Updated: 08/09/01
This site maintained by:
Rick Krumwiede
Terry Dawson
System and Resource Library Administrators Association of Wisconsin
Minutes of the Meeting
December 15, 2000; Madison, Wisconsin
Those present: Jessica MacPhail, Bernie Bellin, John Nichols, Ken Hall,
Karen Krueger, Paul Nelson, Larry Nix, Alan Zimmerman, David Weinhold,
Bob Bocher, Kathy Schneider, Peter Hamon, Heather Eldred, Sally Drew,
Thomas J. Hennen, Alan Engelbert, Sharon Winkle, Paula Kiely, Ruth Ann
Montgomery, Michael Tyree, Matthew Bollerman, Joan Airoldi, Rick Krumwiede,
Janet Jennings, David Polodna, Tom Strange, Mark Morse, Milton Mitchell,
Barbara Dimick; Cal Potter joined the group for the afternoon session.
I. Call to order: Chair Milton Mitchell called the meeting to order at
10:10 a.m.
II. Quorum determination: The Chair announced that a quorum was present.
III. Additions/changes to the agenda: Winkle asked that the Kettle Commission
report be added to the agenda. Item X (Comparative Library Statistics)
was tabled to the next meeting.
IV. A motion to approve the minutes from the August 11, 2000, meeting
was carried unanmously. (Polodna/Bellin)
V. Legislative Update: Based on recent meetings, Nix reported that the
future of the bill to enable multi-county systems to borrow money from
the State Trust Fund looks good. The TEACH Board has forwarded as part
of its budget package provisions that were part of SB 60, i.e., enabling
TEACH recipients to borrow funds for equipment; including branch libraries
in the program, and allowing municipalities to share T1 lines.
Paul Nelson, Chair of L, D & L, thanked everyone for the letters about
System funding that were sent to DOA; they helped to draw attention and
raise the issues. A contingent from L, D &L will be meeting with George
Lightbourn and McCallum aide Scott Kelly. More letters are welcome.
Nelson also reported on the UCITA conference he recently attended, and
the status of UCITA in Wisconsin. UCITA has been included in the Republicans
new economy agenda, but it has not shown up lately in Scott Jensen’s
latest Speaker’s reports. “Large” consumers, such as the
insurance industry, and other consumers will oppose this. Nelson thinks
it is unlikely to appear in the Thompson budget. Nelson has been working
with an informal group, including Attorney General Jim Doyle. Momentum
has slowed nationally on this; many businesses that “consume”
computer software will be concerned about this bill. He referred people
to the AFFECT Web site (http://www.4cite.org/).
The Legislative network structure continues to be an L, D & L issue.
L, D & L is looking at a Library Advocacy Round Table in 2001-2003.
This group would need to work with L, D & L to carry out legislative
activities. Perhaps regional legislative networks will be developed.
Weinhold described the situation in his System where the City of Mequon’s
tax rate is adequate, according to Mequon, but less than the county library
tax threshhold; this is a unique situation.
The group agreed to take up the Kettl Commission addition to the agenda
at this point. Winkle shared a draft of recommendations from the Report
concerning the current shared revenue program in Wisconsin. Regional cooperation
in certain services is to be rewarded with a “growth-sharing”
incentive payment, and one of the services listed is libraries. Dimick
reported that requiring savings from regional cooperative efforts can
be problematic without sevice cuts. Nichols reported that “Smart
Growth” plans require that land use plans be in alignment, which
is of concern among towns. The group agreed that these issues need to
remain on our radar screens.
Nelson reminded the group that Governor Thompson may be offered a Cabinet
position, so we need to be finding out where McCallum stands on library
issues. This next budget, however, will probably be Thompson’s.
Polodna reported on a legislative initiative to allow parental access
to children’s library cards. Nix responded that the library community
is divided on the juvenile privacy law issue. Does parental responsibility
supercede right to privacy? Bellin added that the age of the juvenile
is a major question. Plus, parents now sign to take responsibility for
their children’s library use, but then they can’t know what
their child has checked out? Another issue that needs to remain on the
radar screen. Hennen alerted the group to the Gunderson proposal to end
double whammy taxation – stop the funding from both the municipality
and the county for some services.
Nelson announced that Legislative Day in 2001 is February 13. Mitchell
announced that the IFLS Legislative Day is next week. Eldred mused that
perhaps there should be a northern Wisconsin Legislative Day, since travel
to Madison is so difficult in February. Nelson responded that this fits
in with the regional meeting concept proposed by L, D & L. Eastern
Shores will be arranging meetings for legislative contacts. Nelson asked
for notification of such meetings.
Krueger asked whether Library Boards must endorse the entire Legislative
Agenda? Is it all, or nothing? Nelson responded that at this point, the
answer is yes.
VI. (no item VI.)
VII. Review of feedback from Unifying Vision Program, and discussion of
where do we go from here: Krueger reported on the WLA program. There was
some sentiment that we focused only on public libraries, and we should
have broadened to multi-type issues. There was also a contingent that
felt that they should have been asked up front what Systems should do.
Mitchell added that people were asking why SRLAAW was leading this issue.
Krumwiede added that there was a vocal minority who had an agenda with
their local system. Jennings would have liked to offer comments on particular
issues. We do need options for generating additional information. Nix
added that this was another forum where the multi-type issue has come
up. Multi-type regionalization is still an issue in Wisconsin. Eldred
reported that people are asking whether change to systems bill be forced,
or will there be some local control. Nichols reported that members of
his System want self-determination; Hall added that the status quo is
comforting.
Where do we go from here? Weinhold thinks that the SRLAAW survey helps
us to argue for 13% funding. Do we need more information before we move
to restructuring systems? Nelson pointed out that we need to take positives
from the survey to encourage support for 13% funding for systems. Nichols
asked whether it might not be a good idea to pull some new money out of
possible 13% funding to allocate to electronic resources, given survey
responses. Bollerman suggested that we release the results from the survey
in a widespread way; use the survey to support our position, and set aside
the structural issue for now. The top three themes from the survey were:
Access to electronic resources; BadgerCard, and minimum standards. Krueger
suggested we might want to include new money for electronic databases
in system funding. Nelson wondered if this would affect BadgerLink funding.
Polodna stated that systems could work toward meeting some of these identified
themes with 13% funding; these might be different in each system. Krueger
asked about the overarching vision; where will we get money for statewide
issues, i.e., BadgerCard. Nichols added that he wondered how legislators
would see this issue of BadgerLink funding, and the need for unique local
electronic databases. Hennen asked whether we would need another rendition
of this for more discussion for the 2003-2005 biennium. Nix responded
that this information was not gathered for this budget cycle; it was meant
for the next legislative period, and not for the 13% issue. We should
not interface this with the 13% funding push. Nichols asked whether the
restructuring of systems was a dead issue. Krueger asked if we could use
some of the 13% new money on a statewide basis, to further some of our
“themes.” MacPhail suggested a press release should be put out
on the agreed upon top themes. Hennen asked who would deal with the system
models issue?
Weinhold (Hennen) moved to refer the survey results to committee for a
final report and a statement that SRLAAW could vote on. (The Unifying
Vision Committee: Nix, Krueger, Krumwiede, Lang, Polodna, Strange, Houston,
Mitchell.) Nix stated that we still need a process for bringing consensus
to the library community. Hall again asked if there was any support among
member libraries for a new system model. Krueger stated that we should
not link
the unifying vision with the 13% issue for this budget cycle. Let’s
wait until after the budget is released, and meet within three weeks of
that. Polodna asked if we didn’t need some movement on this process?
The data suggests an approach to the future. Can we move forward with
that, at least? We need something for people to address. Engelbert stated
that there is a need to define the first four themes. What do they really
mean? Krumwiede stated that the committee needs to issue a report. Motion
passed unanimously. Krueger moved that the group hold a special meeting
within three weeks of knowing what happens to System Aids. (Strange) Unanimous.
VIII. Future of WISCAT: Drew and Bocher reported on WISCAT and LITAC (Library
Information Technology Advisory Committee.) WISCAT must be re-bid, since
the contract is up. A linked systems pilot is proposed for 2002 with LSTA
funds; the Division will advocate for inclusion of shared automation systems
in LSTA. DLTCL will promote direct Internet access and will work with
TEACH and E-rate programs to help reach this goal. Potter reported that
the TEACH Board will help with direct Internet access. It is estimated
that it would cost $10 million to have all libraries part of shared automation
systems. We are hoping for an increase in LSTA for next year, to perhaps
help with the issues in DLTCL’s draft Technology and Resource Sharing
planning paper. We will need to work with WEMA to further these automated
goals for all libraries. Hamon reported that we are working on getting
money from TEACH for software for automated projects.
Nichols called for a WISCAT discussion at SRLAAW. Potter responded to
some of the WISCAT issues. Schools don’t have enough resources to
share their collections with others, and what they do have is for curricular
use; even so, some do share. Statewide systems are expensive operations,
and Wisconsin does not have the money to move forward with this; right
now, LSTA funds 75% of DLTCL staff. A primary objective of DLTCL is to
get schools on WISCAT and to get them to be part of resource sharing statewide.
Nichols asked what SRLAAW members think about the timetable for linked
systems, and the future of WISCAT. Drew explained how use of LSTA funding
has changed and that R & L is definitely not just focused on public
libraries. Morse is concerned about the technicalities and cost of participating
in WISCAT or OCLC. LITAC will be looking at recommendation for the future
of WISCAT. Weinhold wants LITAC to look at what a new statewide database
would be, and how we get from where we are today to the future. Hall wants
LITAC to come up with a timeline for migrating off WISCAT to whatever
the future alternative is. Potter reiterated that we need to keep schools
in mind as part of total educational community in Wisconsin.
Hennen moved the endorsement of the Technology and Resource Sharing report
as a good and solid beginning and urges thoughtful and careful consideration
of the transition to the new millenium WISCAT. (Polodna). Krueger state
that we need to look at costs of resource sharing; linked systems would
need local protocols depending on what technology would allow and what
systems would agree to. Nichols wondered what we are saying about a timetable
for WISCAT if we endorse this DLTCL plan. Do we want to leave the door
open for other alternatives? It was pointed out that DLTCL has asked for
feedback, not action at this time. Motion fails, ten for votes, 12 against.
IX. SRLAAW membership: Hamon moved to refer to a SRLAAW committee the
addition of four to six at-large representatives to SRLAAW, taken from
WAPL membership, in order to have a tie-in with WLA. (Hennen) Motion failed.
X. (No item X.)
XI. NetLibrary Project: NetLibrary should be available for the public
in February; almost 2100 electronic items have been ordered, and new systems
have been added to the consortia, for a total of ten.
XII. Filtering: Given
the recently passed federal legislation, Krumwiede introduced the issues
of filtering in a networked environment. He wants to not re-invent the
wheel in dealing with server/client structure. Do we address this in a
WAN environment or on the workstation level? He would like to discuss
the technical issues on implementation with others who will be/are dealing
with this on a system level. He will seek people to get together for problem
solving on
this issue.
Nominating Committee:
Strange and Airoldi will serve as a nominating committee for presenting
a slate of officers for the February meeting.
XIII. Updates/Reports: State Budget: LSTA: will be adding up to $30,000
to shared automated systems, and $16,000 for connecting “needy”
libraries to the Internet. Reauthorization of LSTA is next year.
Delivery of Library Materials: A report will come to SRLAAW on this; they
are talking to other groups beyond public, school, and universities. They
want costs to be equalized and they are looking for ways to fund this.
It was noted that we don’t know where TEACH is going, after its initial
authorization of five years.
Library Discussion Group: This diverse group’s next meeting is February
12. At the last meeting, they discussed the dial 211 information service.
This is aimed at I & R and human resource/social service agencies.
Due to the information function of libraries, however, library representatives
should be at this table.
Observations on System Plans: Some of the plans submitted to the Division
were very thorough; others were not. The group was reminded that these
plans need to be qualitative statements of system intent, to justify state
support of systems.
XIV. Other reports: Treasurer’s report: Bellin moved to have the
2001 fee be $50. (Strange) Passed.
WiLS report: Schneider reported that she would like to get a better handle
on what public libraries would like WiLS to look into regarding licensing.
COLAND report: Potter reported on the new appointments.
Meeting adjourned somewhere after 3:00 p.m.
Next Meeting: February 9, 2001.
Barbara Dimick, Recorder
