Crowne Plaza / Madison, WI
Tuesday, April 11: Noon – 4:00 pm
(new member orientation 10:00 – 11:45 a.m.; public hearing 1:00 p.m.)
Present: Rebecca Berger, Walter Burkhalter, Fred Marini, Rhonda Puntney, Terrance Burton, Paula Kiely, Paul Onufrak, Elizabeth Richmond, Phyllis Davis, Terry Dawson, Jim Gingery, Jane Pearlmutter, and Zora Sampson.
Absent: Veronica Thompson
Division Staff: Peg Branson, Rick Grobschmidt, Mike Cross, Kate Bugher, Al Zimmerman, Sally Drew, Mary Clark, Bob Bocher, Barb Huntington, Donna Steffan, John DeBacher
Welcome, Opening Remarks, Introductions
The meeting was called to order at 1:00 by Peg Branson.
New committee members were introduced: Terry Dawson, Zora Sampson, Jane Pearlmutter, Jim Gingery, and Phyllis Davis.
Rick Grobschmidt extended thanks to committee members on behalf of the state superintendent for their participation on the committee.
Public Hearing
Jan Adams, Media Specialist from CESA 10, spoke in support of a public school shared library system proposal.
Sampson asked whether this would be one statewide system or different independent systems. Adams commented that it probably would not be a statewide system and that some independence would be afforded to localities.
Kiely asked whether the proposal addressed delivery. Adams said that Waltco does some delivery and she has had preliminary talks with the Winding Rivers Library System.
Puntney asked whether Adams had talked to Northern Waters Library Service. Adams said that CESA 12 has spoken to them. Puntney said it would make more sense to join an existing system. Adams pointed out, though, that public and academic libraries have their own integrated library systems and perhaps it would work better for schools to have their own too.
Davis asked if this would be a pilot project or would the category be extended. Adams said she intended for it to be a category in 2007 as a pilot that would be extended thereafter.
Rick Krumwiede and Lisa Strand introduced a proposal for a Public Library Economic Impact Study. Krumwiede noted that a study of the impact of school libraries had been done and he would like to see a study done of public libraries in Wisconsin. He noted that two states (South Carolina and Florida) and five large urban libraries had conducted studies, but they do not apply well to Wisconsin.
The Wisconsin Library Association Foundation is supportive of the proposal and said that it would provide additional funding toward the study if $50,000 is not sufficient. The foundation would also help disseminate the results and partner in the project.
Lisa Strand noted that the Wisconsin Library Association board had not formally supported the grant but she felt it would be supportive.
Gingery asked about disseminating results—have they talked about that? Krumwiede said the Campaign for Wisconsin Libraries provides some exposure and structure to help toward that end. Strand said that materials could be developed for individual libraries for distribution.
Pearlmutter said it would need a dissemination plan that would go well beyond the library community. For instance, media center studies may be well known by the librarians but are not necessarily well known by school administrations.
Richmond asked what categories were measured in the previous studies. Krumwiede said they were pretty complex studies. She commented on the “brain drain” in Wisconsin and that, perhaps, the model could help support education expenditure in this state.
Davis noted that the Wisconsin Public Library Consortium had done some survey work a few years ago that might support or could be replicated to help show trends.
Onufrak asked whether this would be a sample or targeted survey. Richmond asked if this would include all types of libraries. Krumwiede noted that public library service would be the subject.
Grobschmidt said we hear much anecdotal evidence to support library services and this type of study might help further prove the return on investment.
Marini asked when the South Carolina and Florida studies were done. He suggested that the full range of services should be incorporated. Libraries can be a hard sell when you go to a town board or small community governing bodies.
Pearlmutter said that studies from other states may not be effective or usable because circumstances differ. Richmond wondered about the focus and said there are standard economic indicators to show growth and wondered if these could be connected to the library effect. Cross commented that other measurable, more direct impacts are targeted. They might not necessarily imply that local economies will improve.
Branson distributed copies of letters and an email that had been received.
T.B. Scott Public Library in Merrill sent a letter asking that guidelines for the proposed digitization category be changed so that they may be able to do a subsequent grant. Berger asked if guidelines would need to be changed to allow this. Branson confirmed they would. Gingery noted that system grants might have allowed new libraries, but in this case the proposal would be for an individual library. Branson said the intent of the proposed guidelines was for only new libraries to be included. Drew noted that, while another agency (Marathon County) had acted on behalf of Merrill previously, now they would like to apply themselves.
Sampson asked why the limitation was there. Branson explained the demonstration concept behind the program and that the LSTA Advisory Committee seemed to want to encourage and support new applicants. Drew said there is no investment in local equipment, that the grants are for digitization of materials only.
Berger asked what the chances are that the category could be increased—is there a limit on how much UW-Madison can do? Drew said that there is a limit to what UW can handle, since there is considerable hand-holding in the process. Perhaps, instead of increasing the number of projects we could increase the amount for each application. Berger asked to confirm whether libraries throughout the state are expected to only use the UW model –are we limiting what can be digitized? Drew said that product is a known commodity--UW-Madison has a good process for converting and hosting, but the Wisconsin Historical Society has announced that a Content DM server will be hosted and may be able to host materials for libraries (not necessarily scan the materials). Burton wondered what the percentage of completion is. Drew said that we have barely started to address the need. Richmond said that the wording of the category might work for T.B. Scott. Drew said that some who have contributed to the other projects before might want to contribute again.
An email from David Polodna asked the LSTA Committee to develop a new plan that shows a bigger vision for the LSTA program. Berger commented on his point of the Sensory Disabilities category and said that, if we have not changed the guidelines, we should do so. Davis suggested that some editing can be done to make the category less restrictive so that general and specific projects could be done. Marini said that there was extended discussion last year and wondered if the category has gotten too restrictive—why not open up the literacy portion to all age groups. He says he has not seen much change in the language yet. Davis said that the seniors category could be edited so that seniors could be separated off from the rest with the insertion of a period. Cross noted that the category has been in place only two years. He noted that the category title had been changed and that some changes have been made in the language and that schools can be included as partners in either category.
Burkhalter commented on the block grant portion of Polodna’s letter. He said he does not have a problem that some of the funds are for block grants but perhaps we have gone too far. He said block grants can be very useful, rather than having all the funds be competitive. He sees a place for smaller block grants that have a stated purpose and entities that can use and benefit from them. He would like to see availability of funds for projects that perhaps could not be funded in any other way. He warned against replacing state dollars with federal dollars at the system level. Davis said Polodna makes good points in that some systems may be using the block grants to pay for equipment or services they might otherwise have paid for. The category may need some adjustment so there’s evidence to ensure that the funds are used, in essence, as venture capital. Pearlmutter said she does not know the history but wondered whether there is the need if there are categories for which there are no more applications than there are grants. But she knows, too, that often grants are written for categories only because the categories are all that there is, not so much that the need is there. She suggested the pre-proposal concept be introduced so that the committee could perhaps review ideas and then invite more developed grant submissions. Onufrak said sometimes he has applied in categories where there might not necessarily be a need. On the other hand, it is often good to have the funds available for service when you have the need. For block grants, it is nice to know that there is an area where all the systems are equal since not all systems can have grant-writing expertise on staff.
Pearlmutter left the meeting at 2:07 p.m. to teach a class.
Marini said that Polodna’s letter puts into words many of the concepts and ideas that were discussed last year. Not all libraries can take the time and effort to submit applications. He also liked the idea of pre-projects that could be submitted and then developed. Kiely commented that the long-range plan ties back to the current program, and it may be the plan that is the problem. If we develop a new plan, it should incorporate a new vision and perhaps have broader input. Sampson said that the pre-proposal concept might be a good way to get ideas for the next five-year plan.
Peter Gilbert, Lawrence University, submitted a letter requesting support for the economic impact study. There were no comments or questions.
The public hearing concluded at 2:10 p.m.
Review Agenda
Branson reviewed the agenda. She suggested that questions be asked and comments made as we proceed with the initial review of the proposed categories.
Review Minutes of November 29-30, 2005 meeting
Berger moved, seconded by Marini, to approve the minutes as submitted. Gingery noted a change for page 8 to omit the line “Consideration of Preliminary Categories for 2007.” The motion was approved as noted.
LSTA Coordinator’s Report
Branson provided updates on the federal budgets for 2006 and 2007 and the LSTA Maintenance of Effort (MOE) penalty. We received just over $18,000 more for FY 2006 than we anticipated. We do not yet have an appropriation for FY 2007 and likely will not have it in November, so we will be using an estimate. The President’s preliminary budget earlier this year had a slight increase in LSTA. It should be safe to base the budget on the current appropriation. She explained the MOE penalty and the Division’s argument for a waiver of the penalty, noting that the penalty for 2007 is expected to be about $110,000. The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), the agency that administers LSTA at the federal level, contacted the Division and said it will consider our request for a waiver. They requested additional information and apologized for a delay in responding to our waiver request.
Procedures for Discussion of LSTA Grant Categories and Conflict of Interest Policy
Branson noted a couple of items in the conflict of interest policy the committee operates under that relate specifically to this meeting - members may not discuss, make motions, or vote on categories in which they have a conflict. Davis asked if Branson is the chair and Branson stated that she facilitates the meetings. If there are questions about the policy, she and Mike and Rick will determine how to proceed.
Preliminary LSTA Budget 2007 Overview
Branson asked participants to review the yellow budget sheet. She noted that the final carry-over amounts will be established by the fall and we may have a better idea of the FY 2007 appropriation by that time. Cross noted that the projected dollar amount for 2007 is less than we had available this year and the committee will have to address the difference. Branson noted that funding history is included on the second page of the budget sheet.
Consideration of Preliminary Grant Categories for 2007
Reference and Loan
Drew stated that there are no new positions proposed and any increases are for salary or fixed costs that Zimmerman has estimated for next year. Reference and Loan Library is working on some major projects that are funded through other channels but some projects are carried out with LSTA funded staff, including BadgerLink and the state depository program.
Kiely, referring to the growth of the category over the years, asked whether staff have been added. Drew did not think so, but said the direct costs for materials and services have increased because DPI has applied more overhead to the funding model, which caused a jump. Branson said she recalled some shift between WISCAT and the Reference and Loan Library salary line items a few years ago. Gingery referred to the minutes on the distribution of funding for the entire division, but Drew said she did not know, offhand, the distribution for Reference and Loan, but that she manages multiple sources of funding besides federal and state funds. Grobschmidt recalled the 2003-05 budget changes that led to some transfer of positions to LSTA and vacating some positions. Zimmerman noted a correction that should have been reflected in the footnotes to page 1 that the fixed costs per employee have increased.
Public Library Development
Cross referred to page 7 of the handout (Preliminary LSTA Ideas 2007). Funds are used to support the technology consultant position and related work. Bocher works on the E-rate and coordinates the Gates Foundation grants. The part of the budget under the Library Improvement category includes 80% of Cross’s position and Huntington’s position, as well as annual meetings of system coordinators in various categories.
Statewide Resource Sharing access / WISCAT
Drew and Clark referred to page 9 of the handout and the RFP information sheet. Clark pointed out that the WISCAT RFP is underway, so the budget is a status quo since new amounts are unknown. Drew noted that 2004 must be the year that staffing was realigned, based on the budget amounts on page 9. Drew said that the current WISCAT costs were fixed over the term of the contract. Drew pointed out that the budget amount was left the same since the committee did not have a recommendation, but that the cost likely will change, as may the vendors. The Department of Administration approved the RFP process. Direction for the “next” system has developed gradually over time requiring a narrowing of focus for the RFP. The notion of a single circulation system was dropped from discussion. She said the list of items for possible inclusion in a product came out of discussions with the Library and Information Technology Advisory Committee (LITAC). Cataloging functions are included but not required. A union catalog is desirable with added virtual catalog functions. An ILL management system is required. She has requested that the product demonstrations be opened up beyond just the RFP review group. People who attend the product demonstrations can submit written feedback on criteria to be established. LSTA, LITAC, COLAND and perhaps SRLAAW (System and Resource Library Administrator Association of Wisconsin) will be invited to the demonstrations. All attendees will be required to sign confidentiality agreements in order to attend. Feedback from attendees can be taken into consideration by the evaluation committee.
Gingery asked the committee to consider the mission of the funds and how the categories should be balanced. He noted some comments last fall by Polodna and Kiely on the use of federal dollars and commitment to state resource sharing - what does the resource sharing solution need to be to meet the highest number of users throughout the state in order to make a pragmatic use of funds toward that end. We are number one in ILL in the U.S., so we are already successful, but that is because we have good regional sharing. Regional sharing offers the greatest opportunity, as well, for multitype sharing. A few years ago a study was done on who does requests on WISCAT. Most of the use, 89%, was by public libraries. There was not nearly as much for school or academic libraries. The Milwaukee County Federated Library System has not cast its lot for a resource sharing solution. It uses both WISCAT and OCLC, although two systems and a resource library have already switched to only OCLC. He notes that 2007 is a year that a change could really be considered for the LSTA categories. Perhaps we need a union catalog, perhaps a virtual catalog, perhaps simply an ILL management system building on the regional resource sharing. He said the category should be renamed to be more generic and suggested - state resource sharing access/technology. He said the name WISCAT should be removed from the category name. He does not agree with some of the primary core functions listed in the RFP and said they were never approved by LITAC. He proposed that the Reference and Loan Library categories be combined into one category. He thought they should be combined to avoid sounding like there is a pre-determined outcome. He noted that the RFP states that vendors can submit bids based on any of the three technology components but he said the requirement that the vendor that best meets all three may not be the best option for the library community.
Drew noted that they tried to take the name “WISCAT” out of the language as much as possible but that every instance did not get changed. The RFP does not refer to WISCAT. She said there are very few mandatory requirements in the RFP and she does not maintain that there is consensus in the state.
Richmond asked which two categories Gingery would like combined. Gingery said the Reference and Loan Library and the WISCAT category. She agreed we may not need all three categories--ILL Management, Virtual and Union catalog. She said her main concern is that she went to an in-service on NCIP, ISO and thought that there is so much duplication. She is bothered by what she sees as two columns of users in the state diverging. Gingery points out that things have changed in the state and we are much more regionally based than we were five or ten years ago and as these systems grow that will become even more so. We may need even more of a state union catalog that can be built upon through the intra-state regional sharing that has developed. Richmond says that in the outlying parts of the state there is not as much multitype participation because of the lack of resource libraries.
Dawson said the notion of a physical union catalog and a virtual union catalog that is superior to one or the other may contain unnecessary additional cost. Drew said that the two would not have to be distinct and she thinks the notion of the hybrid we currently have is not necessarily what is implied in the RFP. The ability to have an ILL management system connect with a local ILS is what became desirable, since it can indicate availability and some of the new standards can achieve that. She thinks that the two paths are beginning to merge. She would like to be able to have the ILL system use one step for “shipped” to “check out” the item from the ILS. One patron file would be another example of desired features. The process is to find out what the vendors can do.
Davis asked about the “Subject Matter Experts” who will review the process and how the LSTA Advisory will come together to talk about money (since we were brought together too late to talk about the RFP process). Where does the committee come in the process to talk about the LSTA money to be put toward the process? Drew said there will be three parts of the rating structure: what vendors can do, a subjective review, and a review of costs. Davis thought LITAC had wanted costs to be considered. Drew said that generally the review committee does not see the cost since that can affect the other subjective judgments. Generally costs are submitted in a separate process and analyzed and included after the first two ranking components. It is possible that a vendor could come in for more money even after the analysis, and then negotiations can come into play. In order to be able to establish a contract, we may either need to narrow the scope of functions or broaden the range of funds that the library community can bring in. Davis asked when in the steps costs could be considered by the LSTA Advisory Committee. Drew said it would probably be after initial negotiations, after a notice of intent is issued. It is not a given that, if a vendor proposes more funds than available that the vendor would be excluded.
Marini asked Gingery whether combining the two categories would result in cost savings (Gingery was not sure), and whether by going with OCLC there would be cost savings. On the second part he thinks there may be, though he knows his system acts in a different manner. His system is already putting $120,000 toward OCLC that might help address a solution. He cringes to think that they will spend that and then state and local costs will be duplicated. Marini said that some systems do not use OCLC, so they feel more isolated, but he also wears a WILS hat and can see the other side.
Berger welcomed the discussion and thought the discussion should be broadened. If systems can cover the extra costs of OCLC then it may be achieved, but that cannot happen if individual libraries have to cover those costs. Sampson asked whether OCLC will be part of the vendor pool. Drew said she has every indication it will be.
Davis noted that she knows bid processes can be difficult. Sometimes a few iterations may be required, resolving who is participating and how much they can bring to the table. She noted that if too many libraries indicate that they would drop out due to price increases, we would not be able to assure adequate funding. Drew said she is aware that some do not agree with the scenario and the process and she wishes that more time were available. Berger asked if there is a “Plan B.” Drew said that, if one of our current vendors had not been bought, that might have been more feasible, but now she is not sure. Plan C would be to do nothing. Davis asked whether a report on the facilitated discussion with public library system directors with Deb Johnson would be available. Drew said yes, but she doesn’t have it yet. Davis expressed that she hopes the process can be opened up enough to allay some of the concerns. Drew said it is her perception that the biggest split in opinions on options is in the public library community. Drew confessed that the facilitated meeting did not bring much consensus or resolution. Gingery said he disagreed. He thought there was unanimity and consensus in the public library community. Branson asked whether others were there and could comment. Davis said she has concerns about physical versus virtual and thought there was consensus in the SRLAAW report. If consensus is 100%, then we don’t have consensus, but there was considerable agreement.
Berger asked what the “consensus” was. Gingery said it was OCLC and that the feeling was that not much additional functionality is required. He said that he felt that 80% thought we do not need the extra features. Davis thought that patron-initiated requests are not necessarily a shared goal for the product, based on that discussion. She confirmed that quite a bit has changed even since the RFIs. Clark said she didn’t think that the RFP process would be opposed to the possible goals. Davis thought that the input for the process was not necessarily included in the RFP outcome. Onufrak said he would like the discussion to be continued since he would like to think about it more. He wondered what would happen if the resource libraries started to use OCLC despite what the system may do. He said part of the problem is in understanding the bid process. What if the systems went to Drew and said that, despite the RFP process, they would use OCLC?
Marini said that OCLC is changing and getting very aggressive internationally, which may affect the marketing of the product here.
Branson said a contract does not have to be for five years, but it is difficult to make changes of a statewide product or service annually.
The group broke for the day at 4:13 p.m.
Wednesday, April 12: 8:30- 2:30
Branson called the meeting to order at 8:30. Thompson absent.
Public Library System Technology Projects
Bocher reviewed the category and the cost increases. He highlighted some uses of the funds in the category.
Gingery commented that strong support is needed in this category since in his system upgrades and changes for new technology require additional support. The need remains strong. Berger asked if this category was referred to by Polodna as an entitlement category and the answer was yes. Richmond asked if this is one of the categories where school libraries and institutions may be included in system participation. Davis suggested that, in the upcoming planning process, all uses be considered for continuation or change, not just the categories suggested in the hearing. She does not consider this a dysfunctional category. Pearlmutter wondered if the distribution formula works or if the number of libraries should also be factored in to accommodate multiple locations. Onufrak and Gingery suggested that the status quo seems to work well and gave some examples of how supplemental funding had been used in the past. Zimmerman and Bocher said that the formula is updated and Bocher said that geographic area factor seems to accommodate increased numbers of libraries. Burkhalter said that he has the same number of libraries in Mid-Wisconsin Library System as he had in the Southwest Wisconsin Library System when he was there, but the population of the area and the size of the libraries changed considerably. Davis suggested that the formula mirrors the way public library system funds are distributed. Puntney said that Polodna’s comment that this is an entitlement may be a disservice since the funds go into services, not system office equipment. Gingery suggested that some other established and ongoing programs may also be considered entitlement—this is not a huge amount of money to beat ourselves up about. Marini said that last year he asked about the formula and recalled that all system attendees, including Polodna, were satisfied with the distribution.
Shared Integrated Library Systems
Bocher explained how the funds work as an incentive for libraries to jump-start participation in shared integrated library systems. He suggested that the funds may have helped increase the amount of participation. We will have nearly 87% of libraries participating in shared automated systems by the end of 2006. He reviewed the three types of requests that are eligible. He reviewed the grant priority criteria and the ADA requirements that are incorporated. Finally, he reviewed a summary sheet of system estimates for potential requests.
Berger asked whether, if we budgeted the “low end” there would be libraries that could not participate. Sampson commented that the category is beneficial and has helped the Indianhead Federated Library System achieve automation that benefits all types of libraries. Gingery asked how we would handle the proposal for bringing school libraries into shared systems. He suggested that schools have not been very aggressive in resource sharing and it may benefit them. Branson said the school issue will be discussed under the next agenda item. Sampson said the problem with schools is that they tend to be the most restrictive with Internet access and that could affect participation. Dawson said that if this is the last year for public library participation, funds may be freed up in the future. Bocher said we had discussed options last fall and thought that further consolidation of existing system may be achieved. He confirmed for Dawson that the bulk of the funds have been used for new libraries to participate. Onufrak said that 2007 was kept as the “last year” in order to encourage those who are “waffling” to make up their minds and that the last 10 percent are libraries may not participate anyway. He thinks it is time to move on and away from this category. Davis agreed with the sentiment that it be the last year. Burkhalter said that knowing there was a deadline encouraged many of his libraries and ignoring it may hurt credibility of LSTA categories. Bocher confirmed that most of the libraries that are not participating are smaller and may not join anyway.
Shared Integrated Library Systems Cost Study Update
Bocher referred committee members to the Channel article included in the packet. He reviewed the McClure/Moen study of shared ILS costs. Branson said that some of the information in the study concerning costs is applicable to possible inclusion of school libraries. Burton asked if there is there is a need to put some of the funds aside to help cover ongoing costs for systems. Bocher said that the block grants are available to cover some of those costs if they choose. His concern is that the block grants not be used for ongoing costs since that could jeopardize innovation. Onufrak explained that long-term capital costs are built in and should be assumed in membership agreements. Davis said that new features for shared systems sometimes cannot be distinguished from items that may be ongoing for other systems.
Shared System Study for Schools
Bocher discussed issues of including schools, how that may be achieved, and the impact on other types of libraries. He proposed a focused study, perhaps in the CESA 10 and 12 area (related to the proposal presented yesterday by Adams) to ascertain the issues. Gingery said it is smart to do the study to determine what the interest is throughout the state. Pearlmutter said this is an area that could have a lot of unexpected consequences where some of the benefits we have in public libraries may not apply to school libraries and she has concerns about the cuts in school districts that leave the libraries in a precarious position. She said it is not the same if you do not have the materials in the building, since planning and waiting are not always understood in public school learning. She hoped any study might look at what the unintended consequences might be. Dawson expressed support and said that there have been great benefits to public libraries but we cannot assume that public schools have the same needs or circumstances. Onufrak concurred with Dawson and suggested that delivery of materials may pose challenges as well, since that may not be available or achievable throughout the school community. There has been a history of resistance to sharing. Marini said he respects what is being said but has a different perspective since he is with the schools but involved with public libraries. A study may be important, but a number of CESAs have looked at the issue and looked at options and it is time to go ahead. Surprisingly many of the questions come back to his satisfaction: CESAs have delivery and work with school systems and work with public libraries. Schools already share materials among CESA members, although materials may not be in WISCAT. He thinks the project presented by Adams is a good test project to proceed with since they have members willing to participate. Richmond said there are differences in different parts of the state. She pointed out that at one time the public libraries did not want to share. There may be areas and circumstances that are reasonable to fund. She would like to see a real study or maybe a real project.
Davis asked Marini to confirm that public schools within CESAs are ready to share and have the mechanisms to do so. He said it would open up the collections. He thinks this may show the potential and possible success. To fund the product a new model might be established to encourage others. Davis said that resource sharing might be done in another method from what we are used to, but she is worried about the “Pandora’s Box” issue of lots of ongoing need and demand. Marini thinks that we will not see so high a level of participation, but there are areas where cooperation is needed and wanted. Davis wondered whether there are other sources of funds. Steffan said that the Common School Fund is the only other form of state funding. Sampson said that schools in her CESA areas do share if asked. She is curious whether requirements for extension of services to home schools or private schools could be written in or required. She would like to see a determination of inclusivity in the grant applications.
Onufrak said that the argument can be made that we funded participation of public libraries so why not fund school libraries. He has concern, though, that IT staff at schools are strapped, so how can this be achieved? Steffan said that IT staff at the CESA would do the support. Marini said there is acknowledgement that more staff may be needed, but that central troubleshooting and coordination will help. Drew asked whether a new category is being requested or only the study. Steffan said that the same funding formula that was used for public libraries would be used for the school libraries. Bocher referred to the green sheet that Adams had circulated that the project required $75,000. Burkhalter commented that it varies district to district how much home schooled children are included in local public school programs. He sees a problem of equity in the funding balance based on the size of school districts (student population) and size of communities (municipal population). Dawson said he is more comfortable now with the idea of a study rather than the pilot program. What are the critical factors in determining the public school issues? To wait a year when more funds may be available may be the time when more pilots may be considered. Gingery said his opinion falls more in between the two options. He would be more comfortable if the proposal left public library systems out of the discussion since there may be too much additional difficulty in assuming that public library systems are ready or willing to participate. Berger said she dittos Dawson’s comments that a study would be appropriate first with a pilot later. Puntney suggested that some areas of the state, particularly in more rural areas, the option of additional startup support may be required to get it going. They need the help. Marini said that the pricing is based on number of buildings more than population. Even if we did a pilot project in the $90,000 range, that is not a lot of money for an new project. DPI could provide oversight to see, during the pilot, what is working and what is not. He thinks that a study only spends money without outcome.
Richmond said this needs to go into the broader planning for the future and this has implication for the statewide resource sharing as well. Kiely said she is more comfortable with the study since she would like more information. There is merit in including schools. She wishes Thompson were in attendance so we could hear her perspective. She pointed out that there is not much leeway in the LSTA budget for 2007 for a new project. She commented on the element of cooperation and comments made. There are challenges that would be faced. Great benefits, yes, but consensus and compromises may be difficult to achieve. Burton said the study should be broad enough to include the actual costs to the district since school districts are already facing funding problems. Grobschmidt said that the state superintendent is promoting the new Wisconsin Promise to close achievement gaps. Rural Wisconsin has particular problems, pointing to the problems faced in Florence. In order for the state to be economically viable in the future, all types of libraries need to cooperate and work together. BadgerLink is a good example. He thinks that some of these issues had already been discussed in reference to academic libraries and we have gotten beyond that. He would like to know how that transition took place.
Digitization – Local Resources
Drew pointed out background information pertinent to the category. Committees have worked on standards for scanning, metadata, architecture for storage and access, and marketing. Access through the UW-Madison metadata harvester will provide information. Storage may be distributed, with coordinated searching and access. UW-Madison may have a model available by July. Also, the Wisconsin Historical Society will provide a Content DM server so that smaller libraries may host their materials on a robust server. There may be major differences since our approach with UW is “cradle to grave” with considerable oversight. There may not be the same kind of standards, coordination and oversight with the Wisconsin Historical Society option since libraries would have to, on their own, create then provide the digital records. Content DM works with the Open Archive model. WiLS will put $25,000 toward the Wisconsin Heritage Online (WHO) project this year. WiLS (WHO) will serve as the project coordinator and the UW, the Wisconsin Historical Society and others can then participate.
Drew proposes to continue working with UW-Madison to conduct the projects approved. UW-Madison prefers bigger projects but understand that we have a goal of education to prepare libraries for ongoing projects.
DeBacher asked whether libraries can use their own funds to supplement the grant in order to do larger projects. He expressed some concern that there may be a black hole of need that we cannot meet with LSTA funds.
Pearlmutter said there may be some changes in how the UW’s criteria change—if there is money, then the priorities may change. They may be finding that the items being submitted through LSTA may be getting more use than those “high” priority items on their own lists. Dawson supported the idea of an open archive project—there may be too much potential, but by adopting standards we may be able to overcome the bottleneck that UW-Madison has presented. Sampson asked whether the current proposal is for status quo with possible changes next year. Drew confirmed that we may not have to have the requirement, but since we have such a limited amount, and UW has the capacity for that, we have a process that already works. If we change, we would have some homework and background development. Davis said she supports the overall direction since South Central Library System already does projects for member counties with system funds. But planning for the future of LSTA might expand the category and allow the developing standards to expand options.
Branson asked for comments on the limit to allow applications from new libraries only. Kiely said perhaps our priorities could address the ranking instead of ineligibility. Drew said we already have had some continued participation. Pearlmutter said she would not like to restrict to only new applicants since the impact on partnerships may be too restrictive. Onufrak said that in the past we wanted to establish the restriction for purposes of making limited money more available. Perhaps we should go simply on the merits of the project, not whether they have participated before. Pearlmutter wondered whether the review could consider past participation as one of the ranking criteria. Branson said that DLTCL might need to sort that out but it could be incorporated. Richmond wanted to be sure that standards are upheld. Kiely said that some of the past projects had very good grants and last year’s discussion was whether the category should simply encourage new libraries to get allowed. She thinks we should still encourage more to learn what is involved.
Virtual Reference
Drew said the service started in January and media events are planned for April. The cost has increased but just includes the OCLC cost increase. We have to decide whether to absorb the cost or fund the same amount and parcel out the additional cost to participants. Davis said that, since we are trying to get this introduced and off the ground, we should avoid the barrier of distributing the additional costs. Kiely asked how many systems are participating. Drew said 15 out of 17 have committed; one of the two not participating had no director at the time. No one in the state has been cut off from participation. Davis pointed out that the various participants are listed on the sheet. Sampson said she would advocate for her system’s participation in the future since she had gone through the training.
Delivery Service Projects
Drew said the Delivery Service Advisory Committee has new members and met in January, but no new budget will be developed until the May meeting. Gingery said that the systems have had to pick up some of the costs and that, for his system, the relative cost is high, yet the benefit is for the entire state. He would like to see an increase. Berger wondered whether fuel price increases may have an even greater impact, yet the amount is decreased. Burkhalter said that use is a big factor in the budget formula and that the volume between his system and Lakeshores has increased dramatically but that the fees assessed systems address some of this. Richmond suggested that DPI include interconnection of CESAs and libraries in the next state budget request. She made a motion that the DPI investigate the amount and include in its state budget request a statewide delivery system for CESAs, and school and public libraries. Gingery seconded the motion. Drew said that such a request had been included the last time. Richmond said she wanted to expand it to schools. There was no further discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
Adult, Family, Early Literacy and Sensory and Mobility Disabilities
Huntington commented that Polodna’s letter for the public hearing can be interpreted at many levels. She says he is right that planning must be done and she showed some of the planning documents related to services to users with special needs and said the current categories are written to carry out these plans. She asked whether we need to have a new approach. She reviewed the various aspects of the categories and the special needs groups addressed.
Burkhalter commented that personnel costs may have been an issue in the past. Kiely said she feels the needs and goals for the categories are important and justified. Huntington pointed out the progress that has been made on achieving accessible workstations in libraries throughout the state. Sampson said she advocates for unisex accessible restrooms. Richmond asked whether retrofitting a door could be in a separate project. Huntington said the requirement for a full grant is to have marketing. She said, though, that it is hard to hide a door and perhaps it could be provided as a separate project, but it would have to be targeted and incorporated to meet the population needs. Richmond said it can be daunting to build a grant when all you need is a door. Huntington said the change from LSCA to LSTA might require general special needs projects as opposed to capital projects, but Branson said limited capital projects were eligible within LSTA. Dawson said that a door category could include a marketing component to address documented special needs. Huntington wondered if there was enough money for such a category. Kiely suggested a matching requirement. Burkhalter wondered if such a category would be competitive. Huntington said it might be difficult to make it competitive. Burton wondered whether studies have been done to see whether putting the doors in has made a difference. If these are demonstration projects, how can the success be demonstrated. Burkhalter said that we must be prepared to extend this for many years so that the need can be accommodated on an ongoing basis. Huntington said that, since the funds can be raised locally if it is truly desired, does the committee really want to include it.
State Institution Library Coordination
Huntington said LSTA pays a portion of the salary of the library consultant position in the Department of Corrections. The person coordinates library services to inmates and patients in state mental institutions and prisons. She also works to get libraries in the state prisons and coordinates their services and support. She said there were about 17,000 interlibrary loan transactions last year for the prisons, a percentage of which went through Reference and Loan. Pearlmutter said she has had students who work in prison libraries in other state that do not have statewide coordination and that the concept is important to ensure adequate levels of services and support.
Richmond noted that state agencies no longer are required to hire librarians with MLS degrees. She noted that the person funded works mostly in corrections now. Marini asked how many prison and other libraries are included. Huntington said there are seven juvenile and more than fourteen other libraries that have their own libraries. Marini asked how they are funded. Initially they were included as the prisons were built. The Department of Corrections funds the librarians. Onufrak said he does not feel it is our responsibility to fund the position after the current consultant retires since it is a state requirement.
Communications and Planning
Grobschmidt reported that this funds participation in COSLA (Chief Officers of State Library Agencies), LITAC meetings, and the meetings of COLAND, as well as the printing and mailing of Channel. Onufrak suggested that we keep it as is.
Economic Impact Study
Cross said DLTCL staff recommends $50,000 for an economic impact study of public libraries in Wisconsin. DLTCL Staff would develop an RFP with input from a broader group. Onufrak suggested that the results be simple enough to quickly convey information to governing boards and municipal bodies. Burkhalter said that in press interviews the return on the dollar is frequently asked. He has been able to cite other studies that have been done, but often the question comes to whether Wisconsin costs are known and it would be valuable to have that information. Branson distributed copies of the article that Krumwiede circulated on Tuesday. Kiely expressed support for the study. She felt the report may even show weaknesses in service that could then be addressed. This could also assist in displaying measurable outcomes to donors and foundations. Gingery wondered how the amount was developed. Cross said the cost of other states was reviewed and there is a possibility of supplemental WLA Foundation funding. The current constraints in LSTA funding were also considered. Pearlmutter said that the Florida study was $150,000 and the South Carolina study was about $95,000. Marini wondered if the final outcomes could be combined with some promotion. Cross said the project could dovetail with the Campaign for Wisconsin Libraries.
Additional Grant Categories for Consideration (from committee and public hearings)
Branson asked if there were any other proposals for grant categories. Davis said she would like to allocate some money toward the planning effort that is being done for LSTA. Perhaps resources could be applied toward that end. Sampson asked about access by the incarcerated to materials for their defense and wondered if it would fit into our categories. Gingery said that, as a process issue, the categories were considered on an individual basis—how is the overall budget considered. Could we consider the whole before the parts are considered? He is thinking in terms of 2007. Branson said there has been some discussion about broader issues. During the recommendations, the projects are proposed as motions are made and persons making motions can explain what their thinking is in terms of their proposed motions. Berger said there has been discussion of the new five year plan. Branson said the topic would be addressed under the next agenda item.
School Library Impact Study update
Steffan reported on the study that had been conducted with LSTA funds and referred to the flyer that outlined key findings from the study. She also distributed copies of a more detailed report the consultant had compiled. She thanked LSTA for providing the funding for the study and feels the results will have a positive effect on ongoing support and funding, although it may not entirely stem the cuts to school media programs throughout the state. She outlined some of the key findings resulting from the study. She noted that all the results are at DPI but not in a format that can be distributed. She distributed State Superintendent Burmaster’s press release on the study. Results will also be distributed and presented at regional meetings for CESA’s school development and curricular specialists. Davis asked whether the results were correlated to economic data for the school districts. Steffan said that supplemental funding was measured. She noted that previous studies noted that the library was the second indicator to help build student achievement.
LSTA Administration
Branson noted that the budget for LSTA Administration continues to include expenses for the LSTA Advisory Committee, an indirect charge by DPI (charged to all federal programs), and salary money for a person in the federal aids and audits section of DPI who handles the financial reports from libraries participating in the LSTA program.
Recommendations on Grant Categories and Budget for 2007
Branson invited motions for grant categories and budgets.
Berger moved Virtual Reference at $70,100, seconded by Onufrak. No discussion. Carried unanimously.
Onufrak moved State Institution Library Coordination at $25,000, seconded by Puntney. No discussion. Carried with one opposed.
Marini moved to fund the Shared System Study for schools as a joint study with the CESA 12 pilot at $80,000, seconded by Burton. Pearlmutter said that the recommendation for a $15,000 study should be discussed. Marini said that the study would be conducted simultaneously to achieve the pilot and the study. Pearlmutter said she was speaking against the motion. She said that $80,000 may not be enough and that the study should be done first. Richmond said she supported Marini’s motion to find out something concrete. Marini said some costs would be one-time. He pointed out that the maintenance, wiring and personnel are addressed already in LSTA. Onufrak said he would support the study but not the motion. The motion failed with 3 in favor and 9 opposed.
Berger moved $15,000 for the Shared System Study, seconded by Dawson. Sampson asked whether it is focused to the group that submitted the pilot proposal. Berger thought it would not be focused. Richmond thought it should be focused since the $15,000 would not cover much. Sampson said it should be focused on an area where it could work. Branson asked for a show of hands. The motion carried with 12 in favor and 1 opposed.
Kiely made a motion to approve the Economic Impact Study at $50,000, seconded by Puntney. Unanimous approval by show of hands.
Burkhalter moved DLTCL Communication and Planning at $25,000, seconded by Onufrak. Davis suggested that funds be set aside for a thorough study of statewide LSTA planning. She proposed ½ of 1%, or $15,000 and moved to amend the motion to increase it by $15,000, seconded by Dawson. This would be included in communication and planning and used for conducting the study. Branson said she did not want to complicate the issue, but this money is for 2007 and the money for planning is needed this year and the 2006 money is already allocated and the only way she could see to fund the addition would be to pre-commit some of the carry-over to conduct the planning session in 2006. Davis said she envisioned a separate special planning process. Onufrak proposed withdrawing the amendment. Davis concurred. Kiely asked whether the amount of money for planning would be discussed next. Branson said she would present what had been done for the previous five-year LSTA plan and would entertain input for the next one. Original motion carried unanimously.
Gingery moved Library Technology Projects be funded at $400,000, seconded by Puntney. Gingery noted there was a reduction from 2005 to 2006 but the needs were still there so he thought an increase was in order. Burkhalter suggested that in the past extra, left-over funds were often folded into this category which is why it was higher in some past years. Davis says she has testified in the past on the usefulness of this category because it is generally for services that are of benefit to all libraries. In South Central Library System they have done digitization and virtual reference. Other systems are interested in the ability to pay for more Overdrive content. Dawson wondered how approving the high end of the range would affect the bottom line. Cross said that the amount could be amended and reduced later. Marini said he could support the lower ($350,000) but not the higher amount. Branson called for a vote. The motion carried with 11 in favor and 2 opposed.
Burton made a motion to fund Digitization at $35,000, seconded by Onufrak. Onufrak asked whether the current language would be included. The motion was approved unanimously.
Puntney moved $250,000 for Literacy, seconded by Kiely. Puntney said that Huntington demonstrated the needs this morning. The motion passed unanimously.
Marini moved $662,100 for State Resource Sharing Access, seconded by Gingery. Davis asked about the process, whether there would be a special meeting. She wondered how an amount could be approved now. Branson said that the RFP process precludes this group from reviewing the amounts in the bids. Drew said that some aspects might be able to be reviewed. Drew said that the actual bids may not be distributed but that the framework of the final product and proposed fee structure might be able to be distributed. Marini said that, despite the unknowns, we would at least know that the price would not be cheaper, so this would serve as a placeholder for funds. Burton said he agreed with that general assessment and that this would confirm that the committee agrees that some resource sharing tool is required and that this amount generally is approved. Gingery said he would oppose the motion both for the amount and for including the WISCAT name in the motion. He would make that as a friendly amendment if necessary. Marini did not care what the category was called. Berger pointed out that if all libraries joined Endeavor with Stevens Point, there would be a solution. Discussion and consensus ensued to call the motion to approve State Resource Sharing Access (not WISCAT). Pearlmutter asked what happens if the cost for the product comes in too high. Drew said that some sort of review will need to take place to determine if the final outcome is achievable. Dawson said it is difficult to figure out what “this” is worth to us when we don’t know what “this” is. We can only give our best shot for a placeholder and see how it shakes out. He thinks that the RFP holds some potential to increase the utility for the final product. Branson said it had been her understanding that the committee could not review the product that would be selected. Drew responded with several possible outcomes. Branson asked if this committee approved an amount and the cost is in excess, than would the committee need to be further involved. Marini said that the committee is one step in the process. This is only a recommendation to the State Superintendent and she may have more information for the ultimate decision. Richmond noted that there will be product demonstrations this summer and wanted to confirm that they would occur whatever the amounts might be. Would the committee be involved if additional LSTA funds are required? Branson said the Superintendent could act independently, but Grobschmidt said he would be surprised if input from the committee were not requested. Gingery said he hoped Drew implied that the entire library community’s input will be included in the assessment process. The committee would be invited to the demonstrations and questions might be passed along to vendors. Whether the committee could consider the decision before the November meeting is not known but it might happen if there is a great disparity in funding. Branson asked if Drew would have signed a contract by November. Drew confirmed that, ideally, she would like to. Onufrak pointed out that we have funded all the categories at their full amount so we will come up short if that continues. Onufrak wondered how the $150 amount for WISCAT fees for libraries was previously developed. He confirmed that we lost some customers at the $150 level. He wondered how many more would be lost if that amount increases.
Davis commented that we don’t know what this will cost and perhaps the model for AskAway should be used for WISCAT and not have the expectation that LSTA money will always be used. She wonders if that is the direction to go. Branson said the committee could make the motion this year or could include it in the five-year planning process. Drew pointed out that the Reference and Loan budget and the WISCAT budget are not directly related and do not overlap much. She said that only part of the staff for Reference and Loan is for interlibrary loan staff. Burkhalter said he is one of the systems “sitting on the fence.” They currently pay for the WISCAT amount for the libraries and the allegiance of the libraries is only there by virtue of the fact that the fee is paid for them. By cooperating with Lakeshores, they will have access to OCLC and the connection to WISCAT may become even more tenuous. Davis said she would be willing to defer the conversation of having a sunset for funding for statewide resource sharing. Puntney said, based on conversations she has had, Lakeshores is waiting to see what functions there will be and how it will meet the needs of their system. Confusion comes in not knowing what the product will do. Perhaps it will do many things but not well, which is like the product that we have. She would not support more of the same. The motion carried with 7 in favor and 5 opposed and 1 abstention.
Burton moved $640,000 for Reference and Loan, seconded by Dawson. Motion carried unanimously.
Dawson moved $75,000 for Delivery, seconded by Onufrak. Berger commented again that we have been funding projects at the maximum levels and will not have enough money for everything. Gingery suggested that the higher end of the scale should be used for funding this category. Onufrak concurred. The motion carried with 12 in favor and 1 abstention (Davis).
Marini moved to approve the Sensory Disabilities category at $125,000, seconded by Puntney. Berger asked how behind we are in the funding. Zimmerman reviewed spreadsheet. The motion carried with 12 in favor, one opposed.
Onufrak moved to approve $249,000 in Library Development-Library Improvement. Kiely seconded the motion. The motion carried with 11 in favor and 2 abstentions.
Burkhalter moved LSTA Administration at $90,000, seconded by Richmond. The motion carried unanimously.
Dawson moved to approve Library Development Technology at $126,000, seconded by Sampson. The motion carried unanimously.
Puntney asked what the highest amount would be for Shared Systems. Burkhalter noted that his system would apply for $85,000, not $15,000. So the higher amount of $420,000 is more likely.
Onufrak moved to apply $275,000 to the Shared Systems category, seconded by Kiely. Burkhalter asked Bocher to review the system for prioritizing the grants. The first priority would be to fund libraries that are not currently part of a shared system. Pearlmutter wondered whether merging shared systems could be funded in the future without contradicting the existing category. Bocher confirmed. Burkhalter commented that scenario likely would affect only Indianhead, since his project will be completed. Branson asked if ending the category is included in the motion. The answer was no. Pearlmutter wondered whether other categories would be subsequently changed. Onufrak suggested some changes, including reducing literacy and the system grants. The motion carried with 10 in favor and 3 opposed.
Dawson said that the biggest amount, with the most “wiggle room” is the Library System Technology Projects category and he proposed a motion reducing that amount to $370,000, seconded by Onufrak. Richmond commented in support of the category. The motion carried with 11 in favor and 2 opposed.
Burton moved to reduce State Institution Coordination to zero, seconded by Gingery. Richmond suggested reducing it to $15,000 instead of funding the full $25,000. She said that a big project is in process. She hoped that the reduction would be assumed by the Department of Corrections. Gingery hoped the Department of Corrections would pick up the full $25,000. Pearlmutter commented that it is not a large amount in their overall budget but that many services have nonetheless been cut. Sampson wondered if we could recommend that DPI could pick up an amount. Grobschmidt said that it is only here because there are not sufficient general fund revenues. Drew said that the budget is set for the biennium so the positions are already approved. Branson called for a vote. The motion failed with 2 in favor and 11 opposed.
Berger moved to reduce State Institution Coordination to $15,000, seconded by Richmond. The motion carried with 12 in favor and 1 abstention.
Onufrak moved to reduce the Literacy category to $230,000, seconded by Berger. The motion carried with 7 in favor and 6 opposed.
Dawson moved to reduce Digitization to $25,000, seconded by Puntney. The motion failed with 5 in favor and 6 opposed.
Burkhalter moved to reduce State Resource Sharing Access to $633,900, seconded by Onufrak. The motion carried with 11 in favor and 2 opposed.
Burton moved to change the language for digitization to public libraries, public library systems, and state agencies, with priority given to those libraries that have not previously received funding, seconded by Dawson The motion carried unanimously.
Sampson said the pre-proposal/letter of intent concept seemed popular yesterday and wondered if that could be incorporated. Marini noted that the $110,000 penalty really had major impact on the budget for 2007. Onufrak wanted to note for the State Superintendent that we did the best we could with what we had.
Grobschmidt noted that COLAND had gone on record that the LSTA penalty is the consequence of the Joint Finance budget in the past. If the waiver is granted, it may allow for some funds to be re-allocated.
Review LSTA Plan Evaluation Progress Report
Branson distributed an outline of how the last LSTA 5-year evaluation and 5-year plan review process was conducted. She noted that the next 5-year evaluation (for 2003-2007) is due in March 2007 and the next five-year plan (2008-2012) is due in June of 2007. Berger suggested that the systems collect information from their member libraries for part of the review process. Davis said that perhaps it would be good to collect data from the public library directors. She encouraged that an outside group collect data so that it could be more objective and that all groups could be heard in the process. Pearlmutter said there may be merit in having systems obtain information. Perhaps the low response from library directors in the past was because information has not been successfully conveyed to the member libraries. That would also allow the systems to convey how much the libraries benefit from the programs that individual libraries do not necessarily apply for. Dawson wondered if both forms of input be encouraged. He suspects that many of the smaller libraries in the past were not connected electronically for purposes of answering an online survey. Marini noted that school libraries are not included in the mix of groups included in the review and perhaps WEMA could assist in collecting information. Steffan said that information from the CESAs should also be included, and perhaps WLA and WAAL. Puntney said that WLA is still looking for programs for fall and a program on LSTA might be included. Zimmerman said we could require a section in the annual report, which would improve the response rate.
Branson suggested that if we had a broader process we might find out why individual libraries do not submit applications. Onufrak said that some of his smaller libraries do not want to spend a large chunk of time putting together a grant that may not be funded.
Burton said that assessment and result sharing should be included in the next five-year process to evaluate the past plans. We need more than anecdotal evidence, like we have for the power doors. Did any of the things we did in the past do anything for quality or quantity of what how our business is conducted? Davis said she would like to see more in the evaluation than a summary of what was done.
Grobschmidt suggested a sub-committee of the LSTA group could address the methods for conducting the review. Onufrak said that a Web survey may be effective. Grobschmidt said that a product called e-Huddle may be available for use to get some participation electronically.
Review of LSTA Process for 2007
LSTA Timetable, Review Process, Application Form, Rating Criteria
Branson asked for members who are interested in looking at the application form to volunteer to help evaluate and suggest changes.
Final Comments
Next meetings:
Tentative July 13-14 and 17-18 (to review State Resource Sharing Access RFP process)
Branson encouraged members to participate in this process.
November 2006 (week of November 13). Branson will notify members of the dates.
The meeting adjourned at 2:30.
Minutes prepared by Peg Branson.
Return to LSTA Homepage.
Peg Branson
LSTA Program Coordinator
Division for Libraries and Community Learning
Public Library Development
125 South Webster Street, P.O. Box 7841
Madison, WI 53707-07841
(608) 266-2413
peg.branson@dpi.wi.gov
Last updated on 2/25/2008 9:05:58 AM
Home
Locate Us