Crowne Plaza / Madison, WI
Tuesday, November 29, 10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by Peg Branson at 10 am.
Present: Rebecca Berger, Terrance Burton, Walter Burkhalter, Paula Kiely, Jessica MacPhail, Fred Marini, Ida Nemec, David Polodna, Rhonda Puntney, Elizabeth Richmond, Veronica Thompson
Absent: Anne Iwata, Paul Onufrak
Branson announced that Rick Grobschmidt was out of town and not able to attend. Branson greeted and welcomed group.
Review of the Agenda
Branson explained that no votes would be taken the first day, which is planned for discussion only. Recommendations for grant awards will be considered on Wednesday, as well as some discussion of preliminary 2007 categories. Wednesday will also include a public hearing for input on the 2007 program.
Minutes of March 2005 Meeting
Polodna moved, supported by Berger, to approve minutes of the March 29-30, 2005 meeting as submitted. The motion carried unanimously.
LSTA Coordinator's Report
Branson reported that she had contacted ALA's national office and heard that everything is "wide open" again regarding the approval process for the FY 2006 federal budget. Two weeks prior it seemed as though an agreement had been achieved. A modest increase had been on the horizon, whether it comes about is unknown. Until the 2006 federal budget is known, we can only work with estimates.
Branson then reviewed the status of Wisconsin's LSTA Maintenance of Effort (MOE) issue. The state's funding for services used to meet the MOE requirement had dropped, which caused a failure to meet the required average of the past three years. The 1% shortfall means we will sustain a 1% penalty, which was acknowledged verbally by the IMLS (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and another state had shortfalls). When we get the final 2006 appropriation, we will know the final penalty (which will be 1% of the appropriation). There may be a 3 to 4% shortfall in MOE that will result in a greater penalty for 2007. But thereafter the 3-year averaging and the 2005-2006 state budget increases will eventually eliminate the penalties.
2006 LSTA Applications
Branson referred to the "pink sheet" summary of applications beginning in 2003. LSTA runs on a five-year plan; the current plan started in 2003.
Branson referred to page 13 of the Information and Guidelines publication for the Policy on Conflict of Interest. She reviewed the conflict issues for all three bulleted items.
2006 Budget Issues and Guidelines
Branson referred to the "green sheets" with the draft 2006 LSTA Budget and project budgets for 2000-2005. The amount received for 2005, $2,992,000, was somewhat higher than was anticipated in the fall of 2004. For 2006 we anticipate having $3,094,000 to work with. Branson pointed out that staff recommendations are listed for some, but not all, grant categories. Bugher asked whether the 1% penalty would need to be addressed. Branson said, yes, the committee would need to accommodate where $30,000 would be taken. Kiely asked whether the committee would have the option of retaining some unallocated amount to carryover to offset future shortfall. Branson said that the full amount should be appropriated. Branson said that there is a time limit for using the funds, so designating a carryover might jeopardize some of the funds. Zimmerman said the federal budget might lead to an increase to offset the penalty, making such an adjustment unnecessary. Branson said the timeframe for expenditure of LSTA funds is 24 months.
LSTA Fall Grant Award Policy
Branson referred to the "yellow sheet," LSTA Fall Grant Award Policy, Draft 11/3/2005. Branson said the policy was drafted to address the issue of whether new categories could be added at the fall meeting. Generally past practice has been that no new categories are added in the fall. Instead, "placeholders" were sometimes designated in the spring for consideration in the fall. However, there are occasions where flexibility is desired for consideration of new circumstances. Staff thought that a competitive category would be nearly impossible, but that a non-competitive category might be feasible, leading to the policy draft. Branson asked for comments.
Branson stated that the State Historical Society proposal was not the only reason for consideration of the policy. Polodna said that, if the intent is to enable flexibility, then the negative tone of the policy is confusing. Branson said that the narrow range of the policy statement was to discourage broad changes in the fall. Polodna thought it sends a mixed message. The committee now struggles in the spring to set funding categories and anyone proposing a change is going to need to justify and fight for it. He thought a more positive statement might be necessary. Richmond agreed that "unusual and unexpected circumstances" is too narrow. She suggested some other language might be better. Kiely thought that the committee has a commitment to follow through on the plan proposed in the spring. She said the policy made her wonder about the intent. She wondered how this "opportunity" might be promoted. Cross suggested that the intent was to discourage late proposals to keep the process orderly. Do we really want a meeting in November where lots of new proposals are submitted? Richmond said Cross had stated the intent very well and perhaps that language should be included and we should refer to the established process and plan.
Polodna said that, as it now stands, there is no process or policy for late requests. Polodna wondered whether the policy might just raise more questions and the prospect of more proposals. Perhaps the policy is not needed. Burton said the current statement, although waffley, may be sufficient. Branson suggested that the current statement is more related to the preliminary budget and final amounts, not so much for new categories. MacPhail wondered what other states do. She said that, if we create this opening, then people will dream up ways to take advantage of it. She has seen this occur on other boards on which she's participated. Putney said this would send a mixed message to those who abided by the guidelines and provisions, since this might invalidate some of the efforts put forth by applicants. Burton said perhaps something in the "other factors" category might need to be stated for special circumstances. Burkhalter said that, since we are an advisory committee, there is already means for the superintendent to take other action, with or without input from the committee. Richmond wondered if this discussion might be more appropriate for the March meeting-a potential recipient could request a new category at the fall meeting to be included in the subsequent spring categories.
Branson requested a motion. Polodna moved that guidelines be left alone, that no new policy or change be made. Seconded by MacPhail. No further discussion. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion and Review of LSTA Applications 2006
Noncompetitive Categories
Zimmerman gave an overview of the budget spreadsheet distributed regarding DPI/DLTCL aspects of the LSTA program. He noted that there was a jump in the overhead charge from the DPI business office, and a slight increase in the IT costs for technology, as well as some costs for union contract settlement. He said he went through all the Division accounts to trim elsewhere to make sure the totals equal the spring amounts.
Reference and Loan
Drew reviewed Reference and Loan information on state agency projects (page 5 of the state agency projects handout). She thinks that the allocation should be sufficient unless fuel costs increase at an unusual rate. She negotiated with DPI to hire a transfer employee and split the cost in order to keep costs in check. No comments or questions.
Public Library Development
Cross said this includes two categories, listed on page 3. The first, Statewide Library Technology, includes Bocher's position and statewide meetings. He reviewed responsibilities and activities for Bocher and the program, including e-rate, the TEACH program, and the three Gates grants. The other is Library Development and Library Improvement, which includes 80% of Cross's position and Barb Huntington's position, as well as support of the Summer Library Program and annual meetings for system special needs, continuing education, and youth services consultants.
WISCAT
Clark reported that the budget is the same as submitted in the spring (page 9 of the handout). The current contract runs through 2006. She said that the $150 cost per-library will stay the same in 2006. Due to DPI vendor cost circumstances, there will be some change, but the total will remain the same. There will be some decrease in cost from the University of Wisconsin Do-It center for hosting the WISCAT server. She pointed out new features and functionality that have been added to the current product that are noted on page 13 of the supplied materials. Marini asked Clark, whether the re-bid contracts would be higher or lower than the current budget. She and Branson both noted that there would be discussion later on the agenda on that topic.
Richmond asked a general question about the Division's budget portion and whether state funding may be forthcoming for those elements. Cross commented that the chances are extremely poor that a change may be made since state budget cuts led to the change. Drew said that state budget directives have stated that no federally-funded positions could move to state funding. Kiely wondered what percentage of the whole Division budget is state funded versus federal. Zimmerman said he would provide the information on Wednesday. Drew guessed that it is about 50-50. Marini wondered whether the MOE issue might help prevent further erosion. Cross acknowledged that past cuts have directly led to the anticipated penalty. Richmond suggested a formal motion. Marini said it should be in the official record. Berger wondered if other states use LSTA funds for agency positions. Branson said there is quite a bit of variety since the LSTA program is state based. Drew thought the trend has been to use more and more LSTA funds for state agency operations as state budgets have suffered. Drew noted that not all position cuts have been transferred to LSTA.
Public Library System Technology Projects
Bocher reported on the category and its history. He provided an additional handout on how the systems plan to use their grants. Richmond wondered whether the BadgerNet Combined Network change and the DOA network would result in change. Bocher commented that there would be no change in the monthly cost, but there would be better service, despite the one-time equipment costs. Marini wondered how the projects are approved, whether an application must be made. He wondered whether there may be a benefit to eliminating the application process with only a summary report at the end.
Branson said that the applications submitted are (with Polodna concurring) not that expansive. Since they do not have to be persuasive, they can be more general. Cross said that some degree of accountability is necessary to ensure the funds are used appropriately. Branson said that the committee could and should consider the category in general, whether it is still worthwhile and necessary.
Shared Integrated Library Systems
Bocher noted that there were seven grants submitted, with requests more than doubling the available funds. He pointed out that the Division had requested that systems apply for needed funds rather than simply the allowable limit. Since the category will end in 2007, this information was to serve as an indicator of need. Also, more had been allocated in past years than was requested, so we wanted to ensure that all the funds would be used. We have guidelines and provisions for distributing the funds if the funds are insufficient for the proposals submitted. For instance, the Brodhead grant serves such a small population, it would be eliminated. Polodna commented that Arrowhead and Mid-Wisconsin are different than the others that have been implemented. The two would create shared systems where they do not already exist. Bocher said that the two would use whatever funds are available. Burkhalter commented that his board will consider the new contract tonight and, if they approve it, the project would proceed regardless. Burton asked whether libraries that apply to be added individually are more in jeopardy than proposals that include several libraries. Bocher acknowledged that population is not a perfect means to qualify the proposals. Winnefox has only one library remaining outside the ILS, whereas some of the other systems still have several. Branson pointed out that with the population guideline and system limit suggested we may have misjudged the need.
Shared Integrated Library Systems Study Follow-up
Bocher reviewed the intent of the study and some of the variance it hopes to explore. William Moen (North Texas State) and Charles McClure (Florida State) are the two primary consultants who bid on the project. He reviewed the process and surveys that have occurred so far. The report should be completed in late January. Branson noted that $2000 has been included for 2006 in case there is follow-up work needed, as well as visits or reports that may be made. Marini asked whether the $2000 amount was ever considered for the original proposal. Bocher said the original amount may be enough; that the $2000 is more of a placeholder and may be unnecessary.
Virtual Reference
Drew noted that the category may continue up to three years. Planning has proceeded, the fee is slightly higher than originally reported. The governance has been established and participants identified. A single site with a single logo will be established, although that would not preclude an individual library from using its own. The consortium is working on quality control with review of transcripts. Two libraries, the State Law Library and the UW-for medical queries, will serve as specialized resources. Berger pointed out that this is a big boon for small libraries and good use of $66,000. Richmond wondered whether the new software can "push" screens (yes). She noted that some of the problem was a password issue for local databases. Drew said the problems are known and being addressed but may not all be insurmountable. Richmond wondered what the impact would be on local libraries with reduced reference staffs, referring to Eau Claire that may be drastically reducing its reference staff. Branson wondered about ongoing use of funds and what may happen thereafter. Polodna referred to discussion at the Public Library Consortium and recalled that the hope was for enough years of support for a sufficient test. Thereafter the costs may be borne by the individual participants. Drew replied that most of the feedback has been positive. She said that the Questionpoint project did not operate at an effective level, but The national 24/7 consortium was further developed and had a better track record of performance and expectations. People thought of the library and reference services as a larger extension of the library. Burton noted that this is a continuum of reference service and an adjunct to existing services that is appropriate from some, but not all, user populations. The UW-Madison Ebling Library serves as the backup health resource. The three-year period will serve as a good test point. He had used a chat product in West Virginia which at least allowed some people to "enter the system" of reference service provision. This is one piece of many parts that his reference services provide. Richmond mentioned that, in California, the system was too expensive for libraries to participate in without subsidy. Thompson asked whether there will be an evaluation component. Drew said, yes, they would be reporting at least as part of the review and continuation process, but also in regard to reviewing the test for the consortium.
12:00 LUNCH
The meeting broke for lunch and resumed at 1:00 p.m.
Drew made an additional comment on the 24/7 project and said it may encourage improvements in the currency and utility of local libraries' web pages and local resources, making them known, as well as sharing information among libraries.
Delivery Projects
Branson directed committee members to the request for supplemental funding for South Central Library System and Northern Waters Library Service. Drew reviewed the history of LSTA funding. Drew referred to the David Weinhold letter (on behalf of the Delivery Service Advisory Committee). Berger asked how much the total is now. Branson said the request is for an additional $11,000 for South Central and $6,000 more for Northern Waters, for a total increase of $17,000 (in addition to the $60,000/$15,000 already budgeted). Richmond asked whether funds from individual libraries go into the payments for delivery. Drew responded that generally for public libraries the library systems pay for the delivery costs, but for some other types of libraries, the individual libraries may pay the fee. Polodna said he expects that the request is being made so that the providers do not fall short for the delivery service, but that he does not anticipate spending more next year for delivery than what he has already been assessed. Marini wondered whether the fuel prices presented are realistic and wondered why the supplemental cost for Northern Waters is more than half the supplemental for South Central to serve as the backbone service. Nemec pointed out that delivery is a very essential statewide service and is crucial to so much of what LSTA provides. Drew pointed out that NWLS has a contracted surcharge from its vendor, which may account for the disparity. Polodna said that the delivery is appreciated and that LSTA supports it, but that this request comes on a very bad year where there just isn't supplement funding.
State Institution Coordination
Huntington reviewed the history of the support to institutions, as well as the job that the particular employee is able to supply. The institution employee is the connector between the prison system and the public library system. Huntington's fear is that, if the funding is reduced or eliminated, the position will be eliminated and the public library responsibility will not be adequately met. The Department of Corrections has already threatened to cut the coordinators for education services. Marini asked how many state prisons are involved and what types of facilities are included (such as Huber Centers). Huntington added that the coordinator assists as a liaison for state mental health facilities. Health and Family Services picks up part of the salary as well. Thompson asked why the agencies do not pay the full salaries. Marini asked whether the state institution library position would be there without this position. Richmond commented that the position would more likely be cut if the supplemental funding were eliminated.
Communication and Planning
Branson reviewed the category on behalf of the Rick Grobschmidt. There were no questions or comments.
LSTA Administration
Branson explained the various elements, including the DPI indirect charge.
Competitive Categories
Digitization - Local Resources
Drew reviewed some of the issued involved in the UW conducting the digitization with libraries on different types of projects. She reported two issues that may contain the costs to the preliminary budget. One is in the Neenah project, to eliminate the Konrad's directory for $1,642 since it already has been digitized. Polodna asked about the Mead proposal which does not list the specific titles that would be converted. Perhaps the "shortfall" could simply be eliminated by that grant. Drew said that the $575 included for publicity in the Nicolet grant could be eliminated, since only UW costs are allowable. By eliminating those two, then the excess cost would be only about $500. Drew pointed out that Sheboygan's grant would not necessarily be a bad project, but they had not listed as many specific items as other projects.
Adult, Family, and Early Literacy
Huntington reported that she could not recommend funding the Hurley or the Juneau projects because their applications had too many problems. That would leave about $243,000 in requests. She suggested moving the remaining funds over to the disabilities category. Polodna asked for insight into the drop in points between the grant that ranked at 6 (26 points) and number 7 (33 points). Huntington said that some of the system grants are "mini-grants" compiled into a group grant submitted by library systems. Nemec asked about the Hurley grant, since it had been submitted unsuccessfully last year. Huntington said that Hurley did not openly establish that they were submitting a continuation grant. Huntington suggested that the Division needs to identify previous grants since it may not work to have applicants "self identify." Juneau's grant may have been acceptable, but the description and objectives were not clearly stated. Thompson asked about the Milwaukee Public Library grant, where the private donations are listed in the budget page. She also wondered what the contracted services were for. Huntington said it was for outreach, for a bi-lingual coordinator, and for training. Thompson also wondered about the Manitowoc-Calumet grant and its bi-lingual grant coordinator. If the position is eliminated, who are the volunteers that will continue the project? Thompson is skeptical that student volunteers will reliably carry out the grant services. Huntington responded that the grant indicates that other agencies, along with high school students, will provide volunteers. Thompson wondered how successful the service will be recruiting undocumented workers to come in and fill out paperwork. Kiely asked whether it is a continuation. If so, then it is an experimental program. Huntington said the preliminary work was very innovative and she thinks the project is a new development to meet the needs of migrant dairy workers. Kiely said Milwaukee also had barriers in addition to language barriers that affected use of the library by migrant populations.
Seniors/Disabilities
Huntington said she likes to think of this category as "Disabilities including Seniors with Disabilities." She said that the grants can be broad but must have a large component to target the population concerned. She said that is a problem in that, by solely serving seniors, the grant may not adequately address disabilities. The $78,000 allocated would fund only the first four projects, which would be a shame since some of the other projects are worthy. She recommended that Brandon and Ogema be eliminated from consideration. The remaining grants would require $181,000 to fully fund. Polodna said that many of the grants are going to doors, materials, or collections, so perhaps the grant category is not appropriate to what people need. He feels the applicants are stretching to qualify for the category. Burton added that too many of the grants serve general seniors but not enough the disabilities. He says that they may be doing outreach, but not to the designated category. Kiely commented that the "special needs" established is broader than simply disabilities (referring to the purpose-statement for the category). Richmond suggested that the wording for the grant category be improved or clarified.
Library Card Sign-Up Promotions
DeBacher reported that no applications were received. He suggested that the 10 2005 grants in progress may have exhausted the interest. Also, individual libraries may be finding the prospect of doing a grant to be too intimidating. Nemec added that the time factor is a concern for small libraries or ones considering cutbacks. Richmond thought the category sounded retro, wondering if library card registration should be emphasized. Kiely commented that the follow-up or proof of results is difficult to target. She feels that sometimes people underestimate the work involved in carrying out a grant, particularly in the local staff time and involvement. MacPhail reported that they had a lot of fun with their grant at Racine. Cross commented that, perhaps with less restrictive guidelines, more libraries would have applied and participated.
Other
Wisconsin Historical Society, Access to State Government Publications:
Branson reported that she, Drew, and Grobschmidt met with Gottlieb on the continuation of the state historical society project. Berger asked if we had a request in March that was not funded, which Branson confirmed. Polodna added that we had requested more information on the project and the completion timeframe. He added that the new proposal is a major change in tone. Richmond said that they would not be back, based on this revised request, which had been a concern. Drew reminded the committee that the documents librarians around the state had lobbied for the grant. The need is a result of special collections that had not received retrospective conversion during the big push in the state. She said it is important to do the work now because a key employee who knows the collection is retiring. Polodna added that the value of the project is not in question, but that this is a tough year to come up with money.
Branson suggested (it being not yet 3:00 p.m.) that the committee consider some of the items that were included in the packet regarding WISCAT.
WISCAT RFP Process
Drew reviewed the draft process for procurement of the next version of resource sharing software. Every five years this program needs to be bid, and since the technology changes quickly, bidding is a useful component for review and adjustment. A request for proposal will be released, with cost being between 15 and 30% of the decision consideration. By late February the RFP should be released (Branson said this is why the process could not be reviewed by this committee at its spring meeting). Drew said, since a transition may be required for a new vendor, the proposals must be received and reviewed in the summer, since there is a good likelihood that a major change could be at hand. Richmond said she had attended the presentations by vendors. She said that the Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries is working with WiLS for OCLC/Worldcat services. Richmond wasn't sure, but thought it was to use Worldcat as the virtual catalog for resource sharing between the libraries. Marini said that OCLC has restructured the way it is dealing with vendors to attract customers such as Wisconsin. Drew suggested that, by purchasing Fretwell Downing, OCLC may have more options to propose. Drew said there has been some talk of a statewide circulation system.
Polodna wondered whether the contracts we now have could be extended for a year. Drew suspects not. He said he is fearful that if we have another five-year commitment for something that is not satisfactory for most of the state, the whole system will fall apart. He cannot imagine that an RFP could put together a consensus product, and that if we proceed and commit to five more years, we will lose more. He said that WISCAT has been referred to as a transitional product for 15 years, and perhaps it no longer can be sustained. He himself does not care about the particular product, but more that it is a product that everyone can use. Drew said that the commitment is not for five years, but only for pricing for five years. Polodna said that the perception is that the decision will be for five years. Drew said that one of the vendors that we are working with has been bought out and may not be able to participate during an extension. Berger asked what public library systems have turned away from WISCAT. Polodna said that South Central and Winnefox have pulled out and Racine Public, and he suspects that Lakeshores may soon follow, with Mid-Wisconsin perhaps thereafter. On the other hand, some like La Crosse, Indianhead, and Northern Waters have no dollars involved in OCLC so it is impossible for them to buy into an alternate system as others have. He sees this as a state problem as libraries like his have less and less access to materials.
Berger asked MacPhail who her sharing base is if they do not participate in WISCAT. She said they have always had OCLC as a tool and chose to eliminate the staff that worked with WISCAT rather than the one that worked with OCLC. Drew said that, although some large libraries may not load tapes anymore, their virtual catalogs can be searched. She reviewed some of the advantages and disadvantages of various models. Berger asked whether the technology has changed enough so that someone having worked on WISCAT could work on OCLC. Drew referenced the standards that ILL is built around, ISO having been largely developed using OCLC as a model. She described a model where a virtual or union catalog could be searched, and then, if appropriate, the request could be passed on to another interlibrary loan system like OCLC.
Branson asked to confirm that the current contract could not be extended another year. Drew said that special permission would have to be granted by DOA. The other problem is that we have two vendors and there is no way to know whether both will be available through the next year. She also said that the best way to determine what technology vendors can supply is to go through the RFP process.
Branson asked Drew to review the WISCAT ILL fill rates statistics sheets. MacPhail asked where Reference and Loan Library requests are logged. Drew said that, since the agency acts as a clearinghouse, the requests and fills are listed as the individual library's.
Branson asked Drew what else could be considered in the time remaining. Drew suggested the WISCAT Technology Scenarios and Potential Costs document. Drew reviewed the desired results collected from the various constituent groups.
Berger asked Richmond for more information on universal borrowing, in the university model, and whether we have anything in the proposals that reflect that kind of model. Drew said that Endeavor did not respond to the RFI. Innovative provided a presentation during the September demonstration day and would be another vendor that could provide such a model. Whether it would work if many of the libraries did not use the same ILS is a question.
Polodna asked Drew to explain how the OCLC component costs are figured. Drew explained that OCLC provided a breakdown of costs that are currently being paid by Wisconsin libraries and costs to add new libraries. She said, however, that it probably should not be assumed that current participants would continue to pay at the current rate without being subsidized by the state if new participants were subsidized.
Branson asked those staying at the hotel to hold their receipts. Branson added that she had received questions from Jim Davis of Milwaukee Public Schools and had not realized that his letter was to be part of the public hearing documents but that she would include it Wednesday.
The meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m. until Wednesday at 8:30 a.m.
Wednesday, November 30, 8:30 a.m.
Branson reconvened the meeting at 8:30. All committee members were present with the exception of Iwata and Onufrak. She noted that a yellow handout had been prepared by Huntington and distributed on "Partnering Agencies and Outreach Initiatives" in the Seniors/Sensory Disabilities category.
Zimmerman reported, in reply to the question posed Tuesday, that the Division's library-related operations were funded 40% from GPR, 51% from federal funding, and 9% from program revenue.
Final Recommendations on Applications and Allocation of Funds 2006
Zimmerman projected the LSTA budget spreadsheet on the screen to allow members to see allocation progress.
MacPhail moved, seconded by Burkhalter to allocate $98,000 for LSTA Administration. The motion passed unanimously without discussion.
Polodna asked for a revised total for Digitization with a reduction to Neenah of $1644 and a reduction to Nicolet of $575. Polodna moved $35,500 for the Digitization project, seconded by Kiely. MacPhail asked why Sheboygan's would be included since they did not have a specific list of titles. Richmond asked whether that grant should be reduced by $500. MacPhail said she would vote no since the Sheboygan grant could be eliminated to accommodate other grant categories. Richmond also said she would vote no. The motion failed (Yes-4; No-7)
MacPhail moved to approve an amount of $29,623 for the Digitization category, with the Sheboygan grant eliminated, the Nicolet project reduced by $575, and the Neenah project reduced by $1,644. Marini seconded the motion. Drew said that, while other grants had specific lists of titles, Sheboygan only listed the types of materials with a budget based on number of pages. Burton and Kiely said they would not support removing Sheboygan from the project. Kiely commented that Sheboygan actually listed its local costs while other grants did not. The motion failed on a hand vote (Yes-4; No-7).
Polodna moved that the digitization category be funded at $35,000 as he had moved before, with $500 ($507) reduced from the Sheboygan grant. Second by Richmond. The motion carried unanimously.
Berger moved, seconded by Puntney, to fund the Virtual Reference project at $66,000. Kiely asked about the $3,500 charge for a database. Drew said it is for the base management software, which would allow forr the set up of academic and public library groups. It would not necessarily be required to get the academic and public libraries active on the system, since the distribution of setup and base management would be included in the current costs to members. The motion carried unanimously.
Polodna moved, seconded by Nemec to approve the top eight grants in the Adult, Family and Early Literacy category for a total of $243,623. The motion carried unanimously with three abstentions (Kiely, Puntney, Burkhalter).
Burton moved, seconded by Polodna, to fund the Reference and Loan category at a total of $624,200. The motion carried unanimously with no discussion.
Puntney moved, seconded by Nemec, to approve the State Institutions grant at an amount of $25,000. Marini spoke against it, saying that the Department of Corrections needs to absorb the cost and that the grant should have been time limited. Richmond spoke in support. The motion carried with one vote opposed.
Nemec moved to approve the Delivery category at a total of $92,000. MacPhail seconded the motion and spoke in support, saying that the agencies cannot predict gas prices and should not have to absorb them. Thompson spoke against the additional $17,000, since they should absorb the prices as everyone has to. She suggested changes in the way they negotiate the prices. Polodna said that the estimates are "mushy" and difficult to support. The costs will likely be below $3.00 per gallon. He sees a trend where the Delivery committee had seen the predictions in the spring and came back for more in the fall despite that. He thought there might be some adjustment, but not as much as requested. Richmond said she might support a $10,000 increase, but not the $17,000, and that the agencies should address long-term funding problems. Drew indicated that the cost to systems for 2006 had included a 10% inflationary cost in the spring that was meant to partially cover fuel cost increases. She pointed out that the Northern Waters contract with WALTCO had not been increased for several years. MacPhail said her philosophy is that the state should fund the delivery system. Marini said he still questions the figures submitted by the two parties, though he does not question the value of the system. Burton asked for a confirmation on the numbers. If the gas prices are projected at $2.50 instead of over $3.00, then $5,000 may be enough. The motion failed on a hand vote (Yes-4; No-7)
Polodna moved that the Delivery category be increased, with a $6,000 increase to the SCLS portion and a $2,000 increase in the NWLS portion, for a total of $83,000. Seconded by Nemec. The motion carried after discussion (Yes-10; No-1).
Polodna moved, seconded by Burton, to fund the first five grants in the Seniors category at an amount of $94,093. He suggested that unspent funds in the Adult and Family Literacy, be added to this category to increase the total amount. The motion carried unanimously by a hand vote, with three abstentions (Puntney, Burkhalter, Kiely).
MacPhail moved, seconded by Nemec, to fund the Library Development-Library Improvement category at $243,100. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
Burkhalter moved, seconded by Berger, to fund the Communication and Planning category at $25,000. There was no discussion. Motion carried unanimously.
Burkhalter moved to approve Library Development-Technology at $122,400, seconded by Richmond. The motion carried unanimously without discussion.
MacPhail moved, seconded by Nemec, to fund WISCAT at $662,100. There was no discussion. The motion carried unanimously.
Burton moved to fund the Shared System Study follow-up at an amount of $2000. Seconded by Kiely. There was no discussion and the motion carried unanimously.
MacPhail moved to fund the System Technology Projects at a total of $375,000 seconded by Burton. There was no discussion. The motion carried with three abstentions (Puntney, Burkhalter, and Polodna).
Richmond moved to fund the Access to State Government Documents at $55,000. Burton seconded the motion. Burkhalter said he is confused about the process, since they have a current grant. Burton said we had rejected their category in March since they had insufficient information and did not seem to be able to complete the project in one more year. Burkhalter clarified that we had received another letter saying that $55,000 would be enough and that the project could be completed within one more year. Branson confirmed that they did not fill out an application. Burkhalter said that did not seem fair to the other recipients. Perhaps the committee should reject the request in fairness to others who had followed the proper procedure. Branson asked whether, if the Superintendent were to request an application, would the committee feel differently. Burkhalter thought not. Polodna said, not necessarily in support of the project, that, had there been a category, it would have been non-competitive and the Wisconsin Historical Society would have been the only applicant, so he does not have the same concerns. Richmond said that we had requested more information and that is what they have done. Polodna said that in March, we had thought about a placeholder but voted against it, leading to this odd situation. Marini said it is an odd dilemma-there is a need, but other issues are raised, such as the school participation in shared systems, which also had been put aside. MacPhail said that they are outside the process and she is uncomfortable in approving it. Burton said he feels the same way. Despite the fact that we now have the information we needed in March, we should not approve out-of-sequence. They should come back again in March. Richmond would like to get it over with by approving it now, since the people will retire. Drew said that, in March, they proposed LTEs to work with existing staff and had barely started the current project. Now they have more experience. Branson acknowledged that the LSTA appropriation was late, resulting in late project start dates, so the Wisconsin Historical Society had little time by March to gain experience. Richmond asked what Terry's concern had been. Burton said they should come back in March. Drew said that the LTEs would have to be laid off and then rehired, if they are available, disturbing continuity in the project. The motion failed on a hand vote (Y-3; N-8)
Kiely moved, seconded by Berger to approve $355,000 for the Shared Systems category, which would include Arrowhead and Mid-Wisconsin at the maximum of $85,000. Berger asked when this category would end. Bocher said it was projected for 2007 but that the current category did not necessarily expect to address the possibility of merging shared systems. Marini confirmed that two systems would be limited to $85,000. MacPhail said she has a problem with Arrowhead since they are not too far along in their process. Perhaps they should be encouraged to apply for the full amount for 2007, and we should perhaps "beef up" the category for that year. Branson said that one of the issues is that occasionally awards are made for projects, but the recipient does not use the funds allocated. If that happens, the funds are rolled over and awarded the next year. Burton said he feels that Arrowhead should receive money to move them along, whereas Mid-Wisconsin may need more this year, since their project is already moving and requires more. Marini expressed agreement with MacPhail-that applications should be complete when they come in. He also feels that other grants should not be funded at an amount over the maximum. Bocher said he had spoken to Arrowhead and that they said they would be ready in 2006 to move ahead. Richmond said that Mid-Wisconsin's proposal lists maximum amounts for each individual library in the grant. Bocher explained the two different formulas for individual libraries--$15,000 below 25,000 and $35,000 for communities over 25,000. The two large grants are a result of those formulas. Branson said that the $85,000 maximum was for a system. Polodna asked whether he could make comments. Branson recommended that he not, since his system has a grant in the category.
MacPhail moved for a short break. The group briefly adjourned at 9:35 and reconvened at 9:47.
Branson reminded the group of the motion on the floor. She reminded the group that, when the applications came in, DLTCL allowed applications in excess of the $85,000 limit so that we would know the needs, but did not guarantee the applicants the adjusted totals. Burton asked whether the motion included the adjusted totals. DeBacher confirmed that the motion is for $355,000 with limits to Arrowhead and Mid-Wisconsin of $85,000. The vote failed (Yes-4; No-5; Abstentions-2).
Burton moved funding the Shared Systems category at $375,000 with Arrowhead at $65,000 and Mid-Wisconsin at $125,000. MacPhail seconded the motion. MacPhail asked Burton to explain his reasoning. He said he thought it is closer to the real needs for the two systems, since Arrowhead is not fully ready but that Mid-Wisconsin is very ready. She asked whether there is $20,000 still available. Richmond said she is uncomfortable changing the $85,000 maximum in the guidelines. Kiely agreed. Bocher said he feels that changing the total is up to the committee. The motion failed (Yes-3; No-6; Abstentions-2).
Polodna moved $40,484 for the Access to State Government category. Richmond seconded the motion. He feels it is an opportunity to give the agency some money to work with. Puntney said she would vote against it because she felt the funds should go to the categories where applicants followed procedures. The motion failed (Yes-5; No-6).
Puntney moved to approve the grants from Indianhead, Janesville, and Eastern Shores in the Seniors/Disabilities category (total category amount of $133,206). Kiely seconded the motion. There was some discussion on the parliamentary procedure. The motion failed (Yes-3; No-8).
Nemec moved to fund Shared Automation systems categories with all applicants funded at half their proposed amounts for a total of $305,000, seconded by MacPhail. MacPhail asked for the rationale. Nemec thought is was fair since everyone would get something equally. Marini thought it would still fund Mid-Wisconsin at an amount well in access of the $85,000 total. The motion failed (Y-3, N-6, Abstentions-2).
Polodna moved Puntney's motion again, to approve the grants from Indianhead, Janesville, and Eastern Shores in the Seniors/Disabilities (category total at an amount of $133,206). He feels it is a reasonable request and he would now support it, since the applications were appropriate and staff had recommended the projects. Kiely seconded the motion. The motion carried (Yes-7; No-4).
Kiely moved to approve $356,371 in the Shared Systems category, with Arrowhead's request at $85,000 and Mid-Wisconsin's request at $86,371. The motion was seconded by Berger. Berger asked how this might be considered, since $355,000 failed. Burton said that it is somewhat of an increase. The motion carried (Yes-8; No-1; Abstentions-2 -Polodna, Burkhalter).
Branson said that staff would meet with the Superintendent next week with the recommendations from the committee. She reminded the committee that it should make a suggestion for reducing the amounts by 1%, or about $30,000.
Berger moved reducing the Seniors with Special Needs category by that amount, if necessary, supported by MacPhail. The motion carried on a hand vote.
The committee broke for a few minutes at 10:15 and resumed at 10:25.
ILL Planning Update and Discussion - Deb Johnson
Branson introduced Deb Johnson who facilitated the meetings of the state ILL Work Group. Johnson highlighted some items on the printed materials distributed to the committee, mentioning that the committee created the revised ILL guidelines document. She commended the group that put the guidelines together. She felt that the monthly meetings really helped the group achieve its goal. There was a strong acknowledgement in her group that there is a great variance in how ILL works in different agencies and types of agencies, that the document reflects that fact, and that the library serves as the portal for ILL, no matter what type of library. Page seven includes considerations that all libraries must make before an ILL request is sent out. Despite that fact that "point-to-point" systems are the current trend, the group was not ready to support only that model in Wisconsin. Consequently, a hybrid system may be required to meet the needs in the state. She noted that the committee was predominately staffed by ILL people and that, had the committee been dominated by administrators, the results may have been different.
Branson invited comments or questions from the committee. Berger wondered whether there was a difference in the discussion between "point-to-point" supporters versus clearinghouse supporters. Johnson said that there was no adversarial tone, that users of each type of method had valid points and reasons. Despite that, a new automated system, whatever it is, has to balance responsibilities but not necessarily address all the variations that are available. Drew commented that she had done a survey beforehand to determine what different systems were doing as a clearinghouse and was surprised how many had moved responsibility off to the individual libraries versus a clearinghouse model. Johnson added that Reference and Loan will need to determine and address the amount of involvement they will need to make in a new system. She hopes that this time the system, in its automation, could take care of many of the requirements to streamline the process. Kiely asked about patron-initiated holds and wondered if the group had projected what impact the practice might have on ILL. Johnson noted that one of the first recommendations is that patron initiated ILL should be a goal but with limits that are reasonable to impose upon the system. Kiely asked for more information on the limits. Johnson directed her to page two of the meetings summary list, the ideal goals of the system. Richmond mentioned that the universal borrowing incorporated in the academic automated system has worked remarkably well. She also mentioned that Colorado had the capability statewide many years ago. Branson asked for more clarification on the makeup of the committee and how much administrative input was included. Johnson said that while not all the members were solely ILL staff, many had ILL as a responsibility among their duties.
Recommendations for the RFP and LSTA dollars for state ILL system
Branson reminded the committee that some discussion had occurred yesterday in reviewing WISCAT. Polodna asked whether Branson would like the committee to come up with a dollar amount for 2007. Drew said she would at least like some guidance-would the amount we have now be okay to use for the future, or does the committee want a substantially lower figure? Branson also requested general direction for the project. Kiely asked Drew about the numbers included in the OCLS and WiLS proposal on the report on Scenarios and Potential Costs. Drew said that the proposal assumed that libraries already paying directly to OCLC would continue to do so. Polodna commented that, having been on LSTA committee for some time, it would be dangerous to suggest that more LSTA money might be spent or available. To suggest that LSTA would pick up more could be disastrous. Richmond asked for clarification. Polodna said there have been years of concern that federal dollars should not be so largely consumed for one particular, continuous program. Burkhalter concurred that the current amounts should not be exceeded. Branson asked about the issue of local contribution, whether the charge to individual libraries is fair or sufficient. Berger asked what other states are doing, whether others use LSTA. Branson said there is a lot of local discretion and that some states probably devote considerable amounts of LSTA funding on resource sharing and others not so much.
MacPhail said that a goal of one statewide shared, integrated library system would be a very attractive goal. Perhaps the state could designate a particular system that would serve as a platform for resource sharing. Richmond wondered whether the direction that UW is taking might affect what the state agency does. Berger asked MacPhail what SRLAAW would like to see in a system and what is negative about the current product. Drew said that libraries are trying to do so many different things that it is difficult to determine what each library considers negative. Marini said that the schools cannot be eliminated, that the schools do not use OCLC, which does not seem to be a viable option. He would hate to see cost increases in membership shares or it would decrease participation. Kiely wondered whether putting the dollar amount in the RFP might eliminate one of the options that certain library systems might find compelling.
Branson tried to establish what direction the committee wanted to go and wondered if there was consensus. She asked if there are other suggestions. Marini suggested a combination of approaches-have an RFP that includes all types of libraries but have it be open-ended in the amount. Kiely said another option might be to extend the existing contract by one year in order to allow extra time to work out the issues. Drew wondered whether consensus could be achieved by waiting. Kiely said that there does not seem to be a statewide group for going through the options and determining consensus in resolving the issues. Branson wondered what that group might be. Kiely said that SRLAAW, LITAC, the ILL group, and the academic group all have had recommendations. By including representatives of such groups, perhaps some statewide goal could be achieved. Drew said that perhaps an RFP could be released and if the cost or functionality did not seem realistic or attractive, then an extension of the current contract could be sought. MacPhail observed that when WISCAT was established it was very cutting edge. She hates to limit the options and features by fixing a dollar amount and then seeing what might be able to be achieved within a budget. Richmond agreed but wonders how that dovetails with the timeframe. Perhaps a cost range might be an option, but alternately an additional meeting mid-year may be required. Drew suggested taking COLAND's advice in including as many features to make the system attractive and allow the vendors to submit proposals to meet as many of those as possible. The timeframe would allow for review by the committee at a special meeting in the summer, if necessary. Based on this conversation, Drew said that she would include information on existing funding from state and local sources as could be determined in a way that would let vendors know what is being spent without putting an upper limit on the amount.
Consideration of Other Preliminary Categories for 2007
Public Hearing
Rick Krumwiede spoke to the committee on behalf of the WLA Foundation. He described the mission of the Foundation and its activities. The Wisconsin Library Association Foundation board has sought ways to expand its role and effectiveness. There is a need for a general library advocacy and promotion campaign-that many libraries do not have the time or means to conduct those efforts locally. The effort would not be political, but would be costly. The Campaign for Wisconsin Libraries would emphasize the value and importance of all types of libraries in Wisconsin. He asked that a new category be added in the future to find out, through research, about the economic impact of libraries. It would be helpful to have state specific information. He mentioned that the library card signup category had a useful goal, but that libraries do not have the time or expertise to write applications. A broader category that would provide funding for promotional activities could be encouraged at the statewide level. He would hope that such a category could be tied in with the campaign for Wisconsin libraries for statewide promotions.
Cross asked about the reference to a research study. Were other state studies particularly useful or compelling? Krumwiede referred to the South Carolina and Florida studies and suggested that the fact that they have the local research has been very helpful to libraries in those states. He hoped that such research could be expanded to other types of libraries.
Branson asked the committee to review the other two letters that have been circulated. One is from Jim Davis of Milwaukee Public Schools and the other from Ken Hall
Marini commented about the message from Jim Davis of the Milwaukee Public Schools for LSTA support for a district-wide library management system . Burkhalter wondered about the goal of the request. Donna Steffen discussed the goal and feels that they wish to be eligible to apply in the shared system category. If the library's district decides not to work within a shared system, they may not be eligible. Burkhalter confirmed that it is one school district. Burkhalter pointed out that they could not qualify in the category by only automating one governmental entity; they would have to join in with another entity, or it would not be a shared system. Steffan suggests that he may be recommending another category, or broader parameters.
Ken Hall, director of the Fond du Lac Public Library submitted a letter recommending LSTA support for a new category to help fund feasibility studies conducted by two or more public libraries or systems to consider the issues associated with consolidating public libraries or creating shared services. Burkhalter said that he was not sure why LSTA funds would be required to establish such sharing. Cross referred to a previous LSTA funded study on the feasibility of merging the Eastern Shores and Manitowoc-Calumet systems.
Berger suggested that the WLA proposal might be ideal for addressing the goal of library promotion through the campaign, and added that smaller libraries are intimidated by the LSTA application process. Nemec shared a discussion from the Youth Services Consultants about mini-grants as an option for smaller libraries. Marini agreed that the idea of less complicated mini-grants might be useful. He thought also that the shared library system category should be opened up to all libraries. He thought also that the special needs category should be changed to better reflect that the category not emphasize "senior" in the category. Polodna asked why senior is included in the title at all. Huntington said that the wording could be changed, but had hoped to help identify seniors as a special needs group. Marini suggested "special needs and disabilities" as the category. Marini added that the adult family and literacy should be expanded to include all library types. It should include birth to age four but also older ages as well.
Berger said that, in March, it would be useful to see the Federal guidelines that we have to meet versus the state guidelines that we set. Branson referred her to page one of the red LSTA Information and Guidelines document. Richmond said that the State Historical Society project should be considered for 2007 and that she thought that "seniors" should not be eliminated from the title of a category. Kiely said that the suggestion for a research proposal is a good idea and noted the Louise Robbins talk and program at WLA on the value of libraries. Berger thought that more statewide projects should be considered. Polodna thought it is interesting to note that the libraries that submit grants repeat frequently and that their grants rank higher, which makes it even more challenging for smaller libraries. Either the application or the reviewing and rating process needs to be revised to "level the playing field" for smaller libraries. Thompson also emphasized that the shared system category should be opened up in order to better address the goals of the five-year period so that the goal can be met in a meaningful way.
Next Meeting of Advisory Committee
Branson will send out an email to committee members asking about their availability for a meeting the week of March 27, 2006.
The meeting adjourned at 12:12 p.m. Lunch followed the meeting.
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 12:38:34 PM
Home
Locate Us