Minutes

SCLS All Directors Meeting

July 19, 2018

Fitchburg Public Library

 

 

 

Martha Van Pelt noted Peggy Potter, RAN, will be retiring this summer and Emily Goad is the new POR Director

Proxies:  PCPL for AMH; REE for BAR; SKC for PDS; SCLS for NEK, VES; BER for MAZ; ACL for ROM; CSP for DFT.

 

Delivery Fees & Vote - Corey Baumann

Motion passed unanimously.

                       

Technology and ILS Fees & Votes - Vicki Teal Lovely: You may view the power point presentation in the attached documents online.

 

1.       Infrastructure:  Unanimously Approved.

2.       Network Services: Unanimously Approved.

3.       PC Support :  Unanimously Approved.

4.       ILS Services including GetIt:  Unanimously Approved.

5.       MyPC (no vote): 

Codebase Fusion Update:  Development and testing is progressing.  There will be a demonstration on October 31st at SCLS Headquarters.  Training will begin early 2019 and the go live date will be spring 2019.

 

Budgeting of wireless replacement:  2019 or 2020.  Budget is $1,000 per access point.

 

Scripting & API Policy Discussion:  SCLS will review any browser extension, script, or API written by a library or any third party product not supported by SCLS.  If SCLS has a security concern, a third party review will be conducted at the library’s expense.  The intent is to protect the data in LINKcat.  The ILS Committee will vote on this at the August 1st meeting.  SCLS has cyber insurance so if there is a breach it will cover LINKcat libraries.

 

Technology Agreements need to be signed and initialed by LINKCat libraries and returned to M. Van Pelt at SCLS by 10/18/2018

 

Digital Content Fees & Votes:             Martha Van Pelt         
                       

1.       WPLC Digital Buying Pool (OverDrive):  Unanimously Approved.

2.       Advantage:  Unanimously Approved
You may find the fees on the SCLS website here: https://www.scls.info/committees/agreements.html   

 

Flipster Update-Discussion with possible vote in November:  By a show of hands, the directors indicated if they were interested in continuing Flipster.  Libraries may participate in Flipster on their own, but it will be more expensive for them because the fees are based on population.  M. Van Pelt will send a Flipster survey to all the libraries to judge how many libraries are interested and to see about libraries that are not interested in Flipster, but would be willing to contribute a portion toward the fees.  There was discussion about how the fees are calculated.  M. Van Pelt will send the spreadsheets used by the Flipster Committee when they researched various ways to calculate the fees.

                       

November All Directors CE:

Digitization & Public Libraries

This session will include information on why digitization projects should be done, how it will benefit the library and its patrons, provide general digitization project workflows, and include resources on digitization best practices.

 

PLSR:  Angela Noel, Steve Ohs, John Thompson

Service Models Discussion

Q&A

(SURVEY CLOSES JULY 22, 2018)

 

 

Notes from the PLSR discussion were taken by V. Teal Lovely:

 

Question and Answer session with Steve Ohs (Lakeshores Library System; PLSR Steering Committee), John Thompson (Indianhead Federated Library System; PLSR Steering Committee) and Angela Noel (Brodhead Public Library; PLSR CRC)

Answers in italics

 

Model W

 Model Y

Questions from SCLS Member Library

Model W:

1. I've read what was written about 43.24 (1)(c) but I would benefit from an in-person explanation of what it means for system funding to change as proposed.

2. It was stated in this model that "The efficiency of a library system correlates to the number of libraries it serves." I'm interested in the source/data that supports this statement. Answer: Doesn’t think that this was ported into the comparison document. (Steve) This may not be a valid statement, it is more of an opinion (Angela).

3. Does SCLS feel that, with slightly reduced state aid, it could meet the changes being requested of systems under the proposed statutory changes to system standards of service? 

4. Does SCLS feel that it can provide equitable service to its member libraries with different system standards and a potential 1% decrease in its system aid?

5. How does DPI's role change in this model compared to their current role? Model says its role is enhanced. Is that simply because system services will change and DPI will be in charge of overseeing those? Answer: They don’t know the answers (Steve). 

 

Model Y:

1. Do other states use this model successfully, as in states with a State Librarian and governing board? If so, how many, and which states?

2. It is not clear to me where DPI falls into this governing model.

3. Where are all the people going to come from to fill the positions in the state governing board? There can't be that many people to draw from within the current (or proposed) systems to fill those positions.

4. This model is based on delivery workgroup's strong data. But delivery is not the focus of this model. Delivery to 8 hubs is a convenience of this model, but the real change is the addition of state-level governance that affects much more than delivery. I think I need more information on how the delivery workgroup data ended up informing this particular model.  

5. If library services are to be taken over by the state, then I think at the very least some of the middle layers of governance need to disappear. I look at my own library which is governed in part by the local library board, two municipal boards, a county library board, a county-wide board, SCLS board, and add to that, a statewide board.  With the level of turnover that occurs in ALL of these boards, it just doesn't seem to be the most stable governance structure.  Answer: The notion of library services being taken over by the state, will say that both models at certain points try to reflect that state scale does not necessarily have to equal state administered. In its current form WPLC uses WiLS to guide its support. There could be this kind of relationship with DPI, or other group. The concept of “state-administered” services is light. (Steve)

 

Questions asked from audience during session on 7/19

 

Ryan Claringbole (Monona). With Model green, how would a phased transition work if half of the services phase into 8. Answer: Some of that transition is on the work group report. So, if you look at technology, their recommendation is to transition over 5 years of time. Delivery suggests having a pilot in two different parts of the state. Doesn’t think any of this would happen overnight. All changes are transitional, there needs to be framework that says here is the target time. Some of the conversations at the last two meetings were that they may pick something as the ultimate goal, some of the transition will work organically and then it will be formalized in state statute. Right now, a lot can happen without statutory changes as a transition. May say “this is our ultimate goal” and transition.  One of the components of the CE portal is director certification, making it an online process to make it more streamlined. That conversation is ongoing as we speak. DPI is already talking about this—they don’t know how it will happen.

Kara Blue (Albany). Does the survey provide the chance to pick out what you like and don’t like from each model? Answer: If there is not a way to provide “free from” in the survey, you can put it in the general steering committee feedback form. There are 2 required questions: name and institution (this is if they have follow-up they can do that). It then looks at the strengths for each model; downsides for each model; unique contribution or approach of each; question about the design principles and how well it satisfies each; does it create winners or losers, or does everybody win? They don’t want to say, we are going to fix this and harm another system. They want to try to get everybody up to the top. There is a place to ask additional questions about the model. If what you have to say doesn’t fit, send it to Steering.

Carolyn Schaffer (Black Earth): Having a hard time with the concept of collapsing to 6 or 8 systems with keeping them how they are. Can you talk about keeping Milwaukee County as a stand-alone? Answer: Milwaukee is the only Grade 1 city so there are a number of different government requirements for them.  A lot of it stems from the fact that Milwaukee is huge and it is its own eco-system. If Lakeshores were lumped in with Milwaukee for example, a lot of it would depend on how well the governance structure is set up. If it is more of an equal vs. making more of their own decisions would it be an issue? Part of this is that there is an exclusion that Milwaukee County do not have to have reciprocal borrowing with other counties. In the rest of the state, they do. There has also always been a population issue. Paula Kiely has been gaining immense insight in to systems statewide. She’s been on fact-finding missions. Thinks there is a different knowledge level now state wide that the folks working on the project have of how different systems are. Paula is open to bringing down the wall a little bit (Angela).

Jaime Healy-Plotkin (SCLS Board). Has this working group, all these different groups, taken into perspective the special libraries and academic libraries and how they work collaboratively? For example SCLS has delivery contracts with academic and special libraries—how would this affect this? Answer: The Delivery work group, which Corey was a part of, looked at hubs and then there would be regional delivery and within the regions there would be delivery available to academic and special libraries. There are a lot of systems that have relationships with technical colleges and school districts and this would allow for that. The model is encouraging that these relationships continue. Right now it is a requirement that systems do planning with multi-type libraries—this varies from system to system. In general, there is an ILL component. This topic comes up in the collections report; for example what is the best way to manage Recollection Wisconsin (Angela). The Work Group reports will be more fully integrated into the models as part of the summit process (John).

Jaime Healy-Plotkin (SCLS Board). Was there anything to learn from the systems going back to the 70s? Answer: The Chapter 43 Subcommittee did talk to Peter Hamon, Larry Nix and Al Zimmerman about history and Chapter 43. They have tapped that expertise. They got a good set of insights from them.

Amy Gannaway (SCLS): in the straw poll, W and Y were very close. Could W be used as a step toward Y? Sees that defining goals would be important. Answer: yes, this could be a transition of one from the next.

Nick Studnicka (Plain): If you only have two to three technology service areas, but there are 8 different ILSs how will that work? Will there be a move to toward fewer ILSs? Answer: this will be a part of the summit process, integrating the work group models. How can these models address what the work groups are recommending will be infused at the summit. When they talk about technology regions, it’s more that there is a quality service assurance manager—there will be one per region. But, the on the ground people would have more than one per region. There are suggestions in the ILS report that there be incentives to consolidate ILSs. There are already mergers happening (Lakeshores, Bridges, Monarch).

Kerrie Goeden (SCLS): In Model Y, are the new positions going to be state positions or will they be system positions? How will these be paid for? Out of state aid, system budgets? Answer: Right now, DPI has no capacity to add additional staff so they would not be state employees (John). These would be funded through system aid is the working assumption (Steve). Right now as systems we have a pot of money divided by the formula. If the number of systems are decreased, the facilities and overhead would be reduced, there would be savings that could be reallocated to support services and components of the model. What efficiencies do we gain that could be re-distributed? (John).

Amy Gannaway (SCLS): Yes, it would save money but would it really be enough to fund the additional staff to work at a state level? Answer: that discussion is starting to spool up. Funding & Cost Standards was charged with providing more specific numbers for not only the current way, but for alternative formula provided with Model W. This will be brought in during the summit. Is it accurate, what’s missing, etc. (Steve). One of the reports that the funding subcommittee did was take the expenditures and see what is being spent in areas; there is $3.6 million dollars being spent on administration out of a pot of 15 million in state aid. It’s a significant amount of money being spent on administration.

Jaime Healy-Plotkin (SCLS Board): Is that committee working on the assumption that the pot of money is going to stay the same? On the flip side, there is no guarantee that the money that systems receive will stay the same from biennium to biennium. Systems have received cuts and then it was flat. Hopefully, the Steering Committee or the legislative folks can make the case that we are using similar dollars to do even more than what we do now. Answer: We aren’t in the process to say we are saving money and ask for less money. (John). The Funding & Cost Standards group is looking at different scenarios—what if it is the same? What if it is under increase scenarios? What if it is split differently under a new formula? There will need to be a dialog with LD&L because they are the ones developing a legislative strategy and asking for funding. They are always looking ahead to the next funding cycle. How will this dovetail into their funding efforts? (Steve)

Jaye Hess (SCLS Intern): Noticed they looked at different states. Did they find one that is similarly that they liked?  Answer: The work groups looked at a lot of different examples, but there has not been a comparison to the green and gold models (Steve). The Chapter 43 Subcommittee did this comparison when they were a work group. They will be trying to give some insight based on their understanding of what is going on. Most of the work that this group did, did not find anything that was significantly better than the service types we are doing now. Most of them were “our funding got cut and we are dealing with it” or “our funding got cut and we are rebuilding.” (John)

Jessica Williams (Mount Horeb): What is the administrative code? Answer: you set up rules based on things that are inside of Chapter 43. So, for example, director certification is required under Chapter 43. Administrative code defines what this is. The State Superintendent has a broader authority to change Administrative code than other state agencies do (John). Chapter 43 is policy, Administrative Code is procedure (Marty).

Carolyn Schaffer (Black Earth): Both models have a discovery layer. Were there other states that have a discovery layer? Answer: There are some recorded interviews with folks that administer those and there are some good ones. Most of the states are less populous. (Steve). Also, there are states where there is a statewide ILS, but large cities don’t participate.

Mark Ibach (SCLS): Do the shared revenues try to address inequity based on need? Answer: shared revenue was based on the municipalities’ ability to tax according to their services. If you were a property rich community, you would not get much shared revenue. Over the last few years, there have been some tweaks as to how those were administered.

Jenna Assmus (Rio): Is in a place where she has a joint library with village and township. Answer: Has a county reimbursement issue which is outside the scope of this PLSR. (I had trouble hearing, but the answer is out of the scope).

Jaime Healy-Plotkin (SCLS Board). Can you give us a reasonable expectation of when changes might happen? Answer: A lot of it will happen once a report goes to the state because the state works at its own pace (Angela). The summit is on July 30 & 31 and the Steering hopes to have a report containing recommendations submitted to DPI on the fall, but after that they really don’t know. DPI has told them that they aren’t going to be interested in moving forward with implementing recommendations that don’t have the support of the library community, so they may have their own studies. (Steve). But, on the flip side the CE portal seems to be something that has broad-based appeal and could move forward right away. The biennial budget process is every two years, it may be possible to get something into the upcoming window, but not everything. So, most likely it will be 3&4 and 5&6. (John).

Vicki Teal Lovely (SCLS): Has anyone considered that radical change may cost more than gradual change? Answer: This concept has cropped up in many different discussions. It is an example that is in the back of a lot of people’s minds and Steering. He believes that it will come up in the summit. It is out there. There hasn’t been a study of the costs, including costs of a radical change might do. (Steve). Radical change doesn’t have to cost more. The change could be that you have less than what you have now (Cindy Fessmeyer).

Kerrie Goeden (SCLS): We’ve discussed that DPI doesn’t want to hire staff and new staff would come from state aid. Is the vision that this would be outsourced, or would systems fulfill this role? Answer: There isn’t necessarily one set vision. Delivery made a recommendation that there be a person that is not connected to a system to oversee delivery (outsource)—but is it a different type of quasi-governmental group that has this fiscal control? This would be suggested by a state librarian that is not connected to DPI. One of the variations on Model Y is that the statewide management team be an advisory group (John). From the perspective another system, they are paying for a service that is being created and managed and tweaked and revised by the agency doing it. We have electronic resources done in the state that is managed by WPLC and another portion is managed by DPI and subject to state bidding requirements. That package isn’t based on what we need rather than what we can afford. There are digitization projects that are going on with some statewide coordination (Recollection Wisconsin) and there are some systems that are doing their own and others doing none. Is there coordination that can be done to share expertise? The management team could be oversight could be done formally or informally with advisory groups. (John).  The advisory group could be from systems.

Kathy Michaelis (SCLS Board): Has to do with coordination and advisory groups. Who are they advising if it is not DPI and not the systems? Answer: Part of what they haven’t decided is who’s doing what yet. Right now there are a whole host of governmental agencies and groups who are doing these services. They may decide that it is best for DPI to manage the CE portal. Is WPLC broken, or can they continue to do that? COLAND is an advisory group. These are parts of the conversation that they have to have.

Amy Gannaway (SCLS): One challenge is that there are specific problems, like BadgerLink and WPLC. So, that is one problem and perhaps that one problem can be examined rather than redoing everything. What is working and what isn’t? This is a challenge that she has had, do we need to reinvent everything when there is low-hanging fruit that can be fixed. Answer: one of the statements was, I don’t think we can achieve equity. For you (SCLS) as an organization that equity question is very difficult. It’s also difficult for his system (IFLS). There is a layer of services that libraries (in SCLS) rely on—youth services, CE, delivery, consultants, building, and technology. Kenosha has two libraries but they receive more funding than SWLS. At Kenosha, if they lose state aid they can’t pay for electronic resources. At Northern Waters, the director is the delivery manager and does all of the consulting with 8,000 miles to cover. Manitowoc-Calumet has just a few full-time staff. These are the inequities that are out there (John). Lakeshores has a robust technology service, but they can’t do anything with marketing and PR. (Steve). But these can be choices that systems make (Susan Lee). What this process hopes to achieve is a core level of service that every library has access to. They are never going to be able to provide access to all services across the state, but they want to get closer. South Central has everything, but there is also a very different funding philosophy. Systems and libraries will have to adjust their funding choices. (Angela).  There are certain core services that each system must provide, but there are differences. Some systems provide 5 day delivery at no cost and a range within. They are supposed to provide continuing education, inclusive services, resource sharing. Technology support is not a required system service; it fits under other system services—the same as the ILS. There has been no adjustment in the funding formula since it was created. (John)

Ryan Claringbole (Monona): We go to this point where all systems were doing their own thing, more or less siloed. It’s worked out great for some and not so much with others. So, now they are trying to create equity. Is there something built in to change it dynamically so that in 10 years it will adjust. In this process, is there something about how the state will continue to adapt so that we don’t have the same problem down the road. Answer: If pieces of Chapter 43 don’t change so that it’s prescriptive enough. (John). If DPI can make administrative code that can change… No, there has not been a discussion about this. (Steve).

Answer: The 6 to 8 regions are based on the delivery service models. There was no set size component to it. There has been a struggle from day one as to how to figure out the optimal size. This has been something each work group struggled with; how far would you go for CE? The reality is that many in larger systems travel hours to get from one location to another. (John).

Vicki Teal Lovely (SCLS): Can systems provide services in the models? Answer: There is nothing that says a system or a group of systems can’t provide a service. It could be that the statewide delivery to the hubs is operated by a system. The example with Delivery is that having a group of people communicating about delivery… Kurt Kiefer has brought up the CESAs that provide services to schools. (John). There was some discussion later in the process about whether there was going to be a larger statewide type delivery influence and they recognized that the inequity in delivery was evident. They wanted something to maintain consistency across the board. They wanted to make sure that there was some type of state oversight to maintain balance. (Corey)

Marty Van Pelt (SCLS): There was a statewide delivery oversight group run by DPI. There was representation from across the state. DPI ended it because no one attended and there weren’t complaints. Answer: probably this group did not address the inequity in number of days, etc. (Corey).

Kerrie Goeden (SCLS): You are describing an oversight made up of representative from hubs. John is describing it as an entity outside of systems. Answer: Felt like it would be some type of service group (Corey). There would be a half-time person. Right now, not every system provides their own delivery. When they are looking at the statewide provision, the group that is advising this could be the regional system providing their own delivery, but they are looking at the statewide layer (John). Don’t know, don’t have the final model to work off of (Angela). Model Y had state-wide management, but there is an alternate proposal to have advisory groups (John). Steve asked that this be shared through the feedback mechanism.

Answer: Wants to address the regional size question. Delivery based the map on having a base that you can expand out symmetrically that you can expand out a number of miles. This was from the delivery perspective. (Corey)