Steering Committee Minutes

PRESENT: Jim Nelson (Chair), Dave Ballard, Ken Barksdale (for Marcia Myers), Larry Besant, Mike Binder, Kathleen Bryson, Judy Burdine, Jackie Calvert, Fran Davis, Susan Dunman (for Coy Harmon), Larry Fowler, Tari Keller (for Paul Willis), Karen McDaniel, Miko Pattie, Hannelore Rader, Dennis Taulbee, Jackie White, Marian Winner

GUESTS: Ken Walker, Sue Moore (via phone) and CVU Technology Work Group members: Ron Moore (Chair), Chuck Anderson (WKU), Tom Sawyer (UofL), Rick Chlopan (KCTCS)

1. Negotiating Team and Process:

Jim presented the CVL Database Negotiating Team: Bill Garnar (Louisville Public, for public libraries), Dave King (UofL, for CVU Technology & CPE), Marian Winner (NKU, for CVL Collections Subcommittee) and Miko Pattie (CVL Coordinator) as the team facilitator. There was concern on the need for "Invitation for Bid" which will hamper negotiations and prolong the process. Kathleen expressed concern that bidding might affect AIKCU libraries' "pick and choose" option. Jim stated that we will work with the state purchasing officials on clarifying this as soon as possible.

2. CVL/CVU Budget Recommendation:

Ken Walker distributed the CVL/CVU budget recommendation that is included in the DLAC mailing for the Sept. 14 meeting. Ken stated that this is for DLAC's discussion, not for approval. The 1998-99 budget approval will come at DLAC's October meeting and CPE will approve it at its November meeting. The new CVU CEO will work on the 1999-2000 budget. Ken walked through the revenue and expenditure budget summary with the group: CVU central operations have been cut back based on the original recommendation made by George Connick; technology infrastructure has also been reduced and requires dollar for dollar matching from institutions; CVL services has the personnel and Information literacy back in CVL budget; and, faculty development and courseware will need additional $ from unused balances to boost its $1M budget. Due to the different positions taken by the CVL Steering Committee, CVU Technology Work Group and George Connick on Endeavor, Ken explained that, on page 35, a $500,000 has been allocated as a "place holder" for Endeavor, i.e., if there is a consensus prior to the DLAC October meeting as to how Endeavor is to be implemented, then he can put a one-time cost back to the "common library management system". Sue explained that the information literacy piece will be implemented aligned with faculty development piece in order for it to be effective and the return of this piece to CVL budget is purely academic. Ken stated that the same holds true for the personnel piece. Jim commented that this is a good budget for CVL's full implementation.

3. Endeavor/Single System Issues:

Ron Moore explained the position of the CVU Technology Work Group on Endeavor implementation issue. To present the same look and feel for all information resources for CVU students, libraries will need to have not only the same management system but also the same version of the software installed. From IT perspective, this will render heavy overhead for each campus and will be difficult to regulate. Housing Endeavor in a central server will be the most economical way to implement Endeavor statewide. The Technology Work Group feels that $ should only be used as an incentive to go for a centralized Endeavor system, not for stand-alone systems. It is their position that this is a choice institutions need to make for themselves and that the central funding should support the central server model, client software and conversion/implementation costs. The key concerns the libraries have are: service support for individual institutions, priorities-setting, records updates, liability in response time, back-up system, the need for library systems' interfacing with universities' administrative systems, etc. On the support issue, Ron stated that UofL's contract specifies that libraries with client software can call Endeavor directly. Yet, the Endeavor representatives stated otherwise. Ken suggested to form a small group to look into the UofL's contract in order to clarify with Jane Burke in writing on this. Dennis suggested to have Miko join the group. CPE's position is to find out if there are significant advantages between these 2 ways of implementing Endeavor and to help facilitating it with funding. Libraries want to feel confident that a central server will work. Ken proposed for a small group composed of librarians and IT people to address concerns on a central server model. Steering committee then called for a meeting with the CVL Technology Subcommittee to identify issues and concerns first. Miko was asked to poll these 2 groups on date and time for such a meeting. Ken stated that a workable solution on Endeavor will need to be in place by the DLAC October meeting. Otherwise, the $ will be reallocated for other pieces within the CVU budget.

4. Document Delivery Proposal: