Only Web-scale Is Good   Enough’. There was a number of requests for this presentation.

Ted Lay talked about how using the same terms does not always mean the same thing. He asked the group three questions: how many in a crowd; what is an expensive dinner for two and what is late in minutes.

He then laid out the format for rest of the day.  The group will hear the proposal, then check for understanding; then check for agreement on that understanding.

2. Pre-retreat survey results
          Dancik reported

3. Strategic Initiatives
        3.1 Collaborative Tech services

Jim Kopp introduced the report and Rick Lugg (RL) joined via conference call

RL: Makes sense to have mundane tasks centralized

        How do we get significant results in FY10?
RL: Possibly centralized ERM? A suggestion is to focus on E-resources management. Also looking at Shelf ready books - talk more about it at the OCLC level – look at local government documents

Ted Fonz - discussion about the types of things that are for everyone

        How do you deal with distinctly different knowledge bases?
RL: ERM  integration of WC and knowledge bases The data is very different and they are working on it - OCLC can provide integration and resource management at the global level for libraries

How ever we work on shared processes looking at how we do it and what needs to go to the network.

Ted Lay asked if the Council needed to take a look at the proposals that were being discussed. It was decided that there wasn”t enough information to vote on the levels of what was being discussed.

Comments included:

·         These are not proposals per say, but points to look at and information is needed. Speed is of the essence.

·         Something else to look at in this process is as we free up time and energy on local and consortial levels, what do we do with that time and effort?

·         What do we do in the near term? Most of the conversations seem to want to see long term issues thought about but we need both long and short term

·         How do some of the proposal work with accreditation levels? There are accreditation requirements outlining that collections must be local and coalition collections do not work.

·         The devil is in the details. The complexities are well documented. Now we need a bold plan that includes not just money efficiencies, but how to get more out of what we will have. Now is the time to be bold.

·         The power of this organization is the authority that it welds. Creating change on individual campuses is slower and more difficult.

·         Imagine taking what we do and agreeing collectively that things are really ok because we agreed collectively that is was ok. Once sending out books was a bold plan like shared tech services. We have to agree that it's ok to make the change ok because people don't think of it.

·         Who owns the data? This is important as we define our future.

·         As a consortia we may say we want to do 'this'. If there are libraries to do “this” (6 to 8) or do we all have to do it? Or can the smaller group work with “this” and create best practices or fail?
          Answer:  Historically what has worked is that we don't all have to or to do it the same way.  There is a process of proof of concept and work it out and then others joining in and fine tune it as we do it.

·         For the process, we need to consider the strategic ways another part of what is going in the horizon report. The other part is sense of: disruptive cultural change. As a researcher, the culture outside the library hasn't seeped into the library. (Google study search, WorldCat etc)

·         Policy level decisions have a lot of power. They convey the idea that the catalog records in the union catalog somehow create a set of behaviors that discourages people from changing that record.

·         Is there any kind of policy-making committee in Orbis Cascade Alliance?
          Answer:  We do in the Summit Borrowing area but shared  work flow has never been done in the bib realm except for best practices

Ted Lay lead a “Check in’ – He summarized the comments to: ‘We could craft something that would hone in on something that would allow us to move forward. We need to plan a plan. A fast paced order crafted that shows a phased order of current needs as well as long term such as a matrix-type orders. It also needs to show the local level and consortial level actions.’

Further Comments were:

·         At the consortial level, we need to look at accreditation requirements. What are the requirements as a academic library and state and federal levels. Also, confidentiality issues need to be looked at.

·         As a consortium, we need to be much more active level in how accreditation levels are formed and be active in creating the new box that we need to fit into.

·         In the planning, we need to look at the success in the way that the iTeam was appointed. We need to have the right people to be on the committee to make the miracles happen. It doesn”t seem to be as important in getting every little place represented. We need to identify the key people who know what the heck they are doing and not waste out time.

·         Rick Lugg made an observation about the quick movement in the ER.

·         Pilot a program that has one ER subscription for the Alliance and then make people do it.

·         The change in culture of 'my' collection to “our” collection is the biggest issue. In Ohio once the collections were available to all more were using them.

·         Why not have a similar approach to print materials? Create a core Alliance collection and it would be owned jointly, but where do you put it?

·         The single collection approach is graphed on a consortium wide approval and then the shipment rotates and it doesn't matter. The material stays where it last circulated. ER is where the action is and it makes sense to work with the programs. There was agreement that e-books need to be added to this idea.

It was suggested that we look at Ohio to find ideas for this project.


Council broke for Lunch

Ted went over the ‘Understanding of each initiatives’:

3.2 Next Gen Catalog
Shaffer reported

OHSU is on board with the next gen catalog. What a Nest Gen Catalog is was covered with Andrew Pace”s presentation.  There is the need for open source and delinking to vendor closed software.  There are opportunities for the people who are using the software to make it standard compliant to link and integrate with other systems and people are working in this direction. Georgia Pine as example - and a system of WC local. It”s working it out  and doesn”t have to be all local, we don't have to have a server and the box the generator in every library.

The group of libraries that work with (illinet system) there are advantages with a shared system and bib records. Here in the Alliance with the INNreach system and it linked it but there was a shared system. There are initiatives that we are working  on. EOU/LSDA Sage System”s - working with Equinox - sole reason to help libraries to set up Evergreen  Kyle is supporting the effort and help with the support.  Right now we are running that with Innovative for a while to see how it works - might not work but then again it could be Alliance wide.


  • One of the big things from the ground up is to make it a consortial system.
  • Another option is WorldCat local - remaining modules are still in the process and the Alliance had been approached to be beta and development partners - again we could work it for everyone
  • Yet another option is Open Library Environment program with Mellon funds - rethinking what the integrated system should look like and then development it could make a new system that doesn't look like the current systems.
  • One of the big questions should the membership go in different systems or should we all look at coming together for solution or some blend?
  • Regardless of these 3 initiatives have Orbis Cascade Alliance at the table - We are doing things that work toward this even though we are looking at them as new things.
  • Will timing make a difference? Georgia Pine is 'ready' but they are at the same point differently as WorldCat. Speed might be of the essence - we need to house this now so that the library decisions can be made with all the information.
  • It was noted that acquisition systems doesn”t need to be part of the local integrated systems - concept of what do we mean by catalog.
  • It”s good that there is a new approach to interlibrary systems, but where is all this going?  WorldCat doesn't have a lot of special collections. Where is EAD fit into this world too?
  • There are cost savings associated with the same interface or with WorldCat local  -  the improvements are with the same overall catalog
    We need to move away from III for various reasons  such as the need of feasibility.
  • We are deconstructing the system. What we have wasn't born this way - it has evolved this is just part of it. Do we want one vender?  Maybe how you get to it and manipulate it is not a consortial wide...
  • Another possibility is the vendor systems that are out there. Negotiate a vender to share that would work the work and clarify and they could do it to cut costs that might work better - we could negotiate for a better deal and talk dollars and cents and the next gen and figure it out.
  • If the OCLC circ piece works well at the beta when does it go on the market?  Can you replace the III millennium system by summer 2010? or when? Individuals can move fast but can the consortium?
  • As individual lib we can control "that" information Theoretically, as Whitman, can I release my circ system to another library system in Connecticut?

                   Theoretically? yes.  If Pepperdine was to create a relationship with MHCC they could. Theoretically this could break down  the group structure Theoretically we could be with several consortium and be with all of them

  • The idea is that there are types and all those things have roles so when you buy ER you are one of those roles.
  • One way to things about it shared technology, information  We currently benefit by the same database (with III) and we still have that now, if we go the route of everyone going their own way, we might gain but we will lose communication.
  • Sharing databases has other benefits truly national (WC) and OCLC is a membership driven nonprofit and if we have learned anything this last year it's being careful

    Action Item - Chris/Dalia make proposal. Then check for understanding and then check for agreement.
  • Of the three things that feel uncomfortable representing that we are part of Evergreen – it”s much more a conversation. If we go to Sage then it's not a done deal.
  • Sage is testing this Evergreen system and running parallel and with the strong possibility to Evergreen next year
  • The benefits to Alliance using open source - deconstruct the catalog all or part say for acquisitions then we can look at how it plays with others.
    Open source doesn't cost except for maintenance - if it works then we all could use it... makes more sense for all of us to look at the same open source - Sage is a consortium. EOU is a member of sage and Orbis Cascade Alliance.  None of the others are members of Orbis Cascade Alliance records and wouldn't all have access to Summit materials.
  • One stumbling block - if member of Sage and Orbis then will you have to run both? With Evergreen it could get tricky

5.3 Digital Initiatives

Carlin Reported

Seeing a centralized model Orbis Cascade Alliance will hold it and everyone can see it. One of the questions was NWDA taking lead and the IMLS planning grant and it's true that NWDA can refine what comes out of this retreat should this be the range of what is happening.  Even looking at all that was done it will be a mistake to think that it is fixed.

Wondered their partnerships with bibliosomething and digitize your 323. Such as: you get your digital stuff in an iLibrary thing and on-demand print and you would have access to your file.

Rare book and book scanning was in the survey and the interest was pretty low. Obviously, the world can change.


  • The no-cost part makes it more interesting than before
  • in such a complex web of topics as digitizing the important distinction of the published and unpublished they could be both of interest and how to narrow the idea.
  • Something that is facing all of us is orphaned journal literature. We now have to make access to stuff not being supported by publisher. If we individually have to host the journals and manage, we will end up with 36 nightmares.
  • . Within the NWDA and the PWG and steering team with the needs assessment - clarity of terms and making clear distinction
    locally held - rather than published or non - community college course catalog
  • James Fox at UO is working the collaborative within Special Collections with LSDA grant. These are for those that aren't Orbis Cascade Alliance folks and are identifying where they are and getting them digitized centrally.
  • In the spirit of taking the complex and breaking into smaller groups and communities of interest/expertise and need and the results of the survey to tell us where these groups are and how we can evolve to deal with the smaller groups where the bigger ones would not be able to deal with.
  • Have we discussed the concept of  source or the new material of faculty and students. Faculty are creating the spaces and the library isn't included and we need to take it seriously if we want to be viable.
  • We desperately need space and scholarly communication and this is an obvious marriage and grant money is there.
  • We have had continuing conversations with Colorado Alliance  they are using and they would like us to be in the ground floor. They have put .5 million in start up money and for us to be partners.

They have a very diverse group they serve - architecture picture - and you buy the high resolution, but you can see the low resolution.  They sell space in 25% terabit and there is a learning curve but isn”t more than buying it's code developers .

·         From our point of view - we have an "IR" (or ER) huge amount of storage at some point what are we going to do about storage and the development and the confercastion about open source or dissertations or reports what kind of content we are talking about? What is this thing?

·         Dissertations are locally held - it”s a good umbrella term . Desperately need to put these things and a place to be able to help them with being a viable place for scholars to go, but it scored low on interest.

·         When we talked to faculty, we were asked why would they would want to put their journals on that? The definition of what we are talking about we can't talk about unique masses of information, we need to have the University to say that this is appropriate

·         We are looking for priorities that seems to me that we should deal with this soon?  What can we model soon

·         The things that Jodi talked about having a track record and identify what can be done soon and use that as the model to come to a focus for the planning grant and the broader context of the bigger grant.

·         We aren't doing it because we don't have the money, but there is a drive because this is what libraries should be.  Getting info out there that isn”t the money and so we can identify things that are cost effective and take baby steps to get it out there. The start-up cost of personnel and effort and if we can get us into the game and start the process to cooperate with the whole thing Identify the cost effective so where we can through our hat into the ring.

·         Storage space is the cheapest part and the places of opportunities - ability to retrieve the materials is important IMLS around regional planning and are addressing the development of such an archive but placement doesn”t matter as much as retrieval and access..

·         new ideas that we can bring back for discussion

·         Cooperative collection development - as a collective profession are we looking at different ways to create knowledge from building digital collections and creating resources for creating knowledge. In response we may not have come up with brand new but through surveys and discussions this is a initiative of broad interest

·         heard that tremendous link with Scholarly communications with digitalization not just archival and that is important.

·         We are at different places and maybe because there isn't clarity and maybe it isn't a consortial issue it's not for lack of interest in sharing it but maybe it's not the time to build different systems and maybe build space around the larger collections

·         The Jesuit digital and cooperative projects among the AJC libraries - the Jesuits missed it

·         Represent the academics of each institution all on one site. You could just send it, but if you didn't, then send it in and those all went to one site it would be possible to have a theme for Alliance libraries to assist those who have the material and help them to digitize it and have a collection that is Alliance specific

·         The passion to do something from the smaller places. The power of working together is critical it used to be owned by big libraries and hope to come up with a plan with this Alliance and otherwise we need to find other partners

·         For Instance, the difference between the IMLS grants and the 36 institutions that don't all belong to the NWDA.  Yeah, it matters and what we have tried to do and the DWG reach out to the whole of the Alliance and NWDA.

·         Complete the planning grant and then rethink what the group is - NWDA and Alliance together but look at who is really interested.

·         Willamette will take on partners that work with their collections and rent space and collaborate and cooperative collection development in institutions and help those who can't do it from themselves..

·         There is a need to come back with a menu from options. We can come up with proposal like that...

Regional Library Services Center

Spalding Reported

Nationally there are 68 of them. Maybe we need to start again with a fresh plan


  • Use an abandoned Box store or a building with Hewlett/Packard (HP)? Offer them a tax write off for the donations?
  • use the space to reform the libraries to help learning communities
  • shred preservation or digitations center? distribution center? send journals to RLSC and deal with it there?
  • collaborating with our RLSC and across the nation other RLSCs?
  • When this first came up 8 years ago, the shift between shelf space to user space was paramount. There is a hope that we can start over again but one thing is to re-define this what are the possible functions what do we want it to be and how many of us care about this?
  • We aren't that far away from having a concrete plan.  Let's take it back and look at it and then take that show on the road and see what happens. If we are looking at location that are in courier range that has a lot of potential.
  • We talked to our facilities and OSU is looking at buildings with HP. It would be helpful that if by tomorrow we had it hashed out so that Karyle can get back so that her facilities people don't waste their time.
  • A confluence of thing talked about today and the abilities of RLSC not necessarily going from scratch. We should make a pretty package for the legislature to look at the abilities as a 'resource center' and not just storage.
  • It”s a given that enough of us that need a storage facilities there needs to be SOMETHING. We have a great opportunity to do some really cool things.
  • Look into how/where are materials live, their movement and where they land until they are used again and the facilities.
  • Lots of the agreement of the core. Let”s talk about how we get from here today and where we need to be
  • Consider a refit of an existing building is a good thing - start with the planning - auto or not attached work space? how big will we need? re-sketch the plan the refit
  • We can't get funding. We can talk about it and we have tried and tried – but we are missing reality and we need it now - but having potential for the storage that we need NOW and at least get us off the hook
  • No denying we need it. But what are we funding? Shelving and staff? We need to develop a plan
  • Thinking of services there might be buildings for storage -there might be a silver lining of the melt down of the economy is that there are buildings available.
  • Look at the possibilities this project was pre-merger - and at every step we can”t rethink it because of ‘this’. ‘This’ is always happening and we want to look at it fresh because it has set here for so long.  We need a reset.
  • In looking at the HP facility, would this be an Alliance project or just a few OUS systems?
              Answer: Alliance project - We always looked at digitations and other stuff. It's very complicated
  • There is always a concern about helping other institutions to store their stuff at my expense
  • Other interesting spin offs and an anchor of other things - Cooperative Collection development; group fund to purchase things; membership fees that pay for resources changes.  How you can function? The problem  is the cash outlay. If you can get a location and the cash issues go away to a point?
  • We need a “what next” and a “how”?
  • Looking at something new?
  • Because it was pre-merger there hasn't been a lot of talk. - UW has something that RLSC-like but not perfect but…
  •  Betsy - it' not RLSC but it might be way to get additional shelving. It's not ideal - pretty good but not optimum: re: setting there are other options to explore because of funding etc.
  • Because the initial work was before Seattle University because we have refit - retaining the consultant because the original was on Harvard model and new building and retaining the same of a different consultant to re-do.
  • We would need to identify a place and have architectural and retro fitting issues that we would work with a consultant
  • Is there any reason there must be multiple locations? not just one place?

Cooperative Collection Development

Watson reported

Cooperative Collection Development (CCD)  is very important now. It will be even more important 5 years from now. This needs to be moving to the network level - the cultural shift is huge. CCD has to be what we do - not just what we say. There isn”t a sense of inclusion to the higher people in the institutions – just 'more work'. The forces of inertia is strong and there is the thought that we are adding value with customizing. We want to talk about the exceptions and not the rule.  All the exceptional trees are lost in the collection forest. Part of it comes down to that we just don't trust other peoples work. All progress is put on that a library won't do it if we tell them to.  But Ohio does it... everything is voluntary just a suggestion - relegated to option make its talking and not walking  Council could make decisions that would make a different CCD, to make CCD the norm. It”s clear that people here won't make the policy changes. You are the top decision makers; you can make it happen. If the expectation is the collaborative work at hand.

What do you make to make it happen:

1 - Ask to mandate the option YBP. We need 100% to make it work for the recently bought list. It”s not easy and it's not going to change if the people in there ask where are we with the YBP process...
2 - Approve central funding for the not bought list 1 or 2 copies - a shared monograph for everyone and put it somewhere.
3 - Set the threshold of max numbers of copies in the Alliance
4 - Approve to allow for the expansion
5 - Mandate a consortial model for e-books. Can we use those relationship to make it better? Don”t let it devolve to where we are with journals.
6 - Establish the reciprocal agreements between the Alliance and lift any remaining limits. Share 100%.

Ted Lay Stopped for a moment to check for understanding.


  • Did CDMC talk about journal lit? developing a last subscription policy?   Answer: Yes, there is a last copy policy, but we don't know that it     goes with    e-journals.
  • We are not with YBP because of the relationship with other vender and the relationship only shed for compelling reasons.
  • A different kind of relationship and they are, in the end, a vendor.
  • The relationships... auditors are not going to accept relationships as a reason for wasting money

Question about process – We were have a discussion now and working on understanding later.  Now it seems that we are jumping over the discussion.

Ted asked if there was understanding regards to the proposals. If there is understanding then we are done.

It seems that we have pieces that sound like a proposal but they aren't - where is the discussion?

  • We need to think about our acquisitions as a business.  How efficient can we get? Do we have to use acquisitions?  Looking at this as business, there is a tremendous amount of clerical work in acquisitions.  To use YBP and then have a bunch of people, we need it more stream lined and that will be a cultural shift. If we are really talking about being efficient and we are buying something and managing something then we need to do it better
  • Look at the deals with YBP so we can get better deals even by a group that YBP owns. One vendor”s basket damages other vendors it needs to be better for everyone.
  • How many people know about the last version policy?  How does CDMC work and communicate with the world and the connection to Council that needs rethinking?
  • Did we go out with a RFP? Was there was a formal inquiry?

          yes there was a formal process and an RFI.  To dictate the book vendor is hard to swallow and need to go back and talk with the people who make those decisions.

  • The cost benefits were not what they were cracked up to be and we went with a lower price. Not a strong endorsement from the committee member.  I can listen but I am not sold and would have a hard time of shoving it.
  •   The analysis went out
  • There is a strong call to mandate. It”s a tough place to go to in the consortium.  The other root is a small group starting and then other”s fall on the pile. We need PR and education and
  •   Not just the purchase price, it”s the idea of sharing the information. If we are using all the same tools and if we are going to the next level then we have to start working together. It's the information more than the purchase price.
  • Wrestling the sense of protecting our autonomy and using efficiencies and having all collections as one collection and how can we do that without this process?
  • What is the cost to the CDC of the 7 libraries? How is it hurting and where?
  •  This hasn't flown. It's premature to jump in with both feet and the WorldCat lets us look at data that was unavailable.
  • I want to look at how far and fast as it can go. So UW can get all the Chinese and we can get the Whitman”s and it isn't just cost and money it's about serving.
  •   With WorldCat and Navigator is that premise of a single collection still valid? How does this fit in the CCD? With WorldCat is this still valid?
  • Building an undergrad collection and, as I said, relying on the big schools but the small schools that have a specialization as well.  We need to be thinking about this.
  •  If you spend 60% of your budget on ER then why are we talking about books alone? Selection turns into ordering -  it's a new playing field.
  • A lot of the conversation was about YBP. Can we look at this without a principle vendor?
Membership and Governance
Hanawalt and Starratt reported

This is a proposal that we will be voting on…
Ted Lay stopped to check for understanding.
  • list of current non members.  None of those are members who is currently not members? Yes,

It should say profit or nonprofit, we could add 'participation required nonprofit status required' to the 3rd paragraph...

… that the core things for OR and WA... Canada and issues of international moving proposal to add Canadian issues...

Subsection A - refers directly to WorldCat. Do we want to be less specific. If we change, we change


The day started with some housekeeping.

Going over ‘plus deltas’ or good things from yesterday:

·         Gathered round tables is better than hollow square

·         Andrew Pace will get his speaking notes to Elizabeth early next week

Ted went over the desired outcomes and the agenda.

Collaborative Tech Services & Shared Staff
        (John”s first slide)

Comments and Discussion:

  • The longer term issues are not necessarily by July 1. Short term is by July 1st. The language for the short term and long term.
  •  There should be notes to guide the Task Force  from the minutes  EC or Council member would be on the committee/Task Force to help with this.
  •  Can we set a date for longer term?
  • How the task force would be formed?

 EC would work on it. To form the Task Force, there would be recommendations from the Council members  Historically the EC would fill in the process - a call for interested people and the  structure would be able to fill in the blanks

The vote was unanimous.

 Next Gen Catalog  (John”s Slide 2)
Comments and Discussion:

·         clarification on 1 - illustrative not limited to?

·         In regards to the single shared 'catalog', wasn't WorldCat the shared database? It was our attempt to frame language around bib inventory control. How we link bib info to inventory that runs our shared resources  trying to day that we are not having individual systems but we didn”t know which one to go with. They want a shared bib record and the Alliance should support that.

·         modify - I would take out open source because not all options are open source if we say

·         we wanted it either or - change it to either/or

·         Not including proprietary?

           not really – it is just an illustrative list...

·         It has the end points but not how to get there... maybe add the how?

·         We need a feasibility study.  We have to demonstrate the benefits. Number 2 is really important for the collaborative tech services...

·         How do you check it out if there isn't a shared circ system? 

          The Inventory control includes circ system

·         This is something to explore – I agree with recommendation on 2 - a Task Force to explore it.

·         The group wanted the end goal - not the explore and maybe - we want to figure it out how to do it.

·         The Shared Tech services are so closely related . Somehow we need to connect the two.

·         Some groups have other groups that we are responsible to as well...

·         This is not necessarily mandatory for all people... and it doesn't mean to preclude others

·         This is very preliminary and when the information comes out then we can have a deeper discussion of how it connects

The vote was unanimous.

Digital Initiatives     (John”s Slide 3)

Four specific recommendations or tasks that were identified by Jodi. These recommendations don't give any direction for those 4 things.

Is that intentional?
          Answer:  No, we already went through the process to make them priorities and the planning grant will come to those time lines etc.  We finish it in July and we have options for other things and will come up with a  time line then.  We created a grid with ranking and these recommendations take their lead from that and list these as priorities.

Comments and Discussion:

  • Why alternative vs. investigating - lots of documentation about IR and assume that it all goes away? or that we will use it? share that info?
  • Alternatives for people who want an IR and Investigate is looking at the whole of the project...
  • Digital initiatives are not just archiving and scholarly communication issues. It”s not just places to put stuff but also knowledge creation...
  • We need something that reflects the Scholarly Communications issues...
  •  Section 3.2 is something other than what NWDA is doing. it's a different group...
  • The language is looking at this as a task force...
  • Discover is one
  • There are special topic groups in the Alliance to look at the situation. Communities of interest
  • Maybe we need a separate bullet of the how?
  • This is not just an interest group it's a broader than the interested community and a broader sharing abilities not just the people who don”t have the IR and broader involvement…
  • EC to rework with it and turn it back to EC – gather all the ideas and then work it around?
  • This is not meant as an interest group. This is targeted and there is a vehicle for information to educate people with.
  • I disagree, we don”t' really have to have a task force. Let EC do the how...

The vote was unanimous.

Ted Lay stopped the proceedings to check in. It was decided to keep it moving and not lose momentum

RLSC    (John”s Slide 4)

  • Should we lose the concept of storage facility? We would identify the goals and if that was a primary then that works...
  • Is center an appropriate word?
  • If HP say yes? What is Deb, Helen and Karyle role vs. the Alliance? If we sign something? We need guidance: what does this mean I should be doing?
              Answer: Engage, if it happens take an advantage of the situations... and then we look at what to do with what we have -     what is possible?
  • Time line for track one? EC to provide a framework for the Task Force. A poll would be first and then EC should work on it
  • There is a concern about time line, how soon?  Soon...? Now...? Yesterday?
  • Do we want to vote for her to continue conversations HP..
  • Betsy has possibility of space there.

There are two parts: the immediate HP conversation; and Betsy”s space. One suggestion is that one might be storage and there other might be work space...

Betsy was asked about the feasibility of using her space.  Can we get the space?          Answer: I don”t know, but what we can tell you right  away is that it is 2 miles from UW campus. There is a mechanism to get stuff, but there are costs in the shelving instillations.

  • “Center” implies one place. The word limits by implication – we need to make it plural or take it off
  • Disparate places have disadvantages as well as advantages. The physical location may not be as important as the whole.
  • We are building a distributed organization. Look at iTeam and the Alliance core staff are in various areas.

·         With Fuel costs a distributed isn't a bad idea

The vote was unanimous.

Cooperative Collection Development    (John”s Slide 5)

Comments and Discussion:

  • Can we rely on EC to see the overlap and work with those needs?
  • Number 1 relates to 7
  • It”s all about the potential to maximize the power of our group and stretch our resources, but it does put all the eggs in one basket...
  • Was there something that CDMC was passionate about that isn't on the list?

          Answer: Reciprocal borrowing agreements - but it's being addressed in ways in other places...

·         This is being talking about in Summit implementation (iTeam) does Council want to come at it from that area? Where do you want to see it come from?

·         One price and two relationships… Can we bargain to a better price?

·         YBP has had a nasty service on the east side

·         The change from “use it” to consortial use seems to works better.  - I don't have to use YBP it makes it better

·         The plan hasn't been developed.  What does it means when we put money in consortially?  Who would own it? I thought that the Alliance couldn”t?

·         There are lots of details, but the division of cost isn't centrally based on total cost of it and a plan of how to make it work for each.

·         Be careful about “Alliance can't”. If we want it and we will make it happen, then we can create a different legal status and we can figure out the right way of doing it.

·         I have issues with 'all'

·         We are being careful with language and maybe it's too soft. It”s critical to our future of sharing resource. It”s not being strong enough if we are going to make these changes we need to have that backing.

·         There is a disconnect between highest directions. There is a belief, but we are finding our way in the woods. It”s always been tough to implement and this is not as assertive as it started but we can change it.

·         Time is going to diminish collections and increase services in student engagement and research services. Collection Development will be more technical and will help the role of it. Collections is not as important as it use to be and bolder language will help in the end.

·         Even though there is waffley language and it's evolutionary and reflects the changes we have been talking about for year and years. The word all is part of the suggestions. We would be more comfortable without the mandate. Number 7 is all important and constructive way to create the utopia and the landscape has changes and this reflects it.

·         A statement saying that Cooperative Collection Development is the highest priority and then you can use softer language.  Don't get hung up on language and we can hash it out later. Now is about getting the ideas out there and in process.

·         People talk and talk and talk and these are real and exciting and we should strongly enforce them. The point is that we are acting together. We don't have to get to perfection right now.

·         Expand number 8 - the whole committee structure needs to be looked at and I am concerned that CDMC comes up with proposal and there isn't communication between committees and council
          Action Item - look at the committees within the alliance

·         I am most comfortable with general collections and less comfortable with specific and needs in local area - with accreditation specifically.

·         It's an exciting thing - as we think about the existing groups for this to work there is a 3rd thing,  technical acquisitions expertise. It is concerning that those individuals that work in that part and they have not been involved in the decision the technical aspects.

·         Looking at the what and we need to look at the how and how we end up with the how...

·         Number 8 doesn't preclude any other action but is a way of starting the process. It says 'yes we need to do that and it would start it but we need to look at the broad range of things to help Cooperative Collection Development actually work.

·         Some of the fears about the Number 7 is about trust. Having teams to wander around and educate; assume support role and contact and form relationships that would help the fear.

·         Summit change wasn't evolving, it was a revolution. It was done very well. Training and the model can be used with CCD - the support for CDMC isn”t' there yet and it sounds for this to be a big product and the soft language is appropriate for now and there aren't many things being designated but that is a movement. We have proven that we can do this.

1)       dump the quote
                   no timeline
                   as long as it isn't mandated
                   we let the EC set the time line

The vote was unanimous.

2)       We agree that there is necessary duplication

The vote was unanimous.

3)       "and Alliance Staff" find out what the publishers concerns are and                     then create a model to put in the licenses
                   coming up with a best practices?

The vote was unanimous.

4)       Can't buy it without money and how that money gets there - there needs to be a reality check that there is money involved

·         "approve the concept"  We need to be assertive about what this looks like. We need plans for building a war chest we need to plan for when this work happens. We need to say that in our next budget process to set money aside and put it in the budget

·         We should put Alliance money in? Maybe  if we can't do this, we need a plan for how much this would cost?

·         The idea for putting Alliance money has been around for a while.

·         There is also that YBP has a ‘not bought’ report and looking at it we can see what we didn't get and see what might have fallen through the cracks. Maybe this could have central funding too? It's e-books now, but it moves to the concept of central money and this a different way of looking it at

·         The question may not be eBooks but central funding. Do we need to say “explore the way central funding of collections and how that would work”? It's the money pooling piece

·         Is this a mandatory group purchase? If is it then we should say so...

4) The vote was unanimous.

5) The vote was unanimous.


·         Is there a way of looking at if we even want to keep last copy?

·         Not limit it to OUR print repository in context national copies in a bigger environment in the context of the great movement .

The vote was unanimous.


  • Is this in the right place? Should we put it in the parking lot? Does it need to be part of the strategic initiative?
  • At least give it a good crack...  do the education piece...
  • Staff time is involved and should staff spend time on this?


The vote was unanimous.


·         This needs to be a high priority in the list of tasks... The success of the iTeam and the success of that model and solves some of the problems. We need to hand picking people who can shove things forward and has the experience to make it work better.

The vote was unanimous.



·         Small libraries don't have this position - it was read as a subject that you collect for the whole consortia - not that every place has every collector

·         Underlying implication for money to be funneled to others... to support for the whole of the Alliance

·         This is one of those bold moves

·         To develop a plan is fine, but I may not support it

·         It”s too soon to develop a plan – there are other options without assigning selectors.

·         This isn't going to the wall - it is just a proposal to develop an idea

The vote was passed by Majority.


Membership and Governance Task Force

Ted asked if there were any questions for understanding.

Comments and Discussion

  • Because you are a member, you do all this. You can't opt-in or out.
    Those commandments are meant to be commitments - no opt-out.
  • Commitment to the idea of Cooperative Collection Development not necessarily commit to the commit to the process not necessarily the reality.
  • change B) to Be a courier drop site
  • states to areas and who to that...
  • areas to jurisdictions?
  • Wording of full member and participating member and modify on what membership means... all and participating implies a relationship that isn't necessarily there...
  • NWDA as a user group and aren't full members but that these programs more and more developing into bigger things and we could designate a voice as a user group so that they would be heard and help us.
  • We would like to have a way of on a case by case basis too, such as RLS with non members dealing with it that has a place for them.
  • calling them one thing means they are not another and it puts them in a place that you can work with them. Now there is a definition
  • NWDA  - having that name puts them in a different place - not a vendor

Ted asked if the group was ready to vote. There was agreement.

The vote was unanimous.