SCLS Administrative Council Minutes
06/20/2019, 10:00 a.m.
SCLS Headquarters

Chester Room


Action Items: 

Approved voting shares for the July All Directors fees votes

Approved the Cost Formula for 2020 Fees

Approved the Resource Library Statutory Resources Services Agreement

Approved the Resource Library Supplemental Services Agreement

Approved the Agreement to Participate in SCLS Technology Services

Approved the changes to SCIDs, effective for 2020 fees

Approved sun-setting the Cost Formula Work Group

Approved the recommendation to the SCLS Board of Trustees regarding the May 16 All Directors vote on purge of charges over 10 years to become an annual event in November remain as is.

Present: E. Foley (1), J. Assmus (2), A. Noel (3), L. Oathout (4), J. Bergin (5), A. Barnett (6), R. Claringbole (7),

W. Rawson (8), T. Herold (9-10), M. Navarre Saaf, M. Spellman (11-13)

(The number following each individual indicates the cluster they represent)


Recorder:  H. Moe

SCLS Staff Present: M. Van Pelt, M. Ibach, C. Baumann, V. Teal Lovely

1.      Call to Order:  Chair T. Herold, called the meeting to order at 10:0 a.m.  

a.   Introduction of guests/visitors:

b.   Changes/Addition to the Agenda: None

c.       Requests to address the Council – policy:  


2.      Approval of previous meeting minutes: 4/18/2019 AC; 5/16/2019 All Directors

a.      Changes or Corrections:  None

b.      Approved by motion:  W. Rawson moved approval. J. Bergin seconded. 

3.      Action items: 

a.      Approve voting shares for July All Directors fees votes

                                                              i.      Delivery
Motion:  M. Navarre Saaf moved.   W. Rawson Seconded.

Discussion: None
Vote: Motion Carried.

                                                             ii.      Technology Services

1.      Infrastructure

2.      Network Services

3.      PC Support

4.      ILS Services & GetIt

Motion:  L. Oathout moved.  R. Claringbole seconded
Discussion: None

Vote:  Motion Carried.

                                                           iii.      Advantage

Motion:  W. Rawson moved.  J. Bergin seconded.
Discussion:  None

Vote: Motion Carried.

                                                           iv.      OverDrive

Motion:  M. Navarre Saaf moved.  R. Claringbole seconded.

Discussion:  Any idea what other systems are doing statewide?  5% was the overwhelming vote that systems agreed upon statewide.  Details can be found in the document attached online.  Several member libraries amounts decreased.

Vote:  Motion Carried.


b.      Approve Cost Formula for 2020 fees (no changes)

Motion:  R. Claringbole moved.  A. Noel seconded.

Discussion:  None

Vote:  Motion carried.

c.       Approval of Agreements

                                                              i.      Resource Library Statutory Resources Services Agreement (no proposed changes)
Motion:  M. Spelman moved.  W. Rawson seconded.
Discussion:  None
Vote:  Motion carried.

                                                             ii.      Resource Library Supplemental Services Agreement. 
Motion:  W. Rawson moved.  R. Claringbole seconded.

Discussion:  None

Vote:  Motion carried.

                                                           iii.      Agreement to Participate in SCLS Technology Services (no proposed changes)

Motion:  W. Rawson moved.  M. Navarre Saaf seconded.

Discussion:  None

Vote:  Motion carried.


d.      Approve changes to SCIDs, effective for 2020 fees

Motion:  W. Rawson moved.  R. Claringbole seconded.

Discussion:  In the past we used to put in 2.75% of SCIDs funds into Overdrive to reduce what member libraries would have to pay.  Libraries will now have to pay the full amount, but SCLS will provide $6,000 into the Advantage account. 

Vote:  Motion carried.


e.      Sunset the Cost Formula Work Group

Motion:  W. Rawson exuberantly moved.  M. Navarre Saaf seconded.

Discussion:  None

Vote:  Motion carried. 


f.        Recommendation to SCLS Board of Trustees regarding May 16 All Directors vote on purge of charges over 10 years to become an annual event in November

Motion:  W Rawson moved to recommend to the SCLS Board of Trustees that the May All Directors vote to purge charges over 10 years to become an annual event in November stands.  M. Spellman seconded.

Discussion:  M. Navarre Saaf noted that although the process could be done better in the future, she doesn’t see a reason why the vote should be rescinded based on the process that occurred.
T. Herold noted there is a mechanism available to libraries for retaining the fees through invoicing if they do not want to purge the funds.   

See more discussion under 6d.

Vote:  Motion Carried.

A. Noel abstained because she feels too close to the issue.  M. Van Pelt noted she is representing her cluster, not Brodhead.  Monroe does not have an issue with the vote at All Directors.  New Glarus is not sure about the vote at All Directors.  Brodhead is not sure how to vote.  A. Noel did not ask her cluster if the vote should be rescinded. 

4.      Reports of action of committees/workgroups

a.                  Delivery Committee- Met 6/14/2019.  You may view the action items and details in the minutes of the last meeting online.  C. Baumann discussed the fees that will be voted on at the All Directors meeting in July.  Marathon County was provided with an updated route and hub model for their local delivery if they join SCLS, as well as cost estimates, staffing and van and truck departure models.  Waiting to hear back for clarifications and questions.  State aid from DPI would be about $350,000 additional funding if Marathon County were to join SCLS.   

b.                  ILS Committee – Met 6/5/19.  You may view the action items and details in the minutes of the last meeting online. 

c.                   Technology Committee – Met 6/5/19.  You may view the action items and details in the minutes of the last meeting online

d.                  Consultants: You may view the report in the AC documents online.  Samantha Link was hired as a LTE Digitization Assistant and her position is being supported by LSTA funds, the SCLS Foundation, and a grant.  It is projected that the state budget will keep system aid as the same level as 2019 for the next two years with the same requirements.  There is a director vacancy at the Columbus Public Library.  Spring Green will need a new director in August and the Rio Library in July.     

e.         Library Innovation Subcommittee – M. Ibach noted there was a request to develop a survey that be sent late summer or early fall as a follow up to the March 2014 Services priorities.  The survey will inquire about challenges, needs, resources that SCLS can provide, as well as a communication component about how libraries would like to receive information.  The goal is to bring the survey results to the November All Directors meeting for initial discussion then to the March All Directors meeting to make some decisions.  A subgroup has been developed to create the survey and libraries will be notified when it’s coming.

f.          Building Needs Assessment Work Group - M. Van Pelt noted the work group is still working on space needs.   Focus groups are determining what we need, which will provide square footage information to the architect.

g.         Cost Formula Work Group –  V. Teal Lovely noted the work group had three meetings.  The big task was to look at the network fees and find the “actual cost” then try to keep the costs being charged as close to the actual fees as possible.  

5. Items from clusters for initial discussion:  None

6. Discussion:   

a.      Transparent Language for 2020.  The price for the system will remain the same at $5,015.  Are member libraries interested in continuing for 2020?  The price will stay the same.  An email was sent to the member libraries with the price for each.  Those who would like to continue need to let SCLS know by July 15th.  Libraries who would like to participate can also indicate that as well.  The All Directors meeting will finalize the cost depending on the number of libraries interested.

b.      Flipster will no longer be handled through the system or WiLS.  Interested libraries will need to deal directly with the Ebsco representative, Andrea Mayer.  This is an Ebsco decision and will be between individual libraries and the vendor.  

c.       SCLS survey about ways to improve communication for meetings, important information within SCLS.  “What is the best way to relay information to members?”  This was discussed at the June ILS Committee meeting.  It will be combined with a survey from Innovation Subcommittee.

A volunteer from the AC was asked to sit on the workgroup to assist with creating the survey.  M. Spellman volunteered to help. 

d.      May 16 All Directors vote on purge of charges over 10 years to become an annual event in November; The SCLS Board of Trustees and ILS Committee members received a letter dated 5/24/2019 from the Board of the Brodhead Memorial Public Library.  They have concerns about the process followed to bring the vote to the May All Directors meeting.  They “urge the ILS Committee and SCLS staff to strike the May 16 vote on this issue so that this process can be properly handled.” The ILS Committee meeting on June 5 discussed the letter and the May All Directors vote at their June 5 meeting and decided that since the vote occurred at the All Directors meeting, it puts review of the vote under the Administrative Council’s authority.

V. Teal Lovely noted the discussion that occurred at the ILS Committee meeting regarding the All Directors vote to purge charges over 10 years as an annual event in November and the subsequent letter from the Brodhead Memorial Public Library Board of Trustees to the SCLS Board of Trustees and ILS Committee members requesting to strike the vote made at the May 16 All Directors Meeting.  The June 5, 2019 ILS Committee minutes provide detailed information about that discussion and the next steps they recommended, which you may find online. 

V. Teal Lovely also discussed the DPI letter which states SCLS followed the correct protocol.  Also discussed was the timeline and communication and process improvement.  SCLS will be creating a survey requesting input from the member libraries on improving the means that information is provided to the libraries. 


Angela Noel noted that DPI’s letter stated that waiving fines and fees is a matter of policy, not statute, but it doesn’t say who gets to write the policy.  V. Teal Lovely referenced Chapter 43 and in the matter of policy and local control, noted that every library board is required to sign the Technology Agreement, which states the ILS committee sets policies.  A. Noel agreed that there are certain policies and rules that ILS should make, but when it’s a financial decision she feels that should be controlled locally.  The Brodhead library board understands that they approve all policy and this would fall into their Circulation policy.  A. Noel noted the board could amend their circulation policy to say after 10 years fees under 100 dollars could be removed, but the board would have to approve that, which is the problem. 


V. Teal Lovely noted it is not the role of SCLS to get between library directors and their boards.  If a library board signs the Technology Agreement which allows the ILS Committee to set policy and SCLS allows enough time for the directors to go their board, if they need to, and bring it back to their clusters, the ILS committee should be able to vote on a topic without taking it to the All Directors.  The ILS committee is independent of the Administrative Council.  The vote was presented to the directors 6 weeks prior to the All Directors meeting, which may not have been enough time.  W. Rawson noted as long as the timeline is longer than 30 days, it gives the directors the time they need.  M. Navarre Saaf noted the ILS meetings are structured to be held every other month, so that provides 2 months to present information and that structure lends itself to the process.  V. Teal Lovely noted this issue should resolve itself in the future if we are clear on our process and allow two months prior to a decision for the vast majority of issues.  All committee minutes are posted within a week of the meeting and the cluster representatives are responsible for taking information from those meetings to their cluster members.  All staff are required to read the meeting minutes. It is where decisions are recorded.  Do we send separate emails or rely on the cluster reps to share the information?


M. Van Pelt noted at the November All Directors meeting, a cluster rep will provide a presentation on the responsibilities of a cluster rep and how the members communicate with their representative.  The member libraries need to speak to their cluster rep if they have topics they want addressed. 


The AC was charged with going to their cluster members for input on whether they felt the vote should be rescinded. 

Below is the Input from clusters:

(Cluster 5) J. Bergin noted two libraries responded from her clusters and neither had an issue with the vote. 

(Cluster 8) W. Rawson heard from 5 libraries and no one had any concerns or a problem with the vote taken at the All Directors meeting.  Mt. Horeb abstained from voting at the All Directors meeting because the director had not presented her board with the information prior to the vote.

(Cluster 1) E. Foley had no problems with the vote from her cluster.

(Cluster 2) J. Assmus had no concerns and noted the purge was discussed a year ago so libraries have gone through this process and perhaps didn’t feel an urgency.

(Cluster 7) Ryan Claringbole sent an email requesting libraries let him know if they had any issues and he didn’t receive any responses.  Does no response mean that everything is good?  Did they read it?  Did they not feel the need to respond?  This needs to be discussed at the All Directors meeting.

(Cluster 11-13) M. Navarre Saaf noted MPL had no problems and appreciates the idea of improving things in the future.

The cluster reps and committee reps have a responsibility and a process that needs to be followed.


Angela Noel (Cluster 3) noted she did not ask her cluster members if they felt the vote should be rescinded.  She did indicate that Monroe did not have any issues with the vote presented to the All Directors.  New Glarus noted she felt that she probably should have spoken to her board about the vote prior to the All Directors.  A. Noel noted she is not sure if she wants to strike the vote but she thinks her board still wants to be involved in the policy.

e.      July All Directors: fee votes and tours of Madison Central:


f.        November All Directors at Waunakee

                                                              i.      Agenda items: Presentation from cluster representative on how they represent the member libraries and how important it is for members to contact them to improve feedback to the various committees.  Review of election process.

                                                             ii.      Afternoon CE:   PR, Marketing & Photography


7. Next meeting:   07/18/2019 All Directors meeting at Madison Public Library


8. Adjournment: 11:28 a.m.


For more information about the Administrative Council, contact Martha Van Pelt.

SCLS staff is available to attend cluster meetings to share information and answer questions pertaining to this committee meeting and other departmental projects.