LITAC Meeting Notes
October 12, 2007

Member Present: Mark Beatty, Anita Evans, Peter Gilbert, Leanne Hansen, Jeanne Higgins, Travis Jiskra, Jim Davis, Vibeke Lehmann, Judy Lyons, Cathy Markwiese, Ruth Ann Montgomery, Josh Ranger, Marilyn Rassmussen, Annette Smith, Stacy Steven, James Trojanowski.

Members Absent: Allan Barclay, Dawn Nordine, Stef Morrill, Alan Engelbert.

Staff Present: Bob Bocher, Sally Drew, Martha Berninger, Terry Wilcox (a.m. session), and Lisa Reale (introduction only).

The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Bob Bocher.

Review and approval of meeting notes from May, 2007
Jim Trojanowski pointed out an error on Page one, committee work schedule, paragraph 2, second sentence. It currently reads "She is happy to work on that paper, but notes that she won't on LITAC after the October meeting." The word "be" needs to be inserted before the word "on".

Anita Evans asked if someone was going to sign the minutes. Sally Drew will sign them since they were taken by Mary Clark who is no longer with Reference and Loan. A motion to approve as corrected was made by Peter Gilbert with second by Jim Trojanowski.

Committee Work Schedule: Strategic Plan and Issue Papers
Sally Drew asked for changes and comments on the strategic plan and issue papers. She reminded the group that the issue paper format was designed to help structure the Committee's efforts, work toward consensus on issues, implement solutions, and reach closure. She recommended that existing issue papers on topics that have been implemented be considered final so they can be posted on the web as closed, rather than remaining in draft format.

There was general consensus to review outstanding issue papers and close those that have been fully implemented.

Bob Bocher pointed out that the next meeting is scheduled for February 2008, not January 2008 as shown on the current LITAC schedule. The change was noted and will be made.

Sally Drew assigned Access to Electronic Resources for People with Disabilities to herself, and she requested volunteers to assist since she doesn't consider herself an expert on the subject.

Jim Davis offered that a member of his staff (Diane Rozanski) may be able to help. Bob Bocher may be able to identify staff members to work on the paper. Peter Gilbert will work on the paper.

The Privacy and Safety in Electronic Information Access paper hasn't been assigned. Donna Steffen raised the subject, and she may be intending to work on it with the school library team. Mark Beatty said the next OCLC paper on privacy will be issued in the next few weeks, and it could be helpful in drafting the issue paper. Bob Bocher will work on the paper.

Sally Drew clarified that the Interlibrary Loan related technologies paper slated for October will deal with NCIP technology that allows interlibrary loan systems and circulation systems to communicate. She hopes that the paper can also help move forward the issue of statistics coming from interlibrary loan systems.

Sally Drew said we haven't been able to get a waiver to exempt BadgerLink from the bidding process. She has activities related to drafting RFP requirements on the schedule beginning in February, 2008 to allow plenty of time. In the last round the process allowed us to get highly competitive and robust proposals from vendors, and she hopes that will be true this round as well. The process will require a group working on an ongoing basis.

Vibeke Lehman commented that she was surprised we couldn't get a waiver since she thought there was mostly sole source content. Anita Evans said she felt it is an advantage to have a longer time frame for the process. Cathy Markwiese will help with the RFP process; she has significant experience working with vendors and contracts.

Sally Drew will bring a general description to the February meeting so we can talk about how to get comparable information from all the vendors. We will have to see how much of the information we can share internally while still keeping the information confidential. We need to have the RFP ready to go next fall to get it out in time. We need to appoint an evaluation team, and she hopes to have representatives of LITAC on the team.

Cathy Markwiese asked if anyone knows anything about the release of Historic Abstract on American Life on EBSCO. Several members said they believed it was a trial release. Sally Drew will look into it.

Strategic Visioning Conference, Spring 2008

Sally Drew explained that the State Superintendent has approved a spring visioning summit that was proposed by COLAND. The conference is tentatively scheduled for spring so it can be conducted before work begins on the budget for the next biennium. The Planning Committee, which includes Drew, Peter Gilbert and Jim Trojanowski, met twice this week. Information will be gathered pre-conference in live sessions and using a variety of technologies. Vibeke Lehman asked if attendance would be by invitation. Sally Drew said it needs to be by invitation to ensure representation by libraries of all kinds, from all regions, and including staff members from all levels. The budget will currently support a maximum of 100 attendees. Jim Trojanowski explained that there will be a nominating process, but because the Committee wants the conference to be broadly inclusive there will be lots of ways for individuals to offer input. Peter Gilbert said there will be many online and face-to-face opportunities for members of the community to participate in the process. Sally Drew said the conference will narrow down broad input and it is being looked at as the beginning of a long process working with COLAND, LITAC, and other committees.

Leanne Hansen said the School Library Journal gathers information yearly prior to their conference and she is one of the Wisconsin representatives. She will share what she learns about the information gathering process. Jim Trojanowki said the Planning Committee wants the library community to share just those kinds of ideas about how to improve the process of information gathering.

Bob Bocher said that a few current members of LITAC were part of the statewide technology conference held in 1998; and because there weren't as many technologies for gathering input, a number of pre-conference sessions were necessary to make the conference fully representative. This time around we'll be leveraging technology to really open the discussion, so no one should have reason to feel their input couldn't be shared. Jim Trojanowski said that once the systems are established for gathering input the Committee will be encouraging individuals to share their ideas. Bob Bocher said the Division would be making its first press release on the conference in the next week or two.

Wisconsin Library Technology Strategic Plan

Sally Drew said that she is working to mesh the Wisconsin Library Technology Strategic Plan and the State Superintendent's report to the Council on Library and Network Development on Interlibrary Cooperation and Resource Sharing. Sally Drew requested that committee members give her editorial changes on paper so the discussion could revolve around substantive changes.

Anita Evans pointed out an error on Page 10, Goal 5 in the wireless section. It currently reads "In 2005 just 26% of Wisconsin's public libraries offered this service. This increased to 43% in 2005." The percentage of libraries offering wireless increased to 43% in 2006. That correction will be made. Jim Trojanowki asked Bob Bocher if he has a feel for where we are with wireless access and Bob Bocher predicted that by the end of 2008 there will be 70% plus public libraries offering wireless access.

Mark Beatty asked where we stand in terms of bandwidth, and Bob Bocher said that it is becoming a significant issue. Some libraries are now using two different networks to accommodate their needs for bandwidth. From the public library perspective libraries will need to build bandwidth into their budgets going forward. Bandwidth is addressed in Goal 5 on Page 4 of the Wisconsin Library Technology Strategic Plan. Bob Bocher mentioned he'd met with the state CIO in August and discussed the bandwidth issue. The current state contract with AT&T is in place for five years and it locks in a set bandwidth. A hodge-podge is developing as organizations try to meet their needs. There's a line in the budget awaiting approval that allows $6 million per year in E-rate funding for bandwidth, but that's a band-aid.

Anita Evans commented on item #6, Page 6, in the BadgerLink section, "Encourage all types of libraries to create a prominent link to BadgerLink on the library's website." She suggests that instead the plan should call for a branding initiative. Sally Drew responded that Lisa Reale, the new BadgerLink coordinator, is working on a branding presentation for WLA. She acknowledged that there are some gaps in BadgerLink presence on library websites, but believes the coverage is getting better.

Cathy Markwiese asked if the document was referring to WorldCat on Page 9, Item 1 under Goal 3, where it lists OCLC. Sally Drew said yes.

Sally Drew asked if anyone wanted to discuss any other goals and objectives, and no one requested more time to comment.

Bob Bocher commented that technology will undoubtedly play a big role in the spring visioning conference, and he suggested that the Technology Strategic Plan be reviewed again after the conference.

Sally Drew asked if the group had reached consensus on the goals and objectives, and the group responded affirmatively.

Information Literacy Issue Paper
Annette Smith presented the paper as Donna Steffen and Dawn Nordine were not present. Ideas from the last meeting were incorporated into the current draft of the paper. The group is struggling with the fact that many of the organizations who publish standards for information literacy are in the process of updating their standards, so the paper needs to remain in draft format for now. The standards released by the 21st Century Partnership are the newest and most inclusive. The group will revise the document and incorporate updated standards if possible before it is reviewed again in May, 2008.

Annette Smith commented that Donna Steffen asked that the group focus on Page 14, Issues, Activities and Recommendations. She would like to form a subcommittee including non-school people and representatives of other types of libraries to work on this section. Donna Steffen believes the current document is strong enough to allow a subcommittee to begin work.

Jim Trojanowski commented that he had forwarded the paper on to a colleague with a strong background in information literacy, who lives in another state. The colleague thought the report was quite good.

Vibeke Lehman asked for clarification on whether Activities 1 and 2 on page 15 refer to two separate committees or if one single committee will be formed. Annette Smith said they would like to get one group working on best practices to begin with and other groups can be formed later as needed.

Leanne Hansen and Judy Lyons volunteered to act on the committee. Annette Smith commented that WEMTA should have a representative on the committee.

Judy Lyons commented that everyone on a library staff does information literacy training, or should, not just reference or children's librarians. Annette Smith said that the group working on the information literacy paper agrees that all librarians should take ownership of the issue.

Sally Drew asked what the group envisions as models, as they are mentioned on Page 15 of the paper. Annette Smith explained that they refer to models for information literacy programs. The group has talked about learning what other states have done where multi-type information literacy consortia have been formed.

Sally Drew said the background in the paper was great, but she'd like to see more clarification on measures of success. Annette Smith said she would discuss with Donna Steffen the need for adding some concrete activities. Sally Drew said she doesn't intend her comments to be construed as criticisms, but she feels it's important to find ways to document progress concretely, a survey or website review, some measurable activity.

Anita Evans said that at the University they view information literacy skills provided through the library as an outcome rather than strictly an activity. Annette Smith said that WAAL is in the third year of awarding information literacy awards and the standards applied could be examined with an eye toward adapting them to the issue paper. Travis Jiskra asked about Page 16, Item #4, and Activity 3. He wondered if this is where the activities take place, and if so, when they will be accomplished. Annette Smith said they added dates to Page 16 to ensure that there would be deadlines for activities. Jim Davis said that he'd like to see Milwaukee Public Schools represented in the plan.

Annette Smith said the group began very conceptually and broadly because that was the direction they felt they'd received from LSTA. Josh Ranger suggested that at present the issue is so big that it may require funding from the legislature and if that's true it will have deadlines attached.

Sally Drew said she would like the paper to become part of the spring visioning conference. The more we have done the better it will serve that purpose.

Annette Smith remarked that the BadgerLink section of the Technology Plan mentions training, which could be an information literacy activity. Sally Drew commented that it could be part of the concrete measurement of the process, and we'll need more detail to get to that level.

Interlibrary Loan Issue Paper
Sally Drew mentioned that at the last meeting she reminded the group the ILL issue paper was begun in 2004, and pre-dates the terms of the current Committee. She said that much of the existing paper deals with implementation that has been accomplished. There are still policy issues remaining, but this may not be the best group to resolve those issues. The ILL work group has worked on many of the policy issues. Sally Drew recommended that the current paper be considered final, and another ILL paper, one focusing on technical issues alone, including standards, can be started.

Anita Evans said that it would be helpful to insert a comment on Page 11, under Item #8 dealing with the budget issues because the budget cuts that have taken place have had an impact on ILL.

Bob Bocher asked about updating the chart on Page 3, Volume of Interlibrary Loan requests made. Sally responded that creating the chart made her realize how inadequate our statistics are, given that they don't accurately reflect lenders. She suggested that a discussion of how we might get a good statistical picture would be useful. WISCAT numbers are just part of the bigger picture. There may be other technical issues worth investigating as well. Sally said she would put up more current statistics.

Sally Drew asked if the current Interlibrary Loan issue paper can be considered final and posted as such, and the group agreed that it could.

Consumer-Driven Technology Issue Paper
Cathy Markwiese presented the paper that she and Stef Morrill wrote. Stef's term on LITAC expires this month and she was not present.

Cathy and Stef became interested in writing the paper because they noticed that the proliferation of new media formats and devices is increasingly impacting public libraries. Patrons checked out lots of CDs when iPods came on the market, and once they had loaded their favorite CDs onto their iPods demand dropped. Now patrons want to use streaming formats for use outside of the library. The rise of services that allow consumers to download and keep content will challenge libraries. The NBC network delivering shows in streaming format the day after their broadcast is one example.

Libraries are being challenged because patrons don't necessarily understand, or want to hear, that libraries can't necessarily offer newer media formats to them the same way they have been able to offer books or media recorded to tapes, or discs or DVDs because producing companies have instituted digital rights protections and aren't selling content to libraries in a way that fits in the existing model of lending and circulation. iTunes, for example, imposes a digital rights limitation that libraries can't work with.

Cathy commented that she and Stef were sensitive to the fact that they'd shared a lot of questions, but not many answers.

Annette Smith said that school libraries have been working hard to overcome the digital divide, but now the market is forcing them to confront the issue because they aren't making it easy for libraries to offer newer format media. Learning Express books come with discs, for example, that contain additional exercises and resources that can't be used by more than one person.

Jim Trojanowski commented that it is a challenge for the libraries in his system because directors are asking why iPod won't accept media in all formats. At the staff level we have to train people in how to respond to these kinds of patron requests.

Cathy Markwiese suggested public workshops to educate patrons on the various formats and the limitations they impose, and which devices will and won't accommodate the different formats.

Anita Evans said if you look at this from the perspective of a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) the vendors are now selling to our end-users. Digital object identifiers are now being added to products which have the effect of eliminating the library as a middle-man. Annette Smith said that people who are information literate can find ways around the technical issues and limitations.

Cathy Markwiese asked how we report activity to the state when circulation doesn't accurately reflect the full range of activities being conducted by our patrons inside and outside of the library. Jim Trojanowski said that we recognize that circulation doesn't accurately reflect library activity anymore. Josh Ranger pointed to studies showing what the public thinks libraries should provide, and we aren't offering and can't provide everything people want.

Cathy Markwiese remarked that OCLC's last report showed that people think libraries equal books, and the public doesn't necessarily see libraries as places to access new media or audio-visual materials.

Josh Ranger said the way people think about their music is different now. People act as their own mixing studios now, downloading music directly and creating their own play lists. They don't see libraries as playing a role in this process. Are we wringing our hands over something our patrons don't want or expect from us? Cathy Markwiese said that beyond the legal issues involved the new media also creates big problems with bandwidth. Jim Trojanowski remarked that he doesn't know if his staff is willing to be trained on how to work around the barriers between different types of media and various devices.

Sally Drew asked the group to return to a discussion of the background statement and then move on to looking at the issues, rather than jumping to the recommendation stage. She recommended that the group discuss which issues to address at the next meeting. The discussion was suspended for the lunch break at 12:00.

Bob Bocher brought the meeting back to order at 1:00.

He commented on the statement on page 1, in the 4th paragraph, which mentions a "shortfall of content". He questioned whether that is actually the case, and said that DoIT at the UW-Madison campus regularly gets notes about IP addresses that are being examined for excessive downloading. Bob also mentioned that the move to digital TV in 2009 will mean that programs will flood onto the market and studios are now wrestling with the issue of how to retain control over that content.

Sally Drew asked if anyone had additional items to be added to the background of the paper. Josh Ranger said that lots of libraries have locally produced programming in their collection and they have to learn how to protect their rights as content producers as well. Cathy Markwiese remarked that she and Stef haven't discussed the copyright issues intrinsic to the questions being discussed. Mark Beatty mentioned that libraries are often dealing with copyright and the terms of the specific license the library signs with the vendor.

Sally Drew asked if the group thought it necessary or helpful to try to quantify the number of difference devices and formats that come into play. Cathy Markwiese suggested they could check for sourcebooks that quantify the market for consumer devices and streaming media. One such publication is Digital America 2006: U.S. ConsumerElectronics Industry Today, Arlington, VA: Consumer Electronics Association. The URL is www.CE.org. She said it is an annual with OCLC #44651340.

Several members of the group expressed concern over the viability of quantifying the total market, given that cell phones can now store media, as can hand-held devices, laptops, and more. Cathy Markwiese agreed that the convergence of devices makes it hard to quantify the market size, but noted that the proliferation of new media devices and formats is almost certainly tied to the decreases they've seen in circulation and door counts in the past few years. Jim Trojanowski asserted that the lack of national standards for new media complicates any effort to quantify the market.

Bob Bocher mentioned that the public library survey conducted by the Public Library Development Team asks some questions about digital use, but they've found it tough to quantify demand. He said that ALA and others have been trying to sort this out unsuccessfully for about a decade. Sally Drew said that our ability to survey people also affects the outcomes of all of our surveys. The collection methods don't offer a way to contact people who have cell phones, a key component of the market for any of the new technologies. Jim Trojanowski said that this is another example of the huge and growing divide between the information-haves and the information have-nots.

Cathy Markwiese said her colleagues at the Milwaukee Public Library tried to retain a webpage design that was compatible with Netscape 4.0 to accommodate users with older systems, but they've recently had to abandon that effort, as they were losing the more high-end users, and they're now concerned about the impact on less technically proficient patrons.

Sally Drew reminded the group that LSTA has an innovative technology grant category and perhaps some of those funds could be used to support demonstration projects.

Jim Davis said that we're competing against increasing odds, and perhaps we need to recast the library altogether. Maybe it's time to think about what the library will look like and offer ten years from now. As I look at the dynamic in school libraries I see that students want to get on the computers, they're not interested in the books.

Cathy Markwiese said she believes there's still a significant role for experienced librarians. They can save their patrons time and trouble conducting research.

Annette Smith said that we have to think about what libraries should look like in the future or we risk becoming irrelevant. I hope the visioning conference will help.

Stacy Stevens said they have a lot of information "have-nots" coming in to the library, along with patrons who are having problems with their home computers. The latter want the library to provide them technical support for their home systems. Annette Smith asked how the digital divide should be addressed, given that one traditional role of the library has been to advocate for the "have-nots". Sally Drew mentioned that the issue paper talks about providing equipment for patrons who have content but not the proper device, but not the issue of those who have neither the content nor the device.

Jim Trojanowski asked if the paper should take a broader approach, and incorporate electronic journals. Sally Drew said there may be other angles to consider. The paper demonstrates that we're dealing with consumers who are ahead of us and consumers who are driving us.

Marilyn Rassmussen asked how libraries can keep their staff current on all the new technologies. Peter Gilbert suggested perhaps we need to offer staff something like Project PLAY, being offered by the South Central Library System, Outagamie Library System (OWLS) and Winnefox Library System. The program encourages patrons to learn about new digital media and Web 2.0. He also mentioned that his business office is confused about whether some media purchases now should fall under capital expenditures or acquisition. They struggle in particular with sources like JSTORE, which you don't really own, just use.

Jim Davis said that patrons expect services now that violate copyright, and he's not sure what the best way is to deal with expectations that libraries may not be able to support long-term. Cathy Markwiese said staff has to be better educated so they can communicate to their patrons what the library can and can't offer. Judy Lyons asked if a lot of the folks demanding the new media are not traditional library patrons, folks who may not be long-term library patrons anyhow. Cathy Markwiese commented that Milwaukee's been inundated with requests to purchase current and popular music and entertainment media, and the demand may simply be insatiable.

Jim Trojanowski asserted that this is a dilemma our society as a whole is facing; people who want everything for free. Libraries are traditionally in the habit of trying to satisfy patron demand, and now we're saying no, and patrons don't like it. Jim Davis suggested that libraries may have to rethink their basic charter. We can't do everything for patrons and we can't pay for everything anymore. We're in a technological society where companies are making money differently and we need to recognize that. Jim Trojanowski said we've created a trap by saying that libraries offer things for free when in reality we've been paying for materials all along.

Sally Drew concluded that the paper is a great starting point and has captured lots of the thoughts on the impact of new media on libraries. In the next meeting we can decide which specific elements to tackle.

Virtual Reference Issue Paper
Jim Trojanowski said that Northern Waters hasn't seen much use of AskAway, and they are considering dropping out of the program. Their libraries agreed that they wouldn't promote it and they aren't interested in promoting it. The small libraries in the system haven't been doing reference and they don't want to. Jim feels this will be a serious loss to patrons. Cathy Markwiese asked Jim Trojanowski if he could break out any parts of his system that are using BadgerLink because they may be more likely users of AskAway. Jim Trojanowski said he thinks there's a different attitude towards BadgerLink. He has to ask himself how much time it makes sense to devote to promoting a service they don't want.

Sally Drew reminded the group that the state agreed to fund the program on an experimental basis and some libraries are delivering their own stand-alone virtual reference services. She proposed that the funding model may not be adequate. Asking libraries that contribute staff to the chat portion may not be a self-sustaining model.

Anita Evans said some libraries are using Meebo. Do we want to educate staff on how to use something like that, which is easier to use than AskAway? We need to put together a package that meets the needs of everyone.

Jim Trojanowski said he wrestles with libraries that say their patrons don't need or want ILL or reference services. Cathy Markwiese said we saw some libraries that weren't willing to promote some services and their patrons went to other libraries for those services. Jim Trojanowki acknowledged there's a certain amount of territoriality. Libraries are trying to protect their resources for use by their own hometown patrons. Jim Davis said maybe we need to define libraries first, rather than trying to define a specific service offered in the library. Judy Lyons said that in the business world companies present what they want to sell, where as in libraries we have to respond to what our patrons want and say they need. Cathy Markwiese proposed that we need to have a clear idea of our mission. We have to define what we'll provide and we've been asked to do all kinds of things. Sally Drew asserted that information delivery has been a core part of our mission and the scenario now seems to be changing.

Annette Smith said maybe we need to refer to the vision conference mission statement to determine whether or nor not, or where this service fits. Sally Drew reminded the group that they can also contribute discussion items to the agenda of the visioning conference. She asked the group if they felt the background had been covered adequately.

Peter Gilbert suggested that the section on the migration of reference traffic be moved to the front of the paper to set up the current situation, and then move into the details.

Sally Drew said we need to consider how virtual reference services of different kinds can play together and we need to allow libraries to server their own patrons on a stand-along product. As we envision the library of the future we need to consider the hours of operation, and how virtual reference services can expand those hours. She asked if the group could think of any other issues related to virtual reference. None were put forth.

Federal Legislative Update
Bob Bocher reminded the group that he had set handouts on ALA issues and Internet Access Principles on the back table.

The Public Library Development Team is going to try to get more funding from the Gates Foundation to improve public library connectivity.

Bob Bocher thinks the version of the online predatory legislation that includes education provisions will pass.

He doesn't believe that the Internet Neutrality bill will pass until more phone companies begin blocking messages.

Recognition of members whose terms are expiring
Sally Drew acknowledged the following members of LITAC whose terms are expiring:
Anita Evans
Marilyn Rassmussen
Annette Smith
Alan Engelbert
Vibeke Lehmann, whose term lasts through 2009, but who will be retiring early next year
Stef Morrill
Josh Ranger

She encouraged members whose terms are expiring to consider staying on to volunteer to help with papers.

The next scheduled meeting is February, 2008.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

For questions about this information, contact Robert F. Bocher (608) 266-2127

Last updated on 2/25/2008 12:28:42 PM