Library Committee Handbook

Administrative Council

Administrative Council Minutes June 20, 2011

Administrative Council meeting
Monday, June 20 1:30-3pm, room 428


Present: Beth Sandore (chair), Tina Chrzastowski, Mary Laskowski, Lisa Romero, Scott Schwartz, Marek Sroka, Caroline Szylowicz, Tom Teper, Cherie Weible, Gil Witte, Greg Youngen


Guests: Rod Allen, Karen Hogenboom, Jason Strutz


  1. 1.    Budget update (Rod  Allen)

What we do know:


What we don’t know:



  1. Discussion with the EC subgroup charged to look at the structure of Divisions (Karen Hogenboom)

    EC’s  mission for creating the subgroup is to ask questions and gather information to be used to assess the Library’s current division structure. Because units are consolidating and operating with fewer people, most divisions are becoming smaller. The goal of this process is to find ways to be more efficient and effective in light of these changes. Discussion took a question/answer/comment format resulting in the following points about 1) what divisions still do well, 2) in what ways they no longer function optimally, and 3) if we did have more time and flexibility, are there other roles Divisions could perform?











  1. 3.    Library IT updates: IT security awareness training; the upgrade of the G & H drives storage; and Unified communications. (Beth Sandore and Jason Strutz)


Upgrade of the G & H drives storage

A Dell technician will be on-site next Monday-Wednesday helping out with the new storage equipment installation and configuration. We anticipate having additional storage space by Monday afternoon, and the full migration will be complete by the end of June (it takes time for data to propagate). The technician will not "guarantee" no down time. However, we expect we will be able to make the transition with no down time. A note will be sent to LibNews regarding our progress and the relative risks before Thursday.


Jason explained the existing storage structure:


SAN: upgraded to 30TB from 23TB, will be good for about 6 months

      Server OS


      Shared Files (G & H)

This is fast and very expensive and is being installed now and will be in place by Friday.


Mid storage: Digi/DCC+ other units putting things in here. Because this area is unexpectedly growing 10x faster than was planned for, it is a problem we need to solve by January. The problem exists because content generation is fully funded now, generating at rates intended, but sufficient storage hasn’t been allocated.




      HathiTrust (includes all Google)

We don’t’ update these files often, storing high-res files does not need to be fast, but it is expensive. Highly redundant on purpose, i on a Dell DX6000 system, has been delivered and going to be installed shortly.


Library IT is planning to do a census of data sets. We are not prepared to accommodate all this storage. Cloud-storage services exist, but the Library can’t rely upon this as the only source of storage. Library IT met with CITES as a potential storage source, however they are not quite ready to provide that.


Cost is a factor for storage with the SAN ($1500 per TB) and Medusa ($1000 per TB) and hopefully the Digi middle stuff will be closer to $500 per TB.


CITES cost is $25/TB/mo, ran for 8 months resulting in the Library’s G-drive problem, where things started to drop. Amazon is $10/GB/mo (which is too expensive to consider).


This information is being shared with AC to develop a fuller understanding of the complexity of the problem. Analogous to the Library’s purchase of materials without allocating cataloging resources, Library IT’s storage is not solely a financial issue (we have the resources for digitization), but a question of how we process material after it has been digitized and get it into the systems (some, but not sufficient financial resources exist). This is an instance of competing priorities; the SAN and Archive are competing against the middle (digitization). Presenting a deeper picture will help AC understand this is not a plug-n-play problem.


The Digi-middle layer issues are about work flow. There is a need for a logical idea of how long we need to store this huge amount of digital content before it is moved—some served and some not, and some catalogued. Illinois Harvest and some other things will eventually be moved. Hiring of two new preservation librarians will result in an increase in digital content.


Unified communications email, calendar and telephone migration:



IT Security Awareness mandatory training sessions:


In late May the Library completed five IT security awareness training sessions that were mandated by the 2010 campus audit of the Library’s technology programs. The training was offered by the CITES Security and Privacy office, who worked in collaboration with the Library to put together the workshop content. At this point it looks like 80% of the 500 Library staff and faculty who were required to sit for the training found the time to complete a 90 minute session during the academic year. There were a number of suggestions for streamlining or improving the workshops during the course of the year, but Beth Woodard and Beth Sandore are interested in your feedback if you have specific suggestions. They intend to meet with CITES to determine the potential for them to develop online training and other less time-intensive training options. Another suggestion coming out of the workshops is that some type of training needs to be available for new staff and faculty on a revolving basis.

Please email Beth Sandore or Beth Woodard with questions about security.


  1. CIC’s Shared Print Archive – (Tom Teper)

    CIC has been discussing a shared print archive (SPA) that will encompass 85 million volumes. The Library probably does not need to hold 24 million journal volumes, and redundant copies the way they are held now. When a copy is held under a long-term agreement, the Library needs to decide what we will and won’t keep. The CIC Library Deans have agreed to support the cooperative 25-year storage of print copies. As participants, the Library will be free to withdraw material.

Indiana is the host site for Elsevier content (so they won’t have the same level of concentration in other areas, example: engineering journals). To determine contributions, each library has to determine what they have, what they don’t have and who will contribute. Wiley will be a more distributed model for contribution than Elsevier.

A question was posed about how this would work given the failure of the OCLC storage site. The structures are different. The Wiley/Blackwell, agreement was amongst the directors, (not the deans) and only for 5 years (then pulled after a short time). This agreement is for 25 years. Also, if a Library pulls out, content stays in the archive (the agreement is to keep content in for 25 years). What happens to content after 25 years has not been determined yet.


  1. 5.    Upgrade of the ORR: recommendation from CAPT.

This was not discussed due to time constraints. Tom and Beth will send an email update post meeting.



Adjourned 3:00pm

Notes: Chris Johns