Minutes of the LION Board Meeting
February 29, 2000
Present: Valerie Harrod, DUR, Sandy Long, MAD, Sue Berescik, EHP, Marie Shaw, ELH, Bridget Quinn-Carey, ESX, Sandy Ruoff, GUI, Barbara Cangiano,(non-voting) BRB, Gale Bradbury, LED, Karen Smith, MDF, Marcia Trotta and Roxanne Moreau, MRD, Howard Einsohn, MXC, Phyllis Leonardi, MTC, Mary Fiorelli, OLY, Elsie Jenkins, NWC, Ed Murray, NLN, Linda Rusczek, MDT, Mildred Hodge, MOC/TVY, Leslie Scherer, WAL, Lew Daniels, WSB, Susan Donovan, STC, Jan Day, WBR, Pat Johnson, Bib. Comm., Kathleen Campion, WAL, Ann Montgomery Smith, formerly PCL, Bill Edge, Mark Hewes, and Rick Widlansky, LION, and Sharon Brettschneider, Ct. State Library.
Absent: BRB & ELY.
I. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Pres. Sandy Ruoff at the Russell Library, Middletown, CT at 9:35 am. All present introduced themselves.
II. ADDITIONS TO ADGENDA: The order of Action/Discussion items will be changed; item 5 will become 2.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Leslie and seconded by Ed that the Minutes of December 21, 1999 be approved as posted. All voted in favor. (No January Minutes. The January meeting had been cancelled.)
V. TREASURER’S REPORT: The December 31, 1999 report shows expense for six months to epixtech for Software Maintenance, at a premium rate since period is less than a year. UPS units were purchased for LION sites to protect LION telecom equipment (Supplies). It was the consensus to accept the report. The January 31, 2000 report shows the full annual payment in Consulting for the audit and some additional work done by our CPA. It was the consensus to accept the report.
VI. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS:
1. Statewide Library Card : Sharon Brettschneider, Director, DLD, CSL
Sharon discussed the work of the Statewide Library Card Committee, which has been working on this issue since 1998. She referred to a letter dated January 14, 2000, sent to all public library directors and distributed copies. The basic issue is the inconvenience to patrons who move from one automated system to another and from non-automated libraries to automated systems and find they need multiple barcodes. The theory is that the issue is not a state-issued library card problem but a barcode problem.
Many libraries in Ct. have 14 digit codabar format barcodes; LION’s barcodes are not 14 digit; they are 9 digit. Small standalones have no problem reading it but there is a problem for Connect and Bibliomation to read LION’s barcodes, and there is a problem for LION to read the 14 digit codes. If the cost to LION for programming to read the 14 digits is reasonable, the Ct. State Library would pay that cost. Connect is moving to a new system by November and they will be able to read LION barcodes with the new system. Bibliomation is upgrading their Carl system, but it will probably take some programming at an extra cost to read LION barcodes. The other option is for LION libraries to re-barcode our patrons.
Epixtech has given LION a ballpark price of $720 for the programming so that LION can read others’ barcodes and/or for us to read 14 digit barcodes when/if used by our libraries. Sharon thought that was a reasonable cost and not a problem for the state to pay.
Sharon has reserved a series of 5 digit prefixes for LION libraries in case we move to this format.
LION doesn’t need to decide today if we will move to using 14 digit barcodes; we still have some technical issues to consider.
Sharon also asked everyone to support the CLA Legislative Agenda, the $2 million in the Governor’s Budget to buy statewide access to commercial databases, now called the Digital Library. Strong local support is needed. In response to a question, Sharon said the Governor is still preventing three library construction projects from getting on the Bonding Commission’s agenda.
2. Survey of LION priorities: Ann Montgomery Smith.
15 members , including 1 academic and 1 school library, completed the survey which is supposed to show the members’ priorities for services.
The highest priority overwhelmingly was given to "patrons’ fullest functionality".
"Minimizing ongoing cost" was the second highest priority, after MXC’s survey was tabulated. Howard commented that in the real world things don’t operate as either/or, that we make tradeoffs, and so the results of this type of survey may not be entirely valid, or should not be used without other considerations.
The third highest score was for "Add new functionality" and
fourth was "PPH customizable to library".
Extremely low scores were given to TeleCirc and URL verification.
Ann distributed copies of her study of the results as well as copies of each individual library’s tabulation. Bill and Sandy thanked Ann for tabulating the survey and for her report, which will help us in our future system specifications and in planning LION’s future services and cost structure.
3. Personnel Committee recommendations:
Valerie reported for the Committee on their recommendations for FY 1999-00 and FY 2000-01 as they had been distributed by e-mail to all Board members on February 24, 2000 and distributed at the meeting. Recent PCL experience provided equivalent position pay information for the three consortia, which was taken into consideration.
Valerie moved and Lew seconded a motion to approve the LION Salary/Wage Range and Step Table, FY01 as presented. All voted in favor.
Sandy moved and Linda seconded a motion to approve the new job description of Network Support Technician and the revised job descriptions for Systems Manager and Computer Operator as presented. All voted in favor.
Valerie moved that the salary increases and bonuses as recommended by the Personnel Committee as presented for 1999-00 and 2000-01 be adopted. Marcia seconded the motion. Discussion ensued about the certainty that the committee feels that LION staff has been adequately compensated for the additional responsibility and workloads assumed during the PCL era and that the salaries recommended were competitive and commensurate with the new job descriptions. All voted in favor.
A break in the meeting was taken at 10:50 am. The meeting resumed at 11:00 am.
4. Schedule of Services for FY 01:
Schedule of Services, Periods and Prices, Effective Date July 1, 2000, document dated February 28, 2000, was distributed, as well as a spreadsheet of Projected OPS Fee Income. All of these tie together with the Scope of Services passed in December, the revised job descriptions and the revised salary table. An attempt has been made to break down the costs of different services. Not all members will use the same services, and LION is no longer running just an ILS but is now providing different services that will not be used by all libraries.
Although LION committed to a cost increase of no more than 5% to a member, in fact actual costs will increase 9%. For the first year, LION is supposed to bear the difference, using funds from the cash reserve. This amounts to a loss of approx. $7000-$8000 of OPS Fees income versus OPS Fees expense. We will have a refund from PCL not totally used up by salary increases, and we may have some USF discounts, which have not been taken into account in these figures. In the next year, FY2001-02, LION will have to increase fees to cover costs or will have sold enough new users to cover the budget gap. If a member library’s cost would have gone down, the recommendation is that the decrease not be given in 2000-01, but hopefully the reduction would be available the next year.
The Minimum Configuration for pricing no longer is applied to all LION devices (including PACs, etc.) but only to staff users. Each member’s Min. Configuration has been recalculated to reflect existing conditions now (versus original membership conditions). Internet is not an optional service; it is integral now to ILS basic functions. WAN service has been calculated at 60% of the frame relay cost and is a required service for integration of the ILS with local networks, telecom management, etc. By March 31st, LION has to submit any change in the Schedule of Services to the State for State institution LION members, so the Schedule must be voted on at next month’s meeting.
Karen moved and Lew seconded a motion to approve the concepts, ways of pricing services, and formulas used as presented in the document dated February 28, 2000 Projected OPS Fees Income for 2000-01. (Members should review their existing numbers and types of terminals/users, etc. and report any corrections.) All voted in favor.
5. WebPAC and NetConnect: these will be discussed at the end of the agenda.
6. 856 Tag:
Pat distributed a memo regarding the revision of the LION Bib Manual to allow the creation of MARC records for items not held by member libraries but available electronically by remote access. Pat moved and Marie seconded a motion to accept the revision of the Bib Manual as presented by the Bib Committee on 12/21/99. All voted in favor. The Associate Director’s Report of September 1999 discusses this issue.
It was moved and seconded to purchase the Dynix URL verification tool for 1 workstation at the special discount purchase price of $795 and $500/ year. All voted in favor.
Susan moved and Jan seconded a motion to purchase Cataloging for Windows for 1-4 users (cost approx. $4000). All voted in favor. See Mark’s report this month for a flow chart.
7. Other currently available Dynix functionality:
Descriptions of the following functions had been e-mailed on 12/29/1999. These were items introduced since 1997 by Dynix and were high on PCL’s priorities, so LION has not discussed or considered them for LION only.
a. Remote Patron Authorization (RPA)
b. PC Reliance
c. Resource Sharing System (RSS)
d. TeleCirc II – expensive
e. Electronic Notification System (ENS)
f. DebtCollect- bundled with contract for specific company/agent; could we change?
1) Java (more advanced) and/or HTML (dead end-won’t upgrade functionality); Dynix won’t guarantee performance if we use both; should we support both? It was the consensus of the group to install both versions of WebPAC.
a. Limit WebPAC to outside of library use only?
This issue was referred to the Planning Committee.
b. Dynix Upgrade/WebPAC and NetConnect:
Action was taken by the Executive Committee on January 10, 2000 and reported to all Board members on January 21, 2000 to authorize the signing of the contract for the Dynix upgrade and WebPAC and to authorize the purchase of NetConnect. The contract was signed on 2/1/00 and NetConnect has been ordered so that we can start our own e-mail service. Rick reported on downtime needed for testing and installing. Mark distributed a form to every member showing existing e-mail accounts. Return any corrections/additions, etc. to Mark. The ILS Sun box is due on March 27th and downtime will be needed from Monday, March 27 until Thursday am. The WebPAC box will arrive approximately 1 month later.
Circulation Committee – The Committee did meet, minutes will be e-mailed, no report today.
VIII. OLD BUSINESS: Valerie reported that at the last ACLPD meeting a draft of the LSTA Funding guidelines was presented that included funds for libraries to join consortia, up to $10,000 per library, for the next round of grant applications to be applied for this spring. These funds could be very important for small libraries that might want to join LION.
IX. NEW BUSINESS: None.
X. ADJOURNMENT: The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 28th, at the Russell Library.
East Hampton is in charge of refreshments.
Sandra R. Long
Updated April 20, 2000