Pioneer Council Meeting
December 17, 2002
Minutes
The December meeting of the Pioneer User Council was called to order at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 17, in Conference Room 114, by Patty Cutright, Chair. Present were: Patty Cutright, Shirley Roberts, Darcy Dauble, Jean Rudd, Carol Anne Thew, Jo Cowling, Vicki Bruce, Marsha Richmond, Carmen Wickam, Aletha Bonebrake, Beth Longwell and Ken Reading in person, and JoLyn Wynn by conference telephone.
1. Solicitation for meeting note taker: Notes will be taken by members of the Council, rotating in alphabetical order. They should be posted within a week.
2. Approval of November minutes: Darcy asked if suggestion for paying for Beth’s conference was accepted. Shirley reported that there was $989 left in the travel fund and some travel reimbursement is still expected. It was agreed that whatever is then left of the $989 will go toward sending Beth to the III annual national conference. The expenditure of the residual had been approved. Clarification is to be added to the minutes. Darcy/Ken moved/
seconded a motion to approve the minutes; passed unanimously.
3. Agenda Review: Courier report was added to agenda at 4.1.
Cataloging Workgroup report added to agenda at 5.1
4. Video Conferencing Report: Shirley reported that Pioneer is in the second round of bids; new ones are competitive, ranging from $16,926 to $15927. Wire One was the successful bidder. Pioneer will purchase videoconferencing equipment Polycom 2 FX, which allows for 2 sites “cascading,” and Polycom H23 to establish a point to point connection to Burns. INOC offers installation and advice free of charge. The view station has gone to Burns and is hooked up. BMCC has Polycom equipment so no problem to install there. Noted there is incompatibility problem between V-Tel and Polycom equipment and wherever exists a special bridging mechanism will be needed. Jim Whitney, who does video online servicing for the State contract, will contract to TVCC and Burns by December 20.
4.1 Courier Report: No answer has been received yet from Senvoy. The President of Senvoy will visit banks to see if he can speed up the process. Council is hoping for a decision by Jan. 1. Ken has received an e-mail from ORBIS offering courier service; he asked if Pendleton will still be a dropsite with Senvoy, since he needs to make a decision for his District. There have been rumblings that Pendleton H.S. can’t honor Pioneer ILL requests because it can’t afford postage. He noted that the benefits of Pioneer are diminishing if we can’t get materials out of our counties. UCSLD needs to act by the first of the year; it will go with the state if Senvoy doesn’t come through.
It was asked if LEO could help. Response was that LEO money is tied up in needs assessment contracts, but that the Senate Interim Committee has recommended that Net Lender reimbursement money be reallocated by new statute to support statewide database licensing development and possible statewide courier subsidy, so there is hope for outside help in the next legislative session.
It was asked how materials would move between libraries with different couriers. Response was that everything comes through EOU and is transshipped from there. The cost will be about $60/year/library to support necessary personnel for sorting.
It was suggested that Pioneer might offer to offset some of the banks’ cost for Senvoy to move the process along, but it was decided to wait for their response before indicating that libraries may have some financial resources. It was suggested that a poll be taken of how many dollars might be available for Shirley to offer if they do not pick up the cost in January. It was thought that if Pioneer libraries pay some of the costs down the road it will be harder for the banks to pull out of the arrangement.
It was agreed that Pioneer needs long-range planning for resource sharing.
Action: Consider forming Courier Committee at next meeting.
5. Circulation Workgroup Proposal: Premise of the terms of the proposal are: 1) that it not affect the patrons’ relationship with their home library, 2) fines are higher than normal to effect a quick return of ILL materials.
Committee members present in drafting were: Karen (BMCC), Heidi (Hermiston), Carmen (Baker County), Mary Finney (Pendleton) and Susan and Beth (EOU).
Darcy expressed concern with the fine, since they have none. Charging fines would impact BMCC staffing and functions, e.g. is the Pioneer System the vehicle for handling fines, who would collect, how would the money be moved, etc. If Pioneer System can’t handle, not sure BMCC can participate.
Jo said she is willing to consider proposal if it didn’t add to workload.
Other questions: Will everyone charge fines? What will fine be? Who collects?
Beth noted that this was written to provide consistency for the patrons. She asked that if fines issue couldn’t be resolved without further discussion, could the Council approve the consistent loan period of 3 weeks, with the recall feature activated for those libraries that wish to use it?
There was discussion about the distinction between a walk-in patron transaction vs. an ILL transaction and the idea of establishing loan rules for any patron outside of the home library whether he/she punches a button or walks in. There was also discussion about the costs incurred for return when a home patron drops off a book checked out (not on ILL) from another library.
Conclusions: 1) Oregon Trail Library District does not wish to change its loan rules at this time and so will not participate; 2) entertainment videos and periodicals will check out for 7 days; instructional videos and regular materials will check out for 3 weeks; 3) different loan periods may be imposed for certain specialty items; 4) library may charge $5.00 per book for books not returned to library where they were checked out; 5) put a button on Pioneer reserve page on web to effect that there may be charges for borrowing from libraries other than their own, then list charges for each library.
Question: Shall council approve loan periods in Circulation Workgroup proposal?
Decision: Chair tabled to January meeting, when discussion about the mission and purpose of the Circulation Workgroup will also take place.
5.1 Cataloging Workgroup Report: Cataloging manual will be issued in hard copy to each member library after review to correlate with Book Blitz knowledge is completed by Committee. Darcy asked if it and other text will also be posted on the Web page, remembering earlier discussion but not seeing in the minutes. Beth replied that her project of increasing text on opening page of the OPAC has not been dropped, just in process. Brief discussion about de-duping, noting that dups were caught up to October 31 by Carol Anne. Dups from November 1 on are going to each library for resolution.
6. Membership Models/Criteria – Systems Workgroup: At request of Council to take a second look at the models to accommodate very small libraries, including branch libraries of a single system, Committee met on December 9. Shirley presented new spreadsheet, adding an Associate Level 3 for a $500 annual fee for circulating libraries under 1,000 population, which allows for one staff port and Pioneer staff support; any additional ports added to that location will be subject to availability and must come before the council. The fee includes $200 cost of port and $300 for maintenance. To accommodate a unified system, an Associate Level 4 was added; to qualify, a library must meet the Associate Level 3 criteria, as well as be a child (branch) of a council member; the annual charge is $250 and no council membership is accorded
Discussing criteria for membership, Jean requested that the requirement of courier access be changed to “commitment to resource sharing and document delivery.” This was approved by the Council.
The realignments requested by some members to meet budget requirements were presented and discussed, with the financial impact outlined on spreadsheets. TVCC will retain Council membership; BMCC may have to change, since it needs to keep its costs at around $5,000. Shirley noted that until the Council makes a decision whether to accept the realignment process, none of the other members have been asked about new costs resulting from the realignments.
Reporting on a conference call with Jefferson County and the Warm Springs Tribes, Shirley said they are satisfied with the costs allocated to them. Another conference call is scheduled for January re grant writing to bring them on board. Also, a positive response was received from Lake County; they will be ready in about 11 months and will seek an LSTA grant. Crook County and the Tribes may be ready to come on board in 2004-2005.
Darcy/Aletha moved/seconded a motion that the Council accept the membership criteria as modified with the Associate Level 4 addition and the membership criteria for new libraries as revised by the Workgroup on 12/10/02; passed unanimously.
7. Library Realignment Possibilities: Asked if there were any modifications to the realignment and participation spreadsheets, Model 2-2.1, separate votes were called for, one for the model and one for the realignment.
Darcy/Jean moved/seconded that the Council accept Model 2-2.1 with included additions scenario as of 12/10/02. Discussion: it was agreed that the time limit to choose a realignment for those who are eligible would be a written request inside of 30 days. A letter should be sent outlining a library’s choices of status and asking that they choose and reply by February 1, in time for the February meeting. No further discussion. Motion passed unanimously.
Action: Send letter to libraries who may seek new status.
8. Pioneer System Personnel: Costs for staffing options were outlined based on Model 2.2. Discussion centered on concerns about job descriptions and whether tasks could be done less expensively by dispersing among the membership. The Council also needs to agree on priority tasks, identify specifics, exercise control over who, when and how tasks are done. One specific task identified, that Arleta cannot finish, is de-deduplication of records. Consider contracting with LTI. Possible solution is supporting systems staff travel budget and a fund pool for ad hoc contracting. Ken said $5,000 more is too much for UCSLD, and Council should come up with a price for travel allowance and otherwise look at priorities before voting additional staff. BMCC may be able to contribute some value with staff. Currently the policy is that the library which requests Beth’s services pays mileage, time and lodging.
Patty spoke for a “contractual” fund, noting if there isn’t a small allocation included in the annual fee, that when budgets tighten it will be difficult to get money when needed; against the “contractual” fund, where does the money sit when not spent. However it happens, the Council needs to commit to getting things done.
Conclusion: Beth will name projects and prices and members will get their own entities to budget for contractual projects.
Aletha/Ken moved/seconded that the Pioneer Council authorize 1.0 FTE Systems Administrator be incorpated into the membership fee. Vote: 8-1 for. Patty opposed the motion with the caveat that the contractual portion also be included in the membership fee.
Council will address the contractual and travel allowance needs at the next meeting.
9. Chair Pro Tem for January. Darcy will be the Chair Pro Tem while Patty is out of town in January. Beth will provide the agenda.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Aletha Bonebrake, Baker County Library District