Left Menu Right Menu

Council Meeting #25

Concordia University
George R. White Library and Learning Center

Concordia University : Google map | Maps & directions (CU) | Campus Map (CU)
Ya Hala: Google Map

March 11, 2010
  • 11 am: Optional tour of the newly built George R. White Library and Learning Center.
    Meet at the front desk of the library.
  • 12 noon - 5pm: Business meeting, Luther Hall, Room 211
  • 6pm + Dinner at Ya Hala Lebanese Cuisine
March 12, 2010
  • 9 am - 12 noon: Business meeting, George White Library, Room 314
David Bilyeu (COCC)
Daniel CannCasciato (CWU)
Natalie Beach (Chemeketa)
Michelle Bagley (Clark)
Brent Mai (Concordia)
Karen Clay (EOU)
Julie Miller (EWU)
Merrill Johnson (GFU)
Marika Pineda (LCC)
Jim Kopp (L&C)
Susan Barnes Whyte (Linfield)
Nancy Hoover (Marylhurst)
Nancy Szofran (MHCC)*
Chris 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)
John Popko (SU)

Bill Bruner (TESC)
Deb Carver (UO)
Susan Hinken proxy for Drew Harrington (UP)
Jane Carlin (UPS)
Bill Jordan proxy for Betsy Wilson (UW)
Carolyn Gaskell (WWU)
Sue Kopp (WPC)
Jay Starratt (WSU)
Allen McKiel (WOU)
Jeff Purdue proxy for Christopher Cox (WWU)
Deborah Dancik (WU)
Dalia Corkrum (Whitman)
 * presumed attendance, did not respond to polling.

Absent, no proxy:
Paul Adalian (SOU); Absent on 3/12: Nancy Hoover (Proxy given to Dalia Corkrum)

John F. Helmer, Elizabeth Duell

Day 1

Thursday March 11, 2010
Tour: George R. White Library and Learning Center
Meet at the front desk of the library.

1. Welcome & introductions (Corkrum)
Provost, Dr. Mark Wahlers, welcomed Council to Concordia University.

Council welcomed Bill Bruner, interim library director from The Evergreen State College.

2. Review Agenda (Corkrum)
Report on Executive Committee activities:

EC plans to visit to the University of Idaho on March 23 to discuss membership in the Alliance. A Council vote on UI”s application is expected in July 2010.
EC has been discussioning the need for a policy on when and how the Alliance takes a stand on issues.
Council was reminded that the period to comment about the Executive Director”s yearly review is due. Please refer to the poll sent you Council members via e-mail.

3. Incorporation (Dancik)

Corkrum reviewed the history of the incorporation effort.

The intent of the incorporation documents were reviewed by Dancik and Helmer including the Council and Board Responsibilities.

Helmer reported that one Oregon and one Washington public institution will take the lead on securing Attorney General review in each state. Private colleges should find the state reviews useful but will need to conduct their own independent review. Helmer also noted that he is working with Marsh in Portland on an insurance quote.

Treasurer and Secretary
Council discussion revealed a concern about the possibility of having a Treasurer and/or Secretary that are not drawn from Council. Given that these are important officers and voting members of a relatively small (9 person) board of directors, Council prefers to have these positions elected from Council.

DECISION: Incorporation documents will be revised to indicate that both the Treasurer and Secretary must be elected from Council.

ACTION: Dancik and Helmer will review Bylaws, MOU, and position descriptions, make this change, and review with the Alliance”s attorney.

Data Rights
Council discussed Section 4. ‘Data Rights and Obligations’ and judged that attempts to make the language more generic (less specific to any particular Summit technology) left language that was too ambiguous and not useful. Rather than finding better generic language, Council preferred to remove this section.

DECISION: MOU Section 4. ‘Data Rights and Obligations’ will be deleted.

ACTION: Dancik and Helmer the MOU.

Additional Council discussions included:

Q: There are two kinds of MOU”s - membership and with UO... do we need a membership MOU?
A: Yes, membership MOU”s bring forward some of the key parts of the bylaws which are a counterpart of the MOU we are all use to. The new Membership MOU is based on the current MOU and reiterates which powers are reserved for Council.

Q: What is the status of the MOU with UO?
A: The MOU with UO is in process and the next draft will be shared with Council. The UO will continue to play a special role, providing office space, services (phone, network); and, most importantly, human resources. As is currently the case, the UO will employ staff that are then assigned to work for the Alliance. Major MOU topics include insurance coverage, timely notice for staff, and ownership of intellectual property.

Q: What about responsibility for major initiatives? Right now, Council identifies issues and asks EC to conduct background work and make recommendations for how to proceed. Will that process continue?
A: Yes, that process and division of responsibilities will remain the same.

Q: Would it be useful to have explicit FERPA language included in the MOU so that the Alliance is identified as a trusted partner?
A: Council discussion generally indicated that including FERPA wording would not help because each initiative or program will need to be individually vetted.

Q: Does it still make sense to have the chair serve for only one year?
A: It's a time consuming position and a three-year commitment to serve as Chair-elect, Chair, and Past-chair.

Q: Shouldn”t MOU 3.2, which details Council powers, more explicitly include the power to elect members of the Board of Directors?
A: Yes, that will be done as a new first bullet.

Q: Is MOU 2.8 the wording too vague about removal?
A: Judgment will be called for in such a situation and it is probably useful to avoid being to specific or limiting in this area.

Q: The Past chair is on the board and they get to vote?
A: Yes.

Q: Why was March chosen for the annual meeting?
A: Because the annual meeting is where we elect the board and approve the budget, March seems to be a good time.

Q: MOU 3.5 refers to a “book of minutes”, does it have to a 'book' or is an electronic version sufficient?
A: We believe that an electronic version will be sufficient but both could be done.

Q: How many meetings will Council have?
A: Initially the same as we have now (three per year). Council could decide to meet more or less often but no change is recommended now. One ‘annual meeting’ is a minimum requirement.

Q: Does Oregon law have any open meeting statutes that apply?
A: Elected boards are subject to an Oregon open meeting laws but the Alliance might want to go beyond that and have a policy encouraging members of Council to attend Board meetings.

This is a big step and when incorporation is done we should celebrate!

Name Change
Prior to the meeting, Council was polled regarding the following question: ‘Would you like to consider changing the name of the Orbis Cascade Alliance as part of incorporation?"
Corkrum reported that there was quite a bit of discussion even among those voting against. The final vote was
3 yes
16 no
9 not sure.

DECISION: Council will not consider changing the name of the Orbis Cascade Alliance at this time.

Background documents:
  • Coming soon:
    • Insurance
    • MOU with UO for office space, HR, etc.
    • Memorandum of Action by Incorporator
    • Memorandum of Action by Board of Directors
    • Resolutions
4. Strategic Agenda Overview (Helmer)

Corkrum reported on changes in Council liaisons to two teams. Corkrum further noted that EC has concluded that it is important for all teams to meet at least once in-person early in their work. That practice was instituted for this group of teams. Status reports were made available to Council but not explicitly discussed during the meeting. Additional discussions included:

Shared ILS Team: The ‘total cost of ownership’ survey will include confidential information. As a result, EC has asked Helmer to gather the data and share summary information with the team and Council.

Networked Library Services
Q: How many libraries are participating in the OCLC WMS pilot? Are there any Research Institutions?
A: Five institutions are serving as pilots. Pepperdine is the largest academic library.

Corkrum noted that Bruce Crocco, Andrew Pace, and Paul Cappuzzello will be meeting with Executive Committee to discuss WMS.

Helmer reported that CDMC has been unable to get the kind of collections data and reports they need. The INN-Reach system was not able to provide this data and so far that appears to be true of WorldCat Navigator as well. Anya Arnold is providing a Webinar walk-through of Summit statistical capabilities for CDMC.

WorldCat Discovery Day is planned for July 30. It has been very difficult to find an appropriate date and July 30 clearly will not work well for all potential participants.

SA 1. Cooperative Collection Development
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
SA 6. Discovery
    • WC Discovery Day: July 30, 2010
    • ERC discovery program 
5. Budget (Corkrum)
5.1 Membership Fee Task Force

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.

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)
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.

  • 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.

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.

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

Friday March 12, 2010
5.2 continued. Budget for FY11, decisions (Corkrum)

Following evening adjournment, Council continued the budget discussion on day two. Corkrum reviewed Council”s discussion from the previous day and then suggested language for a motion. Council discussed and refined the wording.

MOTION: Popko introduced the following motion
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.
SECOND: Dancik
Yes: 32
No: 0
Abstain: 1
6. Summit

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.

MOTION: Bilyeu moved to accept the EC Recommendation
SECOND: Spalding


Q: Does this include non returnable as well?
A: No, this recommended policy specifically says that charging for non-returnables will continue to follow each institution's policy.

Shaffer reported that OHSU could not support the policy if it were amended to require that members not charge for non-returnables.

Jordan indicated that UW would also not support such an expanded policy but expressed a willingness to "work out bulk pricing for non-returnables."

Corkrum noted that Executive Committee will soon discuss formation of a Summit Policy Task Force and will include consideration of non-returnables in the charge.

VOTE: The motion passed unanimously.

7. Regional Library Services Cooperative (Corkrum)

Helmer provided a brief synopsis of the extensive history of the RLSC and Alliance participation in WEST.
  • 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.
Council discussion revealed a continued great need for storage space among many members and a sense that WEST and RLSC are of great importance. The environment is quite different that when the RLSC initiative started but there may be some good ways to make progress. While an high-density Harvard-style depository might be ideal, needs might be more economically met with a combination of existing commercial real estate, several existing facilities, and WEST. Collectively we need a trusted repository for collection development and preservation and perhaps a place for Alliance staff.

ACTION: Dancik volunteered to convene a meeting of interested parties..

Helmer briefly reported on UC's WEST planning grant.
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
8. Updates from consortia

EOU and Sage Consortium

Clay reported on the Sage Consortium's LSTA grant to test Evergreen. Sage will soon vote on a recommendation to migrate 17 libraries in Eastern Oregon from III to Evergreen. Sage”s public libraries are generally quite happy with Evergreen and systems administration is much easier but EOU does not feel that the MARC editor and acquisitions modules are sufficient for EOU”s needs at this time. It will also be important for Evergreen to develop NCIP capabilities so that EOU can continue to participate in Summit. It is not yet clear how technical support will be managed.

Washington Library Media and Directors Council

Bagley reported that LMDC has been talking about many of the same issues that are on the Alliance strategic agenda. Major initiatives include

LSTA grant focusing on the librarian as instructional leader
Statewide Technology Transformation Task Force
Gates and Ford foundation to develop 81 common courses using open educational systems.

Bagley also announced that the Northwest Academic Directors Symposium will be held on November 10, 2010 at the UO Portland/White Stag building. Bill Fisher will speak on managing change.

Oregon Community College Library Association

Beach reported that the library directors at Oregon”s 17 community colleges meet two or three times a year. The meeting in November focused in on two projects.
streaming media grant, in conjunction with Oregon Community College distance learning.
Working to include Information Literacy in a revision of the Oregon Transfer Requirements at the AA level.

Minutes: Duell and Helmer