Minerva Users’ Council Dec. 13, 2006

Meeting Minutes

Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 10:00 AM – Noon
Maine State Library Studio, Yarmouth High School (ATM), Bangor Public Library (ATM)
Meeting called to order at 10:02

In attendance:

MSL: Bonnie Collins, Rebecca Francis, Vicki Stevens, Chris Eames, Jay Scherma, Marian Peterson, Kevin Davis, Betsy Pohl, Cora Damon, Peggy Malley, Karl Aromaa, Janet Bolduc, Sudie Blanchard, Diane Jones, Nikki Maounis, Jon Forest, Cyndi Burne, Susan Preece, Anne Phillips, Jim Roy, Jeff Meiczinger, Peggy O’Kane, Pam Gormley, Lyn Smith, Stephen LaRochelle, Chuck Prinn, Natalie Hutchinson, Judi Moreno, Anna Romer, Roe Waltors, Rick Speer, Sue Jagels, Ann Siekman, Melanie Taylor Coombs, Kimberly LaMarre, Martha Ott, Jane Babbitt, Karen LaForgia, Anne Davis, Katherine Morgan, Amy Averre, Jennifer Lewis, Liz Reisz, Vicky Smith, Kathleen, Kenny, Karl Beiser, Deb Hensler

Yarmouth High School: Laurie McQuarrie, Joanne Langerman, Lyn Sudlow, Andi Jackson-Darling, Tracie Lammers, Janet Morelli

Bangor Public Library: Debbie Lozito, Anne Romans, Lynn Uhlman, Julie Russell, Cathy Willey, Kathy Marks-Molloy, Mae Corrion

  1. Introduction of Jon Forest (Karl Beiser)
    Jon comes to the position of Library Systems Manager from Bangor Public & various positions in the Northwest. He is rapidly being brought up to speed and is enthusiastic about his new role. His top priorities are learning the intricacies of the new system and streamlining support issues. Look for an announcement anon. He’s working on just about everything—Minerva, Solar, etc.—and is looking forward to getting out and meeting us in situ. Amy thanked Rick Speer for representing Minerva in the interviews for the Library Systems Manager.
  2. Maine InfoNet Report (Karl Beiser)
    1. Maine InfoNet is not a catalog, it’s an organization that ties together Minerva, Solar, Ursus, and other library systems, funded by the MSL and the UMS. There’s a promotional brochure detailing InfoNet’s activities and possibilities. Directors will soon be getting a mailing from the InfoNet Board to fill them in on all things InfoNet. Maine InfoNet’s website is chock-a-block with information: www.maine.gov/infonet/
    2. The priorities set by the Maine InfoNet Board are as follows:
      1. New programs such as
        1. Universal Access, which includes simpler and better searching and statewide walk-in borrowing.
        2. Expanded availability of digital content.
        3. Digitization of local content (to support expanded availability thereof).
      2. Expand marketing of Maine InfoNet and develop professional marking to different audiences.
      3. Work to increase funding.
      4. Energize the Maine library community.
      5. Ongoing programs.
    3. The Authority Control project is well underway and Karl anticipates re-loading of the records by Christmas.
    4. On the universal access front, Karl’s approach is to “let a dozen pilots bloom,” to test a number of (low-cost) possibilities. The goal is to simplify the search experience for users by aggregating resources via a single search interface that returns intelligent results.
  3. Report on CD&L (Dean Corner)
    1. CD&L is now Velocity Express, as a result of a buy-out last summer. There are still a few bumps in the road, but things have improved markedly. There are now about a dozen colleges and universities and 100 public libraries participating in the delivery system. At this point, almost everyone who can manage the delivery system from a systemic and financial standpoint is in. Dean is working to make sure the quarterly bills will be accurate. He’s full of praise for the Velocity Express contact who’s been working with him and says that complaints are down. He thanks all of us for our patience.
    2. There was a question about bags—3,000 are on order.
    3. All Minerva libraries are subsidized by Minerva for one-day-a-week pick-up. Proposed legislation will increase funding for delivery—cross fingers & call your representatives.
  4. Review and approve minutes of semi-annual meeting, May 17, 2006
    Jay Scherma moved approval; Marian Peterson seconded. Discussion was invited but was non-existent. Minutes were approved unanimously, with thanks to Jennifer Lewis, their author.
  5. Reports
    1. Minerva Update (Deb Hensler)
      1. Pipeline libraries: Orono Public, York Schools, Pittsfield Public, and Warren Memorial (Westbrook) are live—Rice Public (Kittery) anticipates going live early in January.
      2. Courtesy notices, available with newest upgrade, will be turned on soon. They will send automatic notices to patrons to let them know that their items will soon be due. The hold-up is that we seem to be running out of space for text for these messages (new libraries are trolling through existing messages to piggyback). We will be asked to try to find similar messages so the texts can be consolidated so that we can make room for courtesy notices.
      3. There will be a Circ. Users’ Group meeting in January or February; now that Jon is here, we can move forward with these important meetings.
      4. Deb thanks us all for helping to make her transition into her position as easy as possible
    2. Finance (Cora Damon)
      Cora debuted her new format, highlighting the expenditure of monies for new scopes for children’s materials (to compensate for absence of LC children’s subject headings), new bags, and the upcoming purchase of a new server for some 30,000 smackeroos. This last will be purchased early to take advantage of cost savings. The last big expenditure is $10,000 for a NELINET consultant to assist the planning committee. The full report is appended at the bottom of these minutes.
    3. Borrowing/Lending (Martha Ott)
      1. The full report is appended. The B&L committee has a new chair, Kevin Davis, and is actively seeking a new public library representative. Martha Ott pointed out that they work best when we, the membership, communicate issues to them, so keep questions and concerns coming. She suggests that we all take a look at our parameters to make sure they still meet our changing needs. Lewiston Public’s new practice of looking at new borrowers to see if they are in arrears at other libraries before issuing new cards bears watching for possible replication across the system
      2. There is a growing number of reports about libraries that do not conform to Minerva’s open borrowing policy adopted in January of 2005. The B&L Committee exhorts us to look at the policy and to make sure all of our staff does the same and understands it fully. [reference handout] The policy works well for all of us and our patrons and should be embraced by all.
      3. There was another exhortation to us all to reacquaint ourselves with our parameters, which may need twiddling to keep up with the new, improved Minerva reality
    4. Education (Natalie Hutchinson)
      The education committee has worked at prioritizing activities. They want to: work on the web page with an eye to possible revision and to include documentation already generated by Minerva libraries for in-house use; education for staff is just as important as education for patrons, and the idea of a mentoring program is appealing for new libraries coming in.
    5. Statistics (Stephen LaRochelle)
      No report.
    6. Maine InfoNet Board (Amy Averre)
      Judith Frost is Minerva’s official representative, and Sue Jagels from EMMC also sits on the board. Amy referenced the InfoNet Board website—www.maine.gov/infonet/board/—on which all minutes are posted. She highlighted Judith’s invitation for Minerva members to involve themselves on InfoNet Board committees—always good for resume-padding. Maine InfoNet is working through the same self-definition process Minerva is; if you have questions, contact Judith or Karl, or consult the website.
    7. Planning (Betsy Pohl)
      The full report is appended. The Planning Committee’s origins are in the recommendations of Linda Bills’s report and the subsequent decision made by the Users’ Council in December of 2005 to form a committee to aid in self-definition. It’s been a difficult and unwieldy process, so the committee has engaged the services of Arnold Hirshon of NELINET. A phone conversation with Mr. HIrshon was followed by a retreat in early November. The next step is to set up a meeting in early January with Karl B., Gary Nichols, and 3 members of the planning committee, facilitated by Mr. Hirshon. They hope that this will lead to a special meeting of the Users’ Council to grapple with both the future of the consortium and the moratorium on new libraries. At this point, the planning committee urges the Users’ Council to continue the moratorium, to allow the planning process to continue and to allow new staff to get up to speed.
  6. Old Business
    1. Moratorium
      1. Amy read the statement of the Executive Committee, unanimously passed, recommending the continuation of the moratorium:
        “The Minerva Executive Committee unanimously recommends that the current moratorium on new libraries (passed at the December 14, 2005 Users Council meeting) be continued for up to six months. Keeping the moratorium in place will allow the following to occur:
        “1. New Maine Info Net staff can be fully trained and oriented, and deal with a backlog of issues that accumulated during the past several months.
        “2. The Planning Group can complete their work and reach agreement with the Mine State Library and Maine Info Net regarding Minerva’s future.
        “A special Users Council meeting can be called between now and May to deal with the results of the planning process and to also lift the moratorium on new libraries.”
      2. Peggy O’Kane moved that the Users’ Council approve the Executive Committee’s recommendation. Betsy seconded. Discussion followed and is summarized here.
        1. Deb H. thinks there are about half a dozen libraries interested in joining upon the lifting of the moratorium.
        2. There was a question as to whether six months is long enough—Amy likened fixing any time to the thorny question of getting out of Iraq and felt that six months was as good as any. Jon Forest concurred and feels that he will be sufficiently up to speed after that period to pull new libraries in. Betsy pointed out that the planning committee’s current stumbling block is the challenge of pulling all the key figures together for a meeting. Their hope is that their part of the work will be wrapped up before six months.
        3. Anne Davis asked about the current status of the interested libraries: are they facing the imminent demise of a system that they will have to purchase a micro-system to replace if they’re not brought in to Minerva? Karl Beiser says at least one is at this situation.
        4. Jay Scherma warned us that anyone brought into Minerva in response to an emergency situation must be apprised that the current Minerva fee structure, etc., may well change radically in the next year or 18 months or so. They must be apprised that the status quo may not be operable by the end of the planning process.
        5. Martha suggested that a library in an emergency situation should be invited to make a written request to the Exec. Committee.
      3. There was no further discussion. The motion passed unanimously—47-0.
    2. Cataloging Standards (Katherine Morgan)
      1. The Cataloging Standards committee’s goal is to ensure a quality database that is patron-friendly. They are working on a set of guidelines to be submitted to the Exec. Committee for approval in January. There will be two sets of standards, one for older materials already in the database and one for new additions. They are developing a handbook for use by Minerva catalogers, in both hard copy and on the web. Their recommendation is appended.
      2. Jay Scherma recommended a series of meetings to promulgate the new standards among the membership.
  7. New Business
    1. Mae Corrion from Jesup expressed the desire for more education. Small libraries do not have the time or the resources to digest and download information posted on the web. Such material is often too riddled with jargon for use in small libraries. There is a real need for more education on  library-by-library basis, for the entire staff; regional meetings at which one or two staff members are in attendance are not sufficient.Cora stated that the results of the planning committee survey indicated a widespread desire for more education.Karl B. acknowledged an awareness of the issues raised by Mae and observed that the short-staffing situation that has existed since March has made in situ training even more difficult than it was before Karl B. and John Clark left. He asked that when members receive communication that is as clear as mud, they contact the originator of that communication so it can be edited for clarity.Kathleen Kenny reminded us all that when we write, we’re writing for people who are good at their jobs but not necessarily Minerva insiders and therefore that jargon should be eschewed in favor of plain language (a good reminder for non-Minerva communication as well …).
    2. Anne Davis asked for clarification on INN-Reach borrowing. Why can URSUS patrons borrow AV and other types of materials they will not lend? Karl Beiser responded that the non-reciprocity seen at the MaineCat level is due to the fact that MaineCat does not have the same uniformity of policy that is enjoyed at Minerva. At this point, any MaineCat library can designate any material they wish as unrequestable. There is a desire to get everybody together to strive for more openness. We can opt to achieve reciprocity by limiting lending, but reciprocity by expanding is yet a dream. He anticipates a challenge on the part of many of the colleges to achieve the level of openness we currently enjoy in Minerva. Anne encourages making this discussion a priority. Minerva people will be represented at this meeting. Notice of this meeting will be posted when it’s scheduled so we can provide input. Jay Scherma wonders to what extent delegates will be acting under instruction—should there be some meeting time so Minerva representatives are articulating a unified stance? We should survey our members, at the very least, to discover our collective wishes. He then asked if there’s any way those materials that are not requestable are hidden from the OPAC. Discussion raged with no resolution. The suggestion of emailing the offending MaineCat library every time an item is denied was met with some warmth. The general feeling is that open is better than closed, and we should negotiate for as much openness as possible.
    3. Jay Scherma raised a training-related issue. Can we have more guidance about III and its product so we can anticipate the local impact in time to budget? For instance, when a new release is planned, will we have to upgrade all our technology to accommodate it? Such capital improvements need a long lead time for planning. Karl Beiser acknowledged that they find III’s documentation as obtuse as the rest of us do and echoed Jay’s frustration. He suggested that perhaps in the spring or at the next Council Meeting, Deb & Jon review the preliminary documentation to give us a preview about features and technology challenges. Kathleen asked if there are other III consortia that have advance knowledge, but the answer is, not really. Beta sites can comment on the problems they’ve encountered but not on whether or not III has fixed them in the final release. There is no compensation beyond excitement and glory for beta sites, with the exception of the ability to propose some improvements that meet special needs.
    4. Chuck Prinn from St. Joseph’s College asked about the patron history feature made available by the newest release. Deb explained that the patron reading history, when turned on, is available on the OPAC side for patrons. All of Minerva would have to opt into it, and each library can then opt in, and then each patron can opt in. The concern is privacy. Peggy O’Kane asked about the implications of this for the USA Patriot Act. Jay Scherma asks, “What happens with ‘Back’ buttons?” Will a patron’s information remain available on public OPACs? The answer is not clear. Lyn Smith asked if a patron could opt in and then erase their records and opt out? Deb thinks this is possible. Anne Davis, speaking from her ex-legislative chair position, asks that a super majority be required to approve enabling this feature because of the privacy ramifications. Betsy Pohl spoke for the Exec. Committee to reassure Anne (and the rest of us) that many of her concerns have been discussed and that’s why there’s been no action as yet.
    5. Jay Scherma asked about the sandbox notion: A sandbox is a quasi-database outside of the main database for practice purposes before new features and applications are introduced to the actual system. This would give us a chance to test and assess and prepare new features before they’re inflicted on us in real time. Karl Beiser’s initial response is that this could be very expensive, as it would require a new server with new licenses. It is doable, but would be costly, both initially and on an ongoing basis.
    6. Julie Russell from SW Harbor noted that they’d received a request from Old Town for a new item—how did this happen? Possibly the SW item was not coded 192? A representative from Old Town said that they’re in the process of persuading their staff that the sky will not fall if Old Town opts for open borrowing. Jon suggested that SW email him and Deb to see about resolution of this rather specific issue.
    7. Kathy Marks-Molloy from Orono Public brought up a resource-sharing issue. Can programmatic coordinated development of special collections be initiated to create an even more powerful and responsive uber-collection? There’s been no directed discussion in this area but it represents an intriguing possibility. Kathy went on to elaborate that individual libraries could choose to specialize in some specific non-fiction areas that would complement others’ collections. Cool possibility. Peggy O’Kane suggested that there be some spot to post already existing special collections—NMCC’s bibliotherapy collection, for instance. Could we establish a forum for such special collections? Jon concurred that this is a great idea and will look into creating such a web page “some time.” He forecasts sending an inquiry to the Minerva list soliciting that information. Jay Scherma suggested a standing committee on acquisition to address both this issue and retention. Karl Beiser said that this was a hot topic at a meeting of the larger libraries and sees Minerva’s efforts as complementary to this.
    8. Natalie Hutchinson brought up difficulties with e-journals and the problems of students following links in the catalog to find that they’re not approved for access to particular e-journals. Deb Hensler indicated that 852 links should be placed in item records but not bib records, with explanatory text to the effect that access is limited to a certain set of users. This would be useful at the MaineCat level as well.
    9. Debbie Lozito, speaking for Karen Reilly, asked about the authority project. Karl Beiser answered that it’s proceeding and expects our records back by the end of this week or the beginning of next.
    10. Debbie Lozito, speaking for herself, then asked about downloadable audiobooks. Should they be handled like the e-journals? Karl Beiser’s answer is yes, that their treatment should be similar. When the items are available, Jon will get together with them for training.

The meeting then adjourned at 12:00.

Members of the Minerva Users Council Executive Committee 2006-2007

Public Libraries

Academic Libraries

Special Libraries

School Libraries

Ex-officio

Appendix A – Finance Committee Report

Minerva Financial Report—   Reporting Oct 1 through Nov 15, 2006

Fiscal Year—July 1, 2006-June 30. 2007

BALANCE on Nov 15 2006………………………………………………………$220,987.26 

Year to Date Figures and Projections
Support Fees 180,000.00  based on 60 members.
current membership 61 members
July
45,000.00
Aug
12,000.00
Sept
0
Oct
3,000.00
Other (July)

 298.50

 

Income to date…………………………………..60,298.50……………..120,000 dues

Budgeted Expenses
Budgeted Spent Left
Innovative Interfaces — Software Support
62,880.00
62,880.00
–30 Additional License
26,000.00
26,000.00
–Additional Scopes for new user
2,000.00
2,000.00
–*Additional Scopes for new users
1850.00 (children’s)
1,850.00
–additional payments to III ordering module
4000.00
4000.00
Syndectics – OPAC Content Enhancement
20,000.00
20,000.00
CD&L – Van Delivery
36,000.00
3,844.50
32,153050
Authority Processing —Inn view Authority service
$3.900
–Marcive Authority Process
$3,500
3,500

 

Administrative Costs
Budget
Spent
Remaining
Refreshments
$500.00
147.61
352.93
*Cost of bags from earlier
1700.42
*additional bag order
no figure yet
*Planning committee
$10,000
$10,000
*New Server
$30,000
$30,000

 

* New or unanticipated costs

Balance before unspent Budgeted amount removed —$220,987.26 

Remaining budgeted amounts  —192,636.43

New balance (before income)–28.350.83

Surplus balance with projected income(120,000)–$148.350.83

Submitted by Cora Damon, Minerva Executive Board

Appendix B – Borrowing & Lending Committee Report

Borrowing and Lending Committee Report, Users Council Meeting December 13, 2006

Members: Kevin Davis, SPL, Chair; Jane Babbitt, ROC, Jim Roy, MSO; Martha Ott, AND; and Jessica Thomas, BML. The committee is actively seeking an additional member to represent public libraries.

Mission: The committee meets irregularly to consider issues related to borrowing and lending in order to clarify policies and best practices and, when necessary, to suggest changes to the executive committee. The committee actively seeks input from library staff on issues of concern to members.

Agenda: The committee has met several times during the past six months to discuss various issues:

Old Favorites:

  • Bad guys: The tendency of a few patrons to “exploit” requesting by utilizing the system to borrow numerous items, keep them well past the due date, and finally return them without paying fines (that may/or may not) be routinely charged by their home libraries.
    • The committee is awaiting technical advice on what is or is not possible to accomplish in a diverse system to allow for ILL fines for libraries that wish to charge.
    • Suggestion – encourage member libraries to check their settings for maximum # of holds allowed to ensure that they are appropriate.
  • Consortial peeking: Lewiston Public Library’s announcement of its new policy to refuse to add new patrons who are in arrears at other Minerva member libraries prompted discussion of creating a “model policy” to this effect that could be adopted (or not) by libraries as another step toward strengthening the consortium (and catching bad guys….).
  • Work continues on content for a “best practices” Web page. Input from members is encouraged!

New Frontiers:

  • Awaiting full staffing.

Finally, and most importantly…

Committee members have noticed and received numerous reports during the past year of libraries that are failing to conform to the open borrowing policy adopted by Minerva libraries in January of 2005. Children’s books, paperbacks, and holiday books and videos coded “reserve” for the season, are all examples of collections that are sometimes (erroneously) withheld. For those libraries, and for all of us, here is the policy as posted on the Web at http://www.maine.gov/infonet/minerva/request/request_policy.htm. Please make sure that all staff members at each of your libraries fully comprehend this policy.

Intra-Minerva Request Policy

  1. Full Participation:
    Any item that normally circulates locally is requestable by any Minerva library, except as noted below.

    1. Items on course reserve may be exempted from request during the period the course is offered.
    2. Items needed locally in support of a specific, time-limited program or activity may be exempted.
    3. Items that are part of traveling deposit collections may be exempted.
    4. Items that are not owned by the library itself may be exempted.
  2. Partial Participation:
    Libraries that choose not to be a full participant, as defined above, must choose one of the categories of partial participation listed below.

    1. Option A. All But Non-Print – Does not lend and cannot borrow non-print materials. [APL]
    2. Option B. All But Non-Print and New Books – Does not lend and cannot borrow non-print materials or new books. [OTP & SKI]

Appendix C – Planning Committee Report – Minerva Planning Group

Members:

  • Betsy Pohl, Director, Lithgow Public Library, Augusta
  • Judith Frost, Director, Central Maine Community College, Auburn
  • Jay Scherma, Director, Thomas Memorial Library, Cape Elizabeth
  • Cora Damon, Librarian, MaineGeneral Medical Center, Waterville
  • Sarah Sugden, Director, Waterville Public Library, Waterville
  1. The Minerva Executive Committee appointed the Planning Group following last fall’s full Users Council meeting, in response to the assessment and report by consultant Linda Bills.
  2. The Planning Group has met at least once a month (sometimes more) since last March.  The issues we are wrestling with are complex, involving Minerva’s identity, governance and future.  We realized we needed some assistance, and with State Librarian Gary Nichol’s blessing we contracted with Arnold Hirshon of Nelinet to help us discuss key issues, formulate some scenarios, and to assist in discussions with MSL/Maine Info Net.
  3. Prior to the retreat with Arnold Hirshon the Planning Group designed and conducted an on-line survey regarding Minerva issues.  With a little prodding, we got 100% participation in the survey.
  4. The retreat in early November with Arnold Hirshon was productive.  Held at CMMC in Auburn, members of the Executive Committee and Planning Group participated.  After reviewing the survey results and key issues, we were able to examine different scenarios that we could present to State Librarian Gary Nichols and Maine Info Net CEO Karl Beiser at a future meeting, facilitated by Arnold.  It was agreed that we would schedule that meeting as soon as possible and that the Planning Group would meet in the interim to refine our proposals.
  5. In the meantime, the Planning Group is encouraging the Users Council to continue the moratorium on new libraries joining Minerva until we are able to reach an understanding about where we go from here, and to give Jon Forest a chance to get oriented and to deal with some of the backlog of work that has accumulated.  We expect that the moratorium will be lifted in six months or sooner.  Should things be wrapped up in January or February, for example, we could hold a special Users Council meeting to deal with lifting the moratorium.
  6. We hope to confirm a date for representatives of the Planning Group to meet with Gary Nichols and Karl Beiser for early January.  Any resulting recommendations will be put before the Minerva Executive Committee and full Users Council for their consideration and approval.

Appendix D – Cataloging Standards Committee Recommendation

Minerva Cataloging Standards Committee
Recommendations for Standardizing Materials
December 2006

The Cataloging Standards Committee goal is to insure a quality database that is patron friendly. Members are currently working on guidelines to be presented to the Executive Committee for approval after the first of the year. These guidelines would include cataloging standards for all types of material including regular and large print books, board books, sound recordings, video recordings, kits and serial publications. This will be a two level approach specifying minimum standards for older records in the database and more comprehensive standards for new materials being added.

Committee members are also developing a handbook that will be distributed to new members of Minerva. This handbook will include the guidelines mentioned above as well as other helpful tools and hints for catalogers.

The Committee would also like to join forces with other committees already working on improving the Minerva web sit and on continuing education and training for catalogers.