ILS Committee Minutes

October 7, 2020, 10 am

Phone/video conference

Action Items:

The IC approved the policy change submitted by the Collection Maintenance Subcommittee to the Videorecordings Searching and Matching Policy.  Under Edition: Add Criterion Collection to examples.

The IC recommends moving the proposed reduction of ILS fees for 2021 to the November All Directors meeting to be voted on.

 

Present: Suzann Holland, MRO (3), Eddie Glade, PCPL (4), Emily Judd, SKC (5), Eric Norton, MCM (6), Heidi Cox, MCF (7), Phil Hansen FCH (8), Nate Snortum, DCL (9, 10), Margie Navarre Saaf, Susan Lee, Molly Warren, MAD (11 -13)

Absent: Cathy Borck, WID (2)

Excused:  Erin Foley, ACL (1)

Recorder: Michelle Karls (SCLS)

SCLS Staff Present: Vicki Teal Lovely, Amy Gannaway, Heidi Oliversen, Martha Van Pelt

 

1.      Call to Order at 10:03 am

a.      Introduction of guests/visitors

                                                              i.      M. Van Pelt is a proxy for E. Foley from ACL today (Cluster 1).

b.      Changes/Additions to the Agenda

                                                              i.      None

c.       Requests to address the Committee

                                                              i.      None

 

2.      Approval of previous meeting minutes: August 5, 2020

a.      Motion: E. Norton moved to approve the August 5 meeting meetings. M. Navarre Saaf seconded.

b.      Discussion: none.

c.       Vote: motion carried.

 

3.      Action Items

a.      The Collection Maintenance Subcommittee recommends a policy change to the Videorecordings Searching and Matching Policy.  Under Edition: Add Criterion Collection to examples.

                                                              i.      Motion: This motion came from the CMS Subcommittee.

                                                             ii.      Discussion: A. Gannaway reviewed the motion from the September CMS Meeting.  They want to clarify that Criterion Collection materials should always be on their own bib record.  Criterion Collection materials used to mostly be multi-disc sets.  Now Criterion Collection is releasing more single discs which caused confusion among library staff referring to the Videorecordings Searching and Matching Policy when linking these items. 

                                                           iii.      Vote: motion carried.

    1. Proposed reduction of ILS fees for 2021

                                                              i.      Motion: E. Norton moves to correct this agenda item that the fee reduction would occur in 2021 (not 2020). S. Holland seconds.  H. Cox moves to forward the vote on the reduction of ILS fees for 2021 to the All Directors meeting in November.  E. Judd seconded. 

                                                             ii.      Discussion:  This will also be discussed at the Technology Committee meeting this afternoon.  We started talking about this in June when discussing the 2021 budget.  V. Teal Lovely reviewed the documents sent to the committee detailing the reduction in fees for 2021.  We have not spent a lot of money recently for upgrades.  H. Cox said their clusters expressed that this year their budgets were OK but are in favor of reducing the fees in the future when libraries will see tighter budgets.  MAD and DCL agree with this.  E. Norton hasn’t had a chance to touch base with Cluster 6 yet.  MCM will not be hearing from their city until November about their budget.  Reducing contingency without any plan to add to it, at what point do we get into trouble.  We should have some plan for funding it in the future.  V. Teal Lovely explained this plan is to keep $250,000 in the contingency as a base for migration costs, but to use the extra to facilitate the fee reduction in 2021.  In 2023, if we are close to dipping below that base we would need to start adding money back into contingency or funding development out of the operating budget.  M. Van Pelt reported that ACL and ROM (Cluster 1) wanted to vote yes on this motion today.  For small libraries a few hundred dollars of savings could make a big difference.  E. Norton asked if this should be tabled for a future meeting, so people can get input from their clusters.  It would need to be a special meeting because this will go to the November All Directors meeting.  (IC approves the budget and All Directors approve the fees).  SCLS came up with fees for 2021 and there are no increases for SCLS staff salaries.  M. Van Pelt stated that SCLS cannot see doing that next year (eliminating a cost of living increase for staff).  E. Judd noticed it didn’t make a huge difference, so Cluster 5 was OK with not doing the fee reduction in 2021.  STP is not prepared to vote today.  After more discussion, attendees felt that they could approve this motion to go to the November All Directors meeting for a final vote.  This way everyone will have input.

                                                           iii.      First Vote: motion carried (none opposed).  Second Vote: motion carried (none opposed).    

 

4.      Reports

a.      ILS Report

                                                              i.      V. Teal Lovely reviewed the October ILS Report.  We are working hard on putting more detail into this report to reflect what ILS Staff have been working on.  They will be longer and shared more deliberately with the AC and Board of Directors.  There is a timing issue with the mobile app.  We need to make decisions and LibLime needs to do work on their API.  We are moving ahead with that.  The goal is to have a basic version of the mobile app completed by December 1 to replace the current mobile app (the basic version would have roughly the same functionality as our current mobile app).  After that, we will be fine tuning things and work on setting up the custom interfaces for libraries who want it.  The digital card would be worked on after that.  Version 6.2 has some bugs, but can they all be fixed before we put it into production?  H. Cox wants to know when we will be sure about December 1 date because libraries need to know by the first week in November, so they can work on PR for the new mobile app (bookmarks, signage).  We could potentially overlap the two mobile apps if Proquest would offer us a month to month contract.  The API is tied to 6.2 but it doesn’t affect the Bibliovation software.     

b.      Circulation Services Subcommittee

                                                              i.      M. Navarre Saaf reviewed the August and September meeting minutes.

c.       Collection Maintenance Subcommittee

                                                              i.      A. Gannaway reviewed the September meeting minutes.

d.      Discovery Interface Subcommittee

                                                              i.      A. Gannaway reviewed the September meeting minutes.

 

5.      Items from clusters for initial discussion

a.      None.

 

6.      Discussion

a.      Remove County Subtotals from monthly and annual PSTAT reports

                                                              i.      Discussion: H. Oliversen sent out an email with this information that she reviewed with the group.  County subtotals have been on monthly and annual PSTAT reports since Dynix.  For municipalities that straddle county borders, the information in the subtotals is not accurate when compiling data for the annual reports.  M. Ibach will review the removal of the subtotals from the reports during the annual report webinar if this group has no objections to the removal. The information should be collated from the individual Codes on the reports, not from the County subtotals. FCH has never used these subtotals and since they are able to get the information manually, he supports removing the subtotals from the monthly and annual PSTAT reports.  MCF and STP agree.  If anyone has objections, please let H. Oliversen know as soon as possible.  We will go ahead with this and inform libraries about the change via email.  

b.      2021 Technology Plan: ILS section: Ideas

                                                              i.      Discussion: Normally the process for the ILS Section of the Technology plan is that we start discussing it in March.  We used to have LSTA grant to trigger the discussion. The WI LSTA body has completely changed the way they offer those funds (more targeted).  For example, in 2020, funds have been allocated to encourage libraries to join their public library system’s shared ILS.  The mobile app and digital library card are being worked on and slated for 2021.  “Software only” for self-check was on the list. The Envisionware low-cost turnkey solution for self-checkout was reviewed by SCLS and it was decided that while it costs a little more than what SCLS would charge, it is much easier to support.  MID did purchase software only and put it on their PCs if anyone is interested in doing this.  MID is supporting this part by themselves (SCLS not supporting).  There was a suggestion to investigate Point Of Sale software.  We have some Bibliovation development already underway.  This is ongoing and handled separately.  We are not sure how many of the other suggestions we can do this coming year.  One suggestion was reviewing walk-in items on generic records.  This has been covered, but it is something that can be discussed again.  This would typically require a separate work group to investigate (comprised of members from all three subcommittees and open to other library staff who want to participate).  The suggestion for Lost and Damaged item process would be similar.  This one doesn’t need to go to all subcommittees, so the work group would be comprised of CSS members and other library staff that are interested.  If new libraries join LINKcat next year, it does affect how much time can be spent on these kind of things.  H. Cox said that the mobile app, the upgrade to 6.2, and adding more libraries to LINKcat are more important than the other ideas she threw out.  MCM asked about Marathon County.  M. Van Pelt reported that they have a task force and have been collecting information. They will take it to the full board and make a recommendation.  They are scheduled to vote on this in December 2020.  They have to make decision by June 20, 2021 at the very latest to come onboard in 2022. 

c.       Prep for ILS Evaluation

                                                              i.      Discussion: We just migrated earlier this year and are planning for another upgrade (6.2), so the group felt an ILS Evaluation wasn’t needed this year.  Libraries are wondering when bugs will be fixed.  LibLime will be taking several weeks in the fall to focus on their infrastructure to increase security.  We’ve been told there will be a gap in fixes during this time so they can work on this.  H. Cox mentioned that there are new ILS’s are coming out (Demco, etc.) and she wants to wait and review the landscape.  She feels for this reason an ILS evaluation should wait and that we should assess the need for an annual evaluation at the next ILS Committee meeting. 

d.      Prepare for fall ILS Users’ Summit

                                                              i.      Discussion:  We didn’t host an ILS Users’ Summit last year because we were focused on the migration.  Do we want to have a summit addressing the bugs and where we’re at with them?  H. Cox said it seems like a busy time with the mobile app, adding new libraries, and 6.2 upgrade.  MAD doesn’t feel a huge need for this.  The subcommittees work on discussing bugs already.  E. Glade mentioned the Known Problems page is very helpful for learning about bugs and a summit to discuss them is not needed.  We could touch on this at November All Directors meeting. 

 

7.      Plan for Next meeting:  December 12, 2020

a.      Action: Approve 2021 Technology Plan: ILS section

b.      Action: Approve ILS Evaluation ballot.  We will not be doing an ILS Evaluation ballot this year. However, we will assess the need for an annual evaluation at the next ILS Committee meeting.

c.       Action: Approve 2021 ILS Development Plan.  We typically did a survey of all the outstanding issues and then developed priority on what to focus on, but we’re currently working on this.  This will not need to be discussed this year. 

d.      Discussion: Review 2021 calendar.  We will discuss parking the ILS Evaluation and User’s summit as a standing discussion.  H. Cox suggested maybe we could commit to an ILS showcase every 5 years instead as this would be a good milestone and we aren’t always focusing on leaving the software.  We are at the point where we’d only want to leave the software if there is something much better out there.  E. Norton expressed that reviewing this every year seems to suggest that we want to move to another software instead of sticking with Bibliovation.   

 

8.      Adjournment at 11:53 am

 

 

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.

 

ILS Committee/Minutes/10-2020