Left Menu Right Menu

Council Meeting  #26

Concordia University
George R. White Library and Learning Center

 July 8, 2010
  • 12:00 noon - 5:00pm: Business meeting, George White Library, Shakespearian Authorship Room
  • 6:30pm + Dinner
  July 9, 2010
  • 9:00 am - 12:00: Business meeting, George White Library, Shakespearian Authorship Room
  • 12:15 - 12:30: Board of Directors Meeting, George White Library, Shakespearian Authorship Room 
Patricia Cutright (CWU)
Natalie Beach (Chemeketa)
Michelle Bagley (Clark)
Brent Mai (Concordia)
Karen Clay (EOU)
Julie Miller (EWU)
Merrill Johnson (GFU)
Marika Pineda (LCC)
Mark Dahl proxy
   for Jim Kopp (L&C)
Carol McCulley proxy for 
   Susan Barnes Whyte (Linfield)
Nancy Hoover (Marylhurst)
Jeff Ring (MHCC)
Chris Shaffer (OHSU)
Karen Kunz (OIT)
Faye Chadwell proxy
   for Karyle Butcher (OSU)
Marita Kunkel (Pacific)
Donna Reed (PCC)
Helen Spalding (PSU)
Vickie Hanawalt (Reed)
Bryce Nelson (SPU)
Teresa Montgomery proxy
   for Paul Adalian (SOU)
John Popko (SU)

Bill Bruner (TESC)
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 Corkrum (Whitman)

Proxy assigned to a Council member: John Popko serves as proxy for Scot Harrison (SMU); Natalie Beach serves as proxy for Daivd Bilyeu (COCC)

No proxy: none

  John F. Helmer, Elizabeth Duell, Anya Arnold, Greg Doyle

Key linked documents

Day 1

Thursday July 8, 2010

1. Welcome, introductions, and review agenda (Corkrum)

Introductions of new Council members:
  • Jeff Ring (MHCC), introduced by Natalie Beach
  • Patty Cutright (CWU), introduced by Chris Cox
Farewell to departing Council members:
  • Helen Spalding, a few words from Vickie Hanawalt
  • Karyle Butcher, a few words from Deb Carver
Dalia Corkrum extended thanks to Brent Mai and Concordia for hosting Council's meeting.

Corkrum Proclamation
Harrington raised a "point of order," took control of the floor, read a proclamation, and presented a framed scroll in honor of Dalia Corkrum's contributions as Chair of the Orbis Cascade Alliance.  Well done Dalia!

2. Incorporation (Dancik)

Background: Incorporation documents

Recommendation 1
Executive Committee recommends that Council adopt the structure of incorporation and approve moving Alliance business functions to a 501c3.

No Questions were raised.

VOTE on Recommendation 1
  • 36 yes (unanimous)
  • 0 no
  • 0 abstain
Recommendation 2
Executive Committee recommends that Council adopt the following Resolutions.

Discussion and Questions

Question: Is the agreement with UO being voted on?
    A: No, that is a separate agreement and still in process.  It is not expected to require a Council vote.

Question: Bylaws 1.16 "Quorum and Voting" only requires a majority vote for action. Have we considered including a higher standard for financial questions etc?
    A: The proposed bylaws are consistent with past practice: the only Council decisions requiring a 2/3 vote are amending the by-laws and admitting new members. 

Question:  The MOU includes much about the responsibilities of the individual members without similar mention of the corporation's responsibilities.
    A:  Good point but the language is consistent with previous MOUs from the past 15 years and no legal counsel has suggested a change.  

Question: In the Conflict of Interest policy Section V Paragraph B, it says "Each Officer, Director and employee…." Why doesn't it include Council members disclosing?

MOTION: Move that paragraph B include "Each Officer, Director and Council member and Employee..."

Moved: Wilson
Seconded: Chadwell


In this context, the "Council member" refers to the representative of the institution. The Member is the Institution that is being represented not the individual who is at the Council meeting.

Council concluded that we should not edit as a body of the whole and probably need to seek legal counsel before making such a change.  Since this is a policy document, revision is relatively easy.

MOTION WITHDRAWN Wilson withdrew her motion with the understanding that topic will be considered by the Board and return to Council.  Chadwell agreed.

VOTE on Recommendation 2
  • 36 yes (unanimous)
  • 0 no
  • 0 abstain
Corkrum gave great thanks to Dancik for her leadership on incorporation.

Dalia Corkrum's statement on the occasion of Council's decision to incorporate:
Fellow Council members, today I am asking that you remember you were here when history was made.  Just as our librarian predecessors took that leap of faith, knowing that the Ohio College Library Consortium was destined for greater things than library cooperation within the State of Ohio, so we too stand at the threshold of an unique opportunity to transform academic libraries.   We couldn't have made it this far without those first few brave libraries and the Meyer Memorial Trust who believed that Orbis and Cascade were of such value.  Nor would we have grown and prospered without the broad shoulders of the University of Oregon to support our developing alliance.  This organization was founded by and continues to evolve because of the commitment, dedication and faith of all its member libraries and staff.

So to all that came before us, to those of us here willing to take this next step, and to the next generation of librarians who will continue to guide this organization, we celebrate the Incorporation of the Orbis Ca
scade Alliance.

3. University of Idaho membership application (Corkrum)

Documents (password protected):
  • Director letter
  • Provost letter
  • Application
  • Law Library Application
Executive Committee recommends that  Council offer the University of Idaho membership in the Orbis Cascade Alliance, subject to acceptable inclusion of the UI catalog in Summit.  As is standard practice, the Alliance will require that UI act on this offer within two years.

Council discussed UI's application materials and Executive Committee's site visit and recommendation.  Vote followed on the second day of the meeting.

4. WEST: Toward a Western Regional Storage Trust (Helmer, Wilson, Carver, Starratt)

WEST background paper

Given that
  • The mission of WEST closely matches that of the Orbis Cascade Alliance
  • WEST is widely recognized as the nation’s most successful regional print archive project
  • In the absence of the Alliance, WEST is unlikely to be well served by another administrative host
  • WEST offers an opportunity to build on a productive relationship with UC, and a new opportunity to collaborate with other academic libraries in the West, and
  • The Alliance has the capacity to host WEST, given sufficient administrative funding from WEST
Executive Committee recommends that Council ask the Board of Directors (or Executive Committee prior to incorporation) to
a) Explore the interests of members in direct or consortial participation in WEST
b) Investigate, direct costs, opportunity costs, and the strategic opportunities presented by serving as WEST Administrative Host, and 
c) Develop a recommendation for Council concerning a role for the Orbis Cascade Alliance as administrative host for WEST.   Given the WEST timeline and Mellon funding cycle, Council's vote on this recommendation will be conducted via web poll.

Discussion and Questions:

Council discussed WEST and Executive Committee's recommendation.  Vote follows on the second day of the meeting.

Question: Does the Alliance staff have enough "bandwidth" to take this on?
    A: It is large and complex issue, however, within the WEST plan there are admin fees and and one additional FTE for project staff.  Helmer reported that he and Alliance staff have reviewed the proposal and judge themselves able to take on hosting duties if WEST is judged to be a priority by Council.  Efficiencies would need to be identified (perhaps paid for by admin fees) and some other initiatives may be slowed, especially during the first year.

Question:  How would WEST relate to CDMC and the Distributed Print Repository (DPR)?
    A: It is too early to know with specificity except that the DPR would likely be be part of WEST and built in coordination with both WEST and national or international efforts. WEST wouldn't supplant other things that we are working on. Helmer is scheduled to brief the CDMC Steering Team meeting on Monday.

Question: How separate would WEST be? Will Council be talking about WEST for a 1/4 of the meeting or would we need to have a separate Council meeting to manage this?
    A: It could have an impact similar to NWDA, except that WEST would be larger and more separate from the Alliance. Serving as host would be a three-year commitment. If we decide at the end of that three years that it is no longer beneficial to continue the relationship, then we could discontinue our role as host.

Question: Are they looking for continuing external sources of funding?
    A: The business model predicts a decline in total budget (owing to a decline in grant funding) with stable membership fees

Question: What time frame are we working on?
    A: WEST has set the deadline of September 1, 2010 for participation commitments.

Question: Is it true that in the absence of the Alliance, WEST is unlikely to be as well hosted by another group?
    A: This has been the general sense of the WEST planning group.  UC is another likely host and the project will still move forward capably even if the Alliance is not host.

Helmer noted that the Alliance would not take the lead on system development, a task more likely to be lead by UC/CDL or CRL.

Question: What date does grant funding begin and where does it fall in the fiscal year?
    A: January 2011; within the current fiscal year .

Question: Would Council meet before voting?
    A: We would not be meeting face-to-face but could host a conference call if needed. The Board will provide a recommendation and vote would take place via web poll.

Question: Is there a general sense that WEST is a strong fit with our mission?
    A: (General Agreement)

 Question: Should the Board proceed with the intent and hope that all members of the Alliance will participate either directly or through a consortial membership?
    A: (General Agreement)

5. Strategic Agenda Overview (Helmer)

Helmer briefly reviewed the Strategic Agenda.  Teams pursuing the Strategic Agenda were asked to create brief status reports (linked below) which EC reviewed and discussed at length (see 2010 June 16 EC action items, agenda item #3).

Council feels that the Alliance needs to do more to publish, present, and generally publicize this important work.  The Board will consider awards or other incentives.  Helmer suggested that Alliance staff could partner or otherwise help member library staff working on articles, studies, etc. involving the Alliance.  The Research Interest Group may also be a good vehicle for doing more to "get the word out" about the Alliance.
SA1. Cooperative Collection Development
  • EBook Team
  • Collection Development & Management Committee
SA2. Regional Library Services Cooperative
  • RLSC
  • Print repositories
    • WEST
    • CRL
Strategic Agenda will be updated as follows:
  • Remove RLSC
  • Add "Shared Storage" to SA1 Collection Development but do not assign it to a committee or team at this time.
  • Add WEST and CRL to SA1 Collection Development

EC discussion regarding reorganization of Strategic Agenda

    • Remove RLSC
    • Add "Shared Storage" to SA1 Collection Development but do not assign it to a committee or team at this time.
    • Add WEST and CRL to SA1 Collection Development
SA3. Future of Integrated Library Systems
  • Shared ILS Team
  • Network Library System Task Force.
  • Open Library Environment (no written update)
  • Sage and Evergreen (no written update)
SA4. Collaborative Technical Services
  • Collaborative Technical Services Team and report on Cataloging pre-1976 federal documents Collaborative Technical Services Symposium (no written update)
SA5. Digital Initiatives
  • Digital Services Team
SA6. Discovery
  • WorldCat
    • WorldCat Local group purchase project
    • WorldCat Discovery Day
    • WorldCat User Interface Task Force
      Charge is complete; responsibility for topic has been assumed by SPOT
  • Other Discovery activities
    • ERC recommendation

6. Executive Session for annual review of Executive Director (Corkrum)

Since Council let staff back in and Helmer was greeted by applause, things must have gone well.

7. EC update (Corkrum)

Council Liaison
EC has been drafting a job description for Council Liaisons, including
  • enhancing communication between Council and Team
  • clarifying Council intent
  • helping to establish context for a Team's work within the Strategic Agenda
  • not serving as de facto chair and taking care to avoid the impression that a Council liaison's input carries more weight
  • serving on subgroups of the Team is an option for the Council liaison but not required
  • standard committee expectation that members will look out for the good of the whole consortium rather than represent the needs of a single member, type of institution, etc.
Alliance taking a stand on political issues
EC has discussed developing a policy concerning when and how the Alliance can issue a political opinion.  EC determined that all such Alliance activity should continue to follow the Bylaws and that it would not be wise to develop a separate policy.  In its deliberations EC felt it particularly important to recall the the members of the Alliance are institutions and Council members represent those member institutions, thus a Council member's vote is an expression of a member institution's stand on an issue.  When considering such activity, EC encourages members to consider whether topics are closely related to the business of the Alliance and thus likely to be appropriate for Council action.  More tangential or purely political stands are unlikely to receive sufficient support for action. EC will consider including such advice in a members handbook.

OCLC Group Services
EC is in the early stages of considering whether or not the OCLC Group Services program may be of value to the Alliance.
Question: How is the work with OCLC on Summit going?  Is OCLC responsive?
    A: Yes, WorldCat Navigator has been steadily improving although there remains much to do.  Formal and informal communication occurs regularly at both operational and administrative levels. Anya Arnold will provide additional information as part of the Summit Program update.

Day 2

Friday July 9, 2010

8. Votes

Vote on recommendations from Thursday agenda (#4 and 5)
8.1 VOTE on University of Idaho membership application
  • 36 yes (unanimous)
  • 0 no
  • 0 abstain
8.2 VOTE on EC recommendation regarding WEST
Executive Committee recommends that Council ask the Board of Directors (or Executive Committee prior to incorporation) to
a) Explore the interests of members in direct or consortial participation in WEST
b) Investigate, direct costs, opportunity costs, and the strategic opportunities presented by serving as WEST Administrative Host, and 
c) Develop a recommendation for Council concerning a role for the Orbis Cascade Alliance as administrative host for WEST.   Given the WEST timeline and Mellon funding cycle, Council's vote on this recommendation will be conducted via web poll.
  • 36 yes (unanimous)
  • 0 no
  • 0 abstain

9. Program updates

Expected outcome: short presentations on Summit and ER Programs
NorthWest Digital Archives
NWDA report (no presentation at this meeting)
Courier Service
Courier Service report (no presentation at this meeting)
Summit (Arnold)
Report | June 2010 Letter to OCLC (password protected)
Arnold summarized her report on the Summit Program and engaged in discussion with Council, including:

Question: What is NRE?
    A: Navigator Request Engine, i.e., the interface used by staff that process requests.  See list of Summit terminology.

What is the status of determining who is responsible for visiting patrons?
    A: Since patron records are entered in to the lending library's local system, that library ends up taking responsibility for the patron.  This approach is a workaround and not ideal.  Arnold and Banerjee are working with OCLC on a better technical approach to visiting patron and pick-up anywhere functionality.

Council also discussed the importance of having ILL statistics to understand the full impact of Summit.

Electronic Resources (Doyle)
Powerpoint (password protected)
Chart of products and savings (password protected)
Doyle distributed reports specific to each member institution and reviewed program activity for the previous year.

10. Discussion (Carver, Starratt)

Individual needs and collective action: when should we all use the same tools? 

Carver and Starratt used two specific issues (Adoption of YBP; Next generation discovery systems) to lead Council in a discussion of principles that might be considered when determining when complete participation is compelling, even required to achieve a goal, and when local decisions and a more diverse set of solutions should prevail.


  • Collection Development & Management Committee on YBP
  • Electronic Resources Committee on Discovery options

What are the impediments to full adoption of YBP?
  • Long-standing relationships with other vendors.
  • Concern about over reliance on a single source.
  • Better performance by other vendors.  Are we sure that YBP is hearing about any shortcomings in ther service?
What would it take to help make a change to YBP?
  • YBP was introduced some time ago ... a new presentation would help?
  • Need more certainty about the impact and motivation for a change.  The advantages sometimes sound vague.
  • Peer-to-peer communication and tales of success.
  • Leadership; sometimes there is a time lag between decision and action.
  • Appropriate reward structures for staff.
  • A YBP "SWAT Team" that could make regional presentations?
What are the impediments to moving together on a single discovery system?
  • Quickly evolving market place; products keep changing.
  • Some questioned whether libraries should be active in discovery.  Maybe the reality is that we should place all efforts on maximizing exposure of collections and services via commercial search engines.
  • Differing needs of patrons.  Are our patrons really that different?
  • opt in/opt out tradition in some areas (e.g., electronic resources).
What would it take to move together on discovery?
  • It is just too early ... products are changing fast.
  • Better knowledge of the options.
  • Better understanding of the costs of independent action (e.g., reduced impact on vendors; cost of support and Summit integration).
The Alliance Strategic Agenda is going to keep raising the challenge of knowing when 100% participation is the right way to go.  The consortium tends to seek depth of collaboration and push the limits of what members decide we must all do together.  Activities all members participate in started with a union catalog and now includes patron requesting, courier, collection development, electronic resources, RLSC funding model, collection development, and most recently Ebook purchasing.  The shared ILS also raises this question.

Question: When and how should we decide on full participation?
     A:  There are many factors to consider and it would be useful to have a matrix or tool that prompts us to recall and discuss the issues that need to be taken into consideration.
The Board will continue this discussion and report back to Council.

11. Announcements

Popko announced that SU's Lemieux Library & McGoldrick Learning Commons anticipates a soft opening the week of September 13, will be open for the beginning of classes on September 22, and will have its formal dedication ceremony on September 30. Council members can expect to receive announcements and invitations soon.

Karen Clay announced the Northwest Academic Library Directors Symposium is scheduled for November 10, 2010, the day before Council's next meeting.

Dalia Corkrum turned the meeting over to the new Council chair, Drew Harrington.

Motion to adjourn: Dancik
Second: Reed
Vote was unanimous

Board of Directors Meeting

Drew Harrington, Chair
Betsy Wilson, Chair-elect
Dalia Corkrum, Past-Chair
Chris Shaffer, Treasurer (FY11 & 12)
Karen Clay, Secretary (FY11 & 12)
Donna Reed, Member at Large (FY10 & 11)
Jay Starratt, Member at Large (FY10 & 11)
Jane Carlin, Member at Large (FY11 & 12)
Vickie Hanawalt, Member at Large (FY11 & 12)
John F. Helmer, Executive Director (ex officio)

Following Council's meeting, the Board of Directors met for the first time: Meeting minutes.

Minutes: Duell and Helmer