SAGE COUNCIL MINUTES
DATE: March 17, 2010
TIME: 9:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
In Person: Karen Clay, Beth Longwell, Teri Washburn, Perry Stokes,
Video: Ken Reading, Kat Davis, Amy Hutchinson, Marie Baldo
Phone: Marsha Richmond, Cheryl Hancock, Darlyne Johnson
CALL TO ORDER: Karen Clay
AGENDA REVIEW: As Presented
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Amy noted she could not locate minutes on Wiki. Beth stated they may not have gotten posted. It was decided to defer approval until email vote or next meeting.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
COMMITTEE & SUB-COMMITTEEE REPORTS:
- Sage Loan/Circ Rules Standardization (Ken Reading)
Ken began by thanking committee members’ participation. Motivation for standardization, he said, is “the hope that our patrons will have more consistent and reasonable access to the collection.” Whenever one goes into such an endeavor it depends on members’ willingness to change & compromise on all levels. Ken led the board in a review of document: 4 pages total, “no fine print”, covers library card eligibility & registration. One of things that ‘jumps out’, he said, is that “local libraries may establish local probationary limits “not to exceed 90 days”. Consolidation of application procedures was a priority. The requirement of birth date is a significant new change. Documentation must show primary legal residence or property ownership. Borrowing privileges section states that card must be presented or ‘valid ID’. Maximum items checked out: 35. New items’ ILL embargo is recommended to be 90 days.
The committee settled on two loan periods: 7 days & 21 days. Each library retains discretion on what items will be classed under each loan period. Fines should be set at $0.20/day for all items regardless of format. Renewals: up to 2 provided no holds on item.
The idea is to post the draft copy of recommendations and take feedback for 2 months. For ease of implementation, the committee attempted to include flexibility on certain areas.
Beth asked about academic members’ need for more ILL holds. Ken replied this doc primarily applies to public library members. Various governance bodies will need to review the document & determine its impact for their locality.
Kat proposed to schedule a discussion at next meeting (May?). Kat voiced Board member reservations to provide open access on all materials regardless of newness. Currently, some Sage members restrict access to certain collection or entire collection. Discussion ensued. The question of implementing a disciplinary repercussion for noncompliance was raised. It may be something to consider depending on the level of member cooperation. Marsha suggested Sage might offer discounts for libraries that fully loan items without embargo periods or on formats. Kat suggested identifying libraries that restrict loans & engage those agencies in discussion/education about negative impact. Perry asked for details on who/what are currently restricting items from Sage loan. Kat said she did not have the information at hand but her ILL staff has list. La Grande media came to mind as one library of contention.
Discussion continued about why ILL restrictions are in place. Beth commented that past justification has been the limitation of staff available to do ILL. Enterprise commented that the burden may not be as large as feared. Perry asked about system ability to deny outside holds when item available from local agency. The proposal is to be posted for comments. - Courier (Beth Longwell)
Beth said courier bags were distributed and feedback is positive. Enterprise requested more courier bags. - Cataloging (Cheryl Hancock)
Cheryl discussed the background of recent need to revive catalog committee meetings. The old way to list series became obsolete but she would like the catalog to continue to fulfill the series listing function. On investigating series items, she began to notice other issues & a lack of catalog committee activity. Approximately 8 persons met in Ontario. That discussion resulted in a written proposal submitted to the council. Karen agreed that there is a need to resurrect Cataloging Committee. She commented that item #6 is a concern – training provided by Sage Council. Cheryl clarified that it doesn’t mean Sage would pay but would facilitate organizing training & provide standards. The wording may need to be changed to “…by Cataloging Committee.” Amy (Lake Co.) had a concern about item #12. There needs to be an alternative for members if they are blocked from cataloging access, such as payment to Sage for cataloging of items. Ken added that this document is a first draft to get discussion started. Karen was also unsure of item #4 – responsibility for “maintaining the consistency & quality of the OPAC” may be unrealistic. Beth said that has always been a goal. She does occasionally identify trends, such as importation of records that need a lot of cleanup. Cheryl suggested Cataloging Committee may take on that role. Karen said that may be a good solution since the committee activity dissipated without a clear purpose. Purpose may simply be to identify areas to correct, persons to mentor/train. Beth agreed that members’ increased communication about observations could be very useful since they spend most time with such records. Terri recommended timely communication with identified problem areas to educate personnel about issues they may be unaware. Karen asked about need for 2 co-chairs. Cheryl said that was done in concern of overwhelming one person. Cheryl asked about past committee makeup. Beth said members were asked to have one member on committee but actual membership was basically voluntary. “Would that work again?” asked Cheryl. Beth thought so.
Karen asked if this should be considered a motion by Cheryl to revive cataloging committee. Ken seconded the motion; passed unanimously. Meeting is to be organized.
Discussion/Voting - Proposed Budget Adoption
The budget was introduced at last meeting. Karen opened the discussion for questions/comments. Amy questioned school levels ($300 / $500). Beth said it’s based on school size – meaning patrons more than collection size. Karen added that this works to alleviate disincentive for libraries to increase holdings. Perry added it’s also a good incentive for members to keep patron database current. Perry motioned for approval. Cheryl seconded. Vote called; passed unanimously. - Columbia Gorge Community College (CGCC)
Library’s request to join Sage Beth commented that CGCC has been a part of Portland Community College’s catalog & are in process of becoming “independently accredited.” They were looking at ILS options, thought of Sage, and are very excited to join us. A MOU has already been signed & submitted.
Karen says they’d be coming in at Associate Level 1 – a fairly significant due share. Amy asked about migration date. Beth said August. They are aware of possible move to Evergreen. Currently, they are already on III so would migration issues should be minimal. The college is based in The Dalles.
Ken asked about courier. Beth said they are on Orbis & that they would continue 5-day/week courier – – would not negatively impact courier. Karen said the curriculum is focused on alternative energy and commented that one characteristic of their holdings is that it is heavy with eBooks. EBooks would only be available to CGCC patrons. If eBooks available only to CGCC will be in Sage, Perry asked, why not also add Lib2Go records to the Sage catalog. Beth supported the proposal. Discussion supported the idea that the item should include a note that it is available only to owning members. Marie stated that wording is “Use of this online resource is restricted to cardholders of owning library.” Beth wondered about how to best accomplish importing & listing the records. Adding item for each owning library, she thought would be too cumbersome.
Millennium is not able to make items visible only to owning members but Evergreen has been reported to do so. She will continue to brainstorm solutions. Perry will pass along LEO Listens membership & link to ODLC Marc files. Karen motioned to accept membership. Marsha seconded. Vote called; passed unanimously. - Vote on Migration of The Sage consortium to the Evergreen ILS
Karen summarized status of project. Rather than getting into timeline details, she suggested we vote on whether or not to migrate “when functionally possible.” This would leave the timeline to be determined at a later date & in control of committee.
Council should understand that Evergreen would likely involve long term cost effectiveness but short term additional expenses. Short term expenses are manageable.
The Choice is to use LSTA grant for migration or development.
Karen reported EOU is not ready to move yet because of the acquisitions module. April 2011 is estimated as last minute timing for migration.
Beth stated we should be able to move circ & cataloging functions over, but there may be a period when members are not all on same system. Consequence may involve short-term separation.
Terri commented about KCLS being a prominent supporter, developer, & possible partner resource on the project.
Marie commented about rising costs of III & said she would sacrifice functionality for a cost reduction.
Karen asked Beth about preference from a systems admin perspective. Beth said there will be a significant learning curve. But looking beyond that, she sees a lot of potential – flexibility & control. As she has been learning system, she’s encountered things done in a more simplified manner that made her think “that’s very cool, why can’t Triple I do that?” Every day it seems more systems are moving full-scale with the Evergreen tide.
Perry added that the council should consider the political repercussions upon future LSTA funding for this or other Sage projects should the vote be negative.
Karen moved that Sage “commit to migrate to Evergreen ILS during the coming grant year with individual libraries migrating when functionally & operationally possible.” Kat seconded. Cheryl had to leave early, but cast her vote in favor. Shannon, Karen said, is on record as in favor. Kat left. Vote called; passed unanimously. Marie commented with Ben Franklin quote “We’ll all hang together.”
Next Meeting:
Terri commented that members of Cataloging group in Ontario found it extremely beneficial to meet in person. After discussion, it was proposed that members make it a point to meet face-to-face 2 times per year, possible in John Day as central location – May & Oct. Karen worried that members with no travel budget may be excluded. If work coverage or financial issues are obstacle perhaps Sage could provide some travel budget funds.
Amy commented that John Day is still very far for travel. Amy said bundling with LEO meeting would be ideal. Ken said the next LEO meeting is in April.
The May meeting is to be scheduled after online discussion, likely 3rd or 4th week in May at John Day or Burns. Members should check & reserve Mon, May 24th.