Location: South Central Library System
Present: Mellanie Mercier (WCFLS), David Weinhold (ESLS), Stef Morrill
(SCLS), Inese Christman (Marathon Co.), Kristen Anderson (LaCrosse),
Peggy Shaffer (LLS), Linda Miller, Project Manager, Rich Krumwiede (OWLS),
Mary
Tlusty (IFLS), Amy Lutzke (MWFLS), Phyllis Davis (SCLS), and Kathy Schneider
(WiLS). Josh Morrill also attended.
The meeting came to order at 10:00 a.m.
1. Partner Reports
Lakeshores reported that libraries have been added to the WAN to allow easier access to netLibrary. This process will continue through July.
WCFLS is starting the MP3 player project.
ESLS is continuing to monitor the use of netLibrary. Kirsten is doing a reference workshop in August. It is hoped that this will encourage more use of the service. There has been a considerable increase in user registration since the inclusion of netLibrary titles in the catalog. There has been an average of 3.4 uses per registered user.
The e-book readers are still being used by the libraries. They are rotated so that each library has them for 5 weeks. Some library staff have inquired about getting new titles for the devices. The system has given permission for library staff to order new titles.
SCLS reported that there was an article this week in Newsweek about e-book readers that described them as an idea whose time has not yet come. Kirsten has held a reference workshop at SCLS.
WVLS will be doing a reference workshop in December. Marathon County is having their reference librarians answer at least three questions a week by using netLibrary. It has raised awareness about the service. Inese did an article in the WVLS Lamplighter newsletter about netLibrary.
IFLS has been asked by CESA10 to do a workshop on netLibrary for the NEWA Teachers Conference at the end of October.
La Crosse reported that they are planning to have a reference workshop some time next year. They are also thinking about having some individual refresher sessions this summer for staff that have already had the group training.
OWLS has recently loaded the Project Gutenberg records. Rich wants to discuss the future of WPLC.
MWFLS had nothing new to report.
2. Evaluation
There was a discussion of the handheld reader evaluation prepared by Himmel and Wilson. ESLS reported that feedback from their users was very similar to the user comments listed in the evaluation.
WCFLS has 105 e-book readers in use at their libraries. They surveyed the libraries regarding the use of the readers. They have found that in some libraries the readers only circulated 3 times in a year. But at one library that has 13 readers they reported that each device was circulated more than 20 times.
Stef reported that librarians are not readily adapting to the new e-book
technology. Phyllis reported that at PLA there was a discussion about
e-books being a technology whose time has not yet come. However, a librarian
from Ramsey County, Minnesota spoke up to say that their libraries have
found great success with the e-book readers. They are very
popular and are constantly checked out and placed on hold, but you have
to let people know that the devices are available at the library.
There was discussion concerning the future of the reader devices. David commented that one problem has been not having enough devices to go around. There are still new titles being released, but the devices are no longer available. Some library staff have expressed interest in purchasing a device for personal use. David suggested that after the grant is completed, continued use of the reader devices should be left up to each library system. Phyllis suggested that if there were new developments with e-book readers that this information be shared with WPLC, but readers will not be a continuing agenda item.
It was agreed that WPLC will turn over management of the hand-held reader service to individual libraries and partners. If there are new developments this information can be shared with WPLC.
Josh has prepared a summary of his report and he will post this to the list. David will post his summary report to the list also. Kathy shared the report with netLibrary. They were very impressed with it.
3. Budget
The WATF budget was distributed.
Phyllis discussed the status of the WPLC funds. Efforts are being made to spend available funds for netLibrary. Funds have been pre-paid for the Web CT training. All WATF and matching funds will be spent.
Kathy reported that the netLibrary funds will be spent.
Linda thanked Phyllis and SCLS for managing the budget.
4. 2002 Project Reports
The MP3 players have been ordered. They signed a contract with Audible.com. Stef showed one of the devices to the group. They have found that about two titles will fit on a device. There is a glitch in the download process, and Audible.com is releasing a patch next month to resolve the issue.
5. Proposals
Peggy will be presenting a proposal at the next meeting.
David presented a proposal by ESLS to fund some additional research as a follow up on the evaluation of netLibrary prepared by Josh. This project is focused on designing a process for gathering further information to answer the question - Who is or is not the Wisconsin public library user? The project will not cover the actual process of carrying out the surveys or gathering the information. The result of this project will be another proposal to carry out the implementation.
ESLS feels this project will be valuable to provide information that will be useful to both the partners and the state. It will help with advocacy issues and to examine the effectiveness of library services. This project will allow Josh to design the questions for a survey. The cost of the whole project will not be known until the design process is complete.
There have been other surveys done in Wisconsin. The last one was in 1975. This could be used as a resource. There will have to be some agreement among the consortium members as to the content of the survey questions. Funds will be needed for Josh to carry out a test of the survey.
SCLS, WRLS, Winnefox, and NWLS are in support of this proposal.
Linda suggested that surveys conducted in other states could be used as a resource.
Amy asked about how this data could be used. Josh commented that this data could be used to add more depth to any other evaluation done of library users. It will help to determine if a group of users involved in an evaluation are typical library users. Another use will be for state-wide advocacy programs. For example, we could say that a certain percentage of people feel that libraries should get more funding. It will also help show how people are using the library. If the study were done every three years, this will help track trends. However, these data are not intended to be used in making decisions at the individual library level.
Mary asked if the survey will be designed so that individual libraries or systems could use this to gather information about users in their area. Josh commented that the same concern came up at SRLAAW. The survey will need to be standardized so that data from two different communities can be compared.
David suggested that the results could be used to create messages designed for the typical user to promote library services. Phyllis commented that this information could be useful in advocating the libraries' interests with state legislators. Amy expressed concerns about the possibility that the data could also have negative implications for Wisconsin libraries.
Linda proposed that a smaller committee be appointed to work with Josh on this project.
Josh is considering doing telephone surveys. One approach that came up at SRLAAW is for groups of libraries to pool their money in order to fund local surveys.
David moved to accept the research proposal. Peggy seconded the motion. The motion was approved.
David will coordinate the project activity including organizing a committee and will report back to the committee.
6. netLibrary
Kathy reported that libraries that provide access to FirstSearch WorldCat can enable a feature that will allow users to link directly to a netLibrary book from their search results. The user would need to have a netLibrary account.
The academic consortium met, and they seem to be back on track. There is discussion about merging the collections. The key issue is loan periods. They have 24 hour loan periods and are considering having no loan period at all. They meet again in October.
Kathy will provide a list of issues from the academic consortium and send these to Linda.
David suggested that the loan period needs to be reconsidered now that the reader is no longer available.
Kathy reported that the Selection Committee had a successful conference call. The process went well and about 50 titles were selected. The new netLibrary method for identifying and selecting titles is much better now.
The MARC records for the public domain titles have been obtained for $1700 from netLibrary. Then it was discovered that we could get them from OCLC for free. This money was then credited to the WPLC account. The records turned out to be more complete than those from OCLC.
OCLC had said that the access fee was going to increase from 50% to 55%. However, this fee is staying at 50%. The contract may be renegotiated sooner than January 2003. Negotiations may take place as part of a national group of OCLC networks using netLibrary.
The list of academic libraries that have joined is:
- Eau Claire School District
- Conserve Schools
- Menomonee Falls School District
- Oconomowoc School District
The Milwaukee area schools are considering joining.
7. Membership
Phyllis Davis commented that perhaps the assumptions made for the initial grant are no longer valid. Some issues are: Who speaks for the consortium? Where should questions be discussed about membership? Should there be a committee for administration and governance?
David commented on the fact that WPLC has developed into a consortium of library systems. Partners generally attend meetings that are related to projects in which they are directly involved. SRLAAW has come to now view WPLC as an organization that has the ability to do research and development that SRLAAW may not be able to do. The activities of this group have benefited and will continue to benefit libraries throughout Wisconsin. A governance meeting would be useful to discuss issues such as: How do schools fit in now?; what type of projects should be pursued?; what will partners do?
David still sees the need to continue getting together to discuss the netLibrary project.
Rick commented on the fact that the original agreement is very open.
Linda expressed concern at the lack of proposals that are being submitted and whether the funds for new projects will be spent this year.
Phyllis suggested inviting persons to the meetings who are responsible for making decisions. Peggy expressed support for the idea of having annual meetings. David commented that now is a good time to discuss the issue of non-members. Kathy commented that the issues regarding schools need to be resolved before school starts.
The next meeting will be held Thursday, August 22, 2002 at 1:00 p.m. The meeting will be held in Wausau, where SRLAAW is meeting the next day.
Rick asked if participants should bring proposals to that meeting. Peggy would like to see a list of issues that need to be resolved prepared before the meeting. Stef would like to see the information sharing among participants to continue. David would like to see a brainstorming and discussion take place at the meeting that will lead WPLC in a specific direction.
It was agreed that ideas and proposals regarding the next meeting will be posted to the list and the agenda will be prepared by July 15, 2002.
8. Committees
Phyllis commented on the need for a PR committee to promote the netLibrary services. The biggest problem that we have with the project is that not enough people know about the service.
It was decided that each partner will decide if they can provide a person to serve on the PR Committee. The committee will focus on netLibrary but will not be limited to this project only.
The meeting adjourned at 12:45 p.m.
Linda K. Miller
linda@lmatechwork.com
815-229-8215 voice
815-229-5362 fax