Left Menu Right Menu

Council Meeting  #28


University of Oregon
White Stag Building
Portland, Oregon


2011 March 10 
  • 12:00 noon - 5:00pm
    Business meeting,
    Room 142/144
  • 6:00pm
    ==> Dinner Celebration of Incorporation ... We Did It! <==

    Mother's Bistro & Bar‎
2011 March 11
  • 9:00 am - 12:00
    Accreditation under the New Standards,
    Room 142/144

Council Present:
     
David Bilyeu (COCC)
Patricia Cutright (CWU)
Natalie Beach (Chemeketa)
Michelle Bagley (Clark)
Brent Mai (Concordia)
Karen Clay (EOU)
Richard Wilson (EWU)
Merrill Johnson (GFU)
Marika Pineda (LCC)
Mark Dahl (L&C)
Susan Barnes Whyte (Linfield)
Nancy Hoover (Marylhurst)
Chris Shaffer (OHSU)
Karen Kunz (OIT)
Faye Chadwell (OSU)
Marita Kunkel (Pacific),
Donna Reed (PCC)
Adriene Lim (PSU)
Vickie Hanawalt (Reed)
Scot Harrison (SMU)
Bryce Nelson (SPU)
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: Jeff Ring (MHCC) assigned his proxy to Donna Reed

Staff: John F. Helmer, Elizabeth Duell, Anya Arnold, Keith Folsom

Guests: none


Key Documents

Pre-meeting Webinar questions

Status Reports

FY12 Budget
Summit Policy Task Force Final Report

Accreditation Responses

Day 1 - Thursday 2011 March 10


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

Drew welcomed attendees.

There were no amendments to the agenda.

Brice Nelson's Retirement was announced. He was thanked for his strong and thoughtful contributions to the Alliance over his years on Council.

Keith Folsom was introduced.

Attendees introduced themselves.

2. Status Reports

2.1 Teams working on the Strategic Agenda (Helmer)

Document: Status Reports

John pointed out that there are 12 Alliance task forces and teams, many of which are working on the Strategic Agenda. He gave a short overview of the highlights of  the work that is underway and has been accomplished by each group.

Questions:

Q: What are the processes of  identifying electronic resources since we have disbanded ERC and the Steering Team?
A: Basically the same as they have been, there are still representatives from each institution who communicate with Greg Doyle (ER Program Manager) about electronic resources.
Q: Have the dates been chosen for the Collaborative Technical Services Symposium? Is there progress to report?
A: It will be held on December 8 & 9, 2011 at the White Stag Building in Portland.


2.2 Finance Committee (Shaffer)

Background: Committee charge, minutes, etc.

Chris Shaffer, Alliance Treasurer, gave a short review of the work of the Finance Committee. The Alliance is now officially a 501c3 and paying bills as such. We have had an interim MOU with UO and that, fortunately, hasn't needed to be extended. The Finance Committee has talked about bill paying, potential policies and other various day-to-day workings of the finances of the Alliance. The UO Business Office decided to conduct an audit before completing the financial transfer of Alliance assets, which is expected to be completed shortly. The next step for the Finance Committee is receiving and reviewing  policies. The Alliance will work with Moss Adams to conduct  a cash only audit this June and then a full audit in July 2012.  The Finance Committee will also be taking up questions about the Conflict of Interest statements signed by each Council member to determine how those should be administered.    

3. FY12 Budget (Harrington & Helmer)

Documents:  
  • FY12 Budget Memo (Word) -- Council login required
  • FY12 Budget (Excel) -- Council login required
 The budget comes from the Board with a recommendation of approval. The FY12 budget is not a significant departure from previous budgets and is essentially a  hold the line budget with the exception of funding to  support  the strategic agenda. This is the 4th draft of the budget and we have tried to capture the questions and concerns in the process, including a webinar for all interested members of Council.

West and E-book projects are separate from the membership fees as are NWDA and Courier fees.

Q: If it is expedient locally, could we have the WEST fee included in the membership fees?
A: Yes.
Q: Regarding the E-books, is it safe to assume that the fee listed will be the fee we can expect to be billed for the pilot?
A: Yes.
Q: What was the background for  basing the cost for Community Colleges at $2,500 and the other colleges $5,000?
A: Essentially based on value derived and ability to pay.  The model is clearly is just a reasonable starting point and we expect subsequent models to be informed by our experience with the pilot.  For example, the next model might be partially based on use.
Q: One reason to separate from UO is being able to give the staff raises, where are we in that process?
A: Staff are still UO employees and the range of options is determined by the state.  There is some flexibility, but compensation of Alliance staff can't be outside the perimeters of the UO. 
Q: Could you clarify the staff charges for the NWDA?
A: Jodi is at .5 FTE and several other positions are partially funded by NWDA.
Q: So NWDA membership fees help pay for that.
A: Yes, in a way it is the NWDA administration fees.
Q: Are we looking at possible revenue generating? With all the budget cuts, are we looking at making money?
A: That is one of the discussions of the Financial Framework Committee.
There are ways that we can show how membership in the Alliance saves money for  individual libraries.  Comparing the cost of delivery by Summit vs. ILL is a good example.

Budget Adoption Vote: In Favor 36; Opposed 0; Abstentions 0
The Recommendation passed   

4. Financial Framework Discussion (Dancik)

Expected outcome: Introduction followed by small group discussion of questions offered by the Financial Frameworks Task Force (FFTF).  Council feedback will aid the task force in its work.
Background: FFTF Charge

Topic 1. Administrative fees for non-members
Background:  The administrative fee structure for non-members for their participation in Alliance initiatives (e.g. electronic resource purchasing or the courier) has generally been full cost recovery, but not for profit.  The rationale behind this practice has historical roots, one of which is the commitment among Council members to the well-being of the library community generally.  As well, when the Alliance was formed, Council recognized there were libraries that would choose to  be members but could not  because of ILS considerations, or because they simply did not have the funds to join, given the high bar we set financially and in terms of requirements for participation.  Council wanted to find ways to collaborate with these institutions nonetheless.

Question: What should the Alliance’s approach to non-member fees be going forward and why?

Topic 2. Linkage of membership fees to strategic goals and full participation
Background: The traditional linkage of membership in the Alliance has been participation in Summit.  Our strategic initiatives continue to propel us far beyond this.  For example, our vision of our collections as a single collection and thus, the requirement of full participation in the e-book purchase initiative.  Our participation in WEST is another example. Consider the mission of the Alliance as reflected in our new membership MOU: "To strengthen member libraries through collaboration in order to support the work of students, faculty, staff, and researchers.  Alliance members join together to
a. Enhance services;
b. Share information resources and expertise;
c. Enrich and preserve collections;
d. Develop library staff to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing information environment; and
e. Support other activities that further goals established by the Council of library directors."
Question: How do we decide which programs are core to our Strategic Plan, and thus require full participation?  Should all core programs be funded via membership fees?

Q: What about Code4Lib etc? Are they on a cost recovery basis?
A: They are cost recovery and we have used  non-Alliance based fees as well.
The Council members broke into 4 groups to discuss the posed questions.

5. Summit Policy Task Force Report (Carver)

 Document: Summit Policy Task Force Final Report

5.1 Guiding Philosophy
Expected outcome: Discuss SPTF philosophy developed as a guide to policy recommendations.
Background from the report (p.1):

As the SPTF evaluated each policy listed, the following philosophy was used to guide decision-making:
  • The concept of a single Northwest Academic Library was the core principle.
  • The Task Force rejected the status quo as a reason to retain a policy, i.e. "That's the way we've always done it."
  • The Task Force emphasized good service over convenient and preferred work routines.
  • The Task Force valued maximizing the use of our collections by eliminating barriers.
  • The Task Force tried to focus on ideal services, rather than letting the current technology dictate the possibilities. However, the group acknowledged budgetary, legal, and technological limitations that exist and tried to find a way to further our goals within this environment.
5.2 Recommendations
Expected outcome: Discuss, revise, and vote on SPTF recommendations. 

Given significant discussion at the last Council meeting and the Webinar in preparation for this meeting, Recommendation 1 "Who is Covered" will be  taken up last in this discussion.  This should allow some time to consider other recommendations before returning to #1.

Comments and Questions:

The first guiding philosophy which speaks about the single library gives me pause. We have agreed about a single 'collection', but we all don't have a concept of what it would mean to be a single Northwest 'library'. There is a significant difference between a single collection and a single library.

Another way to look at it is not giving up individual library identity  as one institution but to think of it as how can we align and function like a living organism which is represented as a single Academic Library. It would be good to think about how we could make a flexible and adaptable organism.

Deb C. remarked that the single institution language has been informal and used as an idea to expand on what the Alliance is already doing.

Q: On the first principle, is it Alliance libraries? or all academic libraries?
A: We were thinking about Alliance libraries, not non-member libraries.
The subtext of bullet 2 is the mission statement and we should make sure that we are not going against our mission statement.

We haven't had the 4th Bullet explicitly in our work in the past. We would need to have eliminating barriers "between our members." The way that it is written implies a commitment to  becoming more public.

The Task Force was told in their charge to articulate a guiding philosophy. These are the guidelines of the Summit Policy Task Force and they were not trying to create policy for the Alliance

Drew thanked the Task Force for all their work as well as the Council for a useful conversation.

Recommendation1. Who is Covered
Currently: Currently enrolled students; currently employed or retired faculty and staff, a limited number of special patrons
Proposed Change: Anyone who is currently in a library's patron database could have access to Summit material at the discretion of the home institution.

Questions and Comments:

Isn't the Summit system one of our core services that you need to be a member to access? There are some consortia, as well as other colleges, who have, for whatever reason, decided not to apply and pay for membership who would be able to get access to the same materials we pay for.

There is also an equity issue. Faculty and tuition-paying students should receive service equal or superior to others in the patron database. Accountability for outside patrons is also difficult. It is a manual and time consuming process to track them down if there is a book missing or late.

It is a mission question as well. It's not that we don't serve these populations, we do through ILL etc, but do we want to focus on our main clientele.

There is a return when we add other institutions (i.e. their collections). The return for adding the local community is more marginal. In reference to needing to look at other income possibilities, we could create an Alliance card where we charge for the year and can off-set some of those costs of accountability.

We need to look at this strategically. Can we find another model that might raise revenue? We haven't fixed all the internal processes and we need to get that right first.

Some member institutions would be happy to make this work. For example, SOU would be happy to be part of a Pilot program if that happens.

Vote on original recommendation: In Favor: 2; Opposed: 30; Abstentions 4

It seems that there are several ways to proceed: 1) ask the Summit Policy Task Force to look again in light of what they heard and give us a revised recommendation; 3) forward to the Financial Framework Task Force for consideration; 3) table further action; or 4) plan some kind of pilot project.

To ascertain interest, Drew conducted an informal poll:
  • All those who have an interest on continuing work on this initiative: 23
  • All those who wish to table the issue: 12
ACTION ITEM: Since Council would like to continue work on this issue but more work is need to determine the best way forward, Council decided to forward the question to the Board for a decision on next steps.

Recommendation 2. What is Covered
Currently: Generally circulating monographs
Proposed Change: Generally circulating materials.

Vote: In Favor: 36; Opposed 0; Abstentions 0

Recommendation 3. Borrowing Limit
Currently: Maximum # items combined for all institutions, including requests and items checked out: 200
Proposed Change: Maximum number of items that an individual patron can have out on loan is 200.
The Proposed Change was amended to: Maximum number of *Alliance* items that an individual patron can have out on loan is 200

Vote:
In Favor: 36; Opposed 0; Abstentions 0

Recommendation 4. Loan Period
Currently: Generally circulating monographs: 6 weeks. Other materials may circulate for 6 weeks, or for 6 days. No renewals.
Proposed Change: No change at this time.

There wasn't any discussion. No vote was needed.

Recommendation 5. Returning Materials
Currently: Materials may be returned to any Alliance member library
Proposed Change: Summit Materials may be returned to any Alliance member library.

Vote: In Favor: 36; Opposed 0; Abstentions 0

Recommendation 6. Recall
Currently: No recall for individual patrons; recall if needed for reserve reading, due 7 days after notification.
Proposed Change: No direct recall for individual patrons; staff may recall when necessary.

Vote: In Favor: 36; Opposed 0; Abstentions 0

Recommendation 7. Competing Needs
Currently: Item may be checked out to patron at owning site ('item in hand') even if a Summit Borrowing request has been received
Proposed Change: No change at this time.

No vote was needed.

Recommendation 8. Lending Fees
Currently: Alliance members do not charge each other for Summit borrowing.
Proposed Change: Alliance members do not charge each other for Summit borrowing or ILL returnables.
Q: Where does the cost for the labor issues fall when a hold ends up going through the work of an ILL?
A: The Council agreed not to charge each other for ILL. It’s essentially  a wash.
Q: Did the Task Force talk about non-returnables?
A: It is on the agenda for a later date.
Vote: In Favor: 36; Opposed 0; Abstentions 0

Recommendation 9. Fines and Fees, Overdue, Lost, Irreparably damaged materials
Currently: Fines and other charges are billed and kept by patron's library. Owning site may bill patron's institution for replacement fee to cover lost and irreparably damaged material. Patron's library may waive patron fines or fees but is obligated to reimburse owning site for lost and irreparably damaged material. Overdue: Members will use the local fine policy for Summit borrowing replacement: $75 plus $15 service charge. (CRL bills for full replacement cost).
Proposed Change: No change at this time.

There wasn't any discussion. No vote was needed.

Recommendation 10. Notes
Currently: Member libraries may have individual policies directing use of Summit borrowing instead of ILL when the material is available through Summit borrowing. Summit borrowing may be used by staff to request materials for in-house library use such as photocopying replacement pages, but may not be used to request materials for course reserve reading.
Proposed Change: ( split this into two new policies, not notes )
1. Loan Sequence: Summit borrowing is preferred before an item is handled through ILL
2. Course Reserves: Books and other original source material may not be requested for course reserves by another library.

Vote: In Favor: 36; Opposed 0; Abstentions 0

Recommendation 11. Discussion of New Policies:

a. Visiting Patron.
Proposed Change: Patrons eligible for Summit borrowing may check out materials on site from another member library.

Vote: In Favor: 36; Opposed 0; Abstentions 0

b. Extend Summit to include non-returnables
Proposed change: No policy needed.

Q: Did you address the issue of charging each other?
A: No, we addressed having a base minimum price, i.e. a preferred customer price and what that would look like at the thousand foot level.
c. Offer extended faculty loans though Summit.
Proposed change: No policy needed at this time.

There wasn't any discussion. No vote was needed.

d. Create "floating collections," i.e., returned books are shelved at the patron's library until another request is made.
Proposed change: No policy needed at this time.

The Task Force doesn't yet know enough to be able to make a recommendation in this area. We are looking at public libraries that are doing this for more information.

We would need to get the Rota more balanced before we do this. There has been a lot of interest in this but there are numerous details that we will need to work out. We need to consider this as we go forward.

Drew thanked Deb Carver and Anya Arnold and praised the work of the Task Force.

Meeting was adjourned.


Day 2 - Friday 2011 March 11


John Helmer reviewed the proposed schedule for the Summer Meeting.

6. Accreditation under the New Standards

Document: Accreditation Responses
  • Overview of new NWCCU accreditation guidelines (Susan Barnes Whyte)
  • Sharing major lessons learned (Council)
  • Breakout into groups to continue discussion and share member experiences
    • Community Colleges (facilitator: Donna Reed)
    • Public Colleges and Universities (facilitator: Betsy Wilson)
    • Private Colleges and Universities (facilitator: Deb Dancik)
From the discussion, there are several things that the Alliance could do to help with the accreditation process.

One would be to have a place to put documentation, core themes, ROI measures and other needed information on what the Alliance offers for members to use in the process (e.g., three copy duplication threshold).

We also might be able to have an Accreditation meeting or possibly an Assessment Track at the Summer meeting and discuss measures used in accreditation and beyond.   

7. Announcements & adjournment

WWU is seeking off campus shelving. Please contact Chris Cox if you have any possibilities to discuss.

Mark Dahl announced that the Johannah Sherrer Memorial Lecture will be scheduled for September 2011.

Paul N. Courant, University Librarian and Dean of the Libraries at University of Michigan, will speak at UW on Monday, April 4, 2011 from 3:00-4:30 p.m. His topic will be: Radical Change in Conservative Institutions: Universities, Libraries and Scholarship in the Digital Age.

SOU will be hosting a gallery opening on digital media.

Nicholas Kristof, Author & Journalist will speak at Linfield College, on
Monday, May 2, 2011 at 7:30 pm in the Austin Reading Room.

If anyone has participated in hiring a new CIO, please contact Dalia if you have any ideas on how to make an effective campus visit for candidates.

Meeting was adjourned


Minutes Submitted by Elizabeth Duell