Comfort Inn / Madison, WI
Wednesday, November 13, 2003
Members present: Alan Engelbert, Anne Iwata, Karen Krueger, Mindy
LaBonte, Douglas Lay, Sandra Lockett, Jessica MacPhail, Ida Nemec, David
Polodna, Kathleen Setter,
Edward Van Gemert
Members absent but not voting: Donna Steffan
Members absent: Sandy Szafranski
DLTCL staff present: Bob Bocher, Peg Branson,
Mary Clark, Mike Cross, Sally Drew, Garrett Erickson, Rick Grobschmidt, Barb Huntington, Neah
Lohr, Vicki Long, Al Zimmerman
CALL TO ORDER
Branson called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m.
WELCOME AND
OPENING REMARKS
Grobschmidt
thanked the committee members for their volunteer time and service. He
reported that the Division and the State Superintendent value the committee's
recommendations for the best use of Wisconsin's LSTA funding.
Grobschmidt
noted that while the State Superintendent requested 13% index level funding
for public library systems for the next biennium, the funding approved by the
legislature and governor is at the same level as current funding. BadgerLink
will receive a slight increase in funding, but funding for the state level
resource contracts was reduced by 15%--resulting in service reductions. He
noted that the Division will today be proposing a partial service restoration
of the state contracts through the temporary use of LSTA funds.
Grobschmidt gave
special thanks to committee members who will be completing their terms at the
end of 2003: Alan Engelbert, Karen Krueger, Douglas Lay, and Sandi Szafranski.
REVIEW OF THE AGENDA
Branson briefly
reviewed the agenda. She noted that at the end of today's meeting we would
like comments and/or preliminary suggestions for LSTA activities for 2005.
Polodna moved approval of the agenda. Seconded by Lockett. Motion carried.
MINUTES OF MARCH 2003 MEETING
Lay moved approval of the March, 2003 minutes as
presented. Seconded by Van Gemert. Motion carried.
LSTA COORDINATOR'S REPORT
Branson reported that
LSTA has been reauthorized by Congress and signed by the President. However,
the final 2004 federal LSTA budget is yet to be approved by Congress. Both
the House and the Senate have approved appropriations for LSTA, but the
conference committee has not yet reached agreement. The projected final total
for Wisconsin is estimated to be somewhere in the range of between $56,000
less than 2003 to $200,000 more than 2003. Grant awards for next year will
probably need to be made contingent on receipt of federal funding.
Branson and Zimmerman discussed the federal maintenance
of effort law requiring states to maintain their state support for library
programs at a minimum of the average of the previous three years or face
ratable reductions in LSTA funding. Wisconsin may not meet the maintenance of
effort requirement in 2003, 2004, and 2005. Penalties will possibly be
assessed on 2005, 2006 and 2007 Wisconsin LSTA funding.
Branson and Bocher reported on Children's Internet
Protection Act (CIPA) compliance as it applies to library use of LSTA funds.
2004 LSTA APPLICATIONS
Branson then discussed
the procedures that will be followed for discussion of the 2004 applications,
and the conflict of interest policy. Branson presented a summary of the funds
budgeted and funds requested in each of the LSTA categories for 2004. Branson
noted that the committee will have a total of $3,010,000 to work with for
2004. This amount includes an estimated carryover from 2003 of $210,000.
Discussion and
Review Of 2004 LSTA Applications
State Library Agency Categories--General
Grobschmidt reported that the DPI faces
increasing financial pressure. In addition to cuts incurred before the most
recent state budget, the next biennial budget reduces GPR funding of the DPI
by 15% and additional cuts are likely.
Public Library
Development: Statewide Technology
Cross explained
that funds in this category support the Public Library Technology Consultant
position and related activities. He noted that the decreased costs in this
category are primarily due to a decrease in the fixed costs the DPI charges
for each DPI staff position to fund information technology support, utilities,
etc.
Public Library
Development: Library Improvement
Cross explained
that funds in this category support the Public Library Youth and Special
Services Consultant position and a 1/2 FTE Program Assistant position. The
most significant change in this category is that it is now provides partial
funding (80%) for the position of Director of the Public Library Development
Team. Funds in this category are also used to support the summer library
program, the collection of public library statistics; and statewide meetings
of system special needs consultants, youth services consultants, and
continuing education consultants. One additional increase in this category is
due to the likely need to migrate to new software for electronic forms. It is
estimated that the migration will cost approximately $15,000.
Reference and Loan: Statewide Library Resource Sharing Technology
Drew reported
that funding in this category supports the work of 8.7 FTE staff who carry out
tasks related to development, management, maintenance and use of technology to
provide interlibrary loan and reference services; BadgerLink portal and
full-text database support services; the Wisconsin Document Depository
Program, including access to electronic government publications through the
state portal; and the operation and maintenance of the automated systems at
the Reference and Loan Library, including the circulation and automated
booking systems. One significant change in this category is that it is now
provides partial funding (30%) for the position of Director of the Reference
and Loan Library.
Also included in
this category is a proposal to use LSTA funds to temporarily fund the WiLS
interlibrary loan contract, the Milwaukee Public Library interlibrary loan
contract, and statewide delivery (through the South Central Library System)
for the Milwaukee County Federated Library System (MCFLS). The purpose of
this proposal is to partially restore the loss of service that resulted
primarily because of a state funding cut to the statewide resource contracts
and to keep interlibrary loan channels open between MCFLS libraries and the
rest of the state. Essentially, this proposal is a temporary and partial fix
to hold things together while a long-term solution can be developed.
Committee
members raised questions and concerns about this proposal. Some raised the
concern that this proposal might make it more difficult to achieve a long-term
funding solution. Others argued that the state contract should not fund
interlibrary loan access between MCFLS and the rest of the state because other
systems do not receive special funding for this. Drew responded that the
purpose of the Milwaukee Public Library contract is primarily to provide
access to the unique items held by that library.
DLTCL'Communication and Planning
Grobschmidt
reviewed the use of funds in this category, which includes committee travel,
membership in COSLA, and expenses for printing and mailing Channel and
other publications. He noted the $5,000 reduction in the level of funding
requested for printing and distribution of Channel. Beginning with the
September-October 2003 issue, print copies of Channel will be
distributed only to public library trustees, legislators, and document
depository libraries. It will be available in PDF on the web for librarians
and others.
LSTA Administration
Interlibrary
Loan Needs Assessment and Planning Activities
Grobschmidt
reported that the DLTCL plans to use $10,000 to hire an outside consultant to
conduct a needs assessment as part of a planning process for statewide
interlibrary loan. The consultant would design and conduct a survey of the
uses of WISCAT and interlibrary loan protocols, and lead small-group listening
sessions to help determine the needs of public, academic, school and special
libraries. It was noted that a committee of System and Resource Library
Administrators of Wisconsin (SRLAAW) is also conducting a study of statewide
interlibrary loan technology alternatives. The results of that study may
prove helpful to the DLTCL's interlibrary loan planning process.
WISCAT and WISCAT ILL
Cross explained
that it is proposed that $7,500 be
used to conduct a study of the relationship between public library system
services and public library system size. The idea for this study came out of
the recommendations of the State Superintendent's Task Force on Library
Legislation and Funding. The UW'Madison School of Library and Information
Studies has agreed to conduct this study with assistance provided by DLTCL
staff. An outline of the proposed study was reviewed by the committee.
Some
committee members recommended that an advisory committee assist with the
study. It was also suggested that the study should first work on defining the
purpose of library systems.
Bocher reviewed the activities of this committee, which
has included discussion of the new WISCAT and the WISCAT interlibrary loan
systems and discussion of enhancements to BadgerLink. Travel and other
committee costs for about three meetings are proposed to be funded using
$5,000 in LSTA funds.
Library System
Technology Projects
Bocher reported that this noncompetitive project awards
funding on a formula basis to each of the 17 systems that can be used for the
following general purposes: shared systems, Internet access, adaptive
technologies or other technology projects consistent with the Wisconsin
Library Technology Strategic Plan. Bocher noted that DLTCL staff are
recommending that total allocations to the library systems in this category be
increased by $111,349. Each library system will be required to submit a
revised application to show how the additional funds will be used. In 2003
90% of the state's public libraries (serving 98% of the state's population)
have automated systems. Of those, 72% are shared systems (this compares to
51% in 2000).
Shared Automated Systems
Bocher reported that the Division received only four
grants requesting a total of $100,000 while the preliminary budget had
allocated $300,000 to this category. Bocher said that these grants will add a
total of nine libraries to shared systems. It is possible that restricted
local library budgets are largely responsible for the low number of
applicants. Some committee members urged that the category be made less
restrictive in future years.
Adult, Family,
and Early Literacy
Huntington reported that 22 applications were received
in this category with a total requested amount of $418,251, while $300,000 was
in the preliminary budget for this category. She reported the preliminary
recommendation of DLTCL staff is to fund all of the applications. She noted
that the four lowest-ranked applications all have problems, but staff believe
that the projects could be successful if the applications are resubmitted to
meet certain conditions. Some committee members said that they did not
support funding for the four lowest-ranked grants because of the quality of
the proposals and the projects are essentially projects to buy materials.
Public Library District Feasibility Planning
Cross reported that six applications were received in
this category with a total requested amount of $30,000, while $25,000 was in
the preliminary budget for this category. He reported that DLTCL staff are
recommending that all six projects be funded.
FINAL
RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS AND ALLOCATION OF FUNDS
Motion by
Polodna to fund DLTCL'Reference and Loan at $597,600. Seconded by Engelbert.
Motion carried.
Motion by
Polodna to fund DLTCL'Library Development at $130,600. Seconded by Setter.
Motion carried.
Motion by
Polodna to fund WISCAT and WISCAT ILL at $643,200. Seconded by Engelbert.
Motion carried.
Motion by
Krueger to fund the Library Technology Committee (LITAC) at $5,000. Seconded
by Polodna. Motion carried.
Motion by
Krueger to fund Library System Technology Projects at $472,149. Seconded by
Setter. Motion carried. (Englebert, Polodna, and Iwata abstained.)
Motion by
MacPhail to fund Shared Automated Systems at $100,000. Seconded by Nemec.
Motion carried. (Polodna and Iwata abstained.)
Motion by
Polodna to fund Delivery'State Committee at $2,500. Seconded by Engelbert.
Motion carried.
Motion by
Engelbert to fund State Institution Coordination at $25,000. Seconded by
Polodna. Motion carried.
Motion by
Krueger to fund DLTCL'Library Development: Library Improvement at $281,200.
Seconded by Nemec. Motion carried.
Motion by
Polodna to fund DLTCL'Communication and Planning at $25,000. Seconded by
LaBonte. Motion carried.
Motion by
Krueger to fund the Public Library Directors Handbook at $3,000. Seconded by
Lockett. Motion carried.
Motion by
Engelbert to fund the Public Library District Feasibility Studies at $30,000.
Seconded by Polodna. Motion carried. (MacPhail abstained.)
Motion by
Krueger to fund the Public Library System Study at $7,500 with the stipulation
that an advisory committee assist with the study. Seconded by Van Gemert.
Motion carried.
Motion by
Krueger to fund LSTA Administration at $98,000. Seconded by Polodna. Motion
carried.
Motion by
Engelbert to fund the Statewide WISCAT/ILL Assessment at $10,000 with the
stipulation that an advisory committee be appointed to assist in drafting the
proposal for the study. Seconded by Van Gemert. Motion carried. (Lockett
abstained.)
Motion by
Krueger to not fund the four lowest-ranked Literacy Applications. Seconded by
Engelbert. Motion carried (7-3). (Lockett abstained.)
Motion by
MacPhail to fund the remaining Literacy Applications. Seconded by Van Gemert.
Motion carried. (Krueger, Engelbert, Polodna, Iwata, and Lockett abstained.)
Motion by
Polodna to fund Delivery'Projects at $75,000. Seconded by Van Gemert.
Motion by
Engelbert to amend the motion by adding $50,000 to the category. Seconded by
Mac Phail. Motion to amend carried. Motion as amended carried. (Iwata and
Lockett abstained.)
Motion by
Krueger to not fund Milwaukee County Delivery. Seconded by Mac Phail.
Krueger noted that other systems are also facing budget difficulties and are
being required to cut staff and programs. After further discussion Krueger
withdrew her motion.
Motion by
Engelbert to fund the Statewide Resource Contracts with Milwaukee Public and
WiLS at $76,000 with the stipulation that the minutes indicate that this is
intended to be only one-time funding. Seconded by Setter. Motion carried.
(8-2) (Lockett abstained.) Krueger requested that the minutes also indicate
that the contract with the Milwaukee Public Library is intended to pay for
only items provided by the Milwaukee Public Library to libraries in the rest
of the state.
PUBLIC HEARING
Lisa
Strand, Executive Director of WLA, spoke in favor using LSTA funding for a
statewide project promoting libraries. WLA will be working on some library
advocacy projects in 2004 and 2005 that could be coordinated with an LSTA
project.
Tom
Hennen, Director of the Waukesha County Library System, spoke in favor of
fewer restrictions on the applications in the Shared System category. In
particular, he favored raising the limit on total funds that can be requested
and favored allowing projects to migrate libraries from one shared system to
another shared system, making a single shared system in Waukesha County and
fewer shared systems overall.
Sandy
Robbers, Director of the Indianhead Federated Library System, submitted
written testimony supporting continuation of the Shared System category.
FINAL
RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS AND ALLOCATION OF FUNDS (continued)
Motion by
Polodna to fund delivery for the Milwaukee County Federated Library System at
$10,000 indicating the strong desire that this not become an on-going
LSTA-funded project. Seconded by Setter. Motion carried (6-2). (Lockett and
Iwata abstained.)
Motion by
MacPhail to add $35,725 to the Library System Technology Projects. Seconded
by Krueger. Motion failed (2-4). (Englebert, Polodna, Lay, and Iwata
abstained.)
Motion by
LaBonte to add $35,725 to the Literacy category, with DLTCL staff to determine
how to distribute the funds. Seconded by Lay. Motion carried (5-4).
(Lockett abstained.)
CONSIDERATION OF
PRELIMINARY CATEGORIES FOR 2005
Engelbert
suggested consideration of a statewide circulation system. As a starting
point, the DLTCL could select a single vendor and provide LSTA funds as an
incentive for libraries and systems to use that vendor.
MacPhail
supported Engelbert's suggestion and also spoke in favor of WLA's proposal for
a statewide library promotion project. She also favored looser guidelines for
the Shared System category.
Lockett spoke in
favor of a librarian recruitment project.
Grobschmidt
urged consideration of a project to study the impact of the loss of school
librarians.
Krueger spoke in
favor of a 24x7 reference project and other projects of a demonstration
nature'especially competitive projects.
Iwata also
supported projects of a demonstration nature'especially competitive projects.
Lockett spoke in
favor of coordination of digitization projects.
FINAL COMMENTS
After farewells and thanks, the committee adjourned at
3:40 a.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
February 2004
For questions about this information, contact Robert F. Bocher (608) 266-2127
Last updated on 2/25/2008 12:38:25 PM
Home
About Us