PLSR Conversation with Resource Library Directors 12/9/2016

Transcription

1 PLSR Conversation with Resource Library Directors 12/9/2016 In attendance Bryan McCormick, Hedberg Public Library, Arrowhead Library System Grant Lynch, Waukesha Public Library, Bridges Library System Barbara Brattin, Kenosha Public Library, Kenosha County Library System Jessica MacPhail, Racine Public Library, Lakeshores Library System Kristin Stoeger, Manitowoc Public Library, Manitowoc Calumet Library System Paula Kiely, Milwaukee Public Library, Milwaukee County Federated Library System Brian Simons, Brown County Library, Nicolet Federated Library System Susan Heskin, Superior Public Library, Northern Waters Library System Colleen Rortvedt, Appleton Public Library, Outagamie Waupaca Library System Gregory Mickells, Madison Public Library, South Central Library System Jessamyn Lee-Jones, Platteville Public Library, Southwest Library System Jeffery Gilderson-Duwe, Oshkosh Public Library, Winnefox Library System Ralph Illick, Marathon County Public Library, Wisconsin Valley Library System Did not attend Garrett Erickson, Mead Public Library, Eastern Shores/Monarch Library System - Provided information post-meeting Pamela Westby, L.E. Phillips Memorial Public Library, Indianhead Federated Library System - Provided information post-meeting Amy Becker, West Bend Community Memorial Library, Mid-Wisconsin/Monarch Library System Kelly Krieg-Sigman, La Crosse Public Library, Winding Rivers Library System PLSR Workgroup Jeff Dawson, Lead Cindy Fesemyer, Facilitator Project Managers Bruce Smith, WiLS Melissa McLimans, WiLS What are your library s current roles (resource, service, or expertise provider) as a resource library in your system? Think about those that your library now provides to other libraries outside of your municipality (system or beyond). Hedberg PL (Janesville) for ALS Youth services, early childhood literacy: note, effective 2017 ALS agreed to contract directly with the Youth Services liaison instead of through the Resource Contract/Library. o Arrowhead provides funds for youth consultant o Consultant role putting on workshops; early implementation of 1000 Books Before Kindergarten and have helped train others o Grant writing to support youth services in the county

2 o Summer programming o Lap sit programming Cataloging (Skyriver cataloging, along with Beloit) o Paid under the Resource contract County outreach Purchase and make available electronic resources, though access must be done inside the library and resources are not available remotely. $5,000 for Overdrive Advantage program $85,000/year (2017) provided to Hedberg by Arrowhead for these services Manitowoc PL for MCLS Cataloging Consulting o IT, Marketing Larger collection CE opportunities Each library can select up to $1000 per year of items for Manitowoc PL to purchase toward the shared catalog. Manitowoc PL does not receive additional funding for this. This service is part of our resource agreement. Receives $15,000 from the System as resource library We also provide reference services. It s very minimal throughout the year, but we still offer them to the member libraries and provide when they come up. Racine PL for LLS Do not really do much any longer; once did ILL and reference Largest library in the system so people will call us, but this is not considered consulting Do not catalog this is done in Kenosha, more centrally Transition of less service provided was through discussion and the fact that the System moved toward one automated system and people could see who had what materials. This library believes the statute that requires a resource library needs to go Would like to have more cooperative collection development in place, but it s not there yet. Contribute to the Advantage system, others in system also contribute. Receives $5,000 Madison PL for SCLS Back up reference (not as necessary as it has been although many non-madison patrons call MPL directly) ILL (the $190,000 from SCLS largely covers our staffing costs) Administers a collection budget for SCLS in-demand items Provides cataloging for much of the System (for all 48 SCLS libraries which share the ILS; there are 6 which do not) Receives $190,000 for ILL Receives $76,000 for collection purchases

3 Receives $454,000 for cataloging (looking to negotiate) Ed. Note: This is not in the resource library contract, but is a separate Catalog Agreement Provide printing services (fee service) Informal advisor building, design, etc. (a variety of policies and experience: patron behavior, art, Friends and Foundation donations, collection management experience, etc.) Appleton PL for OWLS Cataloging o APL has 2 full-time catalogers who work on APL and OWLSNet items, OWLS has 1fulltime cataloger who serves all of OWLSNet Provide space for OWLS o OWLS pays $30,000 rent annually o Receives access to meeting room and board room on the same terms as APL staff Training this is mutual. We provide some and they provide some. Informal assistance marketing, security issues, legal issues Acquisitions acts as the lead library to pilot modules in ILS Contribute to digital content o APL commits to fund at least $10,000 of Overdrive Advantage o APL commits to contribute $24, 920 to WPLC statewide digital media buying pool o OWLS maintains its membership in WPLC ($4,300) o APL and OWLS partner to provide Zinio to all OWLSNet libraries (starting in 2017) Do not opt in for some OWLS services (i.e. IT). Costs the System less in this way o We do not use the system s internet time management software o We do not receive tech. support from OWLS. We have our own IT staff who work with OWLS when needed o We use OWLS broadband connection that runs into APL and have a separate network from the other libraries, including our own , website and file server systems Receive $21,000 for purchase of popular materials Receive $3,500 for Continuing Education Receive $6,000 worth of in kind printing services OWLS pays all ILL charges and costs for resource sharing software for borrowing materials from libraries outside of the system or OWLSnet o APL dedicates staff to handling our own ILLs OWLS facilitates billing for APL (and all system libraries) for county billing. OWLS receives a portion of the funding from the Calumet County allocation (aprox. $37,000) OWLS provides approx. 10 hours per week of assistance retrieving shelved materials at APL that have been placed on holds by patrons or other libraries OWLS assists in sorting and packing of materials for distribution within and outside of the system Platteville PL for SWLS Receives $3,000 for popular demand materials Would like to do more big purchases for others like they ve done by purchasing a disc resurfacing machine that is available for all other SWLS libraries to use.

4 Based on collection size, still too small to be an official resource library and SWLS has to contract with Madison for backup reference System libraries only expectation of Platteville is to buy popular materials to ease the burden of demand Kenosha PL for Kenosha County KPL does the work of the system for no staff compensation. One county system with one other library (Community) Shared digital collection purchases. (that's all the collection we purchase together) Bookmobile (KPL) travels into county KPL has absorbed cost of delivery for system, but will begin to receive partial system support in 2017 KPL $50,000 provided to make SHARE migration happen System budget is 1.8 million (internet, ER, etc.) Milwaukee PL for MCFLS Perform a quarterly survey of other member libraries Provide access to specialized collections and train staff on the use of the collections o Legal resources o Government documents o Archival collections o Patents Offer consulting on training o Technology o Technical services o Technology related programs RFID Automated materials handling Digitization Social media System provides consulting and Milwaukee reciprocates o Mixed use library development consulting o Gives tours of the library o Director orientations o Board/trustee orientations o HR o Security Design work for programming Pay for services that other members are provided with o IT consulting, network costs, staffing Special Collections o Google news, Journal Sentinel Provide direct service to patrons

5 o /chat o Sponsor group and school trips o Ready reference Does cataloging for the system Leadership and innovation o In the position to pilot projects that can then be rolled out to a larger group Purchase databases that are not purchased by DPI or the System o Try to negotiate to invite other members in with some fees o May purchase so system members can have the product and may even pay a little more than if they had purchased alone Resource library contract amounts to 6.5% of MCFLS state aid Waukesha PL for Bridges Have decreased charges over that several years, in fact, receive 70% less now than just a few years ago (this was negotiated with the support of the library director of Waukesha) This is a fairly unique system made up of very autonomous libraries that feel that they are capable of independently providing many of the services once offered by the Resource Library. Provides o Professional development materials o Overdrive support o Offer security consulting o Back up reference, but like others, this doesn t happen much System does well financially so they can provide CE, ILL, etc. so Resource Library functions have evolved to provide services that make more sense to originate from a large public library and not a library system. Would like to see value tied to the services to try to minimize the vagaries of the law Marathon County Library for WVLS Special South East Asian collection Local history resources Laminating Receive $10,000 grant to augment popular titles from WVLS Contract is vague; Compensation receive rent from WVLS as they share a building Provide some training Provide specialized collections, such as Ellison die cuts Consolidated county with 9 libraries with some very rural branches, but other counites in system are very sparsely populated and other system libraries are often not able to financially support some things. There are many times when MCPL simply needs to be the decision maker, in particular, related to technology. Feels it would be beneficial to be connected in some way to similarly sized libraries

6 Oshkosh PL for Winnefox Two annual agreements between Oshkosh and Winnefox. One is Resource Library agreement and the other is the director agreement. Staff sharing one building, support staff is shared Winnefox has a database specialist, part is paid by the Oshkosh public Some Oshkosh staff get support from the Winnefox System Central cataloging and database support for most of the libraries through a consortia agreement Little back up reference ILL is handled by Winnefox (shared building) Overdrive -- Oshkosh has diverted funds to the Advantage account (specialized collection) o No specific compensation Consulting services The fact that Oshkosh Public Library and Winnefox Library System share space and a director can make it difficult to determine where lines are between resource library and system roles. The contract is vague. Superior PL for NWLS Medium sized library among small libraries Receive $31,261 from NWLS spread over the three statutory categories Contract has not changed over many years Receive $1,500 for back up reference service Perform collection development and ILL and serve the area in ways that are not reflected in the contract (ILL) Historical research collection Perform cataloging support through acquisitions; practical ILS support (workflows, new services) Pay in extra money to the Advantage account Other libraries in the system may not be able to support an ILS without the Superior Public Library (pay for 1/3 of cost) System got rid of bookmobiles leaving gaps in county service, so municipal public library running two rural branches using county reimbursement money Many of the libraries in system likely do not know what the Superior Public Library does as a resource library. Brown County PL for NFLS Have own ILS, rest of system shares with OWLS Receive money for specialized collections just as other NFLS libraries do BCL contributes more to the Overdrive Advantage account Negotiates with vendors and shares better deal options with system (unrecognized in the agreement) NFLS provides funding to assist with Overdrive Advantage Collection

7 NFLS provides Overdrive support to public from OWLSnet libraries from time to time (unrecognized in the agreement) BCL is Purchasing agent for Overdrive and has a seat on WPLC steering BCL provides back-up reference, but only do that in terms of local history BCL Provides CE opportunities to offer system member libraries and NFLS provides CE opportunities for BCL. Mead PL (Sheboygan) for Monarch (information provided post-meeting) Purchase materials for an in-demand collection for the shared catalog Provide some continuing education, thought that s been a struggle at times in regards to time spent developing a program and actual attendance. Does not do much reference for other libraries. Sees ILL as something that s lessening in need. Sees resource libraries and other innovative libraries as places, due to size and specialization of staff, as libraries that can provide leadership in regards to being incubators and as experts to help other libraries with things like workflow and process improvement. L.E. Phillips Memorial Library (Eau Claire) for IFLS (information provided post-meeting) Their collection is a resource for the system to provide access to broader resources. They develop their collection with this in mind. ILL and back up reference are lessening in need. Does not have a contract for cataloging. Fills a leadership role within the system and for the system with statewide initiatives and collaborations. Staff share expertise with other libraries when asked. Overarching Themes A lot of things that are provided are not reflected in the law and some items in the law are not used by the libraries. Perception of equity of service between resource libraries and other system member libraries is an issue across the state. Larger libraries bring the economy of scale so other libraries can afford things like overdrive, ILS, etc. Attaching value and worth to the services for the libraries is necessary Collection is a solid role and this needs to be addressed in the PLSR process (no workgroup dedicated to collections, other than ER) Open discussion about changes to systems and resource libraries:

8 A question was asked about the original intent of the Resource Library provision and if perhaps that as Systems have strengthened, the need for Resource Libraries has lessened. Equity was the intent of the original law. A point was made that an unintentional benefit of the statute was to connect libraries and that the PLSR process needs to focus on the things that have worked well over the years as well as what isn t working. There is a concern that if Systems change, how will relationships be preserved? Concern for many local libraries. It was noted that in some systems, the system is not trusted by the member libraries. Can t have pass through accounts that exists in some locations (referring to Systems). This related to equity of services and that some systems pass system aid through to libraries and some use system aid strictly to provide services to members. It was mentioned that the service equity issue is not just because of pass through. One attendee stated that through the PLSR process, we need to think about right size. Systems hold communities together, provide leadership and force collaboration. System boards should be providing leadership. Small libraries do need the support of larger libraries. Large libraries feel that most aid is going to support small and medium size libraries. But small libraries likely don t see it this way. Need clearer contractual language for resource libraries. Equity on the local level is all over the map. State aid has been used to equalize. The group was asked how many get internet service through system. Less than half present receive internet through the System. The follow-up question, if there were no systems and resource libraires become the system who provides internet? What are the roles you d like to continue in the future or add? Are there gaps where there is a need for coordinated or shared resources, services or expertise that could be fulfilled or provided by libraries? How do we structure things so we don t miss the strongest library? o Some libraries might have a strength but not be the resource library o Sometimes the strength is an individual o Might not need centralized consultants Some attendees were cautious about trying to itemize the statute as it would take away flexibility State budget changes state cuts are being pushed to the local communities and then means that small libraries will likely falter. Need to be careful about weakening supports that might undermine equity. Legal question The statute currently reads as shall have a resource library. Can it be turned to a may? to offer some flexibility to have or have not. o Some were cautious about changing to a may as it may become arbitrary. This was supported by several in the room

9 o It was noted that the process can t develop a statue that legislates out tension One attendee asked if grouping by division might be possible (referring to Systems rather Resource Libraries), stating that it makes more sense to have systems based more on staffing and library size Another thought what is DPI s role? Really impacts what services the RL will provide Need to look at size of systems along with size of Resource Library when determining capacity Provider of Resources Most libraries don t care who provides the following, but need: Content (collections) Specialized services Expertise Equity should be that a library should be able to access these items o Could allow for specialization We don t know how many systems or what it will look like, what will define a Resource Library? In demand collections Voice to the system for libraries that may not be comfortable It was noted that the way we think about Resource Libraries now is that another library is the customer. Perhaps we need to rethink that. It Is very difficult to put a transactional value on everything Resource Libraries provide. Deep meaningful collections for example may not benefit a single library, but does benefit the state and citizens. Perhaps we need to rethink what exactly a resource library is in the state, country, and with other states. Perhaps the patron of Resource Libraries need to the citizens of the state now and into the future. A layering structure was suggested (for Systems). Currently we have 16 systems, if we go to fewer systems, there could be three RLs and 10 regional offices (numbers were simply examples), some with different specializations. Why do all needs have to have the same geographic borders? It was also noted that while there s a lot expertise within the state, sometimes you need outside the state expertise. Additionally, an attendee stated that librarians coming out of school are very talented and libraries need to be hiring for skills and individuals are available. The conversation doesn t have to so passive. (Again, this was not specific to Resource Libraries) The idea of a Public Trust, mostly referring to deep, historic collections held by libraries, was discussed in more detail. It would be an investment upfront, but there needs to be coordination and a service model. And, there could be a two tiered investment, with some shared services where the library is the customer (ILS) and other services have the public as the customer (collections). Mechanism of PLSR needs to be figuring out best, closest resource. A good role for DPI would be to match customer libraries with the appropriate resource (possibly a library, a person, a service, etc.).

10 One attendee asked how back up reference is defined, is it libraries in system asking for help or being the place where people are referred to? Many attendees felt that answering questions from other librarians is simply collegiality and not back-up reference (and in many cases, not consulting). Round robin of final, unfiltered thoughts from the day: It s imperative to find out what are the most important things the libraries need from Resource Libraries. A dynamic framework might be a good fit to take into account different sized libraries. Would prefer to stay away from tiered, unchanging categories. A library may be one tier in one way, but not another. Under current law we re stuck with Resource Libraries. How they exist in the future will depend on what the surrounding libraries need. Libraries get so focused on outputs, but may need to develop a framework of outcomes. Need to define the outcomes of what we are trying to achieve and that s how we will show value and outcomes need to be determined as a group. It was explained that the creation of outcomes was the first step of the workgroups in the PLSR process. Structure of PLSR fear that a lot of the workgroups are presuming the death of the Resource Library without having appropriate solution. (This attendee was happy to have Resource Libraries together and talking.) The Potential for Resource Libraries is great and the speaker was not ready to see them fade away. Liked the idea of library tiers as they relate to community needs. When we talk about consulting, it often comes down to the experts we have in our libraries and that can change very quickly so we need to be prepared for that. Layering concept makes a lot of sense. Whether it s a Resource Library or resources in the state, it s not just for now, it s for the future. The idea that Resource Libraries are serving the citizens and not just the local libraries is compelling. Where is DPIs role in this? Multiple options and flexibility are very attractive. Interesting to hear about the different needs and efforts being done. Waters are very muddy when doing both (Resource Library and System). Like the idea of mentorship and leadership libraries. It is natural for largest library to help people along. Is there really a dollar amount attached to consulting/sharing between libraries? Should there be? Sense of greater good is important. Good luck to the Resource Library workgroup! Attendee stated, if you don t want to be a Resource Library, then don t be. If you think you should be, then stick around and let s talk. Several Resource Libraries don t think they fit in current system, but what about in future system? We re trying to fit a system that we don t yet know. History can sometimes cloud the picture as well. The speaker wants more of a definition of what is a Resource Library. Outcomes are the main point and they need to be kept in mind. This attendee liked the layering concept and would like to be in a collaborative environment. Standards, structure and reinforcement were noted as being important.

11 This speaker recognized the generosity of the largest institution and state that the layering concept might recognize this role more formally. Outcomes is an excellent point and liked the idea that DPI s role might be that of matchmaker from consulting to collegiality. May need to have more meetings. Coming from another state, resource libraries are an asset.