Left Menu Right Menu

Council Meeting Minutes #16
March 1-2, 2007
Mt Hood Community College

Agenda



Discussion Session: Thursday 3:30 - 5:00 pm

Moving to the Network Level: UW Research Project with WorldCat.org

Guest speakers:

  • Chip Nilges, OCLC VP for New Services | PDF version of PowerPoint presentation
  • Bill Jordan, UW Assoc. Dean of Univ. Libraries, Resource Acquisition and Description/Information Technology Services
  • Diana Brooking, UW Cataloging Librarian

Business Meeting

Present
David Bilyeu (COCC), Tom Peischl (CWU), Lynn Chmelir (Clark), Karen Clay (EOU) absent Thurs & by phone Friday, Pat Kelley (EWU), Lee Lyttle (TESC), Merrill Johnson (GFU), Nadine Williams (LCC), Elaine Heras for Jim Kopp (L&C), Susan Barnes Whyte (Linfield) by phone Friday, Nancy Hoover (Marylhurst), Jan Marie Fortier (MHCC), Jim Morgan (OHSU), Marita Kunkel (OIT), Karyle Butcher (OSU) by phone Friday, Emily Asch (Pacific) absent Thurs, Berniece Owen (PCC), Helen Spalding (PSU), Dena Hutto for Vickie Hanawalt (Reed), Scot Harrison (SMU), Bryce Nelson (SPU), John Popko (SU), Teresa Montgomery (SOU) by phone, Deb Carver (UO), Drew Harrington (UP), Peggy Firman for Karen Fischer (UPS), Betsy Wilson (UW), Carolyn Gaskell (WWC), Beth Lindsay for Cindy Kaag (WSU), Gary Jensen (WOU), Joni Roberts for Deborah Dancik (WU), Donna Packer for Béla Foltin (WWU), Dalia Hagan (Whitman).

Absent: none Consortium staff: John F. Helmer, Susie Scroggins.
Thursday Agenda
Welcome from Dr. Paul Hill, MHCC Vice President for Student Learning

Topic


1. Introductions
Berniece Owen announced that she will be retiring at the end of April 2007. Council thanked Berniece for her active service on Council and wished her well in retirement.

2. Review of Agenda (Popko)
Council members confirmed that Council meeting packets had arrived in plenty of time.

3. Consent Agenda (Popko)
3.1 Revised date in Annual Performance Assessment Process For Executive Director
Recommendation:

In order to align the ED evaluation process with Council's decision to meet three times each year, Executive Committee recommends that step 7 in the Annual Performance Assessment Process For Executive Director be updated to replace "Spring" with "next."

VOTE

Motion to approve consent agenda: Peischl
Second: Fortier
Vote: Unanimous approval

Resolution recognizing Betsy Wilson
Lyttle introduced the following resolution, which was then unanimously adopted by Council:
  • Whereas Betsy Wilson once again has been recognized for her significant contributions to academic/research librarianship and library development; and
  • Whereas Betsy Wilson has been a pioneer and leader particularly in the areas of information literacy, assessment and collaboration; and
  • Whereas Betsy Wilson has published and presented widely on issues of intense concern to librarians and their users; and
  • Whereas Betsy Wilson has provided leadership as Chair of the ACRL Instruction Section, Member of ALA Council, ACRL President, Chair of the Board of the Greater Western Library Alliance, President of OCLC Members' Council, Chair of the OCLC Board of Trustees, and founder of the Digital Futures Alliance; and
  • Whereas Betsy Wilson was instrumental in the merger to form the Orbis Cascade Alliance and provided the Alliance with her leadership on the Executive Committee and as a Council member; and
  • Whereas Betsy Wilson has received further recognition as recipient of the 1995 Miriam Dudley Instruction Librarian Award, the 2000 Margaret E. Monroe Award, the 2000 EDUCAUSE Award for Systemic Progress in Teaching and Learning; and
  • Whereas under Betsy Wilson's leadership the University of Washington Libraries received the 2004 ACRL Excellence in Academic Libraries Award; and
  • Whereas Betsy Wilson has achieved so much for the University of Washington, the Pacific Northwest, the country and the world; and
  • Whereas Betsy Wilson carefully mentors emerging academic library leaders; and
  • Whereas Betsy Wilson exemplifies the best of our profession through her warmth, grace, humor, kindness, listening, innovation, vision and leadership; and
  • Whereas no other person deserves it more,

Be it resolved that the Orbis Cascade Alliance Council congratulate and take great pride in
Betsy Wilson's recognition as the 2007 ACRL Academic/Research Librarian of the Year.

4. Reports
4.1 Executive Committee | EC Decisions & Action Items (Popko)
Popko directed Council to EC Action items for January 11-12, 2007 and noted the following:
  • EC's Feb. 26 meetings with LMDC and OSL/WSL will be considered in more detail under agenda item number 7. Strategic Agenda (4.3)
  • Special thanks to MHCC for accommodating Council on short notice. Alliance staff are finding it very difficult to finding meeting spaces on member library campuses during the school year. Council's need for a "hollow square" that seats 35-40 is hard to accommodate when classes are in session. For this reason, staff will be investigating hotel conference facilities in the Portland/Vancouver area. In the future, it may be that Council will meet on a college campus in the summer but otherwise in a conference hotel.
4.2 Executive Director | Report (Helmer)
Helmer directed Council to his written report.
5. Proposed Changes to Bylaws (Popko)
Note: In keeping with the bylaws requirement of 14 days notice, Executive Committee gave email notice on February 12, 2007 of recommended revisions to bylaws. Popko noted that Kopp and Hagan conducted a review and found that many parts of the Bylaws need updating. The current recommendations address the most pressing needs but Council can expect to consider additional revisions at future meetings. Popko reviewed proposed changes to Bylaws and led a discussion and vote on each article. Recommendation:

Executive Committee recommends adoption of revised bylaws. A summary of changes is as follows:

Article I: Mission

Delete Article 1 Mission and renumber articles that follow. Thus, Articles II-IX become Articles I-VIII.
Note: Mission as stated in the current bylaws is out of date. Although deleted from bylaws the most up-to-date mission statement would continue to be available on the Alliance web site.

Discussion: Council members felt that the mission should be referenced even if it is not repeated in the Bylaws.

VOTE

Motion: Wilson moved that Article 1 read as follows:

"Article 1. Mission. These bylaws are based on the Memorandum of Understanding signed by all parties and intended to advance the mission of the Orbis Cascade Alliance."

Second: Kelley
Vote: Unanimous approval

Article II: Membership

1. Adding member institutions. The Council reviews for approval all requests for membership, and may accept a request by majority two-thirds vote of the members present.

Discussion: In response to a question, Popko stated that the purpose of this proposed revision is to correct a long-standing disparity between membership criteria (specifying 2/3 vote) and bylaws (specifying majority vote).

VOTE: Unanimous approval

Article IV: Council meetings

1. Time and place. Regular meetings Meetings shall be held on at least a quarterly basis according to a schedule established in advance by Executive Committee at a location agreed upon by the member institutions. A special meeting of the member institutions may be called at any time by the Orbis Cascade Alliance Council chairperson or a majority of the Council members. At least five days prior to the date fixed for the holding of any Council meeting, notice shall be sent via electronic mail or U.S. Postal Service notifying members of time, place and information concerning the meeting.

Discussion: Council members felt that the bylaws should clearly state that Council would meet at least once each year.

VOTE

Motion: Kelley moved that the first two sentences of Article IV read as follows:

"Council meets a minimum of once each year to approve a budget, action plan, and Council meeting schedule. Regular meetings shall be held according to a schedule established in advance by Executive Committee."

Second: Peischl
Discussion: Council clarified that this language is not intended to require that budget, action plan, and meeting schedule must all be scheduled for action at one meeting.
Vote: Unanimous approval

VOTE

Motion: Fortier moved that "established" be replaced by "proposed," with final wording as follows:

"Council will meet a minimum of once each year to approve a budget, action plan, and Council meeting schedule. Regular meetings shall be held according to a schedule proposed in advance by Executive Committee."

Second: Firman
Vote: Unanimous approval

2. Quorum. Presence in person, or by remote communication, or by proxy of members representing two thirds of the voting rights of this consortium shall constitute a quorum at any meeting of the member institutions.

Discussion:

  • Council may wish to include both the concept of "designee" as someone officially representing a Council member at a Council meeting and the concept of a "proxy" as someone who a Council member has given the authority to cast a vote on a particular motion. Proxy voting would then be envisioned as a limited role that might require written authorization.
  • Some felt that the concept of "designee" can cover "proxy" voting as well, given that Council members are expected to appropriately brief their designee concerning the latitude of their actions at a Council meeting. A designee assigned a limited role is, in essence, serving as a proxy.
  • Council meetings are important; we want every institution represented, not just casting votes
  • Others noted that these issues are part of Article IV 3, not IV 2.

VOTE

Yes: all but one vote.
No: 1 vote

3. Who is entitled to vote. Every person participating in the meeting as a voting member or designated proxy is entitled to vote on all matters. Each member institution shall have one vote: the Director or Director designee, acting as proxy, from each member institution. The proxy designee may attend meetings and vote, under the direction and authority of the Council member and with approval of Council Chair, for no more than one year. Proxy Designee participation and voting for more than a year must be approved by Council.

Discussion:

  • Some Council members wondered if a member could appoint a variety of designees throughout the year as a means of avoiding the one-year limit.
  • Others expressed a concern that Council will be weakened if the number of meetings is reduced and designees become more frequent.
  • Although there is a desire to clarify the concept of designees, Council members affirmed the strong expectation that Council members will be present for Council meetings.
  • Some continue to feel that both concepts (proxy and designee) need to be addressed
  • Some expressed concern for writing bylaws "on the fly" and encouraged a "no" vote
  • Some suggested the deletion of "from each member institution"

VOTE: "No" votes were unanimous, Article IV 3 is not revised.

Council members would like EC to return to consideration of Article IV 3 and bring recommendations to Council.
6. Budget Report: Part I (Popko)
Outline of the Budget Report in Council's mailed packet
  • Cover (Popko)
  • Budget Notes (Helmer)
  • FY06 report (p. 1)
  • FY07 report to date (p. 2)
  • FY08 proposed budget
    • Brief form (p. 3)
    • Expanded form (p. 4-8)
    • Membership fees (p. 9)
    • Example of membership fees with no new members (p. 10)
    • NWDA fees (p. 11)
  • FY04-10 (p.12)

Executive Committee Recommendation: EC recommends adoption of the FY08 budget.

Popko introduced the topic and suggested that discussion focus on the FY04-10 document as an illustration of four critical factors in Alliance budgeting:
  • membership growth
  • membership fees
  • reserve: size and uses
  • strategic agenda
Helmer provided a chronological review the FY04-10 document as follows FY04 & FY05
  • Members: rapid growth
  • Fees: total fees rise modestly but fees paid by each member are flat
  • Reserve: growing
  • Strategic Agenda: some resources are expended on RLSC and investigation of a III development partnership
FY06
  • Members: budgeted for strong growth but none occurred
  • Fees: total fees rise modestly but fees paid by each member are flat
  • Reserve: declines because no members are added
  • Strategic Agenda: some resources are expended on RLSC
FY07
  • Members: budgeted for growth but only one new member will be added
  • Fees: total fees rise modestly but fees paid by each member are flat
  • Reserve: expected to decline modestly
  • Strategic Agenda: ambitious strategic agenda adopted with all associated costs funded from the reserve
FY08
  • Members: EC recommends budgeting for slow growth
  • Fees: EC recommends membership fees increase sharply (10.23% on average)
  • Reserve: decision to fund the strategic agenda from reserves means that total reserves are expected to decline
  • Strategic Agenda: ambitious strategic agenda, all associated costs funded from the reserve
FY09
  • Members: Projection shows continued slow growth
  • Fees: Projection shows membership fees continuing to increase sharply
  • Reserve: decision to fund much of the strategic agenda from reserves means that total reserves are expected to decline
  • Strategic Agenda: ambitious strategic agenda, with associated costs funded from the reserve and membership fees.

Note: Depending on the outcome of various strategic agenda initiatives, additional resources (e.g., fees, reserves, grants) may be needed.

FY10
  • Members: Projection shows continued slow growth
  • Fees: Projection shows membership fees continuing to increase sharply
  • Reserve: projection shows strategic agenda fully funded by membership fees. Thus, reserves are expected to be flat.
  • Strategic Agenda:ambitious strategic agenda, with associated costs fully funded from membership fees.

Note: Depending on the outcome of various strategic agenda initiatives, additional resources (e.g., fees, reserves, grants) may be needed.

Council discussion included the following
  • Preference for "pay as you go" funding in the future although it is appropriate to borrow from the reserve to fund strategic agendas
  • Reserve policies are needed. What are reserves for and what are our target levels?
  • Perhaps the Alliance needs an operating reserve and a strategic fund.
  • Some felt that the current reserve balance appeared to be higher than is needed.
  • Reserve funds should not be used like gift funds.
  • Q. How have reserves been used? Answer:
    • Phase in costs of strategic initiatives. Examples include: RLSC site analysis, ER Program Manager, DS Program Manager, increased SCC meeting costs
    • Buffer cash flow for large ER purchasing projects
    • Summit hardware upgrades
    • Interest income
  • Q. What are our revenue opportunities for current services? Answer:
    • Courier: currently charging non-members $700/ year admin fee. Helmer believes this is an appropriate amount that more than covers costs.
    • NWDA: fully funded by participants. $18,000 in administrative costs are included in the NWDA budget and thus are not reflected in Alliance membership fees.
    • Non-member ER Program: currently $300 for two years and $30 per billing. Helmer noted that this program was created as a form of outreach and service to institutions for whom membership is not possible or realistic. That said, admin fees are probably too low. Helmer, Doyle, and Baker are discussing modestly higher rates for next year. Additional thought could be given to generating more income through this program.
  • Q. When would a reserve policy be set? In time for budgeting FY09?
    A. Popko indicates that consideration of a reserve policy will be included in the November 2007 Council agenda.
  • Q. Have we looked at other kinds of memberships as a source of income?
    A. Helmer noted that all Alliance programs except Summit currently generate income from non-member participants. He suggested that Council consider managing Summit as a service open to non-members.
  • Although the "no growth" model would be a painful adjustment to make in one year, it is a realistic (not "worst case') model.
  • The addition of new program areas ("moving to the network level") will require more central resources, perhaps a reallocation of funds currently expended locally.
  • Sustaining high membership fee increases is difficult and the Alliance must show value over time.
  • There is an inherent problem in having a majority vote on activities some members may not want to support. The range of such decisions include
    • NWDA: fully funded by those opting in
    • RLSC construction and operation: expected to be partially funded by all but with most funds coming from those opting in.
    • Strategic Agenda development costs (including RLSC): fully funded by all members (no opt out option)
    • Summit, Courier, ER Program, DS Program: fully funded by all members (no opt out option)
    • Courier: fully funded at a basic level by all members (no opt out option) plus an option to purchase additional dropsites
  • As the Alliance develops, Council will want to carefully consider those projects funded by all and those funded on an opt-in basis.
  • The process of determining a strategic agenda and analyzing membership fees is too drawn out. Although the total fiscal impact of the strategic agenda was clear, Council should know the impact on individual membership fees as well.
Budget decisions were held for Friday.
7. Strategic Agenda (SA): Part I | Strategic Agenda (Popko)

SA 1. Regional Library Services Center (RLSC) | Report (Carver)
Executive Committee Recommendation: EC recommends that Council approve the RLSC Leadership Group recommendations

Carver reviewed the RLSC Leadership Group report and recommendations and provided an update on UO's development of an RLSC proposal. Highlights included

  • $4.6 million in lottery bonds included in Oregon Governor's budget
  • Lottery bonds should be issued relatively soon but can be expended within a six-year timeframe.
  • The balance of construction funding will be composed of debt and fundraising from private and corporate sources.
  • Carver continues to seek a firm answer but believes that lottery bonds will not restrict participation in RLSC but will require construction in Oregon.
  • Laura Hubbard (UO Assoc VP for Budget & Finance) will be working with Carver and Helmer on a revised financial plan.

Council discussion included:

  • Q. Is the October 2004 budget passed by Council still in effect?
    A. Yes, but that budget is largely a philosophical statement that all members will help fund construction and recurring costs at a basic level with the bulk of costs paid by depositors. The next RLSC budget will be brought to Council for discussion and reaffirmation of this approach.
  • Q. Is RLSC still an Alliance project?
    A. Yes, although more of the initiative has moved to UO.
  • In addition to storage, which is important to several members, the collection development, preservation, and digitization functions of RLSC are very much in line with Alliance interests.
  • Some noted the long time this project has required and suggested that Council set a firm date to resolve the status of RLSC. Others felt that the timeline was appropriate given the scale and ambitious nature of the project.

Decisions were held for Friday.

SA 2. Cooperative Collection Development | Update (Chmelir)
Chmelir reviewed her report. Copies of the RFI responses from monographic vendors were made available for Council review. The committee will meet with vendors submitting RFI's on April 13. When asked about resources needed to accomplish CDMC's charge, Chmelir noted that much work has been done by steering team members and more work will be taking place at the committee level. In the future, CDMC may ask Council to consider a "war chest" for central purchasing.

SA 3.1 Shared Integrated Library System (Popko)


Executive Committee Recommendation:

EC recommends that the Alliance organize a facilitated strategy session to be attended by Executive Committee, 6-10 key systems staff from member institutions, and the Digital Services Program Manager. The purpose of this symposium will be to discuss how the Alliance's mission and goals can be achieved through the analysis of academic libraries as a system and the application of appropriate technology at a collective level. Symposium participants will develop recommendations that show great promise for creating a significant and tangible impact on service to students and faculty. Participants will submit a report and recommendations for consideration by Council in November 2007.

Council members will recommend facilitators and key systems staff with final decisions made by EC. Participation will be selective, with an emphasis placed on assembling a small group of informed, innovative, and enthusiastic individuals.

Popko reviewed EC's recommendation.

Decisions were held for Friday.

SA 3.2 Summit Data Harvesting
SA 3.3 Summit Search Interface
| Update (Helmer)
Expected outcome: brief review of update from SCC Chair.
Background: SCC charge for 2006-07

Helmer directed Council to an update provided by Mark Dahl (SCC Chair). Helmer noted the tremendous activity generated by SCC's four working groups, including 17 conference calls in Jan-Feb, and indicated that Dahl is doing an outstanding job leading this effort. Helmer noted that there may be significant costs associated with SCC recommendations concerning SA3.2-3 and that it may be important to think creatively about funding sources.

SA 4.1 Northwest Digital Archives | Project site (Helmer)
Helmer directed Council to the NWDA project site. Highlights include:

  • NWDA budget is is now part of the proposed Alliance budget for FY08. Participant fees are identical to the figures participants approved in December 2006.
  • Training for new participants is scheduled in April
  • Seattle Museum of History and Industry, once thought likely to drop out, has confirmed its continued participation in FY08. With the addition of MOHAI, NWDA now includes 30 participants.

Owen noted that even though PCC does not have an archive, they joined with the intent of building for the future. She encouraged other Alliance members to join NWDA.

SA 4.2 LITA Institutional Repository Institute
No discussion, on hold due to LITA's current inability to offer IR institutes.

SA 4.3 Collaborate with Regional and National Organizations (Popko)
Background:

  • Library and Media Directors' Council (LMDC) | 21st Century Libraries Project | Summary
  • Oregon State Library (OSL) & Washington State Library (WSL) | OSL letter

Popko reported on EC's February 26 meeting with LMDC. If funded, LMDC's ambitious 21st Century Libraries Project may have significant implications for the Alliance. In the mean time, LMDC libraries are interested in learning more about Alliance programs available to non-members. Helmer has forwarded information about the courier and non-member ER program for distribution to LMDC libraries.

Popko reported on EC's February 26 meeting with Jan Walsh (Washington State Librarian) and Jim Scheppke (Oregon State Librarian). WSL may be interested in full membership. OSL is interested in participating in Summit but less interested in full membership. A considerable part of EC's discussion with Walsh & Scheppke focused on collections that would be loaned and the definition of patrons that would have Summit Borrowing privileges. Both state libraries express a willingness to lend monographs to all Alliance members. The definition of borrowers is more complex.

Discussion included:

  • General conclusion that state libraries pose a unique situation and would not set precedent for other types of institutions.
  • Possible expansion of Alliance membership criteria to include "research libraries" in addition to academic institutions
  • Concept of Summit as a contracted service
  • Which state library patrons are most appropriately included and how would they be identified?
  • Morgan reported on OHSU's positive interactions with OSL and recent actions taken by OSL to reduce their heavy reliance on OHSU's collection
  • Some expressed concern for cuts WSL has experienced and the potential resulting demand for public health materials
  • Popko noted that each state library plans to review the Alliance's MOU and complete an application form as a means of collecting basic quantitative data.

DECISION: Council has significant concerns about potential lending patterns and the definition of state library patrons but agreed that EC should continue to explore appropriate models for working with OSL and WSL.

SA 5.1 New DS Program Manager Position (Helmer)
Note: this topic was delayed till Friday and considered under agenda item 10.

Helmer distributed copies of the DSPM position description and Kyle Banerjee's resume and reported on the search process:

  • Thanks to Search Committee members Andrea Peterson (Head of Library Systems, WWU), Cindy Kaag (Interim Director of Libraries, WSU), Greg Doyle (ER Program Manager), Jim Kopp (Director, Watzek Library, L&C), Michelle Williams (Resource Sharing Assistant), Terry Reese (Cataloger for Networked Resources, Digital Production Unit Head, OSU), and Laine Stambaugh (Director of Library Human Resources, UO)
  • 12 applications received
  • February 20 interview and presentation at WSU-Vancouver with teleconference links to WOU, WSU, WWU, and UO
  • Participation included six Council members and six systems/IT staff
  • Search committee recommendation was unanimous
  • Kyle Banerjee will start as DS Program Manager on April 30, 2007
  • Work will likely be done from Alliance offices at UO, OSU, and a home office in Monmouth, Oregon.

SA 5.2 New NWDA Program Manager Position (Helmer)
Note: this topic was delayed till Friday and considered under agenda item 10.

Helmer is consulting with NWDA participants and UO human resources staff and expects to have a position description and recruitment process ready in March.

During the break Council surprised Helmer with a birthday cake and singing of Happy Birthday.
Friday Agenda
8. Membership vote: Chemeketa Community College (Popko)
Application materials: Cover letter, Membership application form, Beach letter, Goulard letter Popko reported on the site visit and conveyed EC's recommendation to approve Chemeketa Community College's application for membership. Council discussed the application. VOTE: Council voted unanimously to offer membership to Chemeketa Community College.
9. Accreditation Document Task Force | Report (Kunkel)
Kunkel reviewed the task force report. Council members found the report most useful and some have already used the description of the Alliance in self-study documents. There was universal agreement that the Alliance should contact the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU) to convey information from the report for consideration as accreditation standards are written. Decision: Council requests that EC contact NWCCU and offer information from the Accreditation Document Task Force report as background for NWCCU's standards revision. VOTE: Council voted unanimously in favor of Recommendation 1
VOTE: Council voted unanimously in favor of Recommendation 2
VOTE: Council voted unanimously in favor of Recommendation 3 With Council's action on recommendations the Task Force is formally retired. Council thanked the Accreditation Document Task Force for its excellent work.
10. Strategic Agenda (SA): Part II (Popko)
SA 1. Regional Library Services Center (RLSC) | Report (Carver)
Executive Committee Recommendation: EC recommends that Council approve the RLSC Leadership Group recommendations. Council discussion of the RLSC initiative continued from the previous day.

Discussion of Recommendation 1:

Q: Why did UO decline to further pursue the Linfield site?
A. Carver indicated that lease costs were the primary reason but also noted that Linfield had reserved the land for RLSC use for a long time and wanted to resolve its future. It is conceivable that the land would need to be leased for some time before RLSC could be built.

VOTE: Council voted unanimously in favor of Recommendation 1

Discussion of Recommendation 2:

Q: Are all sites previously offered now off the table?
A. No. Council welcomes all site and financial proposals offered by member institutions. Given that the passage of time played a strong role in changing UO's and Linfield's approach to RLSC, it is reasonable to conclude that circumstances may also have changed at sites screened during the previous selection process.

VOTE: Council voted unanimously in favor of Recommendation 2

Discussion of Recommendation 3:

    • Council members reiterated the desire to resolve the impact of Oregon Lottery Bonds on location and participation. Carver will continue to investigate and report back.
    • Some suggested that Council set an end date for the RLSC initiative but most members felt that Council is able to discontinue pursuit of RLSC as an Alliance initiative at any time.
    • Some expressed concern that the concept of storage is outdated but most continue to support "preservation of the artifact" and the digitization services that might be located at RLSC
    • In general Council members expressed the need to carefully monitor Alliance resources assigned to RLSC
    • Several members felt that the specification of Eugene as a location was too restrictive
    • Many wanted to emphasize the need for a new financial plan
    • Q: Does Council determine what site will be selected in conjunction with Lottery Bond funding? A: No, Lottery Bonds are part of an OUS initiative.

VOTE

Motion: several Council members collaborated on the following revised version of Recommendation 3:

"Encourage UO's effort to develop an Alliance-supported proposal and financial plan based on UO as fiscal agent for an RLSC facility, with partial construction funding as described in the Oregon Governor's proposed budget"

Vote: Council voted unanimously in favor of the revised Recommendation 3

VOTE: Council voted unanimously in favor of Recommendation 4

Summary of next steps approved for the RLSC initiative (SA1)
  1. Discontinue the current initiative and thank UO and Linfield College for their extraordinary efforts on behalf of the Alliance
  2. Encourage Council members that would like to discuss additional RLSC construction funding and site alternatives to contact Executive Committee to informally convey their interest by March 31, 2007
  3. Encourage UO's effort to develop an Alliance-supported proposal and financial plan based on UO as fiscal agent for an RLSC facility, with partial construction funding as described in the Oregon Governor's proposed budget
  4. Charge Executive Committee with
    • advising Council on alternatives forwarded by member institutions
    • revising the charge and membership of the RLSC Leadership group to appropriately pursue the next phase of the Orbis Cascade Alliance RLSC initiative.
SA 3.1 Shared Integrated Library System (Popko)
Executive Committee Recommendation:

EC recommends that the Alliance organize a facilitated strategy session to be attended by Executive Committee, 6-10 key systems staff from member institutions, and the Digital Services Program Manager. The purpose of this symposium will be to discuss how the Alliance's mission and goals can be achieved through the analysis of academic libraries as a system and the application of appropriate technology at a collective level. Symposium participants will develop recommendations that show great promise for creating a significant and tangible impact on service to students and faculty. Participants will submit a report and recommendations for consideration by Council in November 2007.

Council members will recommend facilitators and key systems staff with final decisions made by EC. Participation will be selective, with an emphasis placed on assembling a small group of informed, innovative, and enthusiastic individuals.

Council discussion of the initiative continued from the previous day. Highlights included:
  • Clarification that such an event would occur after the DS Program Manager starts (April 30)
  • "moving to the Network Level" is not just a technical issue
  • Council members asked EC to include more than systems staff and some suggested participants from SCC and CDMC
VOTE

Motion: Delete "systems" from the first sentence of each paragraph so that the final language reads as follows:

The Alliance will organize a facilitated strategy session to be attended by Executive Committee, 6-10 key staff from member institutions, and the Digital Services Program Manager. The purpose of this symposium will be to discuss how the Alliance's mission and goals can be achieved through the analysis of academic libraries as a system and the application of appropriate technology at a collective level. Symposium participants will develop recommendations that show great promise for creating a significant and tangible impact on service to students and faculty. Participants will submit a report and recommendations for consideration by Council in November 2007.

Council members will recommend facilitators and key staff with final decisions made by EC. Participation will be selective, with an emphasis placed on assembling a small group of informed, innovative, and enthusiastic individuals.

Vote: Council voted unanimously in favor of the motion.

11. Budget Report: Part II (Popko)
Executive Committee Recommendation: EC recommends adoption of the FY08 budget. Council discussion of the Budget report continued from the previous day. Highlights included:
  • Request that the brief form of the FY08 budget break out NWDA participant fees from Alliance membership fees
  • Approving the higher FY08 membership fees is useful for those that will use the budget to seek additional funding
  • Although Council could approve a budget based on no new members and then refund fees if new members are added, most felt that this would be a cumbersome approach and not worth the additional accounting and billing expenses
  • Another approach might be to apply a credit for the next fiscal year but that would just amount to a separate decision to expend funds from the reserve in FY09
  • Council reiterated the desire to consider a reserve policy proposal at the November Council meeting
  • Some expressed the desire to budget under the assumption of no growth and to look for additional non-member sources of revenue
VOTE

Popko called for a vote on EC's FY08 Budget Recommendation: Budget (p. 3) with NWDA fees footnoted or broken out on another row, Membership fees (p. 9), and NWDA fees (p. 11).

Vote: Council voted unanimously to adopt the proposed FY08 Budget

12. Announcements
  • Owen reported on Northwest Central, a web site that gathers continuing education offerings for library staff. The project has been funded by Oregon LSTA and is now seeking a permanent home.
  • Some Council members commented on the difficulty that three Council members participating via conference phone had in hearing Council discussions and suggested microphones for each Council member as a solution. Popko noted that some rooms have a great deal of ambient noise, although this was not an issue at MHCC, and that we experimented with wireless mics at the October meeting. Helmer reported on investigations into purchasing wireless mobile amplification systems. Costs are high but staff will continue to investigate.
  • Q: How many Council members are attending the III Symposium in March?
    A: 4
  • Carver noted that she and Helmer have discussed UO Business Office and Dept of Justice slow turnaround time for ER licenses and that UO library will be working on a white paper. Greg Doyle will be invited to participate.
  • Gaskell announced that Walla Walla College will become Walla Walla University as of September 1, 2007.
  • Q: How many Council members are strongly considering the purchase of Encore?
    A: 1 = OHSU

minutes -- Helmer & Scroggins