ILS Committee Minutes
June 05, 2019, 10 am
The IC approved the final 2020 ILS Budget proposal.
The IC approved the Cataloging Contract.
The IC approved adding the following new Collection Codes MF (MICROFORM), DVDAHL (DVD AD HOLIDAY), and DVDAAN (DVD AD ANIME).
The IC approved adding the following new Shelving Locations RK (RENK ROOM) and NAV (NEW AUDIOVISUAL).
Present: Erin Foley, ACL (1), Cathy Borck, WID (2), Angela Noel, BRD (3), Eddie Glade, PCPL (4), Emily Judd, SKC (5), Eric Norton, MCM (6), , MAD (12), Brendan Faherty, MID (8), Heidi Cox, MCF (7), Nate Snortum, DCL (9, 10), Margie Navarre Saaf, Susan Lee, Molly Warren, MAD (11 -13)
Recorder: Michelle Karls (SCLS)
SCLS staff present: Amy Gannaway, Heidi Oliversen, Vicki Teal Lovely, Martha Van Pelt
1. Call to order time at 10:00 am.
a. Introduction of guests/visitors
i. Tracy Herold (DCL) and Jan Holmes (SUN) joined us as guests to listen to the discussion.
b. Changes/Additions to the Agenda
i. Changes: none.
ii. Additions: none.
c. Requests to address the Committee
i. V. Teal Lovely reported that this meeting is being recorded to help with the accuracy of today’s minutes.
2. Approval of previous meeting minutes: April 3, 2019
a. Changes or corrections: none.
b. Approved by motion: B. Faherty moved approval of the April 3, 2019 meeting minutes. M. Warren seconded.
c. Vote: motion carried.
3. Action items
a. Approve final 2020 ILS Budget proposal
i. Motion: E. Norton moved approval of the final 2020 ILS Budget. S. Lee seconded.
ii. Discussion: There are not a lot of changes to this since it was discussed at the April IC Meeting. This budget represents a 0.5% increase over the previous year. (Normally we expect a 2-3% increase). We are not adding back in Linked data to the budget this year, but will investigate it later if it becomes relevant again. Most of the increases are related to Third party vendors: Talking Tech maintenance increased because text messages are increasing and this bumps us into another support tier. Our long distance telephone costs also went up, but it doesn’t impact the budget too much. H. Cox asked if Bibliovation offers text messaging. We are not sure at this time, but we will be investigating this in the future. For right now, we will keep the status quo for text messages. Support costs increased with LibLime and Proquest. There was a typo on first page of Budget Notes, under the grid, the last cell of 2019 was missing a number (missing a 1). V. Teal Lovely will make this correction before it goes out.
iii. Vote: motion carried.
b. Approve Cataloging Contract
i. Motion: A. Noel recommended approval of the 2020 Cataloging Contract. H. Cox seconded. The agreement will be sent to the Madison Public Library Board and the SCLS Board of Trustees for final approval.
ii. Discussion: There are two versions of the Cataloging Contract available on the web site; one version with tracked changes and the final draft (if approved today). There are no real changes except the dates. Appendix C was slightly revised by T. Maes at MAD. Appendix G was updated to say we no longer calculate the fee. MAD reduced their fee in 2019 and is continuing that pricing into next year because authority control work Madison was doing has now transferred back to SCLS.
iii. Vote: motion carried.
c. The Collection Maintenance Subcommittee recommends adding the following:
i. New Collection Codes MF (MICROFORM), DVDAHL (DVD AD HOLIDAY), and DVDAAN (DVD AD ANIME).
ii. New Shelving Locations RK (RENK ROOM) and NAV (NEW AUDIOVISUAL).
1. Motion: This recommendation came from the Collection Maintenance Subcommittee.
2. Discussion: A. Gannaway reviewed the new Collection Codes and new Shelving Locations that the CMS recommend adding.
3. Vote: motion carried.
4. Discussion items
a. Issuing Rules Work Group Report
i. Discussion: Margie and Cindy have been in discussion with some libraries about their Circ Rules but have decided to change tack on how they approach possible changes. Instead of asking libraries to conform to a set of standardized rules, they are focusing on eliminating rules that contain items types that the libraries are not circulating. Their goals are to have libraries confirm the fine rates are accurate and to eliminate rules they are not using. If you never circulate Art Prints, why create 6 circ rules for them? There was discussion about the possibility of an item coming in to fill a hold at library that does not own that item type and doesn’t have a circ rule set-up. The system would apply a Default circ rule, no fines charges, in that instance. After more discussion, the group thought this wouldn’t happen very often, but they will request reports to look at this further.
b. Self-Check Evaluation Work Group Report
i. Discussion: At the last ILS meeting, the group approved the recommendation from the Self Check Evaluation work group to open up Self Check (and related software and equipment) purchasing options for libraries to include Envisionware. SCLS scheduled two Self-Check/RFID User Group meetings to see Envisionware equipment. The first session took place yesterday at SCLS. The second session is taking place tomorrow at Plover. Envisionware brought along a sorter for participants to play with. Yesterday’s attendees seemed excited about the products offered by Envisionware. Originally, LINK Directors agreed to purchase from one vendor for the ease of support and commonality in the system. Unfortunately, the company (ITG) we originally signed a deal with sold their company to Bibliotheca, which subsequently purchased 3M and support has not been satisfactory. We are glad to be able to offer libraries another SCLS supported option. Thanks to the ILS Committee and the work group for moving this forward. Our Bibliotheca representative has been notified about us using a second vendor for our Self-Check needs and he said he welcomed the opportunity for competition. Envisionware is working with us to come up with a support tier system and it may be a little different then what we currently have worked out with Bibliotheca. SCLS will still continue to be in the middle between both vendors and libraries because it’s important to have C. Weber and H. Oliversen involved with the software testing. The testing they have done with Envisionware’s software has gone very well. H. Oliversen has a touch screen, reader pad, barcode scanner and PC that she has been using to test the tagging, staff (check out and check in) and self-check software.
c. Follow-up to Library Scripts review
i. Discussion: MAD developed a new script for GetIT Acquisitions, which has been sent to C. Weber for review. The purpose of this script is to help with work slip printing, which is clunky. J. Ineichen has worked with cataloging staff to customize this. We are still working with MID regarding Patrick’s scripts, but hope to be finalizing this soon.
d. ILS Report:
i. Discussion: V. Teal Lovely reviewed the ILS Report. A. Gannaway mentioned that our new authority control vendor is Backstage Library Works.
ii. Bibliovation update: The current tentative Go Live month is November. Based on past experience, the ILS will need to be down for several days for the migration. Part of finalizing the go-live date is knowing when the development will be complete and stable. We need to be able to freeze development, so we have two months to work on documentation and prepare library training. Then we need two months to complete training library staff. It was suggested that the day after Thanksgiving would be a good day to migrate as some libraries are closed. A library mentioned the day after Thanksgiving is often very busy. New Year’s Eve is another migration option and it is ideal in terms of annual reports (finish 2019 on Koha, start 2020 on Bibliovation). January 2 is also a very busy day of the year for libraries. H. Oliversen mentioned migrating around holidays because we know libraries are likely to be closed. Libraries can extend loan periods throughout the system and put up signs a month before to get that notice out to their patrons. There will also be cataloging downtime. The Circulation Services Subcommittee and Discovery Interface Subcommittee can start getting this information put together to help us develop the practical part of the plan - what would be best for patrons, library staff, etc.
e. Circulation Services Subcommittee – May 14, 2019 Minutes
i. Discussion: M. Navarre Saaf reviewed the minutes.
f. Collection Maintenance Subcommittee – May 8, 2019 Minutes
i. Discussion: A. Gannaway reviewed the minutes.
g. Discovery Interface Subcommittee – May 15, 2019 Minutes
i. Discussion: A. Gannaway reviewed the minutes.
6. Items from clusters
a. Process regarding “Vote on purge of charges over 10 years to become an annual event in November.”
i. Discussion: The Brodhead Memorial Public Library Board of Trustees sent a letter to the SCLS Board of Trustees and ILS Committee members regarding the voting process on the purge of charges under $100 and older than 10 years to become an annual event in November. The letter stated that they were concerned that library directors and boards were not given enough communication and time to discuss a local control issue and some directors seemed unprepared to vote at the May All Directors Meeting on the topic. The Brodhead Board has requested the ILS Committee and SCLS Board of Trustees to strike the vote made at the May 16 All Directors Meeting. They would like to allow libraries more time to go back to their boards and be able to vote with more knowledge. V. Teal Lovely spent a long time thinking about this and doing research to come up with the best way to approach this. We have quality standards at SCLS that our employees follow in our work supporting public libraries in our system. These standards are relationship, helpfulness, efficiency and creativity. We want to maintain positive relationships with member libraries. We want to be helpful and implement the requests of the ILS Committee and Subcommittees as best we can. We also want to make sure we’re doing things in an efficient way. In addition to reviewing the issues at hand, V. Teal Lovely proposed that we use this meeting to review roles and responsibilities and as an opportunity to see if there is room for improvement. This request for the vote on purging these charges came from the Circulation Services Subcommittee and one goal was to benefit everyone (patrons and staff) by having a clean database. The other goal for the purge was to offer a better experience for patrons from a customer service perspective. V. Teal Lovely has spent time going through the minutes, emails, etc. where this particular topic was mentioned. V. Teal Lovely reviewed the letter from the Brodhead Board with the group. There are two main issues that stand out in this letter--the chain of communication and which body should have voted on this topic (ILS Committee or All Directors) as it is a matter of local control. The request to strike the vote is based on the Brodhead Board’s concern that there was an insufficient timeline for the vote taken at the May 2019 All Directors Meeting (41 days to discuss the 2019 purge versus 108 days to discuss the initial purge in 2018). The Brodhead Board also states that library directors did not receive proper communication about this topic before being asked to vote on it. The Brodhead Board urges the ILS Committee and SCLS Board of Trustees to strike the vote for these reasons and to issue caution when setting timelines for local control issues. SCLS would be more comfortable if the decision to strike the vote is coming from the libraries than the SCLS Board. V. Teal Lovely reviewed the SCLS responsibility regarding communication of issues. SCLS is rigorous about the education of new directors. Within the first year, a new director is given eight new library director visits where our communication venues and governance structure are discussed in detail. We use Top 5, a weekly email to library directors, to announce meeting agendas, minutes and other pertinent topics. It was started because libraries at one time felt they were being bombarded with too many emails. Top 5 covers all the topics directors should be paying attention to in one place. We also have committees, clusters and cluster representatives through which our information is funneled through. M. Van Pelt reviews the responsibility of the cluster representatives at the February IC meeting annually. She emphasizes the importance of the fact that we rely on ILS cluster representatives to get information out to their clusters. These committees then report to the Administrative Council and then ultimately, the SCLS Board. V. Teal Lovely provided a timeline starting with May 8, 2018 through November 15, 2018 and identified every reference where the topic for the initial purge was mentioned or discussed (please see Brodhead Timeline handout). The discussion was revisited at the January 2019 Circulation Services Subcommittee Meeting, discussed further at the March 2019 Circulation Services Subcommittee Meeting which ended in a recommendation coming to the April ILS Committee to be voted on. Thinking back to that discussion in April, the IC wanted to move this forward and make a decision at the June ILS Committee meeting with the intention of efficiency and helpfulness. Why did we change the vote from June 5th ILS to the May All Directors? ILS Committee members thought it would be enough time for libraries to go back to their clusters and boards, but it did shorten the timeline. The Circulation Services Subcommittee felt the vote on May 16, 2019 was to continue the purge as an annual event and should be something people were familiar with from last year. McFarland sent the information to their cluster (Dane East, 7) and everyone was OK with the purge. Adams County felt like we were repeating what we had already done, so she didn’t feel the need to ask her board a second time. The All Directors had voted on the first purge and it seemed appropriate to the ILS Committee to vote on the annual purge at the May All Directors Meeting. There were six weeks between the April ILS Committee meeting and the May All Directors meeting. Cluster representatives are responsible to take these decisions back to their cluster and inform them of what was discussed. The current governance system was designed this way because we didn’t have a delineated chain of communication previously. In addition to the time concern, the Brodhead Board also had concern that SCLS should have sent a separate email informing libraries. How do we know when SCLS should send an email? At the May 2019 All Directors meeting, M. Navarre Saaf discussed the work around option to prevent a library’s items from being purged from the system (libraries can add an invoice to the record and it would not be purged in November). In her mind, since there was a work around for the purge, libraries still had the option to not purge these items. Between January and April 2019, there were 15 links to the agendas sent out where this topic was mentioned. There was also three references to meeting minutes where this was a discussion topic (2 Circulation Services Subcommittee Meetings and one ILS Committee Meeting). April 15 was the first announcement of May All Directors agenda and it included this topic (the agenda was posted in Top 5, 5 times prior to the May 2019 All Directors meeting). Is there something we can do differently? A. Noel said some directors didn’t know what was coming and were somewhat surprised. She said she doesn’t have time to read all the agendas and minutes. V. Teal Lovely referenced an email from E. Judd that she remembered someone said SCLS would send out an email. A. Noel also thought this and even went back through her email to look. A. Noel felt directors were put in a position to vote when they didn’t get a chance to be informed. Normally, when we have voted on things in the past at the ILS Committee Meeting, everything is presented at one meeting, there are two months to go back to clusters and the board before the final vote at the next meeting. A. Noel suggested this could be the process to prevent confusion in the future. There is gray area over whether this is a board control issue or something the ILS Committee has authority over. H. Cox asked if this was the case at the All Directors Meeting, why someone didn’t make a motion to table the vote/discussion. If there is a critical thing to be voted on, how long should we allow libraries to take it back to their boards with local control issues (financials)? In the third paragraph of the Brodhead Board letter, it states that we opted to delay the vote to the June 5, 2019 meeting. This is incorrect. Delaying the vote for the June meeting was discussed but then the group decided to take it to the May All Directors meeting. This should be clarified with the Brodhead Board. In 2012, SCLS underwent governance restructuring. Previously, we had one All Directors meeting in July to vote on the Budget. Directors felt like decisions were being made by the committees and if the directors weren’t reading all those minutes they could be “surprised.” In light of this concern, we changed this to hosting four annual All Directors meetings. These meetings are to facilitate discussion of Budget and Service Priorities, as these decisions should remain in the hands of the directors. A. Noel suggested since the governance and communication was restructured in 2012, it might be appropriate to check in with library directors to see if this is still effective. The Administrative Council reviews the governance structure every year. A. Noel thinks it’s a good idea to talk to library boards with what they are in control of and what they want a say in. A. Noel checked with Shannon Schultz at the Department of Public Instruction and she said it was “gray and they couldn’t really comment.” Because statutes says one thing but the board also agreed to the ILS agreement. M. Navarre Saaf really looked at this as a procedural matter because if your board didn’t agree with the purge, there is a work around to alter your records to prevent them from being purged. Do the directors fully understand their responsibilities? If you’re not going to read the agenda and minutes, it’s not the fault of SCLS if they’re not informed. If directors didn’t feel comfortable with voting, they could have spoken up. When libraries sign the Technology Services Agreement, they agree to adhere to ILS and Technology policies and services. Is this a policy or a local decision aspect of the state statute? Can this committee make a decision about a purge if there is a work around? We want libraries to feel informed. Brodhead voted no at the May All Directors Meeting. One library abstained from the vote. C. Borck took it to her cluster (Columbia, 2) and brought them the whole work around option and she took it to her board both times. We can’t go to each local board, the responsibility has to fall on the director. E. Glade thinks it comes down to communication and that is the responsibility of cluster representatives and directors, but it would be helpful to have more clear guidelines about what needs to go to All Directors or the library boards. C. Borck stated IC members should all go back to their clusters and talk to individual directors and use the governance structure. It is possible if someone is opposed to a proposal, they could bring a proposal of their own and explain why this should not happen and it could go through the process again. The ILS Committee and SCLS Board cannot overturn a vote from the All Directors meeting. Should we have a review of the communication chain? E. Foley didn’t think 41 days were too short to discuss with their boards. A. Noel would prefer that decisions related to local control/financials wait until the next ILS Meeting. We want to be more mindful of our process. Can we put a reminder on the All Directors meeting that library directors that they need to respond to their cluster representatives? Yes. This will be added to the July All Directors meeting. M. Navarre Saaf doesn’t feel it’s appropriate to center the cluster representative responsibility discussion around this specific topic and requests that we don’t do this at the All Directors meeting. M. Van Pelt suggested creating a survey that could be sent out to directors, so we can get feedback on the process and ask for suggestions on how we can improve? What is working for you? With the migration coming up, we want to be proactive and improve our communication as much as possible. M. Van Pelt wonders if it would make sense to require an email address in the survey so that we know who it is from and/or if there is follow-up required. She will talk to AC about this. H. Cox thought it was a great idea because directors may feel more comfortable speaking up in a survey format. There was more discussion about how often it is necessary to get feedback from clusters. We all have lapses in our responsibilities. V. Teal Lovely stated that the take-away is we are in this together and let’s work together to improve the process.
ii. Next steps:
1. The ILS Committee decided they don’t have authority to strike a vote made at the May All Directors Meeting. Cluster reps will take this back to their clusters and ask if anyone has issues with the vote.
2. We reviewed our process. At the end of each meeting, we will be more deliberate about reviewing what issues cluster reps will take to their clusters for input at the following meeting.
3. We agreed to pay more attention to timelines on issues when libraries need to take it back to their clusters or boards (local control issues).
4. There will be more focused discussion about what should go to All Directors for voting, or what the ILS Committee has the authority to decide. What are the issues that trigger the decision to forward the decision to All Director’s? Some may be financial, local control, Chapter 43.
5. M. Van Pelt will take the idea of a survey about communication to the Administrative Council. She will also bring forth the idea to have an experienced cluster representative do a presentation at the November All Directors meeting on cluster representatives’ responsibilities.
iii. Discussion evaluation: A. Noel felt this was a good discussion. She hopes we can develop some better practices around the voting process and communication. It was more of a concern of the process, than the particular decision we were voting on. A. Noel agreed that the decision to move the vote to the May All Directors was a misstep, which we didn’t realize until after the meeting. V. Teal Lovely agreed that if this had been voted on at the June 5 ILS Committee meeting as originally intended, the timeline would have been longer. The Brodhead Board meeting is June 24 and then the SCLS Board is June 27. A. Noel will recap today’s discussion to her board. V. Teal Lovely asked if A. Noel will clarify with the Brodhead Board that there is a mistake in the letter regarding the ILS Committee decision. The ILS Committee voted to take the decision to the May All Directors, not the ILS Committee meeting (which is what is stated in the letter).
7. Plan for next meeting: August 7, 2019 at SCLS Headquarters
a. 2020 grant ideas
b. Plan for fall ILS Users’ Summit
c. Conduct Koha development survey
8. Adjournment: 12:08 pm
For more information about the ILS Committee, contact Vicki Teal Lovely.
SCLS staff are available to attend cluster meetings to share information and answer questions pertaining to this committee meeting and other departmental projects.