LSTA March 2002 Minutes

LSTA Advisory Committee
Meeting Minutes
March 6 and 7, 2002
Best Western East Towne Suites / Madison, WI

Wednesday, March 6, 2002

Members present: Joan Airoldi, Alan Engelbert, James Gollata, Ken Hall, Pamela Kiesner, Karen Krueger, Mindy LaBonte, Douglas Lay, Sandra Lockett, Kathleen Setter, Edward Van Gemert

Members absent: Sandi Szafranski

DLTCL staff present: Peg Branson, Mary Clark, Mike Cross, Sally Drew, Barb Huntington, Larry Nix, Cal Potter

CALL TO ORDER

Branson called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. She indicated that the first order of business would be the public hearing.

PUBLIC HEARING

Peter Hamon, Director of the South Central Library System, spoke to four issues. Hamon supported the request from the Delivery Services Advisory Committee for continued funding for Northern Waters Library Service delivery and the subsidy for the South Central Library System backbone delivery service. He supported increased funding in the noncompetitive library system technology category. He supported creation of a second tier category in the competitive shared systems category for upgrades to existing shared systems. Finally, he expressed concern about implementing a fee for WISCAT use.

Joan Airoldi, Director of the Northern Waters Library Service (NWLS), spoke to three issues. Airoldi supported increased funding in the shared system category and the noncompetitive library system technology category. She also supported the delivery funding recommended by the Delivery Services Advisory Committee, arguing that delivery is an integral part of shared systems. She said that the NWLS subsidy could be gradually reduced, perhaps to $15,000 for 2003.

There was no further oral testimony. Branson next called the committee’s attention to the letter from David Weinhold, Director of the Eastern Shores Library System. Weinhold, who is Chair of the State Superintendent’s Delivery Services Advisory Committee, requested that LSTA funding be increased for the extension of delivery service statewide. He asked that funding be increased 10% for the state delivery backbone service provided by the South Central Library System, and 10% for the delivery service for the Northern Waters Library Service.

Heather Eldred, Director of the Wisconsin Valley Library Services, submitted an email supporting continued funding of the delivery service categories. Eldred also questioned the value of the proposed adaptive technology category.

Rosalie Ness from the Department of Corrections submitted an email in favor of projects that result in support for the services and collection of the Oakhill Correctional Library.

Carol Gibson, System Coordinator of the Manitowoc-Calumet Library System, submitted a letter supporting retention of the noncompetitive special needs category. Gibson also argued for more flexibility in the allowable uses in the competitive special needs category.

Ken Hall, Assistant Director of the Winnefox Library System, submitted a letter proposing a significant reallocation of funding from a number of categories to allow for a major increase in the funding available for libraries to join shared systems. Hall would like to see a three year commitment of funds with the goal of universal public library membership in shared systems.

Mary Kotschi, Director of Library Services for the Winnebago Mental Health Institute, submitted a letter supporting continued funding for the State Institution Coordination position.

Sandy Robbers, Interim Director of the Indianhead Federated Library System, submitted a letter supporting the three proposed technology grant categories and the adaptive technology equipment category. In addition, she argued that there should be a noncompetitive special needs category and that the proposed competitive special needs category provide for greater flexibility in the allowable uses of the funding.

REGULAR MEETING–REVIEW OF THE AGENDA

Branson reviewed the agenda for the meeting. She explained that the staff will be going over each of the proposed grant categories. Committee members are encouraged to ask questions and to discuss each category as the staff goes over the category. Final action and recommendations by the committee will take place after the initial review of categories.

There were no additions or changes to the agenda.

MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 6-7, 2001 MEETING

Hall moved approval of the minutes. Seconded by Gollata. Motion carried.

DLTCL ADMINISTRATOR’S REMARKS

Potter welcomed the four new members of the committee and thanked the continuing members for their service on the committee. Potter reviewed the current state budget situation as it relates to the Department of Public Instruction and library programs. He noted that both localities and state agencies could be facing especially difficult times.

LSTA COORDINATOR’S REPORT

Branson reported that LSTA must be reauthorized by September 30, 2002. A reauthorization bill is moving forward in Congress. A coalition of library groups including the American Library Association and its units and the Chief Officers of State Library Agencies are pushing to get the authorized appropriation amount increased to $500 million, more than twice as much as is currently authorized. The 2003 federal budget is also moving through Congress. The President’s proposed LSTA budget for the state grants program is approximately at the current funding level.

LSTA FIVE-YEAR EVALUATION, 1997-2002

Branson indicated that DLTCL must submit a five year evaluation of the LSTA program in Wisconsin by April 30, 2002. As part of the evaluation process, the DLTCL conducted surveys of a number of groups and discussed the evaluation with a number of statewide library groups. Branson discussed the survey results and invited comments from the committee. Hall noted the high ratings in all of the LSTA surveys for the support of shared system projects (ranked either one, two or three). Krueger noted that the school library media survey showed that WISCAT was not used heavily for interlibrary loan purposes in school library media centers.

Branson reviewed a draft of the five-year evaluation of the LSTA program in Wisconsin. The committee commented on the draft and made some general recommendations and observations.

DRAFT LSTA FIVE-YEAR PLAN, 2003-2007

Branson noted that a final five-year plan is due July 31, 2002. Branson noted gaps in the current draft that need additional work. Kiesner suggested adding as a plan activity the support for uses of new and evolving technologies. Hall said that WISCAT was a tool and not an end in itself, and suggested that the plan language should focus on the goals and not the tools that may or may not be used to accomplish those goals. He noted that there is a difference of opinion in the state library community on the value of continuing the WISCAT union catalog. Drew responded that WISCAT is the name being used for new resource sharing projects.

Kiesner asked whether larger stand-alone automated systems will benefit from the linked system project and whether they could be considered shared automated systems and thus eligible for LSTA funds. Nix responded that he felt we would be willing to include larger stand-alone systems in the linked systems project. Huntington suggested language indicating support for use of adaptive technologies.

Lockett emphasized the need for more patron training in the use of information technology and the Internet. Committee members disagreed on the appropriateness of more LSTA support for digitization projects.

The committee adjourned for the day at 4:20 p.m.

Thursday, March 7, 2002

Members present: Joan Airoldi, Alan Engelbert, James Gollata, Ken Hall, Pamela Kiesner, Mindy LaBonte, Douglas Lay, Sandra Lockett, Kathleen Setter, Edward Van Gemert

Members absent: Karen Krueger, Sandi Szafranski

DLTCL staff present: Bob Bocher, Peg Branson, Mike Cross, Sally Drew, Barb Huntington, Larry Nix, Cal Potter, Al Zimmerman

CALL TO ORDER

Branson called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.

DRAFT LSTA FIVE-YEAR PLAN, 2003-2007 (continued discussion)

The committee continued to review the draft Wisconsin LSTA plan for 2003-2007. Airoldi suggested adding language in support of electronic delivery.

PROCEDURE FOR DISCUSSION

Branson explained again that the normal procedure for the committee is to discuss all categories before making formal motions on individual categories. She then reviewed the conflict of interest policy for members of the committee.

PRELIMINARY LSTA BUDGET 2003 OVERVIEW

Branson reviewed the handout entitled "Preliminary LSTA Budget 2003". She noted that the staff is using a projected appropriation amount of $2,800,000 and a carryover estimate of $60,000 for a total of $2,860,000 to allocate to grant categories for 2003. Total funds available are down significantly from 2002 largely because of an unusually big carryover from 2001 to 2002.

Branson alerted the committee to the possibility that reduced state spending for library services could result in a ratable reduction in the amount of LSTA funding available to Wisconsin in 2003 because we might not be able to meet the state spending maintenance of effort requirement.

Branson indicated that the staff had come up with preliminary recommendations for use of $2,700,800, but had not yet made recommendations for use of the remaining $159,200 available for allocation.

The committee’s recommendations on amounts for each grant category will be presented to the State Superintendent for a final decision on the preliminary budget amounts.

PROPOSED LSTA GRANT PROGRAM 2003

DLTCL Overview

Potter noted that the Division relies on LSTA funding for many services that should, but are not, funded by the state. He reported that state funding to the DPI is being reduced even further, with $700,000 cut for the fiscal year ending June 30 and possibly a similar amount for the next fiscal year.

DLTCL Communication and Planning

2002 Funds Budgeted: $39,900

2003 Preliminary staff recommendation : $30,000

Potter reviewed the use of funds in this category which includes expenses for statewide planning groups, membership in the Chief Officers of State Library Agencies Organization (COSLA), and expenses for mailing the Channel newsletter. Potter reported that the cut in this category reflected the fact that during these tight budget times efforts are being made to be as frugal as possible.

DLTCL Reference and Loan: Technology

2002 Funds Budgeted: $270,900

2003 Preliminary staff recommendation: $300,900

Drew reviewed the services at the Reference and Loan Library funded by this category. She reported that the 11% increase in this category is primarily due to a DPI requirement that the Reference and Loan Library now manage supplies and services costs as is now done in the rest of the Department on the basis of a department-wide formula.

DLTCL Reference and Loan: Resource Sharing

2002 Funds Budgeted: $229,900

2003 Preliminary staff recommendation: $251,500

Drew reviewed the services at the Reference and Loan Library funded by this category. She reported that the 9% increase in this category is primarily due to a DPI requirement that the Reference and Loan Library now manage supplies and services costs as is now done in the rest of the Department on the basis of a department-wide formula.

DLTCL Public Library Development: Statewide Library Technology

2002 Funds Budgeted: $125,800

2003 Preliminary staff recommendation: $127,900

Nix indicated that funds under this category are used primarily to support the Public Library Technology Consultant position. The small increase represents inflationary factors.

DLTCL Public Library Development: Targeted Services

2002 Funds Budgeted: $164,800

2003 Preliminary staff recommendation: $161,500

Nix indicated that funds under this category are used to support the Public Library Youth and Special Services Consultant position, to coordinate the statewide summer library program, to fund statewide meetings for public library system staffs, to collect and distribute public library statistics, and to provide continuing education opportunities for team staff members. Minor cuts result in a 2% decrease in recommended funding.

LSTA Administration

2002 Funds Budgeted: $103,000

2003 Preliminary staff recommendation: $96,300

Branson reported that funding in this category is used to defray costs related to the administration of the LSTA grant program. This includes staffing in the DPI federal aids and audits office, expenses for the LSTA Advisory Committee meetings, miscellaneous printing and supply costs, and an indirect charge by DPI to the program. Some cost reductions are projected in this category for 2003.

Library and Information Technology Advisory Committee (LITAC)

2002 Funds Budgeted: $8,000

2003 Preliminary staff recommendation: $5,000

Bocher noted that LITAC was created by the State Superintendent to serve as an overall library technology planning group. The group meets about four times per year. Funding is used for the expenses of the committee.

WISCAT and Linked Systems

2002 Funds Budgeted: $741,400

2003 Preliminary staff recommendation: $785,000

Drew provided an update on activities in this category. New software from Auto-Graphics is now being used for the union catalog, allowing more frequent updates in the database. The new Fretwell-Downing software is currently being tested by eight libraries for interlibrary loan management purposes (replacing QuILL). The Z39.50 linking component and the NCIP option to facilitate the link between interlibrary loan and circulation systems have yet to be implemented and evaluated.

The committee discussed the issue of fees for use of WISCAT. Potter said a committee will help develop a proposed fee structure for 2003, and any suggestions were welcome. Some committee members suggested requiring schools to pay fees, just like public libraries and library systems. It was noted that schools have paid fees in the past and it was assumed that they would continue to pay fees in any new proposal. Drew explained the Division desire to limit reliance on LSTA funds for WISCAT as well as the difficulty in determining who should pay how much for what services. The Division will also continue to try to reduce costs for OCLC archival tapes (budgeted at $100,000) by encouraging tape loading directly from local automated systems.

Library System Technology Projects

2002 Funds budgeted: $446,200

2003 Preliminary staff recommendation: $250,000

Bocher explained that funding in this category is distributed on a noncompetitive basis to public library systems using a formula. Funds can be used for a variety of purposes including Internet access, shared automated systems, and other technology projects. The LSTA survey results indicated that this has been perceived as a very worthwhile category.

Kiesner asked about enforcement of the requirement that system member libraries be involved in the development of these grants projects, and favored a stiffer requirement to ensure that system projects truly benefit member libraries. Lockett supported allowing these funds for training patrons in the use of technology.

Shared Automated Library Information Systems

2002 Funds budgeted: $400,590

2003 Preliminary staff recommendation: $200,000

Bocher indicated that the purpose of this category is to assist public library systems and public libraries in developing new shared automated systems or adding libraries to existing shared systems. Grants are limited to a maximum of $10,000 per library and an overall total of $50,000 per new or existing shared automated system. The committee discussed Peter Hamon's suggestion to allow these funds to be used for shared system software upgrades.

Delivery Services Projects

2002 Funds budgeted:

$5,000 Delivery Service Advisory Committee

$20,000 Northern Waters Library Service

$45,200 South Central Library System

2003 Preliminary staff recommendation:

$2,500 Delivery Service Advisory Committee

$45,200 South Central Library System

Drew reported that costs of the advisory committee have been reduced through use of videoconferencing, but that the South Central Library System that operates the statewide delivery service backbone continues to run a deficit on the statewide part of their service. The committee discussed whether it was appropriate to continue funding the Northern Waters Library Service delivery service.

State Institution Library Coordination

2002 Funds budgeted: $25,000

2003 Preliminary staff recommendation: $25,000

Huntington indicated that the purpose of this category is to provide partial support for the position in the Department of Corrections that provides coordination of state institution library services in the Department of Corrections and the Department of Health and Family Services. She reported that the statutes require the DPI to plan and coordinate the provision of library services to the institutionalized. Nix said that this had proved to be a very effective investment of LSTA funds and would not recommend a lower level of support. Hall indicated that he would like to keep reducing the LSTA support for this position.

Special Needs Projects

2003 Preliminary staff recommendation:

Adult, Family and Early Literacy (competitive) $250,000

Early Learning–Conference and Workshops $20,000

Adaptive Technology (competitive) $150,000

The purpose of the proposed Adult, Family and Early Literacy category is to promote and demonstrate the role of public libraries and correctional libraries in improving literacy for people who have difficulty using libraries because of their cultural or socioeconomic background. Huntington noted, in particular, the state's growing Hmong and Latino populations and the high illiteracy rates among the prison population.

Airoldi liked the proposed category and hopes projects reach all parts of the state. Kiesner also supported the category, but favored expanding the category to children beyond age three.

The Early Learning category would fund a statewide conference on early learning and the role of public libraries and would fund 10 to 12 regional workshops on the same topics. Engelbert commented that he believes other groups are in a better position to share brain development information with families. Huntington commented that other agencies may be in a better position to share information, but none had the free resources to lend to parents once they had the information.

The purpose of the proposed Adaptive Technology category would be to lower the barriers to library service for people with disabilities. Hall commented that LSTA technology projects can be used for this purpose and have been used for this purpose in the Winnefox Library System.

Other Possible Projects

Drew and Bocher reviewed the possibility of projects in the areas of expanded reference service, digitization, and participation with the Librarians' Index to the Internet (LII). No other grant categories were proposed by the staff or committee.

COMMITTEE ACTION ON CATEGORIES

Branson said that she would now entertain motions for recommendations on the amount of funding and the language for each of the recommended categories.

Hall moved to increase the Shared Automated Systems category to $500,000, make the category non-competitive, remove the limit of $50,000 per system, and require that libraries receiving LSTA funds for this purpose be required to have at least one computer workstation that is adapted to assist patrons with disabilities. Seconded by Lockett. Motion failed (Y 5; N 5).

Hall moved to increase the Shared Automated Systems (competitive) category to $350,000, remove the limit of $50,000 per system, and require that libraries receiving LSTA funds for this purpose be required to have at least one computer workstation that is adapted to assist patrons with disabilities. Seconded by Engelbert. Motion carried unanimously.

Lockett moved to increase the Library System Technology Projects category by $75,000. Seconded by Setter. Lockett commented that she felt the increase was needed particularly for patron training projects.

Engelbert moved to amend the motion to increase the Library System Technology Projects category instead by $159,200. Seconded by Airoldi. Motion to amend failed (Y 3; N 7). Original motion failed (Y 2; N 8).

Kiesner moved $96,300 for the LSTA Administration category. Seconded by Airoldi. Motion carried.

Hall moved $60,200 for the Delivery Projects category, including $15,000 for NWLS. Kiesner seconded. Motion carried. (Y 9; N 0; Airoldi abstained.)

Engelbert moved $300,900 for DLTCL–Reference and Loan and $127,900 for DLTCL–Library Development. Seconded by Van Gemert. Motion carried unanimously.

Lockett moved $250,000 for Special Needs Literacy. Seconded by Airoldi. Motion failed (Y 5; N 5).

Kiesner moved $785,000 for WISCAT/Linked Systems. Seconded by Hall. Hall commented that he would cut funding for this category if he knew where it could be cut. Motion carried.

Lockett moved $220,000 for Special Needs Literacy. Seconded by Setter. Motion carried unanimously.

Hall moved to add $30,000 to the Shared Automated Systems category (bringing it to a total of $380,000). Seconded by Engelbert. Motion carried (Y 7; N 2).

Engelbert moved $25,000 for the State Institution Coordination category. Seconded by Lockett. Motion carried (Y8; N 2).

Van Gemert moved $5,000 for the Library Technology Committee (LITAC). Seconded by Gollata. Motion carried unanimously.

Hall moved $2,500 for the Delivery–State Committee category. Seconded by Kiesner. Motion carried unanimously.

Van Gemert moved $30,000 for the DLTCL–Communication and Planning category. Seconded by Setter. Motion carried.

Engelbert moved $0 for the Early Learning–Conferences and Workshops category. Seconded by Hall. Setter commented that she believed this project was a valuable use of a small about of money. Lockett favored expansion of this category. Motion failed on a voice vote.

Hall moved to combine the Early Learning–Conferences and Workshops category and the Special Needs Literacy categories for a total of $220,000. Seconded by LaBonte. Motion carried (Y 6; N 4).

Hall moved adding $20,000 to the Shared Automated Systems category (bringing it to a total of $400,000) and changing the category to a non-competitive category, with the Division to establish criteria for awarding the grants. Seconded by Airoldi. Committee members debated the pros and cons of making this category non-competitive. Motion carried (Y 6; N 4).

Setter moved $251,000 for the DLTCL–Reference and Loan Library category. Seconded by LaBonte. Motion carried unanimously.

Airoldi moved $161,500 for the DLTCL–Library Development category. Seconded by Setter. Motion carried unanimously.

Hall moved $150,000 for a new category for Shared Automated System Upgrades to be competitive with a maximum grant of $50,000. Seconded by Van Gemert. Hall argued that the older shared systems need help with upgrades. Engelbert argued against the category because systems can already use their Library System Technology Project category funds for this purpose. Motion failed (Y 3; N 7).

Engelbert moved to increase the Library System Technology Projects category to $300,000 . Seconded by Airoldi. Motion failed (Y 4; N 6).

Hall moved to add $100,000 to the Shared Automated Systems category (bringing it to a total of $500,000). Seconded by Van Gemert. Motion failed (Y 5; N5).

Airoldi moved a total of $394,200 to the Library System Technology Projects category. Seconded by Setter. Airoldi noted that these funds can be used for shared system upgrades, adaptive technology projects, or other local needs. Kiesner wanted to make sure systems confer with member libraries before submitting applications. Motion carried (Y 8; N 2).

Having allocated all funding that is anticipated to be available, the committee then discussed recommendations for use of any additional funds, if available. Engelbert and Setter urged consideration of dropping fees for WISCAT/Linked System use. Airoldi suggested funding literacy applications if total applications exceed the total funding currently allocated. Hall suggested adding funding to the Shared Automated Systems category. Kiesner expressed concern about the decrease in available funds for special needs literacy and suggested any additional funds be given to this category.

Nix noted that State Superintendent Burmaster has established the goal of closing the achievement gap as a major priority for the DPI. He said he would advocate for greater funding in the Special Needs Literacy category.

REVIEW OF LSTA PROCESS FOR 2003

Branson told the committee that staff may look at simplifying the application form. Airoldi supported a later due date for applications–even if just slightly later (e.g., September 15). Branson indicated that any other suggestions should be directed to her soon.

Bocher reported that some REACH funds may be unused, especially in light of proposed shared revenue cuts. Airoldi moved that a letter be written to the TEACH Board advocating that any unused REACH funds be put toward shared automated systems. Seconded by Lockett. Motion carried.

Branson said that possible dates for the next meeting of the committee are November 12,13, or 14.

Branson thanked the committee for their work. The meeting adjourned at 2:20 p.m.

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

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

Last updated on 2/25/2008 12:38:11 PM

LSTA Committee: March 2002 Minutes