Crowne Plaza / Madison, WI
Wednesday, March 29, 2005
Members present: Rebecca Berger, Terry Burton, Walter Burkhalter, Anne Iwata, Paula Kiely, Jessica MacPhail, Fred Marini, Ida Nemec, Paul Onufrak, David Polodna, Rhonda Puntney, Elizabeth Richmond, Veronica Thompson
DLTCL staff present: Rick Grobschmidt, Peg Branson, Bob Bocher, Kate Bugher, Mike Cross, John DeBacher, Sally Drew, Barb Huntington, Donna Steffan, Al Zimmerman
Others present: Stef Morrill, South Central Library System, Arden Rice, Legislative Reference Bureau, Peter Gottlieb, Wisconsin Historical Society, Lloyd Velicer, Wisconsin State Historical Society
Call to Order and Introductions
Branson called the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. She welcomed new members and had members and guests introduce themselves.
Public Hearing
Stef Morrill, South Central Library System, testified as the coordinator for the AskAway Virtual Reference Service, having used 24/7 since June 2003. They have seen growing use and she considers it a good equalizer for small public libraries, where the 24/7 staff can provide supplemental reference support and training. Between January and the end of March, 20% of the contacts came in during hours when libraries were closed. Cross asked if she could provide demographics on users. She responded she doesn't have recent figures, but that users come from two ends of the spectrum-older adults and intermediate school users. Veronica Thompson asked about the demographics of the after-hours contacts. Morrill wasn't sure, but there may be considerable homework help.
Peter Gottlieb, Wisconsin Historical Society, testified about the cataloging proposal they submitted for consideration. They are conducting a 2005 LSTA-funded project for retrospective titles. The conversion has been useful to government documents librarians and others throughout the state. 2006 funding would allow the work to continue to enable bibliographic access for government information to pre-1976 holdings. The Wisconsin Historical Society's state publications holdings are the most comprehensive in the state and they need cataloging. They try to ensure that the work meets the greatest needs of public government documents librarians throughout the state. They started with a survey to determine needs and will again survey before they start a second year of work. They request $120,000 to continue the project to catalog 14,000 more titles. At that time they will have provided access to half the collection. Anne Iwata asked whether they have worked with state agencies to see whether new documents created by state agencies are being properly catalogued. Gottlieb responded that the work is ongoing to add bibliographic description in conjunction with Reference and Loan. Polodna asked when they would expect to be finished. Gottlieb said that it would take at least a couple more years, with adequate support. Onufrak asked how the work is accessed. Response: worldcat, wiscat, oclc, MADCAT.
Arden Rice of the Legislative Reference Bureau, state documents librarian, requested renewed funding of retrospective conversion by the Wisconsin Historical Society. She said the work will benefit her library and other government documents libraries and compared the collection to buried treasure. Onufrak asked whether the project could continue with less funding. Gottlieb responded that he had tried to indicate that the project is scalable. Lloyd Velicer of the Wisconsin Historical Society also attended the public hearing in support but did not speak.
Branson distributed copies of letters received for the public hearing.
Kathy Schmidt and Alan Engelbert, Manitowoc-Calumet Library System commented on the digitization projects, hoping that libraries that had received grants in the category could apply again for new projects. Kiely asked whether the digitization category was designed as a one year project for applicants and whether that was clear. Drew answered that we didn't say one way or another. The decision came more out of the discussions from the advisory committee for the grants to be "spread around," so the request could be open for discussion.
Susan Ringer, Fond du Lac Public Library, wrote in support of the Wisconsin Historical Society proposal.
Peter Hamon, South Central Library System, wrote about difficulties with school participation in public library shared automation systems. He commented that schools may have a problem making their collections available freely, may have difficulty with ongoing costs, may not have access to delivery, and stated that often schools already have access through an existing shared system. He suggested that funds would be better applied to shared automation block grant programs. Onufrak concurred; Burkhalter said that the category might not be available in the future.
Miina Helske, Superior Public Library, Jeff Rand, La Crosse Public Library, Arden Rice and Stephen Miller, Legislative Reference Bureau, Gary Gisselman, Marathon County Public Library, and Cecilia Wilzius, Appleton Public Library, all wrote letters in support of the Wisconsin Historical Society proposal. There were no comments specific to the letters, but Iwata asked Rice how much OCLC cataloging would cost. Rice commented that full OCLC membership would cost an estimated $5,000 to $10,000 in additional funding for her agency and that they might be able to create upwards of 1000 original records per year. She noted that there are some items that are unique to their collection that may not be held by the Wisconsin Historical Society. Iwata suggested that it might save steps if other agencies were adding records. Onufrak asked why Legislative Reference Bureau records are not included in WISCAT. Rice responded that while they have not been adding new records, others created by Cat Express were added.
Kathleen Palmini, UW Stevens Point, wrote in support of the Wisconsin Historical Society proposal. Richmond commented that many of the older librarians know what is available in various collections that is not cataloged online, but they will be retiring and familiarity with those unique items may be lost.
Linda A. Pierschalla, Director, Oscar Grady Public Library in Saukville, also wrote in support of the Wisconsin Historical Society proposal.
John Stoneberg, at Eau Claire/L.E. Phillips Memorial Public Library and Mark Arend, Winnefox Library System, wrote in support the virtual reference project. Iwata asked Morrill how many other libraries in the state are in AskAway. Morrill explained that others have been involved in another service that will merge with AskAway. Drew confirmed for Iwata that two national services are merged under OCLC.
Jan Adams, IMC CESA 10, wrote in support of school participation in a shared automation system, and asked the committee to consider development of school district shared systems which build upon existing relationships with other districts or CESAs. Onufrak asked Bocher whether there any multi-district shared systems exist. Bocher said that he was not aware of any.
Nemec reported on some comments she had brought from the director and members of the Northern Waters Library Service: the difficulties of small libraries targeting special needs groups within their communities - they are small to begin with, so the subset populations are very small; interest by at least one school in participating in the public library system's shared system; the need for training older adults in using computers; and libraries should concentrate on service to the general public because so many community agencies provide funding for special needs.
Jessica MacPhail joined the meeting at 1:50 p.m.
Berger asked whether there is a certain amount of money required for the special needs category, in response to reading the comments from Northern Waters Library Service asking for more funds and fewer restrictions in the category. There are no federal requirements that specific amounts of LSTA be spent for various eligible purposes. States can determine how to spend the money based on their needs and priorities.
Branson also brought attention to two letters that had been distributed in the packets. One was from David Weinhold of Eastern Shores Library System and chair of the Delivery Service Advisory Committee recommending that $105,000 be funded for SCLS delivery and $15,000 for NWLS delivery. No comments.
The Wisconsin Historical Society requested up to $112,000 for continuation of their retrospective conversion program. No comments beyond what had been discussed earlier.
Branson asked committee members to keep the comments under consideration during deliberations.
Review Agenda
Branson gave an overview of the process for the two days.
Review Minutes of November 17-18, 2004
Polodna, supported by Onufrak, moved to approve the minutes of the November 2004 meeting. Kiely commented that Sandra Lockett's name was misspelled variously throughout. Approved with corrections.
DLTCL Administrator's Remarks
Grobschmidt expressed thanks to all the new members and welcome to the committee, as well as gratitude to all the members on behalf of State Superintendent Libby Burmaster. He noted that Burmaster recently was in La Crosse to commemorate the local history collection and archives at the library there and noted that she is attending the Joint Finance Committee meeting to give testimony on the budget she has proposed. He added that he, Jessica MacPhail and others would be going to Washington D.C. in May to meet with legislators on LSTA and other legislation that affects libraries.
LSTA Coordinator's Report
Branson reported that the federal FY 2005 budget was passed and that the state received $52,540 more than anticipated, so the surplus has been rolled into 2006. She spoke on the funding cycle and the fact that carryover was used to commence projects in early January because the appropriation for LSTA was delayed by Congress.
The president submitted a budget for LSTA for FY 2006 with about a 6% increase, which would mean an additional $184,000 in Wisconsin. The budget is now being considered by Congress. October is the beginning of the Federal fiscal year and we hope we will know more in the fall.
LSTA has a maintenance of effort requirement which now reflects deficiencies in FY2003 state funding. A report was submitted to the feds in December and we have only heard of a verbal acceptance of the report. The MOE issue may mean a reduction in future funds. She outlined which state funds are reported for LSTA purposes. She expects to hear soon how the MOE issue will be handled. We also may see reductions in the next couple of years until the three-year average is worked through (3.8% for 2004; 1.4% for the 2005 report). Iwata asked to confirm whether an increase in system aids would help in the future. Zimmerman said it would help in the future but not for the years affected previously.
Procedures for Discussion of LSTA Grant Categories
Branson said the group would go through all grant categories prior to making recommendations. She reviewed the Conflict of Interest Policy. The conflict issue primarily applies to the fall meeting participation, although participation at this meeting could be compromised if a member's library is the only one included in a category.
Preliminary LSTA Budget 2006 Overview
Branson reviewed the budget summary sheet displaying FY 2000 to date history. She also reviewed the summary of the total estimated available funds for the 2006 cycle, including $2,992,000 in appropriation, $52,000 of unallocated funds, and approximately $50,000 in carryover. The total anticipated amount is $3,094,000.
Consideration of Preliminary Grant Categories for 2006
Reference and Loan Statewide Library Resource Sharing Technology: Drew commented that staffing levels would be the same as in the past and reviewed anticipated needs. Staffing costs would go down slightly. There were no comments or questions.
State Resource Contracts: No funds would be requested for the 2006 cycle. The Division had decided not to request LSTA funds. The regional library and the CCBC are less affected than the other two contracts (WiLS and Milwaukee Public Library). There is still hope that the budget process will alleviate the shortfalls. There has been a slight decrease in interlibrary loan (ILL) requests through WISCAT for reasons unknown. She reported efforts by the Reference and Loan Library to maintain the fill rate for ILL requests.
Grobschmidt added that, in the last budget process, the four state contracts had been folded into the DPI/DLTCL budget which was subject to a 15% reduction. The Superintendent has asked to submit those contracts separately so that they would not be subject to further cuts. The Council on Library and Network Development went on record that the LSTA subsidy should be a one-time assistance. The Superintendent continues working to restore the funds to 2003 levels.
Drew commented that the Regional Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped has 80% of its costs in staffing, with labor cost increases that have to be absorbed in their operations. She said that the Division has not yet determined how the budgeted funds will be distributed between the four contracts.
Berger asked whether the Regional Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped could apply for LSTA funds in the special needs category. Branson said that they could, though the committee has not defined the categories in the past in a way that would allow it. Veronica Thompson asked whether the CCBC had experienced cuts and what future ones would be. Kiely asked whether CCBC gets funding from the UW. Drew said that UW has not indicated any cuts intended for the CCBC. Kiely asked what percentage is funded by the UW-not known.
Kiely asked what volume is anticipated for BadgetLink next year or whether anything new is anticipated. Drew indicated that no additional services are anticipated to be added-the new resources were not included in the Governor's budget. Best case would be to "hold our own" through the budget with the current databases and levels of services.
Public Library Development: Cross discussed two sub-categories, based on two LSTA purposes, Library Technology, with a slight increase for a 1% salary increase, funding Library Consultant position (Bocher) as well as continuing education for the department. Noted that Bocher chairs the E-Rate committee for ALA. Library Development: Library Improvement, which funds some of Mike Cross's and Barb Huntington's positions, as well as state-wide meetings for special needs, children's, and continuing education consultants. He noted that Huntington currently chairs a large multistate Summer Library Program consortium.
WISCAT and WISCAT ILL: Clark noted that the current project ends in 2006, which aims to maintain status quo, considering that the new model is under review. A modest increase will accommodate staff salaries and vendor contracts, but she anticipates revenue from union catalog licenses, which helps to offset some of the LSTA costs. Drew distributed information on the size of the union catalog and maintenance of the Z39.50 gateway. She pointed out that new software was loaded for the ILL gateway and some considerable training was done for new features made possible through the Z39.50 gateway. Reference and Loan Library will be testing some other new features, including email requests to libraries not using the interface, and means to determine availability of the delivery service. Twenty-four libraries still participate in patron-initiated ILL and they may add more libraries as resources permit. Thompson asked what schools they are bringing into WISCAT ILL. Clark reported that K-12 schools are primarily interested in the union catalog. There were no other comments or questions.
Drew commented that the Russells will be reporting on the study of ILL in the state. She noted that Clark reported on what the Division is currently doing, but they are also exploring what should and could be done in the future, since there are multiple options. She noted that documents are available on the Library and Information Technology Advisory Committee (LITAC) web site explaining what research is being done.
Public Library System Technology Projects: Bocher reviewed Public Library System Technology Projects with the breakdown by library system. Three basic purposes were noted, but the most popular now is for Shared Integrated Library Systems, with funds also being used for "Other Technology Project," which is a popular category (e-books, virtual reference services). There may be some funds needed for hardware costs to move systems over to the new statewide communications network. Polodna asked to confirm that the individual system numbers are based on 2005 numbers before additional funds were added. Branson asked whether the first option for Internet access should be removed from the list. Bocher said that the telecommunications circuits, without Internet access, might be used. Perhaps the category could be re-phrased in some way, such as to fund new routers (so as not to trigger the CIPA e-rate filtering requirement). No other questions or comments.
Shared Integrated Library Information Systems: Bocher noted that about 75% of libraries already participate in shared automated systems. He noted that the committee had set 2007 as the final date for this category. Bocher also noted that the last sentence in the second type of grant requests can be removed: "Any new system has to be approved by the library system and DLTCL. Iwata asked Bocher to explain the makeup of the final 25% of libraries that do not participate. Bocher said that these mostly are communities under 5000; that the larger libraries are almost all in shared systems. Arrowhead in Rock County is the one exception, where all 7 libraries are not in a shared system. Branson noted that, at the end of 2005, the state would be at about 80%.
Kiely asked for clarification of a "shared system"-is it a library system, or could a sub-set be established. LSTA defines it as more than two independent libraries sharing a system. It does not have to be operated by a library system. Cross pointed out that "for a new system, at least one of the participating libraries must be a public library system resource library…" which would preclude new systems formed by libraries pulling out of existing systems.
Polodna commented that he had proposed ending this category in 2007, which had been intended to push libraries to get it done. He would hope that the committee, in 2007, might review the topic and whether it should be sunset. What are the goals and intentions? He also pointed out what he considers to be a problem with the requirement for the ADA compliant station-that a 17" flat-panel monitor can be equivalent to a 19" CRT, which would make the requirement easier to meet for libraries to participate. Huntington pointed out that the language could be added-that the large-format LCD monitors were not previously feasible. Onufrak commented on problems resulting from previous Window 98-compatible ADA hardware.
Shared Automation Systems Study: Bocher distributed a document expanding on the narrative for the study. An outside consultant or agency would conduct the study. Purpose of the study is to explore costs of a shared automation study and who shares the costs. $32,000 is allocated currently, but Bocher has concerns that the funds will not pay for the required information, since at least a sampling of public libraries must be conducted. The Division staff asks that an additional $13,000 be added, to bring the total available to $45,000. Onufrak asked, tongue in cheek, whether systems would be paid part of the funds for providing the information. Bocher reviewed some of the information that would be provided to consultants. MacPhail said that the study is long needed. Burkhalter asked whether anything formal needed to be done to raise the total to $45,000. Branson said the change would be made since there were no objections. Onufrak asked whether studies had been done in other states. Bocher pointed out that Illinois had done a similar study which cost $85,000 for a more detailed study of more systems. Ohio had done a similar project for about $50,000.
School Participation in Shared Integrated Library Systems: Steffan distributed additional information gathered in phone conferences. Steffan noted that the long-range LSTA goals included school libraries in consideration for integrated systems. She said schools have indicated that they would like to join public shared systems. She thought it was time to add a new category for school participation. She suggested that the category be reviewed again in 2007 to see about continuation. She noted that participants in new systems must include at least two public libraries. This would preclude participants that included only school libraries. Eligibility criteria establish that a partnership will be formed between the school system and the public library system, and that districts could participate only once, not on repeated cycles. The application may be submitted by either one of the entities-either the school or the public library system may be the fiscal agent and primary applicant. She wants to leave the door open for a public library system to have an agreement with more than one public school district. This might mean two different applications working with one library system. They tried to establish a break-off for categories based on school enrollment-below and above 3000 students. The intention is for the first year of the project to award no more than two grants in each category, $15,000 and $35,000. They adapted the same use of funds criteria from the public library shared system category.
Polodna prefaced that he doesn't have a problem with adding schools to public systems. He asked how many schools are currently in public systems. Bocher reported that there are just a few instances. Polodna asked Steffan whether they are hearing from more schools asking to be added to shared systems. Steffan said that, yes, they are being asked to be added to public library systems to expand their resources and be able to add web based systems. Polodna commented that it strikes him that the criteria goes beyond "explores the feasibility" and actually adds the schools without studying the ramifications. The two entities have two totally different charges and goals. He pointed out that sharing is crucial and is not firmly established as a criteria. Steffan said that it could be included as a criterion. Polodna re-emphasized that the public library model may not work properly for a school model-that the cost will be prohibitive and that $15,000 will not be enough to do multiple district media centers. Steffan said that many districts are already paying multiple maintenance fees to a vendor for multiple catalogs in various schools. Those funds could go to offset the ongoing costs to participate in a shared system. He thought it would be better to do the project as a demonstration to explore the ramifications and impact. Steffan thought that the competitive application would be better than to use pre-determined sites.
Iwata wondered if there are schools that want to do this. Janesville, Oshkosh, Superior, Phelps were all mentioned by Steffan. They want to join the shared systems and they are at the point where they must do something new with their own systems. Berger wondered if we can look at what is already there today, and pointed out that OWLSNET has some schools in the Nicolet system. Berger asked who was involved in the phone conference. Bocher reported that the Lakeshores, Winding Rivers, Northern Waters, Wisconsin Valley, Eastern Shores, and Winnefox system staff participated. Puntney noted that Burlington participates with a school but is not fully implemented, even after two years.
Polodna emphasized again that the project should focus on feasibility instead of just on implementation. Burkhalter talked about two situations he had been involved in. In Illinois he said that the only way the sharing works is if funding is available for delivery. The funds are just not available unless CESA delivery can be involved. Shawnee in Illinois had many schools leave because the ongoing costs were prohibitive. They were interested in the resources in other schools, not so much in the public libraries. He noted it was an administrative nightmare. A circulation department had to be established in the system. He noted that combined school-public libraries were much more successful. Public schools treat their users very different from public libraries. In the Southwest Wisconsin Library System it works only because the CESA is relatively the same territory to the library system. The headquarters are in proximity, so that delivery could overlap. The situation in the summer can be difficult, but these are very small school districts. He emphasized again that the ongoing costs can be the prohibitive factor. School districts will likely decide later that the costs are not feasible. ILL worked much better for those systems. He has a difficult time agreeing that this is a good idea, when he has had experience in the past.
MacPhail wonders if the timing may be a problem here. She wonders if the school libraries could be included in a survey that is going to be done. When Burlington became part of the shared system, the school district had to become involved because of the possibility of what school children might get from public library systems that the school might not be comfortable with the child having. Summer shut-down was a huge issue with training and availability. There were many details that had to be worked out and she shared the concerns about the level of funding and the timing that might be relevant. Onufrak talked about Kohler, where the public library is in a school building. They do not charge the school because all the libraries are charged the same. Their holdings were brought in at no charge, but only because they would serve as the public library. Agonizing is the best word to use since the school library automation staff were reluctant to go on and share, but they had the benefits of shared cataloging. He would not relish the thought of another school participant in his system.
Richmond said she found the discussion amusing because she could remember discussions at Indianhead in the past that served as arguments against public library systems. Perhaps we should work just as hard to make the possibility available to public schools. It just may work, especially where there had been close association between schools and public libraries. Iwata said that in South Central Library System the efforts to get the final smaller libraries has been difficult where the library has to assume the ongoing costs once the startup costs are exhausted.
MacPhail pointed out another model in Ohio where the equivalent of CESAs made a statewide effort to fund automation of public schools. It was done with state funding. Then all the schools were able to borrow among themselves. She pointed out that Burlington caused complaints when the school holdings were not available to public library patrons. She said, nonetheless, that we should have a goal to have all types of libraries share resources. Marini said that, based on Burkhalter's comments, there are very valid concerns and issues that vary throughout the state, especially delivery costs. Maybe this isn't a bad idea as a feasibility study and perhaps should be limited in scope to those that really want to try it and can make the commitment. He asks how many schools they anticipate would participate? Steffan said she is not really sure since she has not done a survey, but that schools have called and expressed an interest. She would like to go ahead and try this project to support the schools and see if it can be done. Marini said that the school districts need to know what is involved and make the commitment. Burton suggested that point 8, sustainability, needs to be made very strong in the requirements for the grant. Iwata also said that number 8 should be stronger and more specific. Onufrak said that the history from WISCAT has been that schools use the money to do their retrospective conversion, then never update their holdings after that. He said it makes him gun-shy on extending LSTA funds for a new use. Steffan said that this type of automation might be able to be used to update WISCAT holdings. Clark noted that the schools have been updating online more than the public libraries since the public libraries have other options. Steffan said that a required match by schools may not be a problem.
Discussion continued until 4:10 p.m. when the meeting adjourned until Wednesday, March 30.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Branson opened the meeting at 8:33 and introduced Jeff and Linda Russell of Russell Consulting, Inc., to present Library Resource Sharing Experiences, Expectations, and Preferences of Wisconsin's Libraries: A Summary Report.
The Russells discussed stakeholder tendencies and noted that 30% indicated that they could not pay any amount. Polodna asked if that meant that those libraries were not currently participating. DeBacher replied that perhaps their systems were subsidizing the costs. Drew said the particular libraries may use the free public Web component, then call a library to do the fill.
The three main components to interlibrary loan are a union catalog, a means of generating loan requests, and an ILL management system.
The Russells reviewed a number of different types of charts and explained how they might be interpreted. They noted that they had originally intended to ask 10 questions for the study. The complexity of the issue required 126 questions. One question had 26 parts.
What next? They emphasized the need to spend time alone with the data and "be one with the project." Jeff commented that it may be more useful to pose a particular question or theory, then look to see whether the data can support that inference.
Review data on your own
Pose "theories" and test them out by looking at the data
Draw your own conclusions
Make informed decisions-verify that the data back up the decisions you make
Keep working toward the ideal!
Burton asked about special libraries-how many are both a university library AND a special library as opposed to a hospital or corporate library? Clark reported that the university medical libraries were surveyed as academic. Burton said that one university medical library had been in the focus group as a special library. Drew explained the composition of the special library representation.
The Russells thanked the committee for their time. The committee broke for a short period at 9:25.
Report from Jessica MacPhail on the System and Resource Library Administrators Association of Wisconsin (SRLAAW) ILL study. The SRLAAW committee was appointed in 2003. SRLAAW initially wanted a consultant, which eventually morphed into the Russell report, which wasn't necessarily the type of information SRLAAW was after. They thought that cataloging should not be prime function of WISCAT, since other sources are available. They wanted to look at other states for other models for ILL. Committee felt that the function and role of the clearinghouses should be studied, rather than having the technology or software drive the system. Shelf status is desirable but not always available through the Z39.50 interface. The searches can be ungainly slow through Z39.50. Should a common vendor be selected? Not realistically achievable. Recommended a hybrid system with union catalog and Z39.50 with hyperlink capabilities may be the best direction to go. They looked at a model being tested by OCLC in Illinois. A fixed statewide price would be desirable. OCLC has a structure designed to meet the ILL needs and adapt to changing technologies. The main recommendation of the committee is that the state should negotiate a fixed price contract with OCLC using the Illinois state model. The committee report was approved by SRLAAW which saw more merit in going to OCLC system than in maintaining a static, sometimes outdated union catalog and sometimes unworkable Z39.50 linkages. The process was not easy or short-much thoughtful time, discussion, and field trips were involved. MacPhail asked that the committee carefully consider the committee recommendations.
MacPhail also commented that the SRLAAW committee thought a statewide circulation system would be desirable and, while having some of the same inertia problems of large groups resisting change, that if the state were to negotiate and approve a primary vendor at fixed prices, the state may be able to move in that direction. Burkhalter commented that OCLC had required that Illinois guarantee that every public library had to be members. Polodna commented that, while in Wisconsin, some of the institutions have involvement with OCLC already, many libraries have no connection or dealing with OCLC. He personally found the committee's report intriguing since it had many discouragements to going to OCLC yet they recommended that in the end. He said that he had been the only dissenting vote among SRLAAW. Richmond asked whether they had looked at Minnesota and their model, which has a large component of a Z39.50 gateway to Minitex through Fretwell-Downing.
Sally Drew reported on activities planned to follow-up on the study (handout included in packet):
They would make an effort to come to some sort of consensus or at least justify a Division position once a direction is taken. Efforts now are to look at the needs and requirements, models and protocols, without looking at a specific vendor, to determine the direction to take. The Division has been using the LITAC committee to review issue papers prepared for their information. The guidelines established in 1996 need to be reviewed and updated. An ILL guidelines committee will be appointed to go through that process, without looking at systems or software-see what it wants to do first and how it should be done. Two days for vendor demonstrations will be held in conjunction with LITAC meetings and Drew invited the committee to attend the demonstrations, which will be held at the Pyle Center on May 26 and September 16. An RFI was sent out to get a feel for what is available among six different vendors. Four vendors Autographics, Dynix, Fretwell-Downing, and OCLC responded. Library Corporation and Innovative Interfaces replied that they would like to be considered but did not supply a response at the time. 2005 will be used for discussion of what is real, what is not possible, and what is desired. Next year another bid must be put out for a new system. Generally, five or six months are required for a transition to a new system. January 2007 will be the date to have a new system with some consensus.
Burkhalter asked if Dynix bid the URSA model. He said that they use it and it works well with Dynix products. Drew responded that they used a proprietary system that was not necessarily Z39.50 compliant. Innovative is at a similar junction, similar to Endeavor's Voyager model. Iwata asked about the review of policy protocol models and whether funding would be involved in that study. Drew replied that, since they will not necessarily be looking at specific systems, it may be difficult to look at specific funding models. Iwata asked who would be working on the RFP development. Drew replied that a draft would be prepared by staff and reviewed by LITAC. Iwata is concerned that everybody get input into the RFP process and funding-how it would be funded, and how much the state would pay, including both LSTA funds and how local library payments. Drew replied that there is more than one model of funding now, both at state level, and at local model, which varies in different regions.
Digitization-Local Resources: Drew has worked with UW-Madison and their digital group. Current projects are underway and going well. Those who had completed the project were very happy with the mentoring and support provided by UW. She provided the Manitowoc agreement as an example of factors involved. UW indicated that about the same level of work could be achieved on an ongoing basis, particularly if we continue to introduce new libraries to the process. They are comfortable accommodating seven grants. The experience with matching funds did not mesh with management for the overall projects, which is why the matching component was dropped from the requirements. Grant applications between $3000 and $6000 could be submitted. Libraries need to show how they have sufficient local resources and support to make the projects successful. Grants will only fund costs to the UW-Madison. The definition of eligible applicants is the same, but libraries who have already completed projects may not re-submit. She commented that the ultimate hope is that the UW could accommodate those libraries who want to do more projects without LSTA support. She said that UW is already working with some outside libraries and agencies. It is really easier for them to do large projects than small projects, because of the training and support required.
Comments: Iwata asked who submits the metadata. Drew replied that it is a combination of the library and the UW, since only the owner knows the entire information required for description. UW puts in administrative metadata, much of which describes the digitization process.
Polodna asked whether the committee should consider the request for a library to do repeat projects. He suggested that we might be able to consider repeats so long as they meet the criteria of providing resources of statewide interest. Onufrak said that libraries must understand that LSTA should not be considered ongoing funding. Burton said that some projects may need to be spread out and require multiple years. Burkhalter said one of the concerns had been to avoid having particular institutions that were really good at digitizing take undue advantage of the funding source, excluding other libraries that want to test the technology. The reviewers should be made aware of this. Iwata said that previously many more libraries applied than they had anticipated and that the libraries should have to look for alternate funding sources. She argued for spreading it around and starting with individual projects. Burkhalter wondered how Manitowoc was able to fund a $50,000 project but felt they required $3,000 for another project. Richmond asked whether the faculty review of projects is required. Drew replied that the UW agreed to accept our projects without that step.
Burkhalter asked if there is an update on DOT's project hopes. Drew reported that the UW would meet with DOT staff to see whether the UW might sponsor their project. Their project would cost substantially more than what our grants could provide. Puntney asked whether the total number of grants is the same as what the UW agreed to accommodate.
Virtual Reference Service: Drew noted that previously there were two primary groups in the state working with two different vendors. There has been consolidation of Ref 24/7 and OCLC's virtual reference (the former was started in California with LSTA money). The 24/7 comprehensive service will now be available to all clients in the model that is evolving. OCLC provided a quote for statewide coverage in Wisconsin, whether the library is contributing hours or not. The libraries will need to pay for access to the software and for training. The statewide provision is $66,000 for the first year. Reference and Loan has been covering 10 hours per week, which they will continue to do. 45 hours per week total will need to be covered. Costs went up when the local chat option was added. Branson wondered whether the $66,000 would be paid to WiLS. Drew replied that the grant would be paid to the Division, then Drew would do a procurement for the service, which WiLS would provide. Polodna said the pricing raises questions and asked whether the $66,000 would be carried every year by LSTA. Drew said she hoped that a three-year program might be sought, then funding would have to be established after that time. He would like to have the limits of funding established now so that the expectation is not assumed later and that participating libraries will know that their will be costs in the future. Kiely agreed that a limit of three years should be established, though she did say that she is excited about the category and that Milwaukee will want to participate and provide service. She wondered what the cost for an individual library to participate would be. MacPhail commented that the project would be a great use for LSTA and would be good to promote to national legislators as a good example of fund use. Burkhalter reported that their resource library uses 24/7 and pays $6700, so the cost proposed is a good deal for statewide coverage. He thinks it is a good way for a resource library to be able to resume some of the reference services that have dropped off through the years. Kiely said that Milwaukee had been skeptical about the actual need. Last fall they did a survey and had positive responses to two questions regarding virtual reference. She needs to know the demographics about the third of respondents that were very positive about the service. Drew said that some of the literature has reported better success when there is statewide coordination of services. Burton reported that UW has experienced the need for two types of virtual reference, one for students, one for lay requests for medical information. DeBacher reported his experience with 24/7 through the South Central Library System project and wondered whether the low-cost training would be able to continue.
Delivery Service: Drew noted that the need for additional support to Northern Waters Library Service is required since delivery does not go all the way to their system, and the benefit of having their full participation for statewide delivery is compelling. She noted that a few years ago additional money was available so more was appropriated for South Central Library System. She referenced the letter from the delivery service advisory committee requesting additional funding. The committee needs to determine what level of subsidy is desirable and required.
Special Needs: Huntington said there are not substantial changes in the category. She had listened to the discussion about whether LSTA funds should be used for continuation projects, since it is very specific. Infant and toddler programs have been incorporated into the general literacy category. She showed the new publication and said that some implementation of suggestions from the childhood literacy publication. Applicants must cite the learning goals in their application. Collaboration is still required, even for infant and toddler, grants, which include the purchase of some GED materials, or contracting for a service to provide GED preparation materials. She noted that continuation grants will be more carefully scrutinized, unless specific components of expanded projects are submitted. A question will be added to the application form so that disclosure of previous grants in this category will be required.
Marini asked who had received the Early Childhood Literacy publication. He also asked whether the types of materials that can be purchased are outlined. Huntington reported that no specific requirement is designated, except the GED requirement. Kiely said she did not see the connection between GED materials and infant literacy grants. She asked what the limit of the grant is. No limit is made, but the range has been $10,000 and up. Large libraries often apply for more. Branson said the last grants ranged from $7000 to $33,000. Kiely asked whether agencies are allowed to apply for more than one grant targeting different age groups. Huntington said that, since special needs is the targeted group, even the infant group must target children whose parents is a special needs target group, which is where the GED preparation requirement comes in. Kiely said that LSTA is not by definition only for start-up projects. When she first wrote one in 1998, the grants were non-competitive and were for three-year periods. She thought that was a nice range of years that did not so limit the scope of projects that could be accomplished. Onufrak commented that he had been on the LSTA committee when that 3-year component was initiated. He said that, at the time, the option of a larger scope was considered and funded. Nemec said that she generally supports LSTA as start-up funding, but she can now see better where circumstance might require a longer range of time to complete the projects. Kiely said that the 1999 project still continues and has a strong positive local impact, supported with private funds. Polodna said that the issue historically is more concern that too many of the funds end up being entitlements, which consumes too much of the resources. He doesn't have a problem with multi-year projects. He is more concerned that the institutions end up expecting the funds on an ongoing basis. Richmond wondered whether "intention" for mulit-year grants can be accommodated. Branson reported that incorporating the idea for multi-year competitive grants may not work within LSTA guidelines. Huntington noted that systems often coordinate grants that include different batches of libraries in different funding years. She said that the problem with non-competitive grants for multi-year projects is that some of the applications were of such poor quality that there was poor follow-up and completion of the projects. Burkhalter said he loves non-competitive grants and they provide a means to even the distribution. But he noted that a mix is required since the competitive grants foster creativity.
Seniors with sensory or mobility disabilities: Huntington reported that the funds cannot be used to server the general needs of seniors, only the special needs outlined in the requirements. The grants can also serve those who provide services to the seniors with special needs. The category will also allow libraries and systems to update their mobility aids with open adaptive access. Retrofitting a door in a building can be used, but not to offset new construction.
State Institution Library Coordination: Huntington noted that the LSTA guidelines support central coordination in the Department of Corrections. This support goes toward encouraging the Department of Corrections to provide a staff to coordinate the provision of services in state institutions.
DLTCL-Communications and Planning: Grobschmidt noted that this money is used for funding meetings, conferences and travel for statewide planning committees and some of the money is used for the printing and distribution of Channel.
Library Card Sign-Up Promotions: Cross said last fall 10 grants were funded at a total of $77,507. They are intended to recognize the importance of public libraries and acknowledge that the best supporters are regular users. Also, those who do not currently use public libraries may be those who may most need the services. He outlined the criteria and requirements. Since 2005 is the first year for this category, libraries must explain very specifically why they are applying in 2006 if they have received a 2005 grant. Polodna asked why the language of continuation was incorporated. Cross said that the manner of inclusion was provided for the committee's consideration. Iwata said that she would like to know the percentage of total increase and additional numbers that are required. Onufrak concurred. Cross said that a system might have applied and hoped to target a different area or audience for a new grant. Burton said that the goal must be use of the card, not just issuance of the card. Thompson asked whether the group targets are being met. Branson said that results could be brought to the next meeting, since the titles of the grants do not always indicate the targets. MacPhail described their program and showed the library card that had been designed through a contest.
Branson distributed and Cross discussed the 2004 library system size study. The School of Library and Information Studies at UW-Madison conducted the study for $7500 which included a recommendation to use LSTA funds to encourage a reduction in the number of public library systems. Burkhalter asked why Arrowhead and Kenosha are displayed differently. Onufrak questioned the details submitted by Nicolet. Berger replied that OWLS provides some of the services to Nicolet. Berger noted that that the member libraries of the three smallest systems did not respond.
LSTA Administration: Peg Branson
Branson noted that the amount is below the 4% allowed for administration, which includes support services at DPI for indirect services such as the business office, shipping/handling, human resources. Zimmerman noted that LSTA pays a low percent in indirect compared with other DPI federal programs.
Additional Grant Requests:
The committee reviewed the Wisconsin Historical Society's request for continuing funding for their project. Berger asked why it was not presented by staff. Branson replied that the staff upheld the committee's sentiment to avoid ongoing project requests, but staff knew that the Wisconsin Historical Society would approach the committee separately. Polodna said that last year he had a problem with the Wisconsin Historical Society continually coming back again and again for work that is the responsibility of the Wisconsin Historical Society. We understand their budget needs, but it is not the purpose of LSTA funds to make up for local fund deficiencies. Richmond said that her students repeatedly access the materials cataloged and the Wisconsin Historical Society has had severe budget cutbacks. Polodna responded that he does not argue with the funding need, but does not feel it is LSTA's responsibility to fund these agencies when the legislature does not provide the required funding. If this committee approves another grant, it might as well assume that LSTA will pay the $330,000 cost of the full project, because they will continually be back.
Drew said that it is certainly the committee's option to pay only so much and no more. Burkhalter is concerned that we are already using LSTA funds for things the state should be paying for-should we continue and expand that or should we draw the line? He noted the situation in Illinois which is admirable and he hoped that we would not go the other way and simply meet to approve using LSTA funds to pay for programs that should be funded by the state. Burton wondered where the current grant would take their project and when they would reach 50% of their total project. Richmond asked how much they requested last year. Polodna replied that it was about the same amount as this request.
Recommendations on Grant Categories for 2006
Branson reviewed the approval process for the group.
Burkhalter moved, supported by Onufrak, to postpone the proposal for the Schools In Shared Systems category this year. We are doing a shared systems study and the results may better lead us to know what direction to take, so he proposed postponing the decision. Richmond asked if there are any schools in the system study. Bocher reported no, but said that the study would include the current and potential involvement. Drew wondered if the study could include an additional question. Marini wondered whether, by postponing, would the category come back automatically next year, or would it have to be proposed again next year? Branson said that it would need to be proposed again. The motion carried, three opposed, 10 in favor.
Polodna moved, supported by Kiely, for the Library System Technology Projects category at $375,000. Passed unanimously.
Polodna moved, supported by Richmond, for Delivery funding at $75,000, with $60,000 for SCLS and $15,000 for NWLS. Onufrak asked if there is a reason to keeping it at $75,000. David said that the category needs to be controlled and he thinks it is becoming an entitlement. Unanimously carried.
MacPhail moved, supported by Burkhalter, to fund the Virtual Reference category at $66,000. Polodna moved, supported by Onufrak, to amend the motion to establish that the intention is to fund this category for no longer than three years and that, at the end of the LSTA funding, the costs would be distributed to the individual libraries. Amendment carried unanimously. Amended motion carried unanimously.
Burkhalter moved, supported by Berger, to fund the Shared System Follow-Up at $15,000. Bocher commented that the lower end figure is probably appropriate since the committee increased the 2005 level of support. Carried unanimously
MacPhail moved, supported by Onufrak, to fund the Statewide Institution Coordination category at $25,000. Carried unanimously.
Polodna moved, supported by Puntney, to approve the Shared Integrated Library Systems category at $300,000. Carried unanimously. The committee also approved change in the monitor requirement to include a 17" LCD panel.
Burkhalter moved, supported by MacPhail, to fund LSTA Administration at $98,000. Carried unanimously.
Puntney moved, supported by MacPhail to fund the Library Card Signup at $75,000. Iwata asked that wording be changed to indicate that repeat applicants reflect what their registration levels and costs results were for the first project. Cross said that the numbers may be incomplete. Iwata said they could submit what they have. Richmond asked how many grants were funded this year. Cross answered 10 were applied for and awarded. She wondered how long the category would exist. Cross said generally three years is the typical lifespan, though it is ultimately up to the advisory committee. The motion carried with one voting against the motion.
MacPhail moved, supported by Iwata to fund the DLTCL Communication and Planning at $25,000. Motion carried unanimously.
Iwata asked what the implications are of not funding the State Resource Contracts. Drew replied that we will not have the funds to pay for all of the contracts at the current levels, but we have not decided either, how we would pay them or even if the state budget will be increased to pay for them. Drew said she does not have the information to determine what cuts will be required or at what level. Cuts at the Regional Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped likely will have to be made, since they were held harmless the last time. Grobschmidt reported how the cuts were handled in the past biennium. He hoped that the contracts would be an item of discussion in the legislature and hoped they could be restored. Drew commented that, no matter what we do, even if state funds are restored to the 2003 levels, there will be cuts. Iwata wondered whether, if the committee does not allocate funds, would not the cuts be even more drastic. She also asked whether the library community and this committee should address the situation in Milwaukee County to ensure resource sharing. Cross replied that the legislature has not acted on the state budget and the Division has not given up hope that the budget process will correct the deficiencies. Grobschmidt conveyed the Superintendent's remarks to the legislature's Joint Finance Committee, that library system aids need to be addressed with funds in addition to what the Governor submitted. She made specific reference to four communities considering withdrawal from their library system due to lack of funding. The Division has had the opinion that library system aids should be the first source to address this sort of resource sharing. Branson said that the committee could, if it desired, allocate funds to address the state contacts that could be changed or amended in November. Burkhalter noted that, since an application would not be made, it could be reconsidered in November. Branson noted that in November the committee does not consider new categories. Burkhalter suggested a token amount that could be reconsidered in the fall. Polodna said that, in his recollection, the last time this was funded it was to address a very specific shortfall and, to fund an unknown need at this time would not be a good message to send to the legislature. The problem also is that there may be no money in November. MacPhail said that last time the money was a one time stop-gap for a specific situation and that the intention was to not go there again. No action was taken.
Polodna moved, supported by Nemec, to fund $618,000 for Reference and Loan. Motion carried unanimously.
Marini moved, supported by Polodna, to fund WISCAT at $661,500. Onufrak asked what the original cost was for individual libraries and had Reference and Loan Library considered increasing it. Clark said it had always been $150 but that to increase it would likely deter some libraries. Carried unanimously.
Nemec moved, supported by Onufrak, to fund the Public Library Development-Technology at $132,200. Carried with one abstention.
Kiely moved, supported by Puntney, to fund the Literacy category at $300,000. Carried unanimously.
Burkhalter moved, supported by Berger to fund the Public Library Development-Library Improvement category at $240,100.
Polodna moved, supported by Onufrak to fund the Digitization-Local Resources projects category at $35,000 with no restriction on a second year of funding. Berger asked to confirm whether more funds would overload the UW for the number of projects. Polodna said that it is not enough for all 7 projects to request the full amount. Carried unanimously.
Burkhalter moved, supported by MacPhail, to fund the Literacy category at $275,000 (instead of $300,000) and to fund the Senior/Sensory Disabilities category at $78,200. The motion carried unanimously.
Richmond wondered whether the committee could consider contingency funding for Access to State Government Publications. Branson said that the category could not be funded unless there is money to commit. Polodna wondered if it were possible to do the category in November since it is a non-competitive grant. Burton moved, supported by Richmond, to fund the Access to State Government Publications category at $55,000. He said he would like to zero the category this year and request the extra information from the Wisconsin Historical Society as to how much has been completed with their current project. The motion failed: two in favor, others opposed. Polodna reiterated Burton's request of the Wisconsin Historical Society, if they request this category in the future, they should report what progress they have made and how will they proceed on the project.
Marini asked whether, if there is more money in the fall, the Schools in Shared Systems could be brought in November. No, since it is a competitive category.
Burton pointed out that school districts could be added to library systems under the existing Shared Integrated Library Information Systems block grant category. Bocher confirmed the concept.
Review of LSTA Process for 2006
Cross asked if we should determine whether rules should be set for existing categories, such as the library card sign-up project, that anyone applying for another grant in a particular category would need to show their specific need as well as how their current grant is progressing. Polodna said he had no problem with that. Kiely asked whether grant writing training would be provided again. She noted that in the November minutes there were comments on the digitization process. She wondered if there are model grants from the last process that could be made available. Branson thought there should not be a problem.
Final Comments
The categories will be conveyed to the State Superintendent, who has the final say in the grant categories and amounts available. Probably by the end of April or early May the categories will be finalized and posted.
Next Meeting-November 2005. Onufrak has a conflict for the first week and Burton may have a conflict on the first two weeks. Branson cannot meet the third week. It was acknowledged that the Crown Plaza facility works much better for the meetings.
1:50 Adjourn
Minutes prepared by John DeBacher
Return to LSTA Homepage.
Peg Branson
LSTA Program Coordinator
Division for Libraries and Community Learning
Public Library Development
125 South Webster Street, P.O. Box 7841
Madison, WI 53707-07841
(608) 266-2413
peg.branson@dpi.wi.gov
For questions about this information, contact Robert F. Bocher (608) 266-2127
Last updated on 2/25/2008 12:38:22 PM
Home
About Us
