Left Menu Right Menu

Council Meeting Minutes #17
July 12-13, 2007
University Place
Portland State University

Discussion Session: The State of Cultural Institutions in the Northwest and the Impact on Alliance Libraries
Speakers:

Jim Kopp

Director, Aubrey Watzek Library, Lewis & Clark College

 Doug Erickson
Head of Special Collections/Archivist, Aubrey Watzek Library, Lewis & Clark College

James Fox
Head, Special Collections & University Archives, University of Oregon Libraries

Business Meeting
Present
David Bilyeu (COCC), Tom Peischl (CWU), Lynn Chmelir (Clark), Karen Clay (EOU), Pat Kelley (EWU), Lee Lyttle (TESC), Merrill Johnson (GFU), Nadine Williams (LCC), Jim Kopp (L&C), Susan Barnes Whyte (Linfield), Nancy Hoover (Marylhurst), Jan Marie Fortier (MHCC), Jim Morgan (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), John Popko (SU), Teresa Montgomery (SOU), Deb Carver (UO), Drew Harrington (July 13) & Susan Hinken (July 14) (UP), Peggy Firman (UPS), Betsy Wilson (UW)*, Carolyn Gaskell (WWC), Cindy Kaag (WSU)*, Gary Jensen (WOU), Deborah Dancik (WU), Béla Foltin (WWU). * absent Friday; Kelley cast proxy votes for Wilson and Kagg; Carver cast proxy votes for Butcher. Absent: Dalia Hagan (Whitman) Guests: Natalie Beech (Chemeketa), Mark Dahl (L&C) Consortium staff: John F. Helmer, Kyle Banerjee, Greg Doyle, Jodi Allison-Bunnell, Elizabeth Duell
Welcome
Council was welcomed to PSU by Carol Mack, Vice Provost for Academic Administration and Planning, PSU
1. Introductions
2. Review of Agenda (Popko)
Popko asked to remove agenda item #6 Executive Director evaluation, January - December 2006 due to insufficient progress on the evaluation. Council approved.
ACTION: agenda item forwarded to November 2007 Council meeting.
3. Consent Agenda (Popko)
There was no consent agenda for this meeting.
4. Reports
4.1 Executive Committee (Popko)
Background: EC Decisions & Action Items
Highlights of Popko's report include:
  • Thank you to EC members that are finishing their term of service: Susan Barnes Whyte, Dalia Hagan, Jim Kopp
  • Congratulations to new EC members: Deb Dancik, Drew Harrington, Tom Peischl
  • EC's intent to review Council and Executive Committee Responsibilities and seek Council input at the November 2007 meeting
  • EC had hoped to schedule a discussion of accreditation standards for this meeting but NWCCU staff and key advisers were not available. Butcher noted that she has a continuing role on a NWCCU working group and would be interested in hearing more about what EC has in mind.
4.2 Executive Director | Report (Helmer)
Helmer reviewed his report, emphasizing the importance of Summit Borrowing Day and thanking Council members for making a strong effort to send staff to this event. In response to a question, Helmer assured Council that recent HR actions are fully accounted for in the FY08 budget.
5. Strategic Agenda: Part I (Popko)
Expected outcome: Presentation and discussion of reports from committees and Alliance staff. Decisions about next steps were held for Friday morning. EC Recommendation: Executive Committee recommends that Council accept the following reports and thank committees and staff for their outstanding work.
5.1 Collection Development & Management Committee Report (SA 2) (Chmelir)
Background: CDMC Report (password protected, contact Elizabeth Duell for access) | Print Repository MOU Chmelir reviewed the report on behalf of Mark Watson (incoming CDMC Chair) and distributed copies of the print repository MOU and letter from YBP updating their response to the monograph vendor RFI. Monographic Vendor Project Chmelir reported that major motivations for the monographic vendor project are: · buying fewer unnecessary duplicates · buying more titles overall to increase the pool of available works · access to a consortial tool that makes "upstream" acquisition information easily available, before decisions are reflected in Summit Q: Does the offer depend on the extent of uptake? A: No
Q: Is Council expected to be a conduit for this information? A: CDMC members also have this information and played a role in evaluating the responses to the RFI, but the interest, support, and encouragement of directors is important. Implementation will be a significant task for some members and active leadership is invaluable.
Q: Is the report confidential? A: The CDMC conclusion and decisions of member libraries can be shared broadly but the full report and accompanying data should not be distributed beyond selected staff at member institutions.
Q: Is there a time limit on the offer? A: No.
Q: Is CDMC looking at other tools? A: Yes, OCLC's WorldCat Selection product is of interest although it is not a consortial product at present.
Q: Does the quoted discount apply to all materials, including ebooks? A: No.
Q: Are there other variables that impact the discount? A: No. Print Repository Project Chmelir reviewed the print repository MOU. Discussion included the following: · Importance of engaging in North American Storage Trust discussions and planning to record repository decisions at a national or international level. · Need to revise the section describing storage conditions so that it is understood that o open stacks are allowed. o conditions are recommended rather than required. · Interest in considering the use of a stamp rather than bookplate. MOTION: Peischl moved that Council accept the report and thank CDMC.
SECOND: Kaag
VOTE: unanimously approved.
5.2 Summit Catalog Committee Report (SA 3.2, 3.3) (Dahl)
Background: SCC Report: pdf | Word
Dahl reviewed the SCC Report. Next generation catalog discussion included the following: · Orbis Cascade Alliance is collaborating with the Colorado Alliance and OhioLINK on a joint statement of high-level functionality and other factors that are important to the future of INN-Reach. This document will likely form the basis for a discussion with III. · Vendor commitment to the library community will be an important factor · Need to exercise care in the evaluation of vendors, given the active nature of the private equity market and quickly changing ownership · Timeline is important. Many members are actively conducting their own investigations and will want to take advantage of Alliance research and group purchase or implementation opportunities. Members will also want to consider solutions that complement Summit. · Q: Are open source tools an option? A: Yes MOTION: Kopp moved that Council accept the report and thank SCC.
SECOND: Carver
VOTE: unanimously approved.
5.3 Digital Services Program Report (SA 3.1) (Banerjee)
Background: Report Banerjee reviewed his report. MOTION: Firman moved that Council accept the report and thank Banerjee.
SECOND: Kelley
VOTE: unanimously approved.
5.4 Northwest Digital Archives (SA 4.1) (Allison-Bunnell)
Background: Report | Presentation Allison-Bunnell reviewed her report. MOTION: Peischl moved that Council accept the report and thank Allison-Bunnell.
SECOND: Dancik
VOTE: unanimously approved.
5.5 Regional Library Services Center (SA 1) (Carver)
Expected outcome: short verbal update. Carver reported that the $4.6 million allocation that appeared in the Oregon governor's budget had much support but just missed making the final list in the adopted state budget. UO government relations staff indicate that RLSC should be at the top of the list for the next legislative session and recommend requesting full funding, at an amount less than $10 million. Discussion included the following: · Q Timetable? A: Budget process will be complete in July 2009 · Spalding called for OUS library directors to renew their efforts to push RLSC as a priority for each campus · Q: Will this delay impact member needs and commitment to RLSC? How does such a delay inform the Alliance's role? A. The impact is not clear at present but warrants further discussion and work on the part of EC. ACTION: EC will consider the Alliance's role in the RLSC initiative and forward recommendations to Council
5.6 Collaboration with State Libraries and Community Colleges (SA 4.3) (Popko)
Expected outcome: short verbal update. Popko reported that the Washington State Library has withdrawn from discussions, explaining that WSL's mission precludes Alliance membership at present. Oregon State Library has provided quantitative data as requested by EC and continues to express an interest in some form of membership and participation in Summit. EC will continue to discuss membership or other service models that may be offered to WSL and OSL. ACTION: EC will have an update and possibly a recommendation for Council's November meeting.
5.7 LITA Institutional Repository Institute (SA 4.2) (Popko)
Expected outcome: short verbal update. Popko reported that LITA is still unable to work with us on an institute. ACTION: EC will discuss and potentially recommend other ways to address the intent of this initiative.

6. Executive Director evaluation, January - December 2006 (Popko)
Executive Session - Council members only
Expected outcome: brief verbal report
Background: Evaluation of Executive Director See #2 above; agenda item forwarded to November 2007 Council meeting.
7. Strategic Agenda: Part II (Popko)
Expected outcome: Further discussion of reports from committees and Alliance staff, voting on EC recommendations
EC Recommendations
A. Priorities for the Digital Services Program: Popko suggested a revision of EC's recommendation as follows. Revised EC Motion:
Kyle Banerjee is charged to conduct further research, consult with member libraries, and prepare recommendations for EC and Council consideration on the following priorities for the Digital Services Program:
A.1 Next generation catalog, as described in SCC's report A.2 Data harvesting, as described in SCC's report A.3 Administrative computing topics, as described in Banerjee's report A.4 Institutional repositories and digital collections, as described in Banerjee's report. Deadline: Recommendations on A1, A2, and A3 and a status report on A4 are due at EC's meeting prior to the November Council meeting. Discussion:
  • Q: Will Administrative computing topics (A3) really require further Council action? A: No, Banerjee should report progress but implementation is the responsibility of Alliance staff.
  • Next generation catalog interface is the priority and timeline needs to be aggressive
  • Banerjee's report should outline options and provide all information necessary for Council to make a decision in November
  • Standard Alliance process will be followed: Banerjee will forward recommendations to EC, EC will forward with their recommendations to Council. EC will presumably address aspects that may not be appropriate for Banerjee to recommend (e.g., sources of funding).
MOTION: Peischl moved adoption of the EC motion as revised by Popko
SECOND: Dancik
VOTE: unanimously approved.
B. Monographic Vendor Initiative EC motion:
Collection Development & Management Committee (CDMC) is charged with coordinating the efforts of member institutions that elect to collaborate in the use of YBP Library Services.
Discussion: · Q: Is there an impact on Alliance staff. A: Some continuing impact on Doyle as liaison to CDMC but this is largely an effort on the part of each member institution. · Q: What is the timeline? A: Open-ended, depending on the needs of each institution. · It will be important to communicate the status to Alliance membership. · Q: How do we start? A: See the YBP cover letter, response and revised terms on the CDMC web site (documents are password protected, contact Elizabeth Duell for access). Each member determines the extent and timing of their participation. · Q: Could the terms change? A: Yes, eventually, but no changes are expected anytime soon. · CDMC should provide a progress report in one year. · This is a great start but eventually a multi-vendor solution is needed. The data harvesting initiative may help make this possible. · Cooperative Collection Development mission of the Alliance o Council members noted that the broader cooperative collection development mission of the Alliance is assumed but should be made explicit. o Council should specifically endorse the concept of a unified collection. o In part CDMC's charge reads as follows: "CMDC is expected to establish committee goals and develop recommendations that aid the development and use of member library collections as a unified collection." Council members felt that this is a good start but that we should expand on the statement and include at a high-level in the Alliance's strategic agenda. o Council members spent some time trying to devise verbiage but opted to charge EC with preparation of a statement for Council review. MOTION: Peischl moved adoption of the motion as stated by EC
SECOND: Lyttle
VOTE: unanimously approved. MOTION: Dancik moved the following: "Executive Committee is charged to develop a vision statement regarding cooperative collection development."
SECOND: Foltin
VOTE: unanimously approved.
C. Print Repository Initiative MOU Discussion: · "Libraries" should be replaced by "institutions," in keeping with the Alliance definition of institutional membership. · Statement that "Member Library shall maintain all of the Materials in their original, artifactual form whenever possible" (MOU 1.1) is not intended to imply that journals cannot be bound · Section on environmental conditions should be updated as discussed under Council agenda item 5.1 above · Hanawalt proposed and Council members agree to the addition of the following text: "3.7 When a Regional Library Services Center (RLSC) becomes available, member libraries may choose to transfer materials to the RLSC. Cost of storage then becomes a shared responsibility of the Alliance." Revised EC motion C.1.
The Print Repository Memorandum of Understanding included in CDMC's report and as amended in Council's discussion is approved in principle.
MOTION: minute taker missed mover
SECOND: minute taker missed second
VOTE: unanimously approved. EC motion C.2.
Alliance staff are charged to work with UO as Alliance fiscal agent and any other appropriate Oregon and Washington government agencies to create a final version of the MOU. Should questions arise as to the intent of the MOU, these will be referred to CDMC for guidance.
MOTION: minute taker missed mover
SECOND: minute taker missed second
VOTE: unanimously approved. Revised EC motion C.3.
Production of a bookplate or comparable indication of ownership and responsibility, as described in CDMC's report and as endorsed in principle by the Print Repository MOU, is approved in concept. Alliance staff will develop a cost estimate for an Executive Committee funding and implementation decision.
MOTION: minute taker missed mover
SECOND: minute taker missed second
VOTE: unanimously approved. EC motion C.4 CDMC is charged with coordinating the use of the Print Repository MOU within the Alliance. Council discussion concluded that recommendation C.4 is already included within CDMC's charge and that repetition is not needed. MOTION: minute taker missed mover
SECOND: minute taker missed second
VOTE: unanimously disapproved; motion failed.
D. Summit EC motion D.1 Spell Check: Given new doubts about the efficacy of III spell check, Alliance staff are charged with investigating further and developing information for Executive Committee. A decision about funding for Summit spell check as described in the SCC report is delegated to Executive Committee. Council discussion indicated no interest in further investment in the current interface at this time. MOTION: minute taker missed mover
SECOND: minute taker missed second
VOTE: unanimously disapproved; motion failed. Revised EC motion D.2 Usability
SCC is charged with conducting a regular formal review of Summit usability every two years or as appropriate.
MOTION: minute taker missed mover
SECOND: minute taker missed second
VOTE: unanimously approved
8. Reserve Policies (Helmer)
Expected outcome: discuss draft Reserve Policies (included in Council packet) and vote on EC recommendation to adopt. Helmer reviewed the draft Reserve Policies and noted a printing problem under "Interest Income." This section reads as follows: "Interest on all reserve funds is projected in the budget and used to defray Alliance (not program) membership fees." Carver recommended and Council agreed to the following revision: "Operating reserves are intended to buffer cash flow and cover staff salaries all contractual obligations of the fiscal agent and other commitments in an emergency (e.g., unexpected loss of participants). " MOTION: Reserve Policies as recommended by EC and revised above were moved for adoption by Council. Minute taker missed mover
SECOND: minute taker missed second
VOTE: unanimously approved
9. Announcements
  • Jensen encouraged Council members to contribute to the Oregon Cultural Trust
  • Johnson announced that GFU has a new president and three new librarians
  • Allison-Bunnell suggested that Council members take note of a new movement to create a museum funding program similar to LSTA
  • Foltin announced his retirement as of December 31, 2007 and distributed recruitment information for the position of Dean of Libraries at WWU
  • Hanawalt announced that the position of Reed College Librarian has been endowed as the Norman F. Carrigg Librarian
  • Kopp announced:
    • Lewis and Clark College will be sponsoring a variety of activities commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Watzek Library
    • The 2007 Johannah Sherrer Memorial Lecture in Library Service is scheduled for November 15, 2007. The speaker for this event will be Elisa Lanzi from Smith College's Imaging Center.
  • Lyttle announced that he has accepted a faculty exchange position in Kobe, Japan for 2009. He will continue at TESC in Olympia through December 2008 and will return to the faculty after his stay in Japan. The college will begin a search for library dean in about one year.
  • Carver announce that UO has a new facility in Portland that will include library collections and services. UO expects to hire a library department head for the Portland facility in January 2008.

Minutes -- Helmer & Duell