Council Meeting Minutes March 2010

Day 1

• Timeline
  
• Summary of Powers
• Draft legal documents
  
• Articles of Incorporation
• Bylaws
• Membership MOU
• Confidential Reporting of Information Policy
• Conflict of Interest Policy
• Document Integrity and Retention Policy

• Coming soon:
• Insurance
• MOU with UO for office space, HR, etc.
  
• Memorandum of Action by Incorporator
• Memorandum of Action by Board of Directors
• Resolutions

• Position descriptions
• Chair
• Treasurer
• Executive Director

SA 1. Cooperative Collection Development

• EBook Team
  Document: Progress report
  
• Collection Development & Management Committee
  Document: Progress report
  

SA 2. Regional Library Services Cooperative
See agenda item 7.

SA 3. Future of Integrated Library Systems

• Shared Integrated Library System Team
  Document: Progress report 
  
• Network Library System Task Force
  Document: Progress report
  
• Open Library Environment
• Other projects: e.g., EOU and the Sage

SA 4. Collaborative Technical Services

• Collaborative Technical Services Team
  Document: Progress report
  
• Collaborative Technical Services Symposium
  

SA 5. Digital Initiatives

• Code4Lib: June 7, 2010
  
• Digital Services Team
  Document: Progress report
  

SA 6. Discovery

• WC Discovery Day: July 30, 2010
  
• ERC discovery program 

5.1 Membership Fee Task Force

Background

Document: MFTF Report

MFTF Recommendation
"It is our recommendation that the current formula for 60% FTE and 40% flat assessment be retained. However, we recommend that the FTE amount be based on a rolling three year average of the institution”s FTE (i.e., the latest three years of data). If an institution is new to the Alliance, the FTE figure would be based on the most recent year(s) FTE until three years of data are available. At this time we are not recommending a cap (e.g., 5%) on the increase in membership fee in a given year but we suggest that the Executive Director and Executive Committee monitor this situation to see if such a cap may be desired in the future. We recommend that this new process for determining membership fees be implemented for the FY11 budget."

Executive Committee recommendation
EC recommends that the three-year FTE average also apply to new members, so offers the following revised recommendation for Council vote:

"Retain the current 60% FTE and 40% flat assessment but begin measuring FTE based on a rolling three-year average of the institution”s FTE (i.e., the latest three years of data). This new formula for determining membership fees will be implemented for the FY11 budget. The Executive Director and Executive Committee will monitor budgets and determine if a cap may be desired in the future."

Carver reported for the Chair, Jim Kopp. The Task Force met three times, reviewed the history of this topic, and polled Council to identify the concerns. Only eight Council members responded to the poll and the results showed few major concerns. The task force concluded that predictability, rather than equity, was the major concern that needed to be addressed. To address this concern, the task force recommends averaging FTE over three years. A cap is not recommended at this time but might be considered in the future if needed.

Discussion:
The recommendation should say ‘we are not recommending a cap on annual increases."

Q: Should Summit borrowing activity play a role in setting membership fees?
A: The Task Force did consider a structure based on the costs and benefits of each program: Summit, ER, Courier, etc. but found this approach to be overly complex and no more predictable or equitable than the current system. Philosophically, the Alliance has traditionally not wanted to meter Summit borrowing activity. Balanced lending and borrowing also helps address equity in Summit borrowing activity. Finally, the Task Force noted that, although fundamental to the Alliance, Summit is only one aspect of the Alliances activities.

RECOMMENDATION: To accept EC”s recommendation with the addition of ‘on annual increases’.

MOTION: Butcher

SECOND: Dancik
VOTE: Unanimous vote in favor of the motion.

5.2 Budget for FY11+ (Helmer)
Documents:

• Summary memo (Council login required)
• Spreadsheet (Council login required)

Helmer presented budget scenarios for Council consideration. He reiterated that the intent is not to adopt a budget at this time but to provide Council direction on the preparation of an FY11 budget for Council vote later in the year.

Discussion:

• The direction seems vague since the strategic agenda is in process.
• We need to be ‘staffing to our aspirations’ or the strategic agenda will not be achieved.
• Many costs are hidden now because they come from member library contributions of staff time. Those contributions are not necessarily equitable.
• Those hidden costs are just for the short term but it may be too soon to address staffing now.
• Could we help address staffing through an initiative modeled after the ARL visiting staff program?
• This is an incremental process. Adding one staff now does not mean that the entire multi-year scenario is approved.
• Greater efficiency and better network-level services are great achievements but so far we have not seen cost savings.
• It is important for the Alliance”s intellectual property to be produced by consortium staff and owned by the corporation.
• The strategic agenda is more valuable to some members than others but all bear the cost of positions funded through general membership fees. More funding should shift to an opt-in/out model.
• There is a ‘chicken and egg’ aspect to this: we need the staff to produce services and we need the services to pay for staff. This approach has us funding staff up-front, then shifting salaries as opt-in services are offered.
• Current Alliance staff have been very effective and it is not too big a leap of faith to predict at an additional position will produce results.
• Having additional technical support capabilities is a ‘game changer’ for the Digital Services Team. We need to know understand our range of options.
• The decision to ‘build capacity’ and create a Digital Services Program Manager position provides precedence for such a move.
• The strategic agenda is exciting but it won”t get done if we don”t invest in the Alliance.
• My institution already contributes the equivalent of one faculty member and we can only do that in the short run.
• We are trimming out local budget through attrition and looking to the strategic agenda as a way forward.
• Members are hard pressed but this is just one position in FY11, shared by 36 libraries. ‘Times are tough but I want to be aspirational.’
• It is true that we don”t have to add additional positions, but one person doesn't make a tech support group.
• We need everything on the table, rather than taking this a piece at a time.
• ‘Moving to the network level’ means spending more on the network.
• Impact on FY11 be blunted by hiring part way in to the fiscal year but we would still need to be prepared to fully fund in FY12.
• The scenarios don”t quite make the case but the Alliance”s track record is strong and the vision of this group is demanding.
• Members have taken big local cuts and have had to do more with less. We are looking at reassignments, looking at offloading systems we can't support. I am not convinced that we can't move forward without adding a person. This position is not just for FY11, it's a continuing commitment.
• Maybe we need to think in terms of temporary positions and avoid faculty tenure track positions. Helmer noted that no Alliance staff are in faculty tenure track positions; contracts are annual with 12 months notice.
• We should not forget that there are benefits to the distributed model. We would not want to build a central staff to the exclusion of an involved membership. In any case, it would be a good idea to formalize the basis for contributed technical support staff.
• Sometimes it seems that there is a disconnect between strategic agenda and the cost of these initiatives. The strategic agenda ends up having a life of its own.
• ‘The Alliance is an extension of my library. This is not a position, it is capacity.’
• Do we retrench or move ahead? The Alliance is an opportunity to advance and provides ‘incredible bang for the buck.’ ‘I feel indebted to members that have contributed staff.’
• Current staff are stretched too thin and need more help.
• There are high administrative costs to having the Executive Director securing and overseeing technical support contributed by members.
• Should we consider partial funding from reserves? Would we be better off without the position and be putting money in the reserves?
• It is important to recall that EC originally predicted a 10% increase in FY10 but the final budget called for a 2% increase. This FY10 decision makes FY11 more severe.
  

Q: Are there other sources of funding?
A: Yes, the concept is that each program would pay for the technical support they use. For example, NWDA budgets about $20,000 for technical support. NWDA participants pay for that support, not general Alliance membership fees.

Q: What if we don”t create such a potion?
A: It would be irresponsible for Alliance staff to take on more responsibility for technical support because we would run a great danger of downtine and poor service. We would need to continue to rely on member library staff and would probably formalize those arrangements. Funds would still be expended but there would be less accountability and clarity. A lack of central resources would also impact the range of options that can be considered by teams working on the strategic agenda. In short, it is a reasonable choice but there are implications to deciding not to build capacity to accommodate growth.

Q: Converting the overall budget proposed, I would assume that we are all increasing 19%?
A: Total membership fees would increase by that amount but individual changes would be more or less, depending on changes in FTE.

Q: Would reducing the technical support needs of WorldCat Navigator increase staff capacity?
A: It would, but Summit will have continuing technical support needs. The circulation gateway and inclusion of non-III systems are inherently more complex aspects of the system.

Q: Are you looking for someone similar to the Digital Service Program Manager?
A: We would look for the right fit with current staff. This is not envisioned as a program manager position that works directly with a large number of staff at member libraries. The nature of the position requires a methodical approach to supporting robust ‘mission critical’ systems, uptime, backups, documentation, etc.
**************************************************
Expected outcome: discuss budget scenarios and goals for FY11, decisions are scheduled for the next morning.

Day 2

In recognition of the current need for technological expertise and effort in the implementation, maintenance, and support for Alliance operations and programs, and

In recognition of the need to productively balance the contributions of member library and Alliance staff in such a way as to maximize the benefits to the Alliance and member libraries, and

In recognition of the need to build further capacity within Alliance staff to investigate and implement the many technology-based programs being generated or refined within the several strategic task forces,

The Executive Director will work with Executive Committee to draft an FY11 budget that includes funding for a maximum of one additional staff FTE devoted to technical support. In drafting this budget proposal, EC will offer members the option of billing some FY11 fees in FY10 and will explore developing sources of income other than general Alliance membership fees. Executive Committee will determine whether a Council vote on the budget will be conducted electronically or at the July 2010 Council meeting.

Yes: 32
No: 0
Abstain: 1

Document: Report

Current policy
Lending Fees:
Alliance members do not charge each other for Summit Borrowing.
Alliance members may have varying policies of charges for ILL*
* Charges for ILL: Policy regarding fees for ILL will be reviewed by Alliance Council.

SPOT Recommended Policy
Lending Fees:
Alliance members do not charge each other for Summit Borrowing.
Alliance members do not charge each other for ILL of returnables.
Alliance members may have varying policies for ILL of non-returnables.

SPOT Rationale for revision
Many libraries are choosing to fulfill items that have the status of "Summit failed/non-supply" through ILL, either by staff entering the ILL request or by pointing the patron to ILL and asking them to re-request. 3% of Summit libraries charge to lend through ILL, which causes some libraries to be reluctant to send these "Summit failed" ILL requests to fellow Summit libraries out of fear of being charged.
A survey presented at Summit Day 2009, showed that while only 3% of Summit libraries charge to lend through ILL, 18% of Summit libraries will charge only if the other library charges them (reciprocal charges).
Thus we propose that all Alliance member libraries agree to lend returnables to each other free of charge regardless of method of request (ILL or Summit).

Executive Committee recommendation
EC recommends that Council adopt SPOT's recommendation.

• OSU: Butcher reported that Hewlett-Packard is leaving the Corvallis area and there is a building that may be an option. OSU has also explored the availability of land to build a new structure. Butcher is happy to continue exploring both options.
• UO: Carver reported that UO's new president is very aware of the need and could be a champion for the initiative. In the near term, UO is interested in space available through PSU.
• PSU: Spalding reported that PSU's lease on a poor quality space was expiring and this caused the university to investigate options. Their new storage facility has 37,500 sq ft and they could sublet 10,000 sq ft. It includes stacks and office space. The lease begins in July 2010 and is for a term of 10 years with an opt out option after 5 years. PSU has an option on another 37,500 sq ft space.
• Willamette: Dancik reported that Willamette rents Oregon State Library stacks but is exploring inexpensive ‘big box’ stores in the Salem area.
• WSU: Starratt reported that WSU had a building on the capital construction list about five years ago but pulled it off the list, perhaps in anticipation of RLSC. It is back on the list now but might not be large enough to accommodate the Alliance. Vancouver does not look like a likely location at present.
• WWU: Purdue reported that a WWU proposal was ranked low and they are currently investigating smaller spaces on land owned by WWU. At best it is a ‘stop-gap’ measure and WWU is interested in RLSC and WEST.
• UW: Jordan reported that UW does not have much capacity due to branch consolidation.

Alliance participating institutions: OSU, UO, UW, WSU
Staff serving on WEST subgroups

Steering Committee: Betsy Wilson, Deb Carver, John F. Helmer

 

Selection Criteria and Validation Standards Working Group: Faye Chadwell, Diane Carroll

 

Business Model and Organizational Structure Working Group: Charles Chamberlin, John F. Helmer

 

Holdings Disclosure Working Group: Kyle Banerjee, Stephanie Lamson, Beth Blakesley

 

Access Policies and Procedures Working Group: Thomas C. Deardorff