Comfort Inn / Madison, WI
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Members present: Rebecca
Berger, Walter Burkhalter, Anne Iwata, Mindy King, 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, Rick Grobschmidt,
Barb Huntington, Kate Bugher, Al Zimmerman, (Neah Lohr and Donna Steffan
attended the Thursday session)
Call to Order and Introductions
Branson called the meeting to
order at 10:08 A.M.. After welcoming committee members and introductions, she
indicated Richard Grobschmidt would be joining the meeting later.
Review of Agenda
The agenda was reviewed and Branson explained that the public
hearing part of the meeting would be held at the end of the meeting because
input from applicants for grants currently under consideration is not allowed
at this point in the process. Grobschmidt's comments were rescheduled for
when he joined the meeting.
Minutes of March 2004
Meeting
Van Gemert moved and Polodna seconded approval of the minutes.
Motion carried unanimously.
LSTA Coordinator's Report
Peg Branson reported that the
federal budget was not yet set. Indications are that it would be dealt with
soon and that LSTA could increase by as much as $200,000. However, earmarked
projects could reduce the amount available for state grants and lower
Wisconsin's share.
2005 LSTA Application and
Overview of Applications
Branson reviewed the packet of
materials provided to members and the category summaries for 2005
applications.
Procedures for
Discussion of LSTA Grants Categories and Conflict of Interest Policy
Branson said the grant recommendation process would begin with a
review of all categories, but without funding recommendation at this time.
She reviewed the Policy on Conflict of Interest contained in the LSTA
Information and Guidelines. Summarizing, she stated that Advisory Committee
members may not participate in the discussion of, or make motions regarding,
or vote on any proposed grant if the member is an employee or board member of
the applicant. However, it is not considered a conflict of interest for
library employees or board members of system member libraries to comment on or
vote on any of their system's grant proposals.
2005 Budget Issues and
Guidelines
Branson reviewed the Draft LSTA
Budget for 2005 handout pointing out that $3,340,000 was available for
distribution and that the total staff funding recommendation were $545,000
less than this amount and could be considered as unassigned. She said the
State Superintendent usually accepts the recommendation of the Advisory
Committee, but that she may modify any recommendation.
Discussion and Review of LSTA
Application 2005
Discussion began with an
explanation from Zimmerman for the changes in budget totals for division
operating programs. He said that all federal programs administered by the
division are charged a fixed cost calculated by the Department of Public
Instruction. The actual fixed cost charges for the Reference and Loan Library
LSTA programs proved to be significantly higher that the estimates provided by
the DPI Business Office for the committee last spring. Other division LSTA
program budgets were reduced to correct for these increases so that the total
request for all division LSTA projects is the same as originally budgeted.
-- Reference and Loan
The Reference and Loan LSTA
Resource Sharing budget was presented by Sally Drew. She said that other than
the change in fixed cost charges there had been no changes in staff or purpose
and the project remained the same as originally presented last spring. Van
Gemert asked about the BadgerLink position. Drew described the
responsibilities as involving user authentication and tech support as well as
working with the four BadgerLink vendors.
-- State Resource Contracts
Drew reported on the department's
state biennial budget request for state resource library contracts. LSTA
funding would be used in the first six months of calendar 2005 to bridge the
funding gap before the start of the next biennium. The state budget request
is for restoration of the contracts to original FY2003 level of funding. This
request was submitted even though budget instructions to the department
required an overall 10 percent cut in department operating programs. She
added that we do not expect to use LSTA funds for this purpose after June 30,
2005. Iwata asked what the implications were if the state funding was not
provided. Drew responded that how a lower amount of funds would be divided
hadn't been decided yet. Iwata asked about current service cuts. Drew said
there have been cuts in service from the Milwaukee Public Library and the
State Historical Society. Some public library requests to area campus
libraries have been filled without charge. Van Gemert asked who was not
charging. Drew said that she did not have a list of those campuses that were
not charging, but that the UW-Madison campus and the State Historical Society
were charging. Clark said that WILS charges for access to those libraries and
that we don't know if the campuses will continue free service.
-- Public Library Development
Mike Cross reported on the
requests for public library development LSTA projects. The Library Technology
project supports Bob Bocher's position and provides funds for the statewide
meeting for system technology staff. He described Bocher's involvement in the
federal e-rate program including acting as chair of the ALA E-rate Taskforce.
He reported that the Library Development project provided funding for 80
percent of his position, for Barb Huntington's position, for summer library
program support, for the statewide special needs consultant meeting, and for
support of electronic data collection. Zimmerman explained that delays in the
bidding process had resulted in carrying forward the electronic forms revision
planned for 2004 to 2005.
-- WISCAT
Mary Clark reported that there
were no changes to the WISCAT project since last spring except for the
previously described unanticipated increases in fix cost charges. She
reported that new software has made enhanced WISCAT ILL features available and
that increased training is planned for 2005 using WisLine Web. Clark said the
patron initiated interlibrary loan request project will continue into 2005 for
those in the initial pilot project. She reported the Library and Information
Technology Advisory Committee (LITAC) suggested this project be continued for
those libraries already in it and new libraries up to the originally planned
60 libraries.
Clark said the WISCAT budget keeps
the license fee for 2005 at $150, the same as for 2004, even though there will
be a decrease in the number of libraries participating. The decrease is
because of the withdrawal of the South Central Library System. About 30 new
schools joined as more schools develop library technology plans. Rebecca
Berger asked about fees and pointed out that libraries need to know about
increases as early as possible. Sondra Lockett asked for the total number of
WISCAT users by type of library and who has bought the license. Clark said
about 750 libraries had paid. Iwata asked how many users are school
libraries. Clark responded that about half of the districts and a third of
the buildings are participating, but that numbers are hard to track because
schools are consolidating services so that 20 past libraries may be three
today.
Van Gemert asked how the SRLAAW
ILL report fit with the WISCAT request for next year. Clark said there is
little impact for 2005 and that nothing in that report is in conflict with
WISCAT plans for 2005. Van Gemert asked, 'With respect to SRLAAW, what should
we be mindful of next.' Clark repeated that nothing from SRLAAW is in
conflict with WISCAT for 2005 and then reviewed some of the SRLAAW report
points including the request that the division negotiate with OCLC. Van
Gemert asked if the report didn't recommend discontinuing WISCAT. Drew
responded by saying WISCAT may use different vendors and that an effort would
be made to review what people want and what is available.
She added that people have also requested discussion of other scenarios and
other types of statewide systems, and these are still on the table. She said
that the division has to go out for a re-bid in 2006, that OCLC will be given
an opportunity to make a proposal, and that it would be reviewed. In the
meantime, an RFI would be sent in 2005 to gather information on what is really
available and what the options cost. She said that there is not now agreement
in the library community on what should be done next and that 2005 and 2006
activities will involve a systematic review of multiple options to assure that
various technologies can do what has been assumed or promised. For example,
for the last several years, many people have requested implementation of
technology using Z39.50 technology. The Division has begun to implement
Z39.50, but just as it appears that some of the expectations may be met, some
people now want to consider other technologies. We need to determine if there
is still interest in Z39.50 and give it a fair examination.
Polodna asked if the committee set
fees for WISCAT and Branson replied that it did. Drew said the fee would stay
the same for 2005 unless it was changed at the March, 2005 meeting. Iwata
felt the Z39.50 technology would take a lot of work to be fully functional.
Clark thought Z39.50 worked well computer to computer, but that the human
interface was not easy to use because it is not always useful for a user to
look up shelf status when creating a rota as the status may change when the
request gets to that library. Branson said we may want to encourage fewer
automation systems through mergers.
Speaking to the impact of the
SRLAAW report, Ida Nemec said that Northern Waters Library Service could not
absorb a change to OCLC, so LSTA would have to help. Branson said we were not
suggesting changing anything for 2005, but that the committee should get ready
to discuss this in March. Fred Marini asked how much was being lost with the
South Central withdrawal. He also asked if other systems were dropping and
what trends had been noticed. Clark said 55 South Central public libraries
have dropped for 2005, but that WISCAT had picked up schools. She said there
were no indications that others would be dropping out. Drew said she had
contacted all system directors to determine what they planned to do and sent
out a summary of the responses. She said that some systems said they are
interested in using OCLC as a supplemental ILL system, but no one else has
said they will go solely with OCLC. She added that this is the current
status, but there will be more discussion of options next spring. Kathleen
Setter asked what South Central was doing for ILL. Clark said they are using
OCLC exclusively. Drew said South Central asked RLL and other systems to send
and receive requests through OCLC and a few will do so. RLL could not cover
SCLS costs for sending requests directly to state contracting libraries
because requests to Milwaukee Public Library and WiLS are being screened to
stay within budget limits. RLL is sending some OCLC ILL to South Central as
well as other sources.
Jessica MacPhail noted that the
WISCAT vendor costs were different on the budget sheet from the narrative
description. Branson said the final correct amount would be inserted on the
budget sheet. Iwata said WILS was investigating OCLC pricing and so were
public libraries. She felt getting our act together statewide for OCLC is
important to getting the best price. The statewide impact of budget cuts also
has to be considered. Marini said that the WILS board will look into a
statewide plan for OCLC and that they are looking at Illinois and trying to
get a better rate from OCLC. Drew said that she had asked Kathy Schneider for
information about the WILS request. She added that it took two years for
Illinois to negotiate a deal and OCLC had offered a fixed price. Drew said
she was also pursuing information on OCLC costs, adding that we are looking at
a lot of vendor's products and quotes so we will be better able to refine
costs and consider functionality questions.
Branson asked what WILS was
doing. Marini said Schneider was talking with Illinois and other OCLC users.
He added that there are things WILS can't do, but WILS could be a OCLC conduit
for the state. He suggested Drew work with Schneider on this. Drew said WILS
didn't have to do bids and that current OCLC libraries can try for a better
deal, but a statewide contract is a different thing. She said we would need
to put in more funds to get coverage beyond the current users. A full state
contract will need additional funding to make it work. How much we will need
is the big question. Who will pay what is the bigger question. She said that
we need better information to make a decision.
Polodna asked who was covered in
the division's RFI. Drew said we would include all libraries involved in
resource sharing. Marini said the consensus was that current OCLC user costs
would remain the same, but that more services would be provided. Iwata asked
Drew how she was deciding what to ask for in the RFI. Drew said she was
getting information from LITAC, COLAND, the ILL study focus groups, and the
ILL survey. MacPhail asked what the timelines were. Drew said 2005 was for
gathering information and in 2006 the bid process would begin with current
planning leaving time for implementation. The effective date would be January
2007. She added that if we wanted to speed things up, we could re-bid
earlier. She said that we don't know what the interlibrary loan needs
assessment study data will show and we may change radically what we do after
2006, but we don't want to leave any gaps in service as we change. Branson
said the March 2005 meeting would involve planning groups and the LSTA funding
role. Branson said this would be important for 2006 and the March 2005
meeting, but that it wouldn't impact 2005 plans.
Veronica Thompson asked if we knew
how many schools were involved with WISCAT. Clark said 30 schools joined in
2004. Thompson asked if they were primary or elementary. Clark said
consolidation of elementary is reducing the count. New school libraries are
high school libraries, probably because of offered features. She thought
schools seemed more interested in resource sharing where in the past they were
interested in retrospective conversion.
The morning session ended.
Richard Grobschmidt joined the
meeting for the afternoon session. He welcomed the members of the advisory
committee, thanked them for their work, and said the State Superintendent
sincerely appreciated the advice she received from them. He then highlighted
the library related sections of the DPI biennial budget request including the
funding of public library systems at 13 percent and increased funding for
BadgerLink. He reminded the group that BadgerLink was a very successful
program that had been started with LSTA funding.
The review of the 2005 grant
application then resumed.
-- Public Library System
Technology Projects
Bob Bocher reported that system
technology block grants were very popular with systems and pointed out that
systems won't spend funds for Internet costs due to CIPA. Using the handout
provided to members, he described how systems will use LSTA funds in 2005.
Van Gemert noted that systems were spending funds for Gale and asked if
BadgerLink had considered buying Gale. Drew said that Gale had provided a
proposal during the last bid process, but that we couldn't afford everything
contained in the vendor bid.
-- Shared Automated Systems
Bocher reported that six
applications were received this year for the shared automated system
category. Twenty-two public libraries will be joining shared systems if all
are funded. Automation systems will be merged in the Indianhead, Waukesha and
Mid-Wisconsin systems. This will save systems money and will make resource
sharing easier. This category helps libraries make the leap to shared systems
by paying for part of the cost. He estimated 80 percent of the population
will be in shared system areas by the end of the grant period. He pointed out
that this category will end after 2007, although the part of it to encourage
mergers of systems may remain.
-- Shared Automated System Study
Bocher explained that the basic
idea for this study had been to determine how much public library systems are
spending on shared automated systems and that the study's scope had been
expanded. He referred to the handout provided to committee members and went
through the bullet points on what would be expected from the study. These
included determining the total spent on integrated library systems, optimum
size, and the feasibility of larger regional shared systems or statewide
operation of a shared system.
Branson asked the committee if the
study was appropriate as planned. Van Gemert said the academic library model
may be available for study and multi-type possibilities could be examined.
Bocher said that there may be some savings in using one system like UW's and
that the timing was good in terms of the WISCAT re-bid. Cross said the study
would include the cost of a statewide system. MacPhail thought this would
save taxpayers money and result in a better product. Bocher said we could try
to get a limited number of venders on a state bid list, or for the long term,
we could go for one vendor for the state. Burkhalter asked who we would pick
if we had to pick for 2005 and Bocher replied that that would be a difficult
choice right now. Van Gemert said the Voyager system was only possible
because the University System paid, but wondered what the value of the OPAC
would be in the future because that depends on where system integration is
going.
Polodna said public libraries
spend too much time studying who and that it would be better to pick one and
go with it. Setter said she would like a brief overview to see if the one
system option would even be possible. Lockett suggested we look at what other
states have done to see if their experiences could help us. Bocher said we
should look at states similar to Wisconsin and suggested we look at Illinois
and Minnesota and their planning efforts. Drew said we can't just spend a lot
of money without a very good guess at who could handle the entire state. We
need to look at all the options and data in an unbiased manner. Drew said we
have to consider optimal size and ask if it is possible to do or if it is
politically feasible.
Branson asked who would do the
study. Bocher said it would be put out for bid. Iwata asked if public
library system plans had information we could use. Bocher said the technology
costs were difficult to get at from system plans. MacPhail said automation
system governance should be considered as an issue.
-- Digitization ' Newspapers
Drew reported that the State
Historical Society and Heritage negotiations were nearly done and that the
newspaper digitization project was almost ready to start. She reported that
the State Historical Society newspaper microfilm, maybe up to 1920, will go
into this package. After that section is completed it may be necessary to
make selective choices because there is so much material. She said the
Library of Congress also has federal dollars to digitize newspapers and that
the State Historical Society may be trying to get into the larger project with
them.
Iwata asked what digitization
involved. Drew said the vendor would put the newspaper microfilm into machine
readable form for public use and that it would be made available over the
Web. She added that some of the digitization may take additional work
depending on the condition of the microfilm. Iwata asked who would own the
files. Drew replied that they would remain in the public domain and the State
Historical Society will get copies from Heritage for their own use. Iwata
asked what Heritage got out of this. Drew said that they get an expanded
collection, but that they may have to change their business model after the
Library of Congress project gets up and running. Iwata asked how the national
effort would be carried out. Drew said she didn't know.
Lockett asked if the scope of the
collection included minority representation. Drew said the Heritage niche was
for very old material and that minority representation was difficult to know.
Lockett said genealogy for minorities is important. Drew said it all depended
on what was in the State Historical Society collection.
-- Access to State Government
Publications
Bocher said the State Historical
Society will select the most frequently requested state government documents
and will catalog approximately 7,000 of them. This retrospective conversion
will make the material more accessible. Iwata asked Van Gemert what he
thought about the cost per item. Van Gemert said cost looked good and he had
no problem with them. He thought this budget was better prepared than on
their earlier request.
-- Delivery Projects
Drew said the delivery project is
a continuation of what has been done in the past with funds for the Northern
Waters Library System and a subsidy for the delivery backbone provided by the
South Central Library System. The amounts are $61,600 for South Central
delivery and $15,000 for Northern Waters. (Page 17 in the red book handout
should be correct to these amounts.) The Milwaukee County Federated Library
System funding provided in 2004 is not continued for 2005.
-- Special Needs Youth Plan
Update
Huntington said the division would
like to update the current special needs youth plan publication to make it an
informational resource. It would be a ready reference for special cases of
special needs and would include a breakdown by age. It would identify
resource at the local, state, and national level. Lockett asked what the cost
of the original publication was. Huntington replied that the cost was about
$12,000 because we needed editing help and publication preparation.
-- State Institution Coordination
Huntington said that a coordinator
historically has been needed at corrections and that it remains necessary as
DLTCL lacks the staff to coordinate these efforts from DPI. She reported that
having representation at DOC had worked very well and that Vibeke Lehmann has
done an excellent job.
-- Communication and Planning
Rick Grobschmidt reviewed the uses
of the $25,000 budgeted for this category. He said the reduction of Channel
in print, including reduced print distribution to libraries and greater use of
the Web to communicate with the library community, had saved money.
-- ILL Needs Assessment
Drew said that funds were budgeted
in the spring as a place holder for follow-up activities pending release of
the ILL needs study. Drew reported that staff had decided that these funds
would be better spent in the broader automation/technology statewide study.
No funds were being requested for a ILL needs assessment follow-up at this
time.
-- Public Library System Study
Cross said the public library
system study is in progress at the UW Library School. He reported that the
systems had been surveyed and that UW staff were analyzing the results. He
reported that a second survey of system member libraries was being prepared
and that the final report would include GIS information. He said that
originally $10,000 had been requested for follow-up activities, but that it
was now recommended that these funds be used for the broader automation and
resource sharing study.
-- Public Library Directors
Handbook
Cross said a handbook is
especially needed for new directors in small communities and that the
director's handbook will be modeled on the Trustee Essentials publication. He
said that this handbook will list resources available that can be tapped as
needed, and that it should therefore be useful to all directors. The original
plan called for $3,000 for publication. Because of staff vacancies, Larry Nix
was contracted to write the first ten chapters. The new public library
development consultant will complete this document and it will be printed in
2005.
-- Public Library Standards
Update
Cross reported that the standards
draft was done and had been distributed at the WLA annual conference. He said
the division is taking comments on the draft at this time and that $3,000 will
be needed for printing in 2005.
-- School Library Impact Study
Kate Bugher described school
library impact study as an examination of the relationship between a robust
school library media program and student achievement. She said Wisconsin is
unique in that we have an academic model that includes technology and that
this model is not found in other states. She said this study will go farther
than earlier studies and will look at additional content areas and grade
levels. The approach for this study will be based on the RFI replies received
by the division. She added the study will be coordinated by Instructional
Media and Technology staff. She reviewed the summary of cost estimates
provided in the handout describing this project.
Iwata asked how many RFIs have
been received and Bugher replied that two had been received, both from
established researchers, one from Texas and the other from Syracuse
University. Iwata asked how many replies were expected from the RFP and
Bugher said she thought maybe four. Drew described the bid evaluation process
and said that outside reviewers and DPI staff could be included. Veronica
Thompson asked about the Texas study. Bugher said that study was not
comprehensive and only looked at 3rd grade and reading. She added
that Texas has more state control of education.
-- LSTA Administration
Branson reviewed the LSTA
administration costs and the $70,000 budgeted for indirect charges by DPI.
-Digitization-Local Resources
(competitive)
Drew said the UW will be doing the
digitization and meta tagging of local resources in cooperation with
grantees. The UW will post the end results on the Web and anyone will be able
to search across items to select what they want. In addition, each library
will receive back its own high resolution copy. She reported that R and L staff
held a meeting to explain to applicants how these projects would be carried
out. She said that we received twice as many applications than were
expected. She said some applicants worked with the UW and some were waiting
to see if they got funded before making contact with the UW. She reported the
applications were of mixed quality and that there was enough budgeted to fund
them all. She said the reviewer scores suggest a cut off after the seventh
ranked project and that that was the staff recommendation.
Polodna asked why the Department
of Transportation application ranked so low. Drew said she thought that the
DOT project did not demonstrate that they understood the level of work
required to make this a successful project. She added that they didn't
mention some of the project concepts and that they weren't clear about the
size of some of the materials to be digitized.
Drew said we needed good models
for future projects and that we haven't yet contacted any of the libraries to
discuss potential problems. She reported that for the Oshkosh Public Library
grant, there might be copyright issues related to several publications. She
said that application 18, Appleton Digitization of Plat Books 2005, includes
items published in 1942 and that they may need to get authorization to copy
them. She pointed out that for application 24, Images of Lake Geneva, there
is some confusion about the local matching funds. She said many of the
projects wanted to put in in-kind matching funds rather than the payment to UW
as required.
Iwata asked who reviewed these
applications. Branson said the division would release the names of reviewers
if requested. Iwata pointed out that all of DOT's competition was with public
libraries. Polodna said that to be funded LSTA purposes have to be met and
that meta tagging is necessary for access. DOT seems more aimed at just
digitization and not access. Nemec said quality is needed because these will
be the models for future projects. Drew said it was very easy to
underestimate the amount of staff effort needed to do a successful project.
She found it took a high level of staff involvement. Marini thought DOT
needed to focus on restoration and selection of what to digitize. Van Gemert
said we must include more than just library collections and that we may need
to promote this with other types of organizations. Drew said it takes a lot
of effort in a short period of time. Iwata said there may be some
organizational structural barriers at DOT to this project, but that DOT has a
lot of good material worth digitizing. MacPhail said you can't just scan
material in, and that you must take a good hard look at the project to do it
right.
-- Early Learning Birth to Three
Huntington said that less had been
requested than had been budgeted in the Early Learning Birth to Three
category. She said she had talked to the youth liaison librarians about this
and that they said many libraries are already doing projects like this. She
added that many thought that public libraries hadn't waited for LSTA to do
this because earlier training had emphasized that libraries could do it with
available resources.
Setter asked if Huntington thought
the applications were acceptable. Huntington said she hadn't read everything
yet, but except for what might be a copyright problem with one, that they
looked fine. Marini noted that the South Central grant had a budget for only
contracted services and asked what the funds would be used for. Huntington
replied that she wasn't sure. Marini said that maybe in the future local
staff providing the service could be paid for extra duty so that existing
staff could be used rather than contracting out. Huntington said she didn't
believe South Central normally reimbursed local staffs for joint projects.
Adult, Family and Early
Learning
Huntington said that in the Adult,
Family and Early Learning category funding requests exceeded the amount
available after the 9th ranked application. Huntington then
reviewed the grants that were below the funding cutoff.
She considered as very good
application13, Reaching People Through Library Services for Whom English is a
Learned Language. She said it was directed toward GED attainment, that it
made good use of the Web, and that it was being offered in Spanish. The
project also tracked the number of users. Huntington was very favorable
toward this project and considered it as a possible demonstration project,
although it would need some clarification.
She described application 6,
Giving Our Special Needs Children and Families a Chance, as a little vague,
but as located in a high poverty area. She said that how the grant would be
continued after the grant period wasn't clear, and that more information would
be needed before this project could be funded.
She said application 7, Hedberg
Literacy 2005, was targeted for Hispanics with the majority of the funding,
over $19,000, going for salaries and that how it would be funded after the
grant period needed to be addressed.
Huntington described application
4, Parenting and Literacy Skills, as a good project that could have been more
clearly written. She said the application was lacking some basic information
and had some problems with the budget and clarification would be needed.
Huntington then reviewed
application 12, A Collaborative Approach to Marketing Library Services to
ESL/Low literacy Populations. She said the systems proposing this project had
adequate collections for the target audience, so they focused on the need to
market what they had. She said that the application lacked a GED component
and that the budget didn't address project activities. She felt the biggest
problem was that they didn't ask the media to be a partner. She felt another
major issue was that the proposal was geared to raising awareness, rather than
literacy.
Branson asked if Huntington would
recommend funding for the grants ranked 10 and above. Huntington explained
the process for getting grants up to an acceptable level and said pending
improvements the grants could be approved. Marini said a PSA could have been
requested by Nicolet (for application 12).
Branson asked the committee to
consider the issue of whether applications should be fixed so they can be
funded or if they should be judged as submitted. Huntington said we don't
ignore application problems.
Seniors/Disabilities
Huntington reviewed the individual
grants in the Seniors/Disabilities category that fell below the funding cutoff
in the application rankings. Application 49, Words of Wheels, was described
as having minor problems with the budget, but with an excellent training
component and very good partners. She described application 47, Library
Services to Patrons at the End of Life, as designed to provide service to
people who are terminally ill and to their families, and caregivers. The LSTA
budget for application 43, Service to Seniors, included $5,000 for contracted
services which was almost all of the federal funds requested. She said
application 48, Project LOOP Menomonie, was targeted to persons with hearing
loss. The library would install devices to assist persons with limited
hearing ability. Huntington said she liked all of these projects.
Library Card Sign-Up Promotions
Cross reviewed the targeted
population criteria for the library card sign-up promotion category. He noted
that there was a bit of a gap in the reviewer rating scores after the 7th
ranked grant, but that all were worthwhile projects. He mentioned two
applications below the funding cutoff. Cross said that the Northern Waters
and Southwest systems have very low registered borrower percentages. He said
the application from the Northern Waters Library Service had a problem with
its budget, but that the question had since been explained. He described the
Southwest application as creative in its use of GIS software to locate
potential users and to target promotional material. He thought this was a
good project that may prove to be a good model for others. Iwata said that
was an interesting approach.
With the discussion and review of
LSTA applications for 2005 complete, Branson went over the next day's agenda
and what had to be done. Iwata suggested that the application forms be
changed so that the applicant and the proposal title appear at the top of the
first page of the project description handout provided to the committee.
The meeting was adjourned for the
day at 3:30 PM.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
8:30 a.m.
Final Recommendations on
Applications and Allocation of Funds
Motion by Burkhalter to fund
DLTCL'Reference and Loan at $626,600. Seconded by MacPhail. Motion carried.
Motion by Van Gemert to fund the
State Resource Contracts at $20,000. Seconded by Polodna. Van Gemert
inquired about the future of these contracts. The DPI budget request for the
next biennium would restore funding back to the 2003 level. The future of
these contracts depends largely on the actions of the Governor and
legislature. Adequacy of funding will also depend on decisions by UW
libraries regarding reimbursement. Motion carried.
Motion by Polodna to fund
DLTCL'Library Development at $131,000. Seconded by Setter. Motion carried.
Motion by King to fund WISCAT at
$657,700. Seconded by Marini. Motion carried.
Motion by Van Gemert to fund
Shared Automated Systems at $325,000. Seconded by Marini. Motion carried. (Burkhalter,
Iwata, and Polodna abstained.)
Motion by MacPhail to fund Library
System Technology Projects at $375,000. Seconded by Berger. Motion carried.
(Burkhalter, Polodna, and Iwata abstained.)
Motion by MacPhail to fund Shared
Automated System Study at $32,000. Seconded by Setter. Motion carried. (Burkhalter
and Polodna abstained.)
Motion by Lockett to fund
Digitization Project'Newspapers at $15,000. Seconded by Puntney. Motion
carried.
Motion by Van Gemert to fund
Access to State Government Publications at $55,000. Seconded by Burkhalter.
Motion carried.
Motion by Nemec to fund Delivery
Projects'NWLS, SCLS-State at $76,600. Seconded by MacPhail. Motion carried.
(Iwata abstained.)
Motion by Burkhalter to fund
Special Needs Youth Plan at $10,000. Seconded by Polodna. Motion carried.
Motion by Polodna to fund State
Institution Coordination at $25,000. Seconded by Puntney. Motion carried.
Motion by Marini to fund the
School Library Impact Study at $80,000. Seconded by Thompson. Motion
carried.
Motion by Burkhalter to fund
DLTCL'Library Development: Library Improvement at $237,100. Seconded by
Setter. Motion carried.
Motion by Nemec to fund the
Library Directors Handbook at $3,000. Seconded by Setter. Motion carried.
Motion by Polodna to fund Library
Standards at $3,000. Seconded by Berger. Motion carried.
Motion by King to fund
DLTCL'Communication and Planning at $25,000. Seconded by Setter. Motion
carried.
Motion by Burkhalter to fund LSTA
Administration at $98,000. Seconded by Lockett. Motion carried.
Motion by Polodna to fund Early
Learning Birth to Three at $99,328. Seconded by Setter. Motion carried.
(Lockett and Iwata abstained.)
Motion by King to fund the seven
highest ranked applications in the Digitization'Local Resources category at
$21,353. Seconded by Marini. Considerable discussion ensued about the
ability of the UW library staff and DLTCL staff to work with a greater number
of projects, and the quality and value of the lower-ranked applications.
Motion carried: Yes ' 7; No - 5. (Burkhalter abstained.)
Motion by MacPhail to fund the
Department of Transportation (DOT) application in the Digitization'Local
Resources category. Seconded by Iwata. A number of committee members
expressed opposition to funding any applications out of rank order (the DOT
application was rated 9th of 11 applications received). Others
asked if it would be possible for DLTCL staff to work with the DOT (and
others) to improve the project for possible funding next year. The
possibility of a future separate category for state government documents was
also raised. Motion failed: Yes ' 3; No-10.
Motion by Marini to fund all ten
applications in the Seniors / Sensory Disabilities category for the requested
funding total of $103,316 with the provision that Barb Huntington work with
the four lowest ranked applications to resolve any problems. Seconded by
Setter. Polodna suggested a uniform methodology for analyzing all of the
special needs categories. Burkhalter noted the significant ratings gap after
the 7th rated application. Motion carried: Yes ' 7; No ' 4. (Puntney
abstained.)
Motion by Burkhalter to fund
Literacy at $183,585. Seconded by Polodna. Motion carried. (Puntney and
Lockett abstained.)
Motion by Nemec to fund Library
Card Sign-Up at $77,507. Seconded by Setter. Motion carried. (Lockett and
MacPhail abstained.)
Motion by MacPhail to add $59,911
to Delivery to decrease the formula costs to library systems. Seconded by Van
Gemert. Some thought it would be better to reserve the funds for next year;
some thought this service should be funded with state funds. Motion failed:
Yes ' 3; No ' 9.
Motion by Setter to add $59,911
into System Technology Projects. Seconded by MacPhail. Motion carried: Yes
' 4; No ' 3. (Burkhalter, Polodna, Iwata, and Puntney abstained.)
Consideration of Preliminary
Categories for 2006.
The committee had a preliminary
discussion of issues and categories for 2006, including:
--Continuation/multiple-year
grants. The committee discussed grants awarded multiple times and what
constitutes on-going funding. DLTCL encourages multiple-year applications
grants to come in with a new/different angle, rather than continuations of
previous projects. Applicants and grant application reviewers need to know
what to expect and the applications and category language should reflect our
expectations. Applications should reflect previous projects.
--Some libraries are better at
grant writing than others. Is there something we can do to help small
libraries (e.g., NCAA-type rating system).
--Should system applications be
separate from library applications.
--Combine Early Learning and
Literacy.
--Digitization 'If we have a limit
in terms of the number of projects, we should inform applicants. Matching
component was hard to deal with. Consider giving grants only to new libraries
(no repeat libraries) and to state agencies.
Interlibrary Loan Needs
Assessment Update
Jeff Russell of Russell Consulting
provided an update on the ILL Needs Assessment project. He said the overall
response rate of 56% to the survey was good. He said five focus groups were
held as follows: 1) school librarians in conjunction with the WEMA conference
in the spring; 2) public library system staff; 3) public librarians; 4)
special librarians; and 5) academic librarians. The latter three were held
via WisLine Web. Russell reviewed selective preliminary data from the survey
and focus groups and explained how to interpret the charts in the report. He
said Russell Consulting would include a general or executive summary in the
final report, but it will be up to the library community to interpret the data
and look for trends and patterns. He said he hopes the information is useful
to the library community and will be helpful in making decisions. The final
report will be available in January.
Public Hearing
Only one letter was received as
part of the public hearing. Alan Engelbert, director of the Manitowoc Public
Library and Manitowoc-Calumet Library System, said LSTA funds should not be
used fund a school library impact study because 14 other state studies have
been done in the last five years and have demonstrated convincingly the
benefits of school libraries and school library media programs.
Final Comments and Adjournment
Grobschmidt thanked the members of
the committee for their participation. He expressed his appreciation and that
of the state superintendent for the four members of the committee who
completed three years of service on the committee: Kathy Setter, Ed Van
Gemert, Mindy King, and Sandra Lockett. Van Gemert said he enjoyed being on
the committee and the opportunity to be a 'good library citizen.' He said he
was excited about digitization and enhanced BadgerLink content. He said ILL
has become such a small part of what we do and wanted the most efficient and
productive tool used. King appreciated that special libraries were invited
and would like to see a resolution to the ILL issues. Setter said the
committee needs to keep the small libraries in mind and wondered whether OCLC
was a viable alternative for the vast majority of small libraries. Lockett
enjoyed being on the committee and said she didn't want to see competition
between large and small libraries, all are important. She appreciated the
opportunity to represent urban libraries which have unique needs.
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
March 2005
For questions about this information, contact Robert F. Bocher (608) 266-2127
Last updated on 2/25/2008 12:38:28 PM
Home
About Us
