Comfort Inn / Madison, WI
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Members present: Rebecca
Berger, Walter Burkhalter, Anne Iwata, Mindy LaBonte, Douglas Lay, Sandra
Lockett, Jessica MacPhail, Fred Marini, Ida Nemec, David Polodna, Rhonda
Puntney, Kathleen Setter, Veronica Thompson, Edward Van Gemert
Members absent: None
DLTCL staff present: Bob
Bocher, Peg Branson, Mary Clark, Mike Cross, Sally Drew, Garrett Erickson,
Rick Grobschmidt, Barb Huntington, Neah Lohr, Donna Steffan, Al Zimmerman
Call to Order
Branson called the meeting to
order at 1:00 p.m. After welcoming committee members and introductions, she
indicated that the first order of business would be the public hearing.
Public Hearing
Branson asked speakers to limit
their testimony to about 5 minutes to allow time for all of those attending to
testify and to allow time for questions from committee members.
Vicki Schaefer, Department of
Transportation (DOT), spoke in favor of a digitization grant for the
preservation of original rail-related documents held by the DOT Bureau of Rail
and Harbors. This bureau holds a collection of historic bridge plans, plats
and stations maps, and deeds and agreements. Because they are constantly in
use, these documents are deteriorating. DOT would like these documents
scanned and digitized so that they would be available not only for DOT regular
business use, but also to the public, to librarians, and to UW students.
After digitization, the original documents could be stored in preservation
conditions. She presented samples of these historic materials. It is
estimated the cost to scan, sort and digitize 20,000 documents would be about
$30,000. Van Gemert supported the proposal and encouraged the committee to
seriously consider it. Drew asked who would organize availability. Schaefer
responded this was the first step and that a DOA consultant had provided the
cost estimate. Polodna asked if this project had any other funding sponsors.
Schaefer responded that she was not aware of any and didn't know what
conditions might go with a donation.
Lisa Strand, executive director of
the Wisconsin Library Association, requested funding for a category for state
promotion of libraries, citing the LSTA five year plan for this type of
activity. WLA believes that by communicating the value of libraries to
citizens the funds will assist in achieving the library objectives in the FY
2005-07 state budget. WLA would be willing to coordinate a campaign with a
grantee if WLA didn't get the grant directly.
Tom Hennen, director of the
Waukesha County Federated Library System, began his testimony by supporting
the WLA request. Hennen also urged committee members to adopt the Division's
proposed language for the shared automation category. He believes the goal
should be system-wide shared automation through a single automation system.
Raising the limit from $85,000 to $100,000 would help two of his member
libraries to join. This would permit the Waukesha System's 14 libraries to be
part of one shared system. The system will use other sources of funding in
addition to LSTA funds for this purpose.
Sherry Freiberg, instructor at
UW-Oshkosh, and member of COLAND, spoke in favor of funding for a study of
school libraries in Wisconsin and their impact on educational achievement.
She pointed out that similar studies have been done in other states, but that
data is lacking for Wisconsin. Other studies indicate that the achievement
gap is closed with good school libraries and that increased student
proficiency is one result of good school libraries. She listed several
questions that should be addressed specifically for Wisconsin school
libraries. Does access to the Common School Fund have an impact? Does
BadgerLink help students learn? Does access to other state library resources
(WILS) help? What factors are important to student learning? She urged
identification of what's working for Wisconsin students and replication of
those practices.
Eileen Schroeder, professor of
Library Media Programs UW-Whitewater and WEMA board member, supported the
funding request for a state study of school libraries. She said there is a
need to gather data on the effectiveness of library media programs and their
impact on students. IMCs build the skills that are used later by students and
accountability demands that we show impact on students. A study is needed to
find out what is happening with IMCs and their impact on student achievement.
There is a need to prove that students require libraries to succeed in
school. Iwata asked who had done these kinds of studies. Schroeder stated
that Keith Curry Lance of Colorado had done eleven state studies; other
studies, like Ohio's, were done by other researchers. She added that the
National Center for Education Statistics collects data every 8 or 9 years.
She said the data needed already exists; it just has to be collected and
analyzed.
John Reed, chair of the Council on
Library and Network Development, spoke in support of funding for a school
library study and for shared automation system funding. He said the school
library study will help answer the question, 'Does the Wisconsin IMC model
foster student achievement?' A study will also identify what works. He said
the LSTA subsidy for shared automation should be continued and asked if the
state needed to do more to merge automation systems. Coordinated automation
efforts are needed.
Peter Gottlieb, director of the
Library-Archives Division, State Historical Society, requested an LSTA
category to enhance access to pre-1976 state government documents that are in
greatest demand. This would benefit public libraries and their patrons,
students, researchers, genealogists, and historians. Currently, access to
these documents is through mediated searches. He described the project as one
that would bolster availability through digitization and web access. Links
would enable users to locate titles or go straight to the desired document.
The Historical Society will be working on the delivery system. The focus will
be on important Wisconsin historical public policy information and
documentation. Jonathon Cooper, State Historical Society, also voiced his
support for this request.
Kathy Boguszewski, Library Media
and Instructional Technology director of the Janesville School District,
testified in support of the request for a school library study. She said the
study is needed to open up channels of communications as planning begins for
the changes that are occurring in information access and technology. A study
is needed to examine the collaboration between school and public libraries in
this state and the impact this has on academic achievement. She asked why it
is that our students do so well on the ACTs. Could it be because of the
libraries, including school and public library collaboration? Iwata asked
what the estimated cost of the study would be and the response was $70,000 to
$80,000.
Anne Zarinnia, professor at UW
Whitewater, stated she has worked extensively with IMCs and she believes that
current funding decisions are undermining school libraries. Communities that
recognize that information is important know that libraries are important. A
study of school libraries is needed to emphasize the importance of integrating
school libraries into the classroom so no more ground is lost. Iwata asked
why we need a study if school libraries are known to be successful. Zarinnia
replied that good programs exist, but we need to show that they produce
results. In addition, IMCs and the purposes of No Child Left Behind could be
examined to support Wisconsin's NCLB efforts. Puntney asked what the results
of other state's studies were, but was told specific results hadn't been
brought to this meeting.
Branson thanked those who
had testified for coming to this meeting. She then reviewed the written
testimony that had been received and distributed to the committee and asked if
there were any comments and questions. Setter asked for clarification of the
Pat La Violette email. Polodna explained that the Brown County Library was
not part of the Nicolet OWLS shared automation system, and that this was a
Brown County library board decision.
Van Gemert asked if the Shawn Brommer letter was supporting the WLA proposal
instead of the Division's library card sign up proposal. Branson responded,
'Yes.' Mention was made of emails sent directly to committee members in
support of the school library study, but no hard copies were available.
Review of Agenda
Branson reviewed the schedule for
the remaining time. Polodna moved and Van Gemert seconded approval of the
agenda. Motion carried.
Review of Minutes of
November 13, 2003 meeting
Polodna moved and Lockett seconded
approval of the minutes. Motion carried. Iwata asked that minutes be
provided as soon as possible. Iwata also suggested that if committee members
want something recorded they begin the statement or questions with, 'For the
record''
DLTCL Administrator's
Remarks
Branson reported that Rick
Grobschmidt would be unable to join the group until the next day.
LSTA Coordinator's
Report
Branson reported that Congress was
late in passing the FY 2004 federal appropriations bill that included funds
for LSTA. The bill wasn't signed by the President until January (October 1 is
the start of the federal fiscal year; January 1 is the usual start of the
Wisconsin LSTA year). Branson explained that the DPI cannot award LSTA funds
to grantees until the funds have been awarded to Wisconsin. Congress passed a
'continuing resolution,' however, which gave the Division 25% of the FY 2003
appropriation and thus enabled the Division to award approximately 25% of the
anticipated funds to grantees. In February the total grant amount was
released to the DPI and then to recipients. The final appropriation was about
$175,000 more than anticipated. These funds are included as carryover for the
2005 awards.
Zimmerman reported on the
LSTA maintenance of effort requirement and the impact of recent state funding
cuts to Division library programs. Because of the reduction in the state aid
to public library system program of $550,000, Division position cuts, and
reductions in the state interlibrary loan contracts, it is possible Wisconsin
will not meet LSTA maintenance of effort requirements. IMLS has agreed to
work with states to address this problem and the Division should know by
November 2004 what the final impact will be. Current estimates are that up to
$137,000 in penalties could be incurred over a three-year period. Iwata
suggested Wisconsin legislators should be made aware of this problem.
Interlibrary Loan Needs
Assessment Update
Jeff Russell, Interlibrary Loan
Needs Assessment Project Contractor, presented an overview of the project. A
survey of Wisconsin libraries is scheduled for the end of May. Van Gemert asked if it
wouldn't be worth examining patron attitudes as well as those of librarians.
Russell responded that contacting users presents logistical problems and would
have a major impact on cost. He added that that type of survey is beyond the
scope of the current contract. Lockett asked about planning for the focus
group sessions. Russell responded that he was open to suggestions for
participants and that meetings could be held in any part of the state.
Lockett suggested that the unique situations that exist around the state,
including Milwaukee Public Library's, should be recognized. Iwata said that
Milwaukee and the other system resource
libraries need to be surveyed and not left to a random sampling. Setter
commented that front desk staff would know patron attitudes.
Iwata asked who would be
completing the survey. Russell answered that the role of the responder will
be identified and that analysis by type of respondent would be possible.
Iwata stated that library directors should be surveyed. Setter thought the
ILL staff should be asked to respond. Russell suggested the survey may allow
that it be directed to the most knowledgeable respondent. Marini asked if the
survey would cover all libraries, public, school, special and academic.
Polodna said library directors would have a lot to say. Iwata commented that
data that is too 'touchy feely' isn't really data that can be analyzed
easily.
Drew said that this study
is only part of what will be done over the next year. LITAC will look at this
issue, as will COLAND, the LSTA Advisory Committee, and other groups.
Technology scenarios, cost, and functionality will all be looked at. Russell
said the objective was to get hard data. Information will be shared with
interested parties. He added that the survey would try to get data on the
most important issues. LaBonte asked how special libraries would be covered.
It was pointed out that special libraries, including hospital libraries, are
very hard to reach and difficult to do a random sample on. Branson suggested
the report may be useful for LSTA Advisory Committee decision making and that
perhaps a special meeting could be called to review the final report. Russell
said the survey would be done first and the responses would be used with focus
groups for further clarification. Branson said policy decisions are made by
directors and asked Setter if ILL staff would be the best to survey. Setter
said the survey question should go to the person most appropriate to respond,
but that all sizes of libraries should be surveyed. Iwata said that the
library directors not only make policy decisions, but are responsible to their
constituencies and boards for allocating resources to make services happen or
not. Russell said the focus groups would have to be somewhat controlled. He
closed by stating that his company has worked with libraries and would try to
do a good job for them.
Procedures for
Discussion of LSTA Grants Categories and Conflict of Interest Policy
Branson described the procedure for
reviewing grant categories. During this part of the agenda, all options will
be considered, but no motions made. Comments and questions are welcome.
After the review of all possible categories is complete, the committee will go
on to make recommendations. Polodna asked about the procedure for items not
on the list. Branson referred to the last item on the review listing as the
place for proposals not on the list. She then reviewed the conflict of
interest policy.
Preliminary LSTA Budget
2005 Overview
Branson referred to handouts
provided to committee members and briefly reviewed the amounts available and
project proposals. She stated that the Division was estimating that
$3,340,000 would be available for awards for 2005 and that some of the
preliminary budget amounts were ranges of funding rather than specific
amounts. Setter asked why some projects were not listed. Branson said staff
didn't have all proposals at hand when the list was prepared and that
additions can be added by committee members.
Consideration of
Preliminary Grant Categories
Reference and Loan
Drew reviewed the Reference and Loan
statewide technology program. It was described as a status quo budget with no
increases in staff. Marini asked what part of the total budget was provided
by LSTA. Drew said she would try to get a handout of DPI staff funding
sources for the next day.
State Resource
Contracts
Drew reviewed the state resource
contract situation, explaining that last fall LSTA funds were used for the
Milwaukee Public Library interlibrary loan contract. The amount requested in
this category would fund the contract until the beginning of the next state
biennial budget cycle (July 1, 2005). Berger asked what the impact of the cut
to the Milwaukee contract was. Drew said the state went to other sources,
including other states. Libraries pay for out-of-state mailing costs.
Polodna noted the committee was on record against an extension of LSTA funds
for these contracts and asked if this was just to get us to the end of this
biennium because no other funding source was available. Drew replied, 'Yes.'
Iwata asked if libraries were paying more than was being requested. Drew
responded that we have no way of knowing the cost to local libraries.
Public Library
Development
Cross reviewed the Public Library
Development Statewide Technology program. LSTA funds support the technology
consultant and an annual statewide technology meeting. Cross said the Library
Improvement category provides funding for the youth and special needs
consultant and her activities, including the Summer Library Program. It also
funds a large part of the Public Library Development director's salary and
support and program assistant support.
WISCAT
Clark described the WISCAT program
budget as status quo, with no change in FTE staff. There was some adjustment
to the vendor payments since the spring estimates, but the overall total
remained the same. She expects about 770 libraries to pay $150 for WISCAT in
2005. The WISCAT ILL gateway continues to add libraries. Reference and Loan
Library is up to date in configuring those libraries that want to participate
using the Z39.50 gateway. Drew said the WISCAT user interface is changing in
a major way in the fall. Evaluation is being held until the new interface is
up. Berger asked about the patron initiated ILL test. Clark replied that
Reference and Loan was currently conducting a pilot project for patron
initiated interlibrary loan requests. The results at 30 libraries will be
evaluated and adjustments made depending on the experiences of the pilot
libraries. Berger asked if participation was voluntary and Clark said yes.
Public Library System
Technology Projects
Bocher described the Library System
Technology category. He reviewed the amount available and what it can be used
for. Paying for Internet access with federal funds such as LSTA requires the
recipient to filter, so few will use it for Internet access. Milwaukee is the
notable exception because of the amount of money it receives in E-rate funds.
Berger said systems should document that they have included members in
planning. Van Gemert asked if there was any coordination of digitization.
Bocher responded that not too much was being done right now. Branson asked if
the Division should require system consultation with members. Cross said that
this requirement could be added to the application.
Shared Automated
Systems
Bocher reviewed the Shared Automated
Systems category. He described the range of funding suggested for this
noncompetitive category. The maximum grant has been increase to $85,000 and
library funding maximums have also been increased. Grants to merge existing
systems have been added. He said it would cost libraries more than is
provided, so this should be viewed as an incentive program. He believes last
year's experience with this category was the result of not enough money being
offered per library and the difficult budget situation in many communities.
Polodna supported the level of funding proposed and suggested a sunset
provision be included so libraries know this category of funding will be
ending. Branson asked if there was a consensus for a sunset provision and
there was general agreement. Setter wanted merged systems to continue to be
allowed. Marini asked what libraries were using now and what the committee
was aiming for. Bocher said this category alone wouldn't get anyone to change
systems, but the next category (Shared Systems Study) would look at this
problem in terms of statewide automation. Marini asked if there were any
state standards. Bocher replied that only Z39.50 was necessary. Van Gemert
said someone would have to pay to get everyone on one system, but if you could
do it you would solve many problems.
The meeting adjourned for
the day at 4:12.
Thursday, April 1, 2004
Branson called the second
day of the meeting to order at 8:35. Drew distributed and reviewed a handout
showing Division staff positions by source of funding.
Shared Automated
Systems Study
Bocher reviewed the proposed shared
automated systems study. The broad issue to be addressed would be the
coordination of shared automated systems regionally and statewide. The study
would look at costs and collect data to describe the current situation.
Digitization -
Newspapers
Drew described the newspaper
digitization project. The objective would be to get digitized newspapers for
BadgerLink. The Division did not have enough funding to expand BadgerLink to
include NewspaperARCHIVE Elite this year. If this LSTA project were to be
funded, the vender would digitize one million pages of historic Wisconsin newspapers and place them online free of charge. LSTA would fund this
project for one year and then funding would be requested as part of regular
BadgerLink funding. Van Gemert asked how access would be provided. Drew said
BadgerLink would have it available as long as we purchased the product from
the vendor, but the State Historical Society would also have the images. The
vendor is committed to a five year pricing structure. Selection of the
historic Wisconsin newspapers could be based on what the State Historical Society has.
Digitization ' Local
Resources
Drew explained the Local Resources
Digitization competitive category. Based on recent experiences with
digitization much is now known about how libraries can work together on these
kinds of projects. Applicants awarded grants will be encouraged to work
directly with the Division and the UW Madison's Digitization Lab. This
category fits well with current interest in digitization and the continued
planning needed to select what should be digitized. The focus will be on
local history collections. This category would build on what the UW has done
and the timing is right for public libraries. Berger asked if funding should
go into the Reference and Loan budget. Drew replied that planning money would
be useful, but that we need to move forward with projects and we should use
the expertise at the UW. Planning should be specific with actions that will
stimulate new interest. Lockett asked if larger libraries could get more than
the $2,000 maximum. Drew replied that the total amount is limited and a local
match is required. Berger said the per library grant and total amount could
both be increased. Drew said we would not be doing really large projects, but
would be doing smaller projects that would teach people how to get this done.
Van Gemert strongly supported this concept and thought additional funding
should be made available if possible and said that usage of digitized
collections is often very great. Access and standardization are both
necessary. Drew said the UW has the whole system for putting together
digitization material for access. It's more than just digitization.
Libraries get their copy and long-term access is provided. The cost of
maintaining small projects can be great if the process isn't standardized.
Marini suggested allowing for cooperative efforts with local historical
societies and suggested taking newspapers out of the second category. Van
Gemert said limited projects with adequate funding may be the way to go.
MacPhail said information should be made available on the planning and effort
needed locally to carry out a project.
Virtual Reference
Drew reviewed the virtual reference
category. She said three or four vendors are currently being used by
libraries in Wisconsin and the best choice among them is not clear. If we
decided to go with one vendor we would need to review them all, pick the best
and provide ongoing funding. That kind of arrangement might not be possible
right now. Development isn't far enough along to select one vendor for
everyone. To do that may lead to a long term commitment of LSTA funds. This
category aims to stimulate libraries to provide virtual reference, but let
them pick their own vendor. Local libraries could use these funds to expand
virtual reference service hours. Polodna asked what kinds of costs were
involved for libraries. Drew said the up-front cost is between $2,500 and
$4,000 per library. The cost of local library staff and support is real, but
difficult to determine. Polodna asked why LSTA is necessary to fund this.
This is really something for larger libraries, because cost to continue will
have to come from the localities. Nemec agreed with Polodna that there wasn't
enough for libraries. Burkhalter said cost to continue may be a system
service. Iwata thought this should be allowed under the system technology
category. Drew said this was already allowed there, but this category was
meant to emphasize this function. MacPhail agreed with Polodna that those
interested in this were already doing it.
Delivery Service
Projects
Drew reviewed the delivery service
category. LSTA has carried delivery over some rough spots and kept the
delivery service going. Northern Waters Library Service has especially high
delivery costs. The South Central Library System provides the service and has
an advisory committee for guidance. LSTA funding for delivery support in 2004
was unusually high and that wasn't planned to be ongoing. The funding request
for 2005 is back to $60,000. Funding provided for Milwaukee County Federated
Library System delivery provided in 2004 has been dropped for 2005. Van
Gemert asked if South Central continues to have the capacity to handle growing
statewide traffic. Drew responded that South Central has other sources of
revenue including delivery for the UW System. Nemec commented that delivery
is a lifeline for the Northern Waters Library Service. Burkhalter asked how
long LSTA would pay for Northern Waters delivery. Polodna said part of the
LSTA subsidy pays for service to the other systems. Drew said the LSTA funds
are necessary for Northern Waters to participate in statewide delivery. Iwata
said it had been her experience that UW Superior was given subsidies for
travel because of its location and she urged keeping funding for Northern
Waters. Van Gemert suggested the Advisory Committee could always sunset
this. Nemec pointed out that delivery is the number one service provided by
Northern Waters to its users.
Special Needs
Huntington reviewed the special
needs categories. She said these categories had been reviewed by the public
library system special needs consultants and endorsed by them. She asked
committee members to keep in mind how these categories help prepare kids for
school and how they help them once they get into school. These categories all
relate to general DPI objectives. She noted that the GED test has been
revised and some libraries may have the old preparation materials. In order
to place more revised GED materials in libraries, GED materials may be updated
as part of the grant. Grants must include cooperative efforts and marketing.
Early Learning
(Birth-3)
Huntington reviewed the new Early
Learning Birth to Three category. These projects will promote early
learning. An outcome of the projects is greater awareness of brain
development research and the positive impact libraries can have on brain
development. Programming materials are also now available. The primary focus
will be on parents. Later, the projects can be expanded to include groups
like daycare providers.
Literacy
Huntington reviewed the Adult,
Family, Early Literacy (3-5) category. This category promotes the role of
libraries in improving literacy for people who have difficulty using a
library. This category is like those that have been successfully funded
recently. The projects are to target children 3 to 5, their parents and/or
caregivers. Hispanic groups are covered, as are Hmong.
Seniors/Sensory
Disabilities
Huntington reviewed the category.
The category targets seniors with special needs. These projects will be aimed
at providing materials where a special need exists, such as the need for large
print collection development for seniors. Cooperative efforts are
encouraged. Huntington provided several examples of the kinds of projects
that could be funded. These included accessible workstations in the library,
special sound systems, mobility aids, and up to $5,000 for electronic door
openers. Programming efforts for seniors must include specific marketing to
seniors with special needs and/or their caregivers.
Polodna ask if the GED
requirement was for literacy projects only and Huntington responded yes.
Marini commented that electric door openers seemed beyond the purposes of LSTA
and wondered if wheelchairs really need to be provided by the library.
Adaptive equipment is necessary, though the other items could be provided by
someone else. Huntington said the wheelchair would be available for the
elderly at the library. She added that LSTA grants raise awareness of issues
that would not otherwise come to light. Nemec agreed that some libraries need
things like electronic doors.
Special Needs Plan
Update
Huntington described the Special
Needs Plans Update project. She said the nationally recognized Wisconsin
Public Library Youth with Special Needs Plan is five years old and needs
to be updated. The publication would be expanded to include children with
physical disabilities.
State Institutions
Huntington reviewed the request for
State Institution Library Coordination. She reviewed the history of the
program and the need to coordinate the library services provided in state
correctional facilities and state run institutions. She said if coordination
isn't provided through this grant, the responsibility would probably fall to
the Reference and Loan staff and the Division special need consultant.
Communication and
Planning
Discussion of the Communication and
Planning and the ILL Needs Assessment follow up categories was deferred until
Grobschmidt was able to join the committee.
Public Library System
Study Follow-up
Cross presented a proposal for
Public Library System Study follow-up. He reviewed the present status of the
current study and what is being done by the UW-Madison Library School. He
said the funds requested should be considered as a placeholder in the event
follow-up action was needed in 2005.
Public Library
Standards Update
Cross said the committee had
previously recommended that the public library development team update these
standards this year. The requested funds would be for printing and
distribution of the standards in 2005.
Library Card Sign-Up
Promotion
Cross reviewed the Library Card
Sign-Up Promotions category. He noted that last year the WLA advocacy
proposal was turned down. The Division supports WLA advocacy efforts, but
remains concerned about the propriety of using LSTA funds for this purpose.
He described the Division proposal to promote library card sign-up and use.
Cross said this proposal supports the State Superintendent's 'New Wisconsin
Promise' goals. Targeted groups would include areas with schools in need of
improvement, areas with less than half the population registered as library
users, and at-risk families. Cross said that grants would encourage
registration and use of public libraries and that applicants would be
encouraged to coordinate grants with state and national library organization (PLA
and WLA) efforts.
Burkhalter said
registration statistics may be hard to compile. Zimmerman said registration
counts are hard to get without duplication, but that local and shared
automation systems made this easier. Cross said target groups could be
expanded. Nemec said she preferred the WLA approach and encouraged them to
rewrite their proposal. Drew said it was unclear how local libraries could
coordinate with WLA. Polodna said a coordinated statewide program sounds
good, but getting people into the library might work better if done at the
local level. Lockett pointed out that part of the local reality is working
with people to use existing cards. We can try to increase card registration,
but we have to make sure the cards are used and used correctly. She also felt
a local effort was the best approach. Marini encouraged Huntington to work
with her groups to encourage registration. Van Gemert asked how effective
statewide WLA efforts were. Cross said one of the problems of these statewide
efforts is that it is hard to determine impact and added that the card sign-up
has a better chance of measuring outcomes. Branson said we had awarded
$20,000 to WLA in 1994-95. Van Gemert asked if these funds could be rolled
into the system block grants. Polodna said this would result in a loss of
focus. Puntney said systems would probably be more interested in local
efforts. Drew said these grants might result in some good local models.
Polodna said nothing works like providing good service. Iwata said
noncompetitive grants might be better. Burkhalter thought competitive would
be better with the effort spread over the year.
School Library Impact
Study
Lohr and Steffan described the
request for a School Library Impact Study. Lohr said school libraries are
included in academic standards. These standards need to be integrated into
the curriculum. Instructional media center specialists work with teachers
toward this integration. No Child Left Behind Act goals are part of this
effort. This study will look at the relationship between these roles and
actual student achievement. It could also show the part played by school and
public library relationships. The study could also show how resources are
used and what progress is being made in these areas.
Steffan reviewed the
development of state standards and how information seeking skills and
technology literacy have been uniquely combined in Wisconsin. Library skills
and technology literacy are united and imbedded in content areas. Guidelines
have been developed for collaborative planning. Because we are different in
our approach from other states, we need a School Library Impact Study here.
The study would identify what we are doing, what facilities are available, and
how all this impacts on student learning. The study could also deal with
resource sharing and how students are taught to use BadgerLink and other state
resources. We would like to show the impact on test scores of the skills
librarians are teaching. We would like to learn how well students use the
skills being taught.
Rick Grobschmidt joined
the meeting at 11:00.
Iwata asked if the study
could be done for $50,000 without coming back to the committee in the future.
Lohr and Steffan replied that others have done the study for $80,000 to
$100,000, but that the goal is to do the study in one year. We will look for
other sources of funding. With the project's lead time, we would hope to find
other funding should it be necessary. If other sources aren't found, the
study will be limited to the funding available. Puntney asked why $80,000
wasn't requested. Lohr said that was related to a multiyear project. Iwata
asked if the $10,000 for the ILL Study was for one year. Branson said it was,
but additional funding may be needed in 2005. Iwata asked if this could
happen with the School Library Study. Lohr said we want results by the end of
the year. Steffan said we would have a department plan for dissemination of
the study. Puntney asked if we couldn't just use available data for the
study. Lohr said that was what the study would do. We would like a statewide
analysis. Polodna commented that if this request was coming from high levels
of DPI, the State Superintendent can do what she sees as necessary. He added
that since this study is necessary to shore up support for IMCs, the end
result seems to be assumed. He also added that he had received emails from
WEMA on this proposal. He hoped that we could also look at public libraries
and what they were doing for student instruction. He thought adequate funding
is needed to do it right. Huntington said the Division hadn't really looked
at a proposal that included public libraries. Iwata asked if the scope of the
study wasn't getting too broad. Lohr said the focus is public and school
libraries, three years old through 12th grade. Steffan said
collaboration between schools and public libraries are assumed to be happening
as part of any successful program. Marini supported the study but said it had
to include public libraries. He added we are all working together to reach
goals, but we need data to support what we have done. Wisconsin is different
in its approach. Many people are behind this and timing is critical. Schools
have funding problems and we need evidence that libraries are good and
supportive of learning. Students do better as a result of our efforts. We
need to prove this correlation and have data to support library efforts. He
encouraged support by the committee to fund up to $80,000, but he felt it
should be done even if funded at $50,000. Burkhalter asked what would happen
if the hypothesis is wrong and libraries make no difference. Lohr said past
studies lead us to expect positive results in Wisconsin. Drew added that past
studies have shown a strong correlation and that we need data we can take to
school superintendents and district administrators.
Planning and
Communication
Branson welcomed Rick Grobschmidt to
the meeting. Grobschmidt apologized for being unable to attend the earlier
parts on the meeting. He welcomed new and continuing members of the committee
and thanked them for agreeing to serve. He said the State Superintendent
relies on the advice of the committee, that it is important to her as well as
Division staff.
Grobschmidt then reviewed
the Planning and Communication category. He reported that Channel
costs have been cut and will be kept as low as possible. Print distribution
is lower as a result of electronic distribution. Other costs to continue
remain at last year's level. LITAC meeting costs have been made a part of
this category.
ILL Needs Assessment
Study
Drew and Grobschmidt then reviewed
the ILL Study Assessment Follow-up proposal. Grobschmidt reviewed the history
of the ILL needs assessment project. The Russells will help identify needs
and the recommendations will follow. Drew said that we will combine the needs
assessment with current efforts of other groups. Branson said we should know
in November if additional funds are needed in 2005. The LSTA Advisory
Committee will be able to use the needs assessment information in its
considerations of the uses of LSTA funds.
LSTA Administration
Branson reviewed the LSTA
administration category and explained how the funds were used.
Additional Categories
Time was allowed for presentations
of additional grant categories other than those listed on the agenda.
Requests from the public hearing and committee were considered. Van Gemert
commented on the State Historical Society proposal. He said that it was like
last year's proposal, but had more emphasis on access this year. Cost per
item at $7 seemed reasonable compared to UW costs of $23. He urged that a way
be found to add this category. Drew noted that they seem to have done a lot
of work to reduce the proposal cost. Iwata said it was better than last
year's proposal with more statewide access. Polodna noted that last year's
proposal was multiyear and this proposal was for one year. He didn't want
funds to be requested year after year, adding that this is a function of the
State Historical Society and not an LSTA responsibility. He would only
support this proposal if it is limited to one year. Van Gemert said the State
Historical Society currently has severe budget problems. Drew said multiyear
funding might be appropriate for some amount if the full amount is not awarded
this year. Polodna said that was what he was concerned about, that the
committee would be asked for funds year after year.
Branson asked for comments
on the DOT public hearing proposal. Iwata said that this would be a good
start at getting the state's residents access to what DOT owns. She said
there should be concern about what will happen to the original historic
documents they hold. Originals should be digitized and moved to the State
Historical Society. Marini asked if DOT could get funding from non-government
groups and organizations for this purpose. He said this needs to be done and
perhaps LSTA could provide seed money, but that there are other sources.
Recommendations on
Grant Categories and Budget
Motion by Polodna to fund
DLTCL'Reference and Loan at $607,100, DLTCL'Library Development, Technology at
$132,700, and WISCAT/Linked Systems at $650,900. Seconded by Burkhalter.
Motion by Iwata to amend
the motion to fund these categories at their 2004 funding levels. Seconded by
MacPhail. Iwata explained that she was proposing this based on the fact that
many governmental organizations and programs are receiving funding
reductions. Motion failed.
The original motion
carried (9-1).
Motion by Polodna to fund
the State Resource Contracts at $20,000. Seconded by Burkhalter. Motion
carried.
Motion by Van Gemert to
establish a new category 'Access to State Government Publications' with the
intention that this category fund the retrospective conversion project
proposed by the State Historical Society (SHS) at a total of $55,000.
Seconded by Iwata. Iwata suggested that the SHS be required to follow certain
standards as a condition of this award. Van Gemert said that the details
could be determined later. Motion carried (8-4).
Motion by Polodna to fund
LSTA Administration at $98,000. Seconded by MacPhail. Motion carried.
Motion by Polodna to fund
State Institution Coordination at $25,000. Seconded by LaBonte. Motion
carried.
Motion by LaBonte to fund
DLTCL'Library Development, Library Improvement at $261,700. Seconded by
MacPhail. Motion carried.
Motion by LaBonte to fund
DLTCL'Communication and Planning at $25,000. Seconded by Polodna. Motion
carried.
Motion by Burkhalter to
fund Delivery projects at $75,000. Seconded by Nemec. Motion carried.
Motion by LaBonte to fund
Early Learning Birth to Three at $175,000. Seconded by Polodna. Motion by
Puntney to amend the motion by increasing the funding to $225,000. Motion
seconded by MacPhail. Motion to amend failed. Original motion carried.
Motion by LaBonte to fund
Adult, Family, and Early Literacy $175,000. Seconded by Nemec. Motion
carried.
Motion by Lockett to fund
Special Needs Youth Plan Update at $10,000. Seconded by Puntney. Motion
carried.
Motion by Polodna to fund
Seniors/Sensory Disabilities at $75,000. Seconded by Burkhalter. Motion
carried.
Motion by Marini to fund
the School Library Impact Study at $50,000. Seconded by Thompson. Motion by
LaBonte to increase the funding to $80,000. Some committee members expressed
the desire that no follow-up funding would be required in future years. The
issue of a public library component to this study was also discussed. Motion
passed (7-5). Motion as amended passed (7-4).
Motion by Van Gemert to
fund the Shared System Study at $15,000. Seconded by Berger. Motion by
MacPhail to amend the motion to increase funding to $20,000. Seconded by
Iwata. MacPhail said she felt this study was crucial for the state. Others
felt that $15,000 was sufficient for the study. Motion to amend failed
(5-6). Original motion carried.
Motion by Polodna to fund
the Shared Automated Systems category at $325,000. Seconded by Van Gemert.
Motion carried.
Motion by Polodna that the
Shared Automated Systems sunset after the 2007 funding year. Seconded by
Burkhalter. Polodna explained that he felt a sunset might encourage libraries
that have delayed joining a shared system to make a decision. Polodna said
the funding of the consolidation of shared systems could be handled by a new
category. Motion carried.
Motion by Burkhalter to
fund System Technology Projects at $325,000. Seconded by Polodna. Motion by
Iwata to amend the funding to increase it to $375,000. Motion to amend
carried (9-3). Original motion as amended carried (9-3).
Motion by Van Gemert to
fund the non-competitive Digitization category at $15,000. Seconded by
Berger. Motion carried (10-2).
Motion by Van Gemert to
fund the competitive Digitization category at $40,000 with the recommendations
that funding be limited to $6,000 per project and that there be statewide
coordination of digitization projects. Seconded by Lockett. The committee
also discussed the possibility of requiring grantees to work with the
UW-Madison Digitization Lab. Motion carried.
Motion by Burkhalter to
fund the Public Library Standards Update at $3,000. Seconded by MacPhail.
Motion carried.
Motion by Polodna to fund
the Library Card Sign-Up Promotions at $50,000. Seconded by Burkhalter.
Committee members discussed the desirability of collaborative projects and the
desirability of sharing the promotional materials produced by the grantees.
Motion carried.
Motion by Van Gemert to
delete the two Virtual Reference categories. Seconded by MacPhail. Van
Gemert noted that virtual reference projects can already be funded under the
Library System Technology Projects category. Motion carried.
Motion by LaBonte to fund
the Interlibrary Loan Assessment / Planning Followup at $10,000. Seconded by
Nemec. Iwata asked if the DLTCL had a strategic plan for all types of
libraries in the state. Discussion ensued concerning the kinds of planning
the DLTCL conducts and the possibility of an overall strategic planning
process. Motion carried.
Motion by MacPhail to fund
the Public Library System Study Followup at $10,000. Seconded by Berger.
Motion carried.
Motion by Polodna to add
$30,000 to the Shared Automated Systems category to bring the total funding to
$355,000. Seconded by Nemec. Motion carried.
Motion by MacPhail to add
$1,600 to the statewide Delivery category. Seconded by Puntney. MacPhail
asked that the minutes note the opinion that statewide library delivery should
be state funded. Motion carried.
Review of LSTA Process
Branson reported that the
LSTA Advisory Committee recommendations will go to the State Superintendent
for consideration. She also noted that changes can be made in the 2005 LSTA
categories at the November meeting. It is hoped that the final appropriation
for FY 2005 will be available by that meeting. The committee discussed
possible dates for the November meeting. Branson will confirm the date of the
next meeting with the committee.
The meeting adjourned at
2:30 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
LSTA Website
July 2004
For questions about this information, contact Robert F. Bocher (608) 266-2127
Last updated on 2/25/2008 12:38:16 PM
Home
Locate Us