Date: July 14, 2004 Issue: # 23
|
|
Congratulations To:Dana Wright (UGL) has been selected to be a participant in the Minnesota Institute for Early Career Librarians at the University of Minnesota, October 16-23. Priscilla C. Yu (City Planning and Landscape Architecture) has been appointed ALA, Chair, International Relations Committee-Bogle Pratt Travel Fund Subcommittee. The Research and Publications Committee is pleased to announce the
funding of an RPC grant to Diane Schmidt (Biology) for editorial
assistance on a project entitled: Guide to Reference and Information
Sources in the Botanical Sciences, 3rd ed, which she is writing in
conjunction with Melody Allison, Maria Porta, and Katie Clark.
|
|
|
News & Announcements from UnitsCommerce
Library Rings in Academic Year With New Name
The University renamed the Commerce Library as BEL: Business and Economics Library. The new name better reflects the services and collections available to the College and to the Department of Economics. Becky Smith, head of BEL, reports that the students and faculty have been enthusiastic about the name change, which was suggested by a business school student on a library advisory committee. Students have said the name resonates with them. Visit BEL's web site at www.library.uiuc.edu/bel.
|
News & Announcements from Library Administration: |
|
|
|
News from the Field:ARL Board Minutes One Hundred Forty-Seventh Meeting of the Board of Directorsof the Association of Research Libraries
February 12–13, 2004 ARL Conference Room Washington, DC
Present: Sarah Thomas, President Fred Heath, Past President Camila Alire Rush Miller Brian E.C. Schottlaender Sherrie Schmidt Paul Willis Betsy Wilson
Thursday, February 12, 20041. Schedule and Agenda for 2004 Program Review Meeting ARL President Sarah Thomas opened the meeting at 12:30 p.m. with a review of the schedule and agenda.
2. Strategic Positioning of the Association Ms. Thomas described this agenda item as an opportunity for the Board to exchange perspectives on the Stanford decision to withdraw their membership in ARL, the reaction of ARL member representatives, and how best to chart strategic directions for the Association. She described the circumstances around Stanford’s decision and her sense of the subsequent reactions of ARL member representatives. Ms. Thomas summarized the themes that she had heard from about 35 member representatives. The first theme was agreement on the value that ARL provides its members but also some concern that the Association should be more disciplined in adding initiatives and/or in dropping activities. She described two opinions that appear contradictory. One is that ARL’s size keeps it from being nimble in responding to opportunities while others say ARL’s special initiatives are a positive feature that allow subsets of members to come together and move quickly. Larger libraries, Ms. Thomas reported, have collaborative opportunities beyond ARL. In addition, there is some mystery or discontent with the current process for making nominations to the Board. She concluded by saying she did not propose an overreaction to these concerns but felt that now surfaced, they should be taken seriously. Ms. Thomas reviewed the actions taken by the Executive Committee and their decision to add to the regular planning session of this Board meeting a facilitated discussion about what ARL should be doing, how we should be doing it, and what the ARL governance system should be. She turned the meeting over to James J. Dunlop, a higher education consultant, to facilitate the Board’s exchange of perspectives on strategic positioning of ARL. Mr. Dunlop began by asking each Board member to identify what they see as the top three issues facing ARL as an organization. Following a listing of issues, Mr. Dunlop encouraged the Board to summarize the issues into categories. The result was the following grouping: ARL’s organizational structure; communicating a clear set of priorities and relating program activities to ARL’s mission (or floating them out to be pursued by others); being transparent and maintaining closer contacts with members to understand all points of views; developing member representative leadership and staff leadership for the next decade; and, given the turnover in member representatives, a need to develop memory within an institution of the value and benefits of ARL membership that goes beyond the experience of any single CEO. At the conclusion of the facilitated discussion, Ms. Thomas suggested that the Board continue their discussions over dinner. [Note: This agenda item is continued under item 3, below.] Ms. Thomas introduced the review of the ARL Program Plan by explaining that this is an annual planning process for the Board. The draft report was prepared by program staff based on discussions and input from the standing committees, task forces, and previous Board reviews. The plans for each program outline the priorities for the coming year and describe the resources allocated. Jaia Barrett pointed out that, like the annual budget, the plan is organized by ARL’s strategic objectives.
A. Scholarly Communication Mary Case reported that the Office of Scholarly Communication would focus on three main areas in 2004: advancing open access, understanding change within the disciplines, and promoting the Year of the University Press. OSC will continue to advocate for open access and the use of institutional repositories within the higher education community. In particular, OSC will work with AAU on open access. Ms. Case distributed the “Statement on Scientific, Technical and Medical Journal Publishing” released today by the AAU Committee on Intellectual Property and Information Technology. It encourages the creation of an ongoing forum to seek consensus on steps to take to address the problems with the current system of STM publishing. The statement reflects the position John Vaughn (AAU) articulated at the October 2003 Board Meeting. Brian Schottlaender asked how an ongoing forum with AAU is to be created and Ms. Case replied that Mr. Vaughn will take the lead in setting it up. A second important OSC goal will be to understand how scholars in each discipline will be doing their work in the next five to ten years and how these changes will impact libraries. A third focus will be the cooperative AAUP/ARL effort to promote 2004 as the Year of the University Press. This is an opportunity to engage in serious discussion about the future of the presses and to create a positive environment on this set of issues. Ann Wolpert asked about recent efforts to address publisher mergers, and Ms. Case said the Information Access Alliance (IAA) has been raising the issue with the Department of Justice without much success. However, in the U.K. there is a noticeable movement with a House of Commons committee questioning publisher mergers and the impact on prices. The goal of the IAA is to expand the economic antitrust arguments and gain wider exposure and support but not, at this point, to pursue a legislative agenda. Marianne Gaunt asked if there were additional strategies that ARL could pursue to address our concerns about publisher mergers. Ms. Case reported that ARL could pursue antitrust immunity with the Department of Justice in order to work collectively on a pricing package with publishers. However, given the many consortial options, this strategy had not previously been supported. Another option is for ARL to bring forward a lawsuit. This has not been pursued for two reasons: the resources it would require as well as the inability to assemble data from member libraries in sufficient detail to build a legal case. The Board discussed the value of an OSC web site that describes or links to campus-based actions on open access publishing models. Mr. Schottlaender, in speaking about efforts at the University of California, asked how granular a file OSC was interested in building on campus open access activities. Ms. Case replied that she was very interested in learning more about these efforts. Joe Branin commented it is becoming difficult to keep constructive relationships in place with some publishers. Ms. Case responded that while we want and need to work with publishers willing to transform themselves and their business models, in the case of others, it may be time to lay our cards on the table. Board members discussed how the Association should work with scholarly societies. Ms. Wolpert suggested an important task for ARL would be to articulate the impact that the new economic model of open access would have on scholarly societies and on universities. A number of Board members mentioned the importance of scholarly societies to the academy; it is important that the academy not oppose open access. Frances Groen suggested that it would be useful, when AAU studies the issue of open access, for ARL to suggest economic models that work. Ms. Case supported this suggestion, mentioning that Mr. Vaughn wants an unbiased study and ARL needs to be able to give him as much evidence as possible. B. SPARC Rick Johnson described the focus of SPARC’s agenda in the coming year as casting open access as a public policy issue. Such a stance will build support and add pressure for supportive changes. As part of the Open Access Working Group (which includes library associations, including ARL, and OSI, Public Knowledge, and PLoS), SPARC will work with patient advocacy groups to promote open access. Fred Heath said that in the last 60-90 days, a number of international declarations have been published supporting open access. Mr. Branin spoke about the mixed support for open access on his campus. Ms. Wolpert commented that it is important to develop talking points that library directors can take back when speaking to Vice Presidents for Sponsored Research. She proposed that issues of open access and scholarly communication be folded into larger issues being discussed on campus. For example, she suggested open access might be presented as part of a coherent strategy for institutional management of intellectual property. C. Collections and Access Duane Webster introduced Eudora Loh, UCLA, who will be the Visiting Program Officer in charge of the Global Resources Network (GRN) when Dan Hazen returns to Harvard on June 1. Board members welcomed Ms. Loh. Mary Jackson reported that the new Collections & Access Issues Committee looked at the best way to integrate the range of topics covered in the merger of the two previous committees. The committee would like to focus this year on two key areas: strategies to expand the amount and variety of content available to users and integrating that content with teaching and research. Mr. Hazen spoke about the priorities of the GRN for the coming year, focusing on the GRN projects arena and the development of a network of distributed resources. (1) Projects: the administrative support of two of the current projects (German and Latin America) will move to CRL and the GRN is looking at the possibility of establishing new projects dealing with the Middle East. (2) Network: the GRN is discussing a research project with OCLC to identify areas of international collection duplication and also hopes to develop one to two symposia to discuss the needs of the scholarly community. Ms. Gaunt asked what is the role of AAU in the GRN, and Mr. Hazen answered that it is expected to provide guidance, participation, interest, and engagement for the academic community. Ms. Gaunt inquired if it is an option that CRL could house some of the collections. Mr. Hazen replied that the projects are not working on building tangible collections but a project could build a collection through CRL if it wished to do so. Ms. Jackson reported on the special collections agenda for 2004 and said the Exposing Hidden Collections conference generated great energy about how to identify and describe special collections. The strategy is to make unprocessed special collections more available. There is also a priority to help grow the next generation of special collections librarians. D. Preservation E. Coalition for Networked Information Clifford Lynch said that scholarly and scientific societies are very concerned about open access because the money they make on publishing supports many other activities. It becomes, for some societies, an issue of self-preservation. He mentioned that the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has nothing about open access on the agenda of their upcoming annual meeting. Mr. Lynch reported that the CNI Fall Meeting held in Portland, Oregon, was very successful and attendance was up 20%. CNI will go back to Portland for the fall 2005 meeting. The agenda for the spring 2004 meeting in Alexandria is being set. Edward Ayers will deliver the opening address and Brewster Kahle, who will receive the Paul Evan Peters Award, will close the meeting. Mr. Lynch said he was pleased to report that CNI has hit its budget projections and has done well in retaining members. Peter Graham has resigned from the CNI Steering Committee for health reasons. Nancy Eaton and Ms. Wolpert are the other ARL representatives on the committee. Cyberinfrastructure is moving along rapidly and the National Science Foundation (NSF) held a January workshop on the subject. Mr. Lynch said he finds it troubling that many do not understand or recognize the link between disciplinary and institutional repositories in data management. These are two parallel ways of storing information and they need to work together. This also spills into strategies for maintaining directories and authentication services. There is a synergy between the two kinds of repositories and a need to build compatible infrastructure. The CNI Executive Roundtable on institutional repositories held in December was very successful and the next one, to be held at the spring meeting, will focus on identity management and related issues. F. Performance Measures Martha Kyrillidou reported that the measurement of electronic resources is of key importance for 2004. Libraries want to count electronic journals and need a better descriptor. For that reason, the data elements from the Supplementary Statistics have been moved into the ARL Annual Statistics and E-metrics will become an annual data collection activity.
For the past decade, the focus of the Performance Measures program has been on the user. LibQUAL+™ now represents nine different types of libraries and twelve consortia and is available in eight language variations including three non-English versions. Over the past five years, LibQUAL+™ has been tested in every state but North Dakota and Alaska and data is available on over one million records. Betsy Wilson asked where LibQUAL+™ would be in five years, and Ms. Kyrillidou replied that she expects to scale up the project and work more in collaboration with consortia. Rush Miller wanted to know if LibQUAL+™ offered data analysis services. Ms. Kyrillidou said that some is offered but the emphasis is on training others to do data analysis. Ms. Groen inquired about contacts with IFLA and was told that a number of members of the ARL Statistics and Measurement Committee serve on IFLA committees. Ms. Groen offered to help create a link between LibQUAL+™ and the University and College Library Section of IFLA. [Note: The Program Plan review is continued under item 15, below.]
The meeting was adjourned at 5:25 p.m., followed by an orientation for new Board members. Board members then divided into two groups for dinner and to continue the discussion about shaping the future of ARL.
Ms. Thomas called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. with an invitation for Board members to review their dinner discussions, explaining that Board members had grouped themselves to discuss two topics: governance and planning. After considerable discussion, the Board decided to establish a task force to address each issue, to issue a call for volunteers to serve on the task forces, and to schedule membership discussions on the two agendas at the May Membership Meeting. For the Task Force on Governance, the Board considered the need for proposing and implementing some governance changes quickly, for example, to amend the process for nominating a slate for the Board of Directors or for electing a President. At the same time, there was awareness that some governance issues would better be addressed after the work of the Task Force on Strategic Planning. Ultimately, the Board decided that the governance questions might be addressed in two stages: first the electoral process, and then after the strategic planning group makes its proposals, the structure of ARL’s governance might be addressed. All agreed that it is key that the work of the two groups be coordinated, perhaps by overlapping membership, joint meetings, and by securing an external consultant to assist both groups.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Schottlaender to convene the Task Force on Strategic Planning and Ms. Groen to convene the Task Force on Governance. The following additional points were made during the course of the morning discussion: · In addition to creating more opportunities for Board members and ARL staff to engage member representatives directly, there should be an opportunity at the Membership Meetings for people to sign up for dinner groups to enable directors new to ARL, alternates, and those with more experience to come together. · Jim Dunlop is valuable as a facilitator and ARL members are recommended to review his book Leading the Association: Striking the Right Balance Between Staff and Volunteers. 5. Executive Director Performance Review The Board went into executive session to conduct the annual performance review of the Executive Director. At the conclusion, the Board decided to renew the contract of the Executive Director for a three-year period.
6. Review of Board Minutes The Board reviewed the minutes of the previous meeting held on October 14 and 16, 2003. Mr. Miller moved to adopt the minutes. Mr. Schottlaneder seconded the motion and the minutes were approved. [Note: The minutes were distributed to the full membership by e-mail on March 16, 2004.]
7. Financial Strategies Task Force Report Ms. Wolpert summarized the reasons for establishing the Financial Strategies Task Force and reviewed its charge. In July 2003, given the changing environmental conditions for research libraries, the ARL Board endorsed an Executive Committee proposal to review and update the assumptions and principles that were established in 1989 and which have guided the Board’s financial decision processes. In addition, the task force was asked to address the following questions: · Is the goal of a $1M reserve fund still adequate and, once the goal is achieved, how should the fund be used? · Is the current level of ARL dues adequate to carry out the ARL priorities? · What are the advantages and disadvantages of ARL adopting a dues structure that is stratified or graduated? · Can ARL defer responsibility for mission-based activities to other organizations? · Are there other financial strategies ARL should consider? The Task Force consists of Tom Leonard (UC-Berkeley) Carol Moore (Toronto), Louis Pitschman (Alabama), Martin Runkle (Chicago), Sarah Thomas (Cornell), Betsy Wilson (Washington), and Ann Wolpert (MIT) who serves as chair. Ms. Wolpert commented on the deliberations of the task force and how useful it had been to her and to other task force members to see that ARL has a three-part financial strategy: dues funding for core program activities, participant fees or grant funding for project activities, and the establishment of parallel organizations (such as CNI and SPARC) for pursuing issues on an ongoing basis with communities that are external to ARL. She described the combination of these strategies as sophisticated and clever but not very visible to members. One recommendation coming from the task force, she emphasized, is to do a better job of helping all members see the three strategies by framing financial decisions within this context. The initial step of the task force was to review and, as appropriate, update the 1989 statement of assumptions and principles. Following a task force meeting in October 2003 and a conference call in January 2004, a draft report with a new set of assumptions and principles was prepared and provided to the task force members and the Board for comment. A few task force members have asked for an additional conference call to discuss what the report should say about other financial strategies that ARL might pursue, such as fund raising, friends groups, and vendor support. [Note: this task force conference call is scheduled for May 4.] Ms. Wolpert invited Board member input on this financial strategy or on any other aspect of the task force assignment. One Board member commented on the quality of the draft report, noting it provided a full understanding in a succinct manner. Two Board members asked about the wording of a principle regarding the use of cost recovery strategies when products and services are made available to nonmembers. Ms. Wolpert explained that the intent was to give permission to ARL to recover these costs. There was a suggestion that the wording be amended to clarify that generally ARL should aim to exceed the recovery of costs on products and services that are offered to nonmembers, within the limits of its 501-c-3 status of a nonprofit organization. Mr. Branin said he was surprised that the task force seemed to be endorsing the status quo and asked why it did not recommend raising the dues. Ms. Wolpert responded that the task force concluded that the current level of dues is adequate after considering all three complementary financial strategies. She commented that not only does the three-part strategy provide a good framework, its also presents the Association with a great deal of flexibility. The task force report makes explicit those assumptions and principles that guide ARL’s financial strategy. In her view, having core services driven by dues provides the Board with an explicit framework for considering new initiatives. Such decisions are confusing if the financial assumptions and principles are not clearly understood. She sees the report as presenting a more deliberate framework for considering financial support for new initiatives, for example, as either a core service, an activity supported by a subset of members, or one best pursued through a parallel organization with partners. Mr. Shottlaender commented that the financial strategy also provides a framework for considering a dues increase to support a new initiative, GRN being a perfect example. Ms. Wolpert called the Board’s attention to the report appendix entitled “ARL Financial Strategies that Complement Dues and Cost Recovery Funds.” There was agreement that it was a useful explanation of the three financial strategies. Sherrie Schmidt and Mr. Schottleander proposed edits to a description of the Scholars Portal project that appeared in the appendix. Ms. Thomas suggested that Board members with further comments on financial strategies should contact Ms. Wolpert directly. She also confirmed that the goal is to present the report to the full membership at the May Membership Meeting. 8. FY 2003 Year-end Unaudited Financial Report The Board reviewed the L.D. Spring unaudited 2003 year-end financial report that showed all unrestricted funds combined (representing the combination of General Funds, including the OLMS, and ORD unrestricted, but excluding the Board Reserve) with revenue of $3,440,900 and expenses of $3,402,800 (before the transfer of $3900 to the Board Reserve fund) resulting in a surplus of $34,200. The total unrestricted net assets at the end of the year were $1,044,200, an increase of $148,000 (this included $99,000 of unrealized and realized gains from the stock market) compared with the audited unrestricted net assets for 2002. The ARL general fund balance was $150,200. The ARL Board Designated Fund Reserve was $812,500 before the recognition of unrealized investment gains of $64,500 for a total of $877,000. Mr. Webster reported that the audit of 2003 financial activities will be conducted by Gelman, Rosenberg, and Freedman in March 2004. Since the unaudited financial statements were cut off on January 23, there may be minor adjustments required but management does not anticipate them to be material to the financial statements. The audited report will be available for the May 2004 Board Meeting. The Board discussed the history and relationship between the Board designated reserve fund and the fund balance. Mr. Heath described recent efforts to build up the fund balance to a level adequate for an organization the size of ARL. One of the reasons the reserve fund was established was to provide financial stability but even as it grew, for a number of years the fund balance was far too small at the end of each fiscal year. Through actions taken by the Board in recent years, an operating fund balance was restored and the Board reserve continues to grow while also contributing to a modest revenue stream to support strategic initiatives. A Board member commented that in 2003 the OLMS revenue was 18% below projections and asked if the strategy of “cost recovery plus” that was discussed in the context of the Financial Strategies Task Force recommendations would help close that revenue gap, for example, by encouraging OLMS to raise their prices to nonmembers. There were different views among Board members about if, in this case, this would be a promising strategy. The Board reviewed a five-year chart that showed how dues have been allocated to core ARL programs over this time period. They also reviewed charts displaying how dues, cost recovery, and restricted funds have supported core programs over the past four years and how this is projected for 2004. The Board commented on how helpful it was to have a picture of financial trends over multiple years and congratulated Mr. Webster for managing another year of ARL activities within a balanced budget. At the October Business Meeting, the ARL membership endorsed a dues increase of $570. This 3% increase results in $72,700 of increased funds. The additional funds provide the Association with resources to cover estimated increases in operational costs including an increase in rent and a merit pool for staff salaries of up to 3%. Implementing the 2004 ARL financial strategy results in a balanced budget for the Executive Office (revenue of $3,737,000 and expenditures of $3,736,500). The Office of Research and Development is projecting a balanced budget with $1,753,100 revenue (restricted and unrestricted). The Board reviewed the draft budget proposed for 2004. Mr. Webster explained how the rent increase is reflected in this budget. It has increased for three reasons: an inflationary increase in the rent, additional space, and a new lease that no longer includes the rent abatement that was a provision of the previous lease. In response to a question, Mr. Webster reported that the square foot cost of the ARL office space is approximately $35. The Board asked for a report that compares ARL’s FTE/per square foot rental costs with other higher education organizations in the area. There was also a request for a report explaining whether the costs to members are increased by the additional square footage leased on the 6th floor or if these costs were all passed on to other organizations. In response to a question from Mr. Shottlaender, Mr. Webster confirmed that the proposed 2004 budget includes a reallocation of $35,000 in dues from the Access program to the Collections program. This is in response to recommendations to reallocate more dues support to the Global Resources Network. Mr. Schottlaender moved to adopt the 2004 budget. It was seconded by Ms. Schmidt and passed. 10. Executive Committee Discussions and Actions The Executive Committee acts on behalf of the Board and provides ongoing counsel to the executive staff between Board Meetings. A report was made on Executive Committee discussions and actions taken since the last Board Meeting.
Ms. Thomas and Ms. Barrett reviewed plans for the program and meeting in Tucson. They noted a need to reschedule some parts of the meeting to allow more time for member-only discussions with the newly formed task forces.
B. Review of Plans for the October 2004 Membership Meeting and October Forum The Board discussed ideas for the October forum following the Membership Meeting and decided the topic should be one that would advance the strategic planning work. There was a recommendation that the topic be on cyber-infrastructure supporting all disciplines and the implications for research libraries, building on the point made earlier by Mr. Lynch about the need to clarify roles and strategies for institutional and disciplinary repositories.
C. Financial Strategies for 2005 The Board reviewed a set of financial assumptions for 2005.
D. Membership Issues Ms. Thomas reviewed plans for a Membership Visiting Committee to travel to the University of Calgary in the spring. She also reported that the Membership Committee was reviewing the membership of the University of Guelph and the Board should expect a report on this in July. She also reviewed the process for consideration of new members.
E. Status of Additional Space for ARL in 21 Dupont Circle Mr. Webster reported that SPARC, BioOne, and the National Humanities Alliance had relocated to the newly acquired space on the 6th floor, opening up space on the 8th floor for ARL staff members who had previously shared office space. He encouraged Board members to visit the 6th floor to see the new space, including a small conference room.
F. Release of the Stanford Letter to Membership On balance, the Board decided the Stanford letter should be sent to the full membership. [Note: Ms. Thomas e-mailed the Stanford letter to the full membership on February 18, 2004].
G. Staff Updates Mr. Webster reported that Mary Case is resigning as Director of the Office of Scholarly Communication, effective May 28, to assume the position of Director of the Library at the University of Illinois-Chicago. This led to a discussion of the future direction of OSC and the kinds of skills important for the position. There were suggestions to recruit people who have expertise and ties with the scientific community, especially regarding discipline-based repositories and other models outside the traditions of scholarly publishing.
H. Investments Mr. Webster reported that the performance of ARL’s investment was 6% for the last quarter of 2003 and 15% for the year 2003.
I. Avoiding the Appearance of Conflict of Interests Ms. Thomas called the Board’s attention to a practice established in 2001 to ask each Board member annually to complete a form describing their professional memberships and organizational roles. She asked all Board members to complete the form and return it to Ms. Barrett prior to the next Board meeting when the completed forms will be distributed to all Board members for their review. The purpose of sharing this information among Board members is to ensure awareness of the multiple roles and responsibilities within the Board and to help avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest in making policy decisions or fiduciary commitments on behalf of the Association.
J. George Farr's Retirement from NEH Ms. Thomas proposed a special tribute for Mr. Farr in light of his distinguished and remarkable career at the National Endowment for the Humanities. The Board concurred fully with her proposal.
11. Digitization of Government Document Collections Ms. Thomas reviewed the background on this agenda item. Enhancing access to government information with a focus on reconfiguring the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) is the leading priority of the ARL Information Policies Committee. Since the spring of 2003, this committee has worked with others in the community to examine and re-conceptualize the dissemination of and access to government information in the networked environment. The May 2003 Membership Meeting Federal Relations program featured Judy Russell, Superintendent of Documents, G.P.O., discussing the future of the Federal Depository Library Program and inviting ARL directors to play a part in shaping that future. Nineteen (of a total of 22) directors of ARL libraries that are Regional Depository Libraries met in July 2003 to consider the future of the program, and at the ARL Membership Meeting in October 2003, there was a membership-wide presentation on the initiative, again at the Federal Relations program. These discussions led to a prospectus outlining a project to create a digital public domain version of legacy government document collections. The Information Policies Committee established a Working Group on Digitizing Government Document Collections to guide development of a strategy to advance such an initiative. The working group is chaired by Ken Frazier (Wisconsin) and consists of Bill Gosling (Michigan), Charles Lowry (Maryland), Sarah Michalak (Utah), Lance Query (Tulane), and Carla Stoffle (Arizona). Prue Adler serves as staff liaison. With broad support, the working group commissioned a business plan to explore possible models for a national effort to digitize retrospective government document collections considered to be of historical or evidentiary value. The plan presents two possible approaches that would be undertaken over ten years. Although plans A and B are substantially different in scale, both represent ambitious undertakings. The Board received a copy of the business case as background for the current discussion. Ms. Thomas welcomed Mr. Frazier and Ms. Adler (who joined the Board by telephone conference call) to discuss the proposal to initiate a plan for digitizing federal government document collections. Mr. Frazier described the ongoing collaboration between the working group and the Government Printing Office about such an initiative. He also characterized the range of groups that the working group has identified as interested in coming together to work on such a collaborative effort. In addition to the G.P.O., many ARL member libraries, other libraries, library associations, federal agencies, and vendors share a strong interest in moving forward to create a digital, public-domain version of retrospective government document collections. Several of these organizations have expressed a strong interest in collaborating with ARL on this initiative and a willingness to share the costs. Such a national-scale, cooperative, digitization initiative is seen as a critical element for restructuring the FDLP, redefining how libraries will provide access to these important public-domain resources, and building the infrastructure for future cooperative projects to digitize resources. The ARL Board had a draft of the business plan for review; Mr. Frazier highlighted its key points: · This cooperative effort will greatly expand and enhance access to our retrospective government document collections, relieve space pressures, and potentially result in significant cost savings. · The focus of the initiative is both national (restructuring of the FDLP) and local (redefining access to government documents collections). · The initiative envisions a key role for the U.S. Government Printing Office in the long-term preservation of and access to government information. · There is a growing consensus that digital reformatting is a legitimate preservation strategy. · This is an important initiative that ARL is well positioned to launch and then “hand it off” to another parallel organization that would operate the initiative for participants, including ARL members, others in the library community, and other partners.
The ARL Board discussed these assessments and posed questions similar to those raised within the working group, including: · What is the appropriate scope of the content to be digitized? · What is a realistic assessment of what the federal government should and could do for digitizing retrospective collections? · What is the extent of support within and beyond ARL for taking a lead role in coordinating the project? · How could the initiative address the challenge and politics of identifying appropriate digitization standards to support access and preservation requirements? · How will terms of access to the content be defined once it is digitized? Mr. Frazier and Ms. Adler addressed these questions for the Board. Mr. Frazier said the working group was recommending that the business case be distributed to the ARL membership with ample opportunity for consideration prior to the May Membership Meeting. This would contribute to an informed discussion at that meeting about ARL member interest in participating. It would also provide an occasion for the full membership to address the questions noted above. Mr. Branin moved that the business case for the initiative be taken to the full membership as proposed by the working group. Mr. Miller seconded the motion and it passed. Ms. Thomas thanked Mr. Frazier and Ms. Adler for their participation by telephone. 12. Fair Use and E-Reserves Last fall the ARL program staff and the ARL Intellectual Property and Copyright Committee, working with the Shared Legal Capability, developed a public statement on fair use and e-reserves. During the winter, the Association of American Publishers (AAP) contacted UC San Diego and challenged the legality of the UCSD e-reserve practices. The Board encouraged staff to develop opportunities for member representatives to discuss fair use and e-reserves at the May Membership Meeting.
13. Update on Information Policy and Federal Relations There are a number of difficult and controversial pieces of legislation that Congress will be focusing on during this session. The FY 2005 budget proposed by the Bush administration limits spending in a number of areas of interest, including basic research, while proposing significant increases in others such as NEH and IMLS. At the same time, Congress will tackle unfinished business such as the highly controversial database protection legislation as well as the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. John Hammer, Executive Director of the National Humanities Alliance (NHA), joined the Board for a luncheon discussion of these and other legislative initiatives. Mr. Hammer opened his discussion by talking about NEH and the impending departure of George Farr, as well the budget increases proposed for the agency. He mentioned that, given the federal deficit, strong advocacy efforts are needed to ensure NEH receives the substantial increases proposed by President Bush. Mr. Hammer also spoke about the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, in particular Title VI dealing with foreign language and international studies. The House bill (HR 2077) creates an advisory board with wide-ranging powers of investigation that would involve the federal government in academic decisions. Ms. Thomas thanked Mr. Hammer for taking the time to update Board members on these legislative initiatives. 14. AAU/ARL Global Resources Network The membership has signaled support for the broad goal of strengthening North American access to international and foreign language resources. In response, the advisory committee for this program has developed a vision statement defining two main goals: (1) expanding access to resources not currently available with projects aimed at expanding the depth, breath, quantity, and range of formats for these resources and (2) making our dispersed collections more interdependent and complementary through coordinated acquisitions that are combined with powerful systems for access, discovery, presentation, and delivery. As of February 2, 73 member libraries have voluntarily contributed $1,500 each to provide bridge funding to support the GRN during the current year. To provide GRN projects with administrative support, a partnership with the Center for Research Libraries has been defined. At this point, the ARL Board was asked to consider (1) endorsement of the financial strategy that moves GRN to be a part of the dues-supported core ARL collections program, (2) endorsement of the proposal for the working relationship with CRL, and (3) endorsement of the financial arrangements described in the GRN Principles for Participation and Fees memo. Board members reviewed a draft, multi-year budget projecting use of transition funding in 2004 and dues in 2005 and beyond. For 2005, the budget proposed a combination of reallocation of $52K plus “new” dues of $81K. Ms. Groen asked about the possibility of continuing the transition funding for an additional year in order to minimize the impact on the need for new dues. Mr. Willis suggested that we could go forward as anticipated by the draft budget but move instead to additional transition funding if the test of the dues increase was not well received by members. Mr. Miller asked if the budget and accompanying documents assumed that all members of ARL are members of GRN. Mr. Hazen confirmed that was correct, adding that non-ARL members could also join the Network but only with a fee. Mr. Miller suggested it would be useful to cost out the projected income from non-ARL members joining the GRN. Mr. Hazen commented that while there are overseas libraries that might join, this was not expected to be a strong source of revenue. Ms. Wolpert asked if the arrangement between GRN and CRL could mean that CRL would need to raise dues. Mr. Webster said that the guidance received from leaders of both ARL and CRL had been to ensure that ARL members were not asked to pay twice, once through CRL dues and again through ARL dues. As a result, the CRL operation of and support for the projects is to be performed on a cost recovery basis. Mr. Webster also noted that the agreement between ARL and CRL is based on a memorandum of understanding; CRL is not viewed in a contractor role. GRN funds will flow from ARL to CRL to provide for an infrastructure that will support GRN projects. In addition, CRL expenses that are specific to each project will be paid for by project funds (fees and/or grants). Ms. Schmidt asked how the GRN projects relate to CRL AMP projects. Mr. Hazen said that one of the primary reasons for moving the projects to CRL is to build synergy among projects concentrating on international resources. At present, the relationship between the GRN and AMP projects is minimal but the expectation is that the two will work together. Mr. Branin said he did not assume that funds in the GRN discussion budget would come from an increase in dues but rather from current ARL programs, and he asked for an explanation of the impact of implementing the budget without an increase in dues. Ms. Wolpert and Ms. Schmidt agreed that a voluntary assessment is a possible alternative to dues support. Ms. Schmidt added that until the ARL strategic planning process was completed, it may be necessary to have another year of transition funding while still trying to decide what current program activity could be downsized or eliminated. Ms. Thomas referred to the previous discussion on ARL financial strategies and asked if GRN should be supported as a core program of ARL. Mr. Willis responded by asking if this is something we can pursue best by doing so collectively. Ms. Wolpert suggested GRN should be compared and contrasted to the government information retro-conversion plan. Both are functioning now as special projects funded by subsets of members but both are proposing taking different paths for future funding. She suggested that what is needed is better criteria for deciding the best financial strategy for ARL initiatives. Ms. Thomas suggested the two initiatives should compete with each other, and with other ARL initiatives, noting that the dues funding is not elastic. The Board decided to endorse the financial strategy that moves GRN to be a part of the dues-supported core ARL collections program. The Board also endorsed the proposal for the working relationship with CRL and the financial arrangements described in the GRN Principles for Participation and Fees memo. Mr. Schottlaender asked that the minutes clarify that two distinct possibilities remain on the table: a dues increase or to stop doing something else with dues in order to reallocate them to this program. The staff and board should be prepared to talk about tradeoffs, where they are, and the impact of these choices on other program areas. GRN should also be assessed as an enterprise to be moved outside of ARL. 15. 2004 ARL Program Plan Discussion (continued) A. Staffing and Management DeEtta Jones reviewed the highlights of the OLMS programming for the coming year. The capability is working with LibQUAL+™ to offer customized outcomes-based assessment consulting to libraries. In addition, OLMS will be working with PeopleAssets to design and offer customized leadership development tools for associate university librarians. OLMS is also working with the Distance Learning program to offer various blended learning opportunities, including the Library Leadership for New Managers program. Ms. Jones reported that she will meet the following week with representatives from five libraries to work on developing a pilot for the Research Libraries Leadership Fellows Program, designed to meet the needs of experienced librarians who are ready for increased leadership roles in their institutions. Camila Alire said she hoped there would be flexibility in the number of institutions able to participate in the fellows program because there is a definite need for such training. OLMS has also submitted an IMLS grant proposal to develop an executive MLS program designed for people who already have an advanced degree in another field. This concept grew out of ARL’s partnership with ALISE. ARL will work with three library and information science programs (Catholic University, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Simmons College) to design and offer the ARL Academy: Careers in Academic and Research Libraries. The goal is to prepare, over three years, 45 new librarians who have previously earned master’s degrees in other fields for leadership roles in ARL libraries. Board members expressed their strong support for the proposal. Karen Wetzel spoke about increasing distance learning opportunities for all ARL programs, not just OLMS, through blended learning programs, online courses, web casts, and other live web-delivery options. She also talked about developing successful marketing strategies for the Online Lyceum and being strategic in planning online courses. Lee Anne George updated Board members on the success of the SPEC program. Six new surveys are on the way and the emphasis will be to make the production cycle more efficient and cost effective. Jerome Offord reported that recruitment and retention are the key issues before the Diversity program. With the new funding provided by an IMLS grant, the number of stipends awarded through the Initiative to Recruit a Diverse Workforce will be increased to 15 per year and the award amount per participant will increase from $5000 to $10,000. Mr. Offord also hopes to increase the number of participants in the Leadership and Career Development Program and to add new sponsors, such as the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL). He spoke about creating a Canadian version of the LCDP. B. Board Discussion of the 2004 Program Plan and 2004 Priorities Board members supported the direction in which the ARL programs are moving and the strategic goals proposed for 2004. As a result, the Board considered what ARL’s overall priorities should be for the year. The consensus was that they should be expressed in the same framework as used in the New Year’s Message. Ms. Barrett was asked to work with the Executive Committee on development of the ARL Priorities statement. Board members also spoke about their support and enthusiasm for the new task forces on governance and strategic planning and said it is important to anticipate where research libraries are going in the 21st century. 16. Questions and Discussion on Current Developments The Board was briefed on the following developments since the previous meeting. There were no questions.
A. AAU/AAP/AAUP/ARL Copyright Booklet ARL has been working with AAU, AAUP, and AAP on a brochure intended to educate campus policymakers on copyright. This effort grew out of both ARL’s concerns with the educational campaign conducted by the CCC and AAP in the late 1990’s and AAU’s interest in strengthening its position with Congress by attempting to work with AAP on copyright issues. ARL recognized that it was essential for us to be at the table should such discussions take place. After several years of effort and several false starts, the group is close to a final draft of a document to share with appropriate committees and the Board later this year. Staff believes it will be an acceptable and useful document. B. Special Collections Task Force: Status Report and Update The ARL Special Collections Task Force has significantly advanced two of its agenda items since last October: exposing hidden collections and training and recruitment for special collections professionals. Exposing Hidden Collections: The task force is encouraging local and collective actions to provide access to uncataloged, unprocessed, or under-processed archival, manuscript, and rare book materials. One strategy is to promote a shared commitment to certain themes and subjects that will encourage cooperative action among libraries and archives to process this material. To advance this agenda, a web-based survey was issued to assess the interest of libraries and archives in cooperative projects around certain themes and/or formats. The survey is being conducted now in ARL, Oberlin Group, and IRLA libraries. In addition, task force members are developing a statement or essay that will encourage libraries and archives to expose hidden collections through some form of expedited access. Several other related strategies, such an ACRL/RBMS pre-conference on using collection level records to deal with backlogs of unprocessed special collections, are being explored. The archival community has responded with concern to the task force agenda of encouraging access to collections that are less than fully processed. The task force is now planning a small meeting with archivists and some task force members to understand better archival issues and concerns and to establish what we hope will be a constructive dialog with this community. Training and Recruitment of Special Collections Professionals C. University Presidents Urged to Engage Scholarly Communication Issues The November 7, 2003, issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education included a Point of View column by Richard Atkinson, recently retired president of the University of California. In it, he spoke of the new world of scholarly communication and urged university presidents to consider several strategies for involving themselves and their institutions in considering new models and alternative forms of scholarly publishing. One of the strategies proposed by Dr. Atkinson is similar to the theme underlying the AAU interest in the Global Resources Network. Specifically, “helping our libraries to pool their collective efforts.” The Atkinson essay goes on to say that the “homage” paid to the ARL membership index is “self-defeating” and he urged ARL to give credit to its members for building shared collections and for effectively applying technology to their delivery. ARL “should continue to fulfill its historic role, rewarding in rankings those institutions that provide speedy access to, and preserve for posterity, research and teaching material. But in a networked digital age, excessive attention to the local management and ownership of physical materials impedes the responsible stewardship of the scholarly and cultural record.” ARL responded to Dr. Atkinson by thanking him for this public encouragement and describing some of the efforts underway to advance the agenda he identified. The ARL letter also described how the Membership Index includes both electronic and print resources and mentioned the plans underway to add a new category to the annual ARL data collection measuring “volumes held collectively.” Ms. Thomas called the Board’s attention to future meetings dates for the Board. · Board and Membership Meetings: May 11–14, 2004, in Tucson, Arizona at the Lowes Ventana Canyon Hotel. · Board Meeting: July 26–27, 2004, in Washington, D.C. at the ARL Conference Room. · Board and Membership Meetings: October 12–15, 2004, in Washington, D.C. · Board Meeting: February 9–10, 2005, in Washington, D.C. at the ARL Conference Room. NOTE: ALA Midwinter 2005 is January 14–19, 2005, in Boston. · Board and Membership Meetings: May 24–27, 2005, at the Ritz Carlton in Philadelphia. NOTE: This is a week later than normal. · Board Meeting: July 25–26, 2005, in Washington, D.C., at the ARL Conference Room. · Board and Membership Meetings: October 11–14, 2005, in Washington, D.C.
18. Adjournment Ms. Thomas congratulated the Board for all they accomplished at this meeting and extended the Board's appreciation to the ARL program staff. The Board meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
ARL, SPARC, and CNI staff attending all or part of the meeting: Duane Webster, Executive Director Prue Adler, Associate Executive Director, Federal Relations & Information Policy (via phone) Jaia Barrett, Deputy Executive Director Mary Jane Brooks, Executive Officer Mary Case, Director, Office of Scholarly Communication Lee Anne George, Publications Program Officer Dan Hazen, Director, AAU/ARL Global Resources Network Mary Jackson, Director of Collections and Access Programs Rick Johnson, Enterprise Director, SPARC DeEtta Jones, Director, Organizational Learning Services Martha Kyrillidou, Senior Program Officer for Statistics and Measurement Eudora Loh, Co-director, AAU/ARL Global Resources Network Clifford Lynch, Executive Director, CNI Judith Matz, Communications Program Officer Jerome Offord, Jr., Program Officer for Training and Diversity Karen Wetzel, Program Officer for Distance Learning
Meeting summary prepared by Judith Matz and Jaia Barrett
|
|
|
|
Comings & Goings:JULY 2004 LIBRARY EXHIBITS
Using Government Information: What can it do for you? - Government Documents - Main Hall Wall Display Cases
Tourism in Latin America and the Carribean - Latin American and Caribbean Library Display
Athens to Athens: Olympic Research Collections at UIUC - Main Hall Display Cases (June-August 31, 2004)
Paris et la Litterature: une promade sous la pluie - Modern Languages and Linguistics Library
The Media and The Politics of Modern Warfare: William Forrest in Spain 1936-1938 - Rare Book and Special Collections Library
Taxonomic Websites - INHS Library |
Send items to Kim Reynolds
Library OnLine Notes
230 Library, MC-522
ksreynol@uiuc.edu
Fax – 217-244-4358
