Board Meeting Minutes, Aug. 22, 2002: Wisconsin Public Library Consortium

WPLC Annual Board Meeting Minutes: August 22, 2002
Location: South Central Library System

Present: Peter Hamon (SCLS), Sandy Robbers (IFLS), Mark Merrifield (NFLS), Tom Hennen (WCFLS), Bernie Bellin (LLS), John Nichols (WLS), David Polodna (WRLS), Mark Arend (WLS), Mellanie Mercier (WCFLS), David Weinhold (ESLS), Doug Baker (KCLS), Kathy Schneider (WiLS), Mary Tlusty (IFLS), Phyllis Davis (SCLS), and Linda Miller, Project Manager.

The meeting came to order at 1:00 pm.

1. Mission of WPLC
Linda Miller initiated a discussion regarding whether the mission of WPLC has changed. When WPLC was formed a Project Purpose was prepared that stated that the purpose of the project was to:

To provide Wisconsin citizens with access to a collection of electronically published books (ebooks) in a wide range of subjects, from expensive reference titles to recreational reading materials, which they may read from home, work or school or from the smallest library in the consortium.
To increase public awareness about the availability and advantages of electronic books and determine electronic reading device preferences.
To increase public library staff understanding of ebook technologies and develop training programs so they may help the public understand and use them.
To establish a decision-making and fiscal model for public library cooperation that will allow libraries to work together to explore new information technologies, sharing the costs as well as the knowledge and resources.

This was written specifically for the initial WATF grant project.

Comments were made that if the specifics regarding the ebook project were removed, these statements do still reflect the basic purpose of the consortium. The focus is now more in tune with the fourth statement. While previous projects should be maintained, the consortium now has the opportunity to explore and demonstrate new ideas and to cooperate on projects so as to decrease costs.

It was suggested that the third statement could also be used by simply changing the word "ebook" to "new." A statement should also be added that WPLC will continue to move forward with projects that have already been developed.

The group discussed options for modifying these statements. Comments were made to change the fourth statement to convey that WPLC will continue the decision-making and fiscal structure that has been established. Also, the fourth statement could be changed to read "to collaborate, explore, and implement new information technologies and issues." Among other things, this will help to avoid limiting the scope of the group to only technology. The first three purposes can be kept as goals.

Peter Hamon will work on drafting a new statement based on this discussion.

2. Charge to Steering Committee
There was a question regarding the role of SCLS. SCLS acts as the fiscal agent for WPLC. SCLS pays the bills, and WPLC funds are audited as a part of the SCLS budget.

The membership agreement was discussed. This is an agreement between the member systems. It is not a contract between the systems and SCLS. SCLS is only acting as a fiscal agent.

David Weinhold commented that it had been voted last year at the annual meeting to continue with SCLS as the fiscal agent and Linda Miller as the project coordinator. SCLS collects an average of $500 to $1000 in interest on the bank account. SCLS has not charged WPLC for fiscal agent services.

David Weinhold raised the issue of whether or not the Steering Committee should oversee all projects, although these may not relate to the original ebook project. John Nichols introduced the idea of having separate steering committees for each project.

Bernie Bellin raised the question of whether WPLC should continue as a membership organization. Will organizations be required to pay a membership fee to participate in projects?

Phyllis Davis commented that the Steering Committee has been doing the bulk of the day-to-day activities. They have tried to delegate some activities to sub-committees but most did not remain active. Perhaps the Steering Committee could have a broader charge to manage the day-to-day business of WPLC.

Peter commented that the Steering Committee should handle as much as possible. Each partner has one vote. The partners need to be informed of issues early enough so that they can have enough time to consider how to vote. Each partner's representative can bring that vote to the Steering Committee meeting. The Steering Committee could set up sub-committees to handle specific aspects of a project, rather than setting up separate steering committees.

Tom Hennen commented that in order to introduce new projects additional funds need to be collected from partners. Partners need to be satisfied so that there will be continued support for projects.

David Polodna commented that as new projects are introduced and decisions will be made by the Steering Committee as to how funds will be spent. Partners need to be kept informed so that they can be sure that their views are represented at the meetings.

Linda reviewed the process for determining the budget and selecting project proposals. The budget was discussed last year at the annual meeting and the Steering Committee adopted a budget based on the discussion. This budget allowed for $15,000 for new projects. The process for selecting new projects was also decided at a Steering Committee meeting. Any partner can propose a new project. This proposal must be posted to the WPLC list at least one week before the Steering Committee meeting. The Steering Committee will then discuss the proposal and vote on it. Only two projects have been adopted this year. Three projects have been proposed.

Phyllis Davis and Kathy Schneider both commented that it would be best if the netLibrary project were kept under the direction of the Steering Committee for at least the next year.

David Weinhold commented that it would be fine to allow the Steering Committee to make decisions on new projects as long as the partners are kept informed so that when a new project is going to be discussed at a Steering Committee meeting, the best person can be chosen to attend and to represent that partner's view.

Tom Hennen asked if one of the responsibilities of the Steering Committee is to develop an annual budget. The representatives agreed that this is a responsibility of the committee. It was agreed that an annual meeting to discuss the budget and other policies is reasonable. The other meetings will handle the day-to-day activities.

John Nichols commented that perhaps the name needs to be changed to reflect the committee's responsibilities more accurately. A "Steering Committee" manages projects. Several ideas were introduced for new names for the Steering Committee, including "Governing Board" and "Board of Partners".

The group decided on changing the Steering Committee name to the "WPLC Board." There will continue to be one representative for each partner and one vote per partner. The group voted that the WPLC Board will have the responsibility of recommending, implementing, and managing projects, creating an annual budget, and setting policies. There will be an annual meeting which will include the creation of the budget.

3. Partners and Affiliates
Bernie Bellin raised the question that since the grant is over, should WPLC continue to be a membership organization or should it be opened up to the Wisconsin public libraries. Currently, a library system or an individual library can become a partner by joining WPLC. David Weinhold asked that since WPLC is moving beyond the netLibrary project, if a library wants to participate in a different project, how will that library fit in the consortium. Can libraries become members and not pay fees associated with the netLibrary project? Peter Hamon commented that new partners should not have to pay all fees for netLibrary retroactively, but they should pay an established fee. If they only want to participate in a specific project, they would not have a vote regarding other projects and would not have full access to other services.

John Nichols commented that the fee structure was originally based on a specific product - netLibrary. WPLC should be able to facilitate projects that may involve a limited number of interested partners. Only those partners that pay specific fees associated with that project will be able to participate. Doug Baker commented that costs associated with new projects could be pro-rated. Participation in a project should not be limited by requiring membership.

Peter Hamon commented that only partners should be allowed to attend the Board meetings. All projects should have at least one partner involved so that projects can operate under WPLC. If a project involves partners, their share of the cost would be taken from the dues they have paid. If a non-member then wants to participate, they would need to pay a share of the cost.

Bernie Bellin expressed concern about how SCLS could continue acting as fiscal agent since there will be much more complex management issues associated with such fiscal arrangements.

Doug Baker commented that those who want to buy services do not need to be partners. If there is money left over after a project is completed, it will be divided among the partners. Every project should be modeled so that WPLC does not lose money.

John Nichols commented that in order to charge dues there must be benefits to paying them. We don't want to discourage innovation and collaboration in projects because a potential participant does not want to pay a membership fee. The project must be structured so that all costs can be covered.

David Weinhold presented the statewide survey as an example. WPLC funds are being used to develop the survey. The proposal may attract some non-member libraries. Costs to such non-members will need to be determined.

Doug Baker commented that we need to keep a rolling fund available to also seed money for the next project.

John Nichols commented that a surcharge could be built in to the cost of participating in a project.

Doug Baker commented that instead of charging a membership fee the charge could be large enough to cover the cost of a project.

David Polodna asked if there is a need to expand the consortium. Peter Hamon commented on the arrangement with the schools. They pay an annual fee that is used to purchase netLibrary materials and to supplement the WPLC fund. Kathy Schneider commented that there is now one school district and three high schools that are participating in netLibrary. A total of $2400 has been collected from these schools. They were only invited to use the netLibrary service.

Doug Baker commented that an agency should not have to be a partner in order to benefit from a project. John Nichols commented that there may be a need to separate the membership fee from the cost of using the netLibrary services. There was some discussion on whether there should be a surcharge for affiliates. Doug Baker commented that there should be no membership fee at all. There should only be a charge for services. A non-member may not be interested in the current projects. It would not make sense for them to pay a membership fee. Comments were made that no members should be added. The netLibrary project can continue as it has, but all future projects can be funded by charging for services.

Peter reviewed the membership agreement. David Weinhold asked if individual libraries could become members. Comments were made that if a library's system is already a member, the library should participate as a part of the system. An allowance was originally made for individual libraries to become members in the case of Milwaukee. They wanted to join, but the rest of the system did not.

David Weinhold mentioned the example of Mead Public Library. They are interested in the survey project. They are also part of a system, ESLS, that is a consortium member. Peter Hamon commented that if Madison Public Library wanted to participate in a specific project they could pay SCLS, the WPLC member, for services. John Nichols commented that any library should be allowed to participate in any project. We should not require that a library be a member in order to participate in a project.

David Polodna made the comment that WPLC represents all public libraries in the state of Wisconsin, but the decisions are made by the board. The question was raised regarding a situation where a partner might fail to participate for a length of time. Would the partner's seat on the board remain in effect forever? The netLibrary project has specific requirements for participants. Each project needs to have its own set of parameters. The issue of a member losing the seat on the board will have to be addressed when the situation arises or perhaps in a future revision of the agreement.

The desire is to have the netLibrary project include more participants than just the consortium partners. The Board should determine if a start-up fee should be required. John Nichols commented that a start-up fee should be charged, not just the annual fee. Doug Baker commented that the current netLibrary arrangement is fine.

David Polodna commented that it is the membership fee that allows a partner to have decision making authority. A precedent has been set with the schools. They have joined as affiliate members of netLibrary without paying the initial fee. There is a 45% surcharge.

Peter Hamon made a motion that a public library or library system can pay the existing fee to buy a seat on the board and full access to netLibrary and that the board will set prices for affiliates for other projects. Mark Merrifield seconded the motion.

Bernie Bellin commented that we should not allow individual libraries to become partners. Doug Baker commented that schools can buy access to netLibrary without paying the full membership fee, but public libraries must be a member of WPLC.

The motion carried.

4. Relation of WPLC to Other Organizations
The issue was raised at the last Steering Committee meeting of having a relationship with SRLAAW so that its members could work with WPLC to collaborate on projects. There also may be other organizations that would like such an arrangement.

Comments were made that there is a structure that is in place that allows for such a relationship. SRLAAW can submit a project proposal, through a WPLC partner, to the WPLC Board. The example of the survey was raised. Should DPI participate in this project? Comments were made that the survey would be most useful if there were standards established so that results from all over the state could be easily compared.

Peter Hamon introduced the idea that CESA organizations may be interested in participating in certain projects such as database access.

John Nichols commented that when drafting a project proposal, funds should be included in the budget for WPLC support so that WPLC services are covered.

Phyllis Davis commented that WPLC needs to own the survey when the project is complete.

Doug Baker commented that it would be in WPLC's best interest for the survey to gain wide acceptance across the state. Endorsement from SRLAAW could be helpful in this.

Comments were made that there must be strict requirements that the survey cannot be changed.

The group agreed that as projects arise, WPLC should be aware of other organizations or agencies that may have an interest or be impacted by it. WPLC should reach out to such organizations and see if any input is needed. Doug Baker commented that WPLC needs to position itself in relation to other groups, such as SRLAAW and DPI, as being a vehicle to get things done.

5. Project Report
Phyllis Davis reports that WATF accepted the final report. The check will be released to SCLS. There were 4,138 netLibrary titles purchased in the grant with an additional 4000 Gutenberg titles. Statistics show 30,772 uses of the shared collection. The people that know about it are using it. More promotion of the service is needed.

6. Budget
The group reviewed the 2002 WPLC budget and discussed the 2003 budget. John Nichols expressed the opinion that the netLibrary budget for 2003 could be lowered. Bernie Bellin commented that schools could be encouraged to add to the collection themselves. Comments were made that WPLC could do more to market netLibrary to other schools. Peter Hamon stated that the fees could be increased so that there will be funds remaining at the end of the year. Doug Baker commented that projects should be self-sustaining.

David Polodna made a motion to increase the annual fees for 2003 by 50% for all partners. Doug Baker seconded the motion. There were further comments that the purpose of this would be to preserve principal to have a reasonable base.

The motion carried.

Peter asked if the base fees for membership are satisfactory. The group agrees that they are.

7. Future Projects
Sandy Robbers mentioned the idea of using wireless connections and Pocket PCs in libraries as ideas for future projects.

Tom Hennen mentioned that Bob Bocher is interested in obtaining services from the Librarians' Index to the Internet. Bob is drafting a proposal for DPI to do this, but DPI does not have the money for it. This would be a project to select and catalog websites to produce links for library websites and to produce bibliographic records that could be loaded into a library database. Sandy raised the issue that making such a resource available will also open up access to non-WPLC users worldwide.

Bernie Bellin mentioned the idea of obtaining e-books in foreign languages, especially Spanish. Comments were made that netLibrary has very few Spanish titles.

John Nichols commented that it would be useful to have a clearinghouse, or some systematic way of sharing information about projects in which members are involved. The WPLC website would be a good vehicle for this.

Comments were made that it would be useful to have a system for posting reports.

David Weinhold asked about efforts to merge the public libraries' netLibrary collection with the academic libraries' collections. There was some discussion of the differences in loan periods. The academic libraries have a 24-hour loan period. WPLC uses a seven day loan period. Statistics show that users average only 17 minutes per title.

Peter Hamon made a motion to change the netLibrary loan period to 24-hours. The purpose would be to facilitate merging the collection with the academic libraries. David Weinhold seconded the motion. The motion carried.

There was some discussion on the use of referring URLs to access netLibrary and create accounts. Linda reported that no decision has been made on this issue yet.

David Weinhold made a motion to rescind the earlier decision to not allow referring URLs. Bernie Bellin seconded the motion. The discussion that followed stated that this decreases the incentive for other systems to join and that schools will see no reason to join if IP authentication is not required. The motion was withdrawn.

Kathy Schneider distributed the netLibrary statistics.

The meeting adjourned at 4:15 pm.

Linda K. Miller
linda@lmatechwork.com
815-229-8215 voice 815-229-5362 fax


		Home > Meetings > Minutes > Annual Board Meeting, Aug. 22, 2002

Members Bylaws Committees Meetings Discussion List Statistics Current Projects Proposals for Future Services Reports Links Home Contact Us		WPLC Annual Board Meeting Minutes: August 22, 2002 Location: South Central Library System Present: Peter Hamon (SCLS), Sandy Robbers (IFLS), Mark Merrifield (NFLS), Tom Hennen (WCFLS), Bernie Bellin (LLS), John Nichols (WLS), David Polodna (WRLS), Mark Arend (WLS), Mellanie Mercier (WCFLS), David Weinhold (ESLS), Doug Baker (KCLS), Kathy Schneider (WiLS), Mary Tlusty (IFLS), Phyllis Davis (SCLS), and Linda Miller, Project Manager. The meeting came to order at 1:00 pm. 1. Mission of WPLC Linda Miller initiated a discussion regarding whether the mission of WPLC has changed. When WPLC was formed a Project Purpose was prepared that stated that the purpose of the project was to: To provide Wisconsin citizens with access to a collection of electronically published books (ebooks) in a wide range of subjects, from expensive reference titles to recreational reading materials, which they may read from home, work or school or from the smallest library in the consortium. To increase public awareness about the availability and advantages of electronic books and determine electronic reading device preferences. To increase public library staff understanding of ebook technologies and develop training programs so they may help the public understand and use them. To establish a decision-making and fiscal model for public library cooperation that will allow libraries to work together to explore new information technologies, sharing the costs as well as the knowledge and resources. This was written specifically for the initial WATF grant project. Comments were made that if the specifics regarding the ebook project were removed, these statements do still reflect the basic purpose of the consortium. The focus is now more in tune with the fourth statement. While previous projects should be maintained, the consortium now has the opportunity to explore and demonstrate new ideas and to cooperate on projects so as to decrease costs. It was suggested that the third statement could also be used by simply changing the word "ebook" to "new." A statement should also be added that WPLC will continue to move forward with projects that have already been developed. The group discussed options for modifying these statements. Comments were made to change the fourth statement to convey that WPLC will continue the decision-making and fiscal structure that has been established. Also, the fourth statement could be changed to read "to collaborate, explore, and implement new information technologies and issues." Among other things, this will help to avoid limiting the scope of the group to only technology. The first three purposes can be kept as goals. Peter Hamon will work on drafting a new statement based on this discussion. 2. Charge to Steering Committee There was a question regarding the role of SCLS. SCLS acts as the fiscal agent for WPLC. SCLS pays the bills, and WPLC funds are audited as a part of the SCLS budget. The membership agreement was discussed. This is an agreement between the member systems. It is not a contract between the systems and SCLS. SCLS is only acting as a fiscal agent. David Weinhold commented that it had been voted last year at the annual meeting to continue with SCLS as the fiscal agent and Linda Miller as the project coordinator. SCLS collects an average of $500 to $1000 in interest on the bank account. SCLS has not charged WPLC for fiscal agent services. David Weinhold raised the issue of whether or not the Steering Committee should oversee all projects, although these may not relate to the original ebook project. John Nichols introduced the idea of having separate steering committees for each project. Bernie Bellin raised the question of whether WPLC should continue as a membership organization. Will organizations be required to pay a membership fee to participate in projects? Phyllis Davis commented that the Steering Committee has been doing the bulk of the day-to-day activities. They have tried to delegate some activities to sub-committees but most did not remain active. Perhaps the Steering Committee could have a broader charge to manage the day-to-day business of WPLC. Peter commented that the Steering Committee should handle as much as possible. Each partner has one vote. The partners need to be informed of issues early enough so that they can have enough time to consider how to vote. Each partner's representative can bring that vote to the Steering Committee meeting. The Steering Committee could set up sub-committees to handle specific aspects of a project, rather than setting up separate steering committees. Tom Hennen commented that in order to introduce new projects additional funds need to be collected from partners. Partners need to be satisfied so that there will be continued support for projects. David Polodna commented that as new projects are introduced and decisions will be made by the Steering Committee as to how funds will be spent. Partners need to be kept informed so that they can be sure that their views are represented at the meetings. Linda reviewed the process for determining the budget and selecting project proposals. The budget was discussed last year at the annual meeting and the Steering Committee adopted a budget based on the discussion. This budget allowed for $15,000 for new projects. The process for selecting new projects was also decided at a Steering Committee meeting. Any partner can propose a new project. This proposal must be posted to the WPLC list at least one week before the Steering Committee meeting. The Steering Committee will then discuss the proposal and vote on it. Only two projects have been adopted this year. Three projects have been proposed. Phyllis Davis and Kathy Schneider both commented that it would be best if the netLibrary project were kept under the direction of the Steering Committee for at least the next year. David Weinhold commented that it would be fine to allow the Steering Committee to make decisions on new projects as long as the partners are kept informed so that when a new project is going to be discussed at a Steering Committee meeting, the best person can be chosen to attend and to represent that partner's view. Tom Hennen asked if one of the responsibilities of the Steering Committee is to develop an annual budget. The representatives agreed that this is a responsibility of the committee. It was agreed that an annual meeting to discuss the budget and other policies is reasonable. The other meetings will handle the day-to-day activities. John Nichols commented that perhaps the name needs to be changed to reflect the committee's responsibilities more accurately. A "Steering Committee" manages projects. Several ideas were introduced for new names for the Steering Committee, including "Governing Board" and "Board of Partners". The group decided on changing the Steering Committee name to the "WPLC Board." There will continue to be one representative for each partner and one vote per partner. The group voted that the WPLC Board will have the responsibility of recommending, implementing, and managing projects, creating an annual budget, and setting policies. There will be an annual meeting which will include the creation of the budget. 3. Partners and Affiliates Bernie Bellin raised the question that since the grant is over, should WPLC continue to be a membership organization or should it be opened up to the Wisconsin public libraries. Currently, a library system or an individual library can become a partner by joining WPLC. David Weinhold asked that since WPLC is moving beyond the netLibrary project, if a library wants to participate in a different project, how will that library fit in the consortium. Can libraries become members and not pay fees associated with the netLibrary project? Peter Hamon commented that new partners should not have to pay all fees for netLibrary retroactively, but they should pay an established fee. If they only want to participate in a specific project, they would not have a vote regarding other projects and would not have full access to other services. John Nichols commented that the fee structure was originally based on a specific product - netLibrary. WPLC should be able to facilitate projects that may involve a limited number of interested partners. Only those partners that pay specific fees associated with that project will be able to participate. Doug Baker commented that costs associated with new projects could be pro-rated. Participation in a project should not be limited by requiring membership. Peter Hamon commented that only partners should be allowed to attend the Board meetings. All projects should have at least one partner involved so that projects can operate under WPLC. If a project involves partners, their share of the cost would be taken from the dues they have paid. If a non-member then wants to participate, they would need to pay a share of the cost. Bernie Bellin expressed concern about how SCLS could continue acting as fiscal agent since there will be much more complex management issues associated with such fiscal arrangements. Doug Baker commented that those who want to buy services do not need to be partners. If there is money left over after a project is completed, it will be divided among the partners. Every project should be modeled so that WPLC does not lose money. John Nichols commented that in order to charge dues there must be benefits to paying them. We don't want to discourage innovation and collaboration in projects because a potential participant does not want to pay a membership fee. The project must be structured so that all costs can be covered. David Weinhold presented the statewide survey as an example. WPLC funds are being used to develop the survey. The proposal may attract some non-member libraries. Costs to such non-members will need to be determined. Doug Baker commented that we need to keep a rolling fund available to also seed money for the next project. John Nichols commented that a surcharge could be built in to the cost of participating in a project. Doug Baker commented that instead of charging a membership fee the charge could be large enough to cover the cost of a project. David Polodna asked if there is a need to expand the consortium. Peter Hamon commented on the arrangement with the schools. They pay an annual fee that is used to purchase netLibrary materials and to supplement the WPLC fund. Kathy Schneider commented that there is now one school district and three high schools that are participating in netLibrary. A total of $2400 has been collected from these schools. They were only invited to use the netLibrary service. Doug Baker commented that an agency should not have to be a partner in order to benefit from a project. John Nichols commented that there may be a need to separate the membership fee from the cost of using the netLibrary services. There was some discussion on whether there should be a surcharge for affiliates. Doug Baker commented that there should be no membership fee at all. There should only be a charge for services. A non-member may not be interested in the current projects. It would not make sense for them to pay a membership fee. Comments were made that no members should be added. The netLibrary project can continue as it has, but all future projects can be funded by charging for services. Peter reviewed the membership agreement. David Weinhold asked if individual libraries could become members. Comments were made that if a library's system is already a member, the library should participate as a part of the system. An allowance was originally made for individual libraries to become members in the case of Milwaukee. They wanted to join, but the rest of the system did not. David Weinhold mentioned the example of Mead Public Library. They are interested in the survey project. They are also part of a system, ESLS, that is a consortium member. Peter Hamon commented that if Madison Public Library wanted to participate in a specific project they could pay SCLS, the WPLC member, for services. John Nichols commented that any library should be allowed to participate in any project. We should not require that a library be a member in order to participate in a project. David Polodna made the comment that WPLC represents all public libraries in the state of Wisconsin, but the decisions are made by the board. The question was raised regarding a situation where a partner might fail to participate for a length of time. Would the partner's seat on the board remain in effect forever? The netLibrary project has specific requirements for participants. Each project needs to have its own set of parameters. The issue of a member losing the seat on the board will have to be addressed when the situation arises or perhaps in a future revision of the agreement. The desire is to have the netLibrary project include more participants than just the consortium partners. The Board should determine if a start-up fee should be required. John Nichols commented that a start-up fee should be charged, not just the annual fee. Doug Baker commented that the current netLibrary arrangement is fine. David Polodna commented that it is the membership fee that allows a partner to have decision making authority. A precedent has been set with the schools. They have joined as affiliate members of netLibrary without paying the initial fee. There is a 45% surcharge. Peter Hamon made a motion that a public library or library system can pay the existing fee to buy a seat on the board and full access to netLibrary and that the board will set prices for affiliates for other projects. Mark Merrifield seconded the motion. Bernie Bellin commented that we should not allow individual libraries to become partners. Doug Baker commented that schools can buy access to netLibrary without paying the full membership fee, but public libraries must be a member of WPLC. The motion carried. 4. Relation of WPLC to Other Organizations The issue was raised at the last Steering Committee meeting of having a relationship with SRLAAW so that its members could work with WPLC to collaborate on projects. There also may be other organizations that would like such an arrangement. Comments were made that there is a structure that is in place that allows for such a relationship. SRLAAW can submit a project proposal, through a WPLC partner, to the WPLC Board. The example of the survey was raised. Should DPI participate in this project? Comments were made that the survey would be most useful if there were standards established so that results from all over the state could be easily compared. Peter Hamon introduced the idea that CESA organizations may be interested in participating in certain projects such as database access. John Nichols commented that when drafting a project proposal, funds should be included in the budget for WPLC support so that WPLC services are covered. Phyllis Davis commented that WPLC needs to own the survey when the project is complete. Doug Baker commented that it would be in WPLC's best interest for the survey to gain wide acceptance across the state. Endorsement from SRLAAW could be helpful in this. Comments were made that there must be strict requirements that the survey cannot be changed. The group agreed that as projects arise, WPLC should be aware of other organizations or agencies that may have an interest or be impacted by it. WPLC should reach out to such organizations and see if any input is needed. Doug Baker commented that WPLC needs to position itself in relation to other groups, such as SRLAAW and DPI, as being a vehicle to get things done. 5. Project Report Phyllis Davis reports that WATF accepted the final report. The check will be released to SCLS. There were 4,138 netLibrary titles purchased in the grant with an additional 4000 Gutenberg titles. Statistics show 30,772 uses of the shared collection. The people that know about it are using it. More promotion of the service is needed. 6. Budget The group reviewed the 2002 WPLC budget and discussed the 2003 budget. John Nichols expressed the opinion that the netLibrary budget for 2003 could be lowered. Bernie Bellin commented that schools could be encouraged to add to the collection themselves. Comments were made that WPLC could do more to market netLibrary to other schools. Peter Hamon stated that the fees could be increased so that there will be funds remaining at the end of the year. Doug Baker commented that projects should be self-sustaining. David Polodna made a motion to increase the annual fees for 2003 by 50% for all partners. Doug Baker seconded the motion. There were further comments that the purpose of this would be to preserve principal to have a reasonable base. The motion carried. Peter asked if the base fees for membership are satisfactory. The group agrees that they are. 7. Future Projects Sandy Robbers mentioned the idea of using wireless connections and Pocket PCs in libraries as ideas for future projects. Tom Hennen mentioned that Bob Bocher is interested in obtaining services from the Librarians' Index to the Internet. Bob is drafting a proposal for DPI to do this, but DPI does not have the money for it. This would be a project to select and catalog websites to produce links for library websites and to produce bibliographic records that could be loaded into a library database. Sandy raised the issue that making such a resource available will also open up access to non-WPLC users worldwide. Bernie Bellin mentioned the idea of obtaining e-books in foreign languages, especially Spanish. Comments were made that netLibrary has very few Spanish titles. John Nichols commented that it would be useful to have a clearinghouse, or some systematic way of sharing information about projects in which members are involved. The WPLC website would be a good vehicle for this. Comments were made that it would be useful to have a system for posting reports. David Weinhold asked about efforts to merge the public libraries' netLibrary collection with the academic libraries' collections. There was some discussion of the differences in loan periods. The academic libraries have a 24-hour loan period. WPLC uses a seven day loan period. Statistics show that users average only 17 minutes per title. Peter Hamon made a motion to change the netLibrary loan period to 24-hours. The purpose would be to facilitate merging the collection with the academic libraries. David Weinhold seconded the motion. The motion carried. There was some discussion on the use of referring URLs to access netLibrary and create accounts. Linda reported that no decision has been made on this issue yet. David Weinhold made a motion to rescind the earlier decision to not allow referring URLs. Bernie Bellin seconded the motion. The discussion that followed stated that this decreases the incentive for other systems to join and that schools will see no reason to join if IP authentication is not required. The motion was withdrawn. Kathy Schneider distributed the netLibrary statistics. The meeting adjourned at 4:15 pm. Linda K. Miller linda@lmatechwork.com 815-229-8215 voice 815-229-5362 fax

		Updated October 22, 2004